FindLaw | Legal News & Information

Cruise Line Not Liable for Ship Doctor's Negligence

In a long-awaited ruling the Florida Supreme Court has held that the Carnival cruise line was not responsible for the medical negligence of a ship's doctor.

Justice Peggy Quince, in delivering the unanimous opinion, said Carnival was not vicariously liable in a medical malpractice case brought by a Michigan family against the company and Dr. Mauro Neri.

Dozens of major cruise lines based in Florida have been eagerly awaiting this ruling for the last four years, hoping the court would rule in their favor.

The high court held that because the matter was a maritime case, the Florida courts "must adhere to federal principles of harmony and uniformity" when applying U.S. maritime law.

The panel said that at the time of the 3rd District Court of Appeal's decision in this case in 2003, federal maritime law uniformly held, with one exception, that a ship owner was not vicariously liable for any medical negligence by the ship's physician.

Since that ruling, however, at least three other courts have either refused to dismiss claims against ship owners or have held them liable for their doctors' alleged negligence.

In this case the Carlisle family embarked on a cruise aboard Carnival's Ecstasy ship in March 1997. During the cruise, then-14-year-old Elizabeth Carlisle developed abdominal pain, lower back pain and diarrhea and was seen several times by the ship's physician, Neri, according to the opinion.

Neri repeatedly assured the family that Elizabeth was suffering from the flu and specifically told them that she did not have appendicitis. Ultimately, the Carlisles discontinued their trip and returned home, where Elizabeth was diagnosed with a ruptured appendix, the opinion said.

An appendectomy was performed, and doctors later determined that as a result of the rupture and a subsequent infection, Elizabeth was rendered sterile.

The Carlisles filed suit against Carnival Corp. and Neri, alleging that the doctor was negligent in his treatment of Elizabeth and that Carnival should be held vicariously liable for his negligence under theories of agency and apparent agency.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Carnival, and an appeal followed.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal, relying on Nietes v. American President Lines, 188 F. Supp. 219 (N.D. Cal. 1959), said the record indicated that Carnival had control over Neri's medical services and that he was an agent of the cruise line.

Therefore, his negligence should be imputed to the cruise line, regardless of the contractual status ascribed to the doctor, the court said.

At the time, Nietes was the only exception to a long line of cases stretching back to the 19th century that held that a ship owner was not liable for its medical personnel's actions.

The appellate court certified the question of whether a cruise line is vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of a ship doctor as "one of great public importance," and the Florida Supreme Court accepted the application for review.

Carnival contended that U.S. admiralty law, which governs liability in this case, established more than 100 years ago that carriers are not liable for the negligence of ships' doctors in treating passengers and that by following Nietes the appeals court had violated the long-standing principle of uniformity.

The Supreme Court agreed, holding that it must adhere to the uniformity and harmony of federal maritime law, which has uniformly held that ship owners are not vicariously liable for the medical negligence of their physicians because they have little or no control over the doctors' actions.

Another lawsuit involving the same issue remains pending in Illinois. In that case a state appeals court held on interlocutory appeal that U.S. admiralty law does allow for a finding of vicarious liability against a ship owner if the company exercises significant control over its ship doctor.

The Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court both refused to hear the case, and it has been remanded to Cook County Circuit Court for further proceedings.