Cruise Passenger Could Recover Punitive Damages Under General Maritime Law
Lobegeiger v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., No. 11-21620-CIV (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2011) (Altonaga, J.)
Passenger Elise Lobegeiger was seriously injured at sea while aboard a Celebrity Cruises, Inc., vessel. Lobegeiger had attempted to adjust the heavy back panel of a deck lounger when the panel crashed down onto her hand, severing her left index finger. As a result of the injury, Lobegeiger was left with a permanent deformity.
Lobegeiger sued Celebrity Cruises and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where she alleged a variety of personal injury claims. Celebrity and Royal Caribbean Caribbean Cruise Ltd. (Cruise Lines) moved to dismiss those portions of Lobegeiger’s claims that sought non-pecuniary damages in the form of pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, and the like. The Cruise Lines cited the “well settled” proposition that a personal injury claimant can only assert a claim under the general maritime law for pecuniary loss.
The federal district court identified two questions raised as to Lobegeiger’s damages demand: whether she could recover for pain and suffering under general maritime law, and whether she could recover punitive damages.
The court answered the first question in the affirmative. Simply put, it was undisputed that damages recoverable for pain and suffering were non-pecuniary damages that were properly awarded in maritime personal injury cases. Such damages, despite being nominally non-pecuniary, were recoverable. Thus Lobebeiger was entitled to seek recovery for her pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
It was more complicated, however, whether a passenger could recover punitive damages for personal injury under general maritime law. In Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 129 S. Ct. 2561 (2009), the Supreme Court indicated that punitive damages are available as damages in all actions under general maritime law absent a specific limitation to the contrary imposed by Congress.
As pertinent here, there was no congressional legislation to limit a passenger’s right to recover punitive damages in a personal injury action under general maritime law, the court wrote. The court thus declared that a plaintiff may recover punitive damages under general maritime law, consistent with the common-law rule, where the plaintiff’s injury was due to the defendant’s “wanton, willful, or outrageous conduct.” As a result, the court rejected the Cruise Lines’ attempt to preclude Lobegeiger from stating a claim for punitive damages, and she was entitled to do so if the evidence warranted.
Among separate issues, the court also addressed whether Celebrity might be held liable for the actions of its ship’s medical staff regarding their alleged negligence as to Lobegeiger’s treatment after her injury. While the majority rule was that a cruise line cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a ship’s doctor in the care and treatment of passengers, some courts had held it permissible for a court sitting in admiralty to hear vicarious liability claims premised on shipboard doctors’ negligence under the theory of apparent agency where cruise lines held out shipboard doctors to passengers as their agents. The court in Lobegeiger’s case found that applying the notion of apparent agency was consistent with general maritime tort principles, assuming the necessary elements were satisfied. The court went on to find that Lobegeiger adequately pled a claim for negligence against Celebrity under an apparent agency theory, with the result that she could go forward on her claim.
To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP using the form on this page, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.
