Tello v. Royal Caribbean Cruises

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Torts

TortsMaritime negligenceEmotional distressVicarious liabilityDeath on the High Seas Act12(b)(6)motion to dismisscruise ship

Facts

Plaintiff Margarita Tello and her adult son Jose were passengers on Royal Caribbean's cruise ship. After bartenders served Jose multiple alcoholic beverages, he became intoxicated, wandered the ship, encountered a crewmember who perceived that something was wrong but did not help him, then tried unsuccessfully to reenter the ship through locked doors, climbed an outside railing near a service ladder, and fell overboard near Belize. Margarita later searched for Jose, requested a search, and alleged the ship did not notify Belize authorities until 11 a.m.; she also alleged no one was monitoring the ship's surveillance room when Jose fell. After video review, the ship's captain or someone similarly dressed told Margarita that Jose had committed suicide, causing her severe emotional distress because of her Catholic beliefs.

Issue

Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated claims against Royal Caribbean for negligence, negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior or agency liability arising from Jose's death and the captain's statement to Margarita. The court also considered the effect of DOHSA on recoverable damages.

Rule

To plead negligence, a plaintiff must allege duty, breach, actual and proximate causation, and actual harm, and a vessel owner owes passengers a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Under DOHSA, a cause of action exists for death caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default on the high seas, but recovery is limited to pecuniary damages. Negligent hiring or retention requires facts showing the employer knew or should have known of the employee's unfitness; negligent infliction of emotional distress under Florida law generally requires impact or, absent impact, emotional distress manifested by physical injury plus contemporaneous involvement; intentional infliction of emotional distress requires deliberate or reckless infliction of severe mental suffering by conduct so outrageous and extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency. Respondeat superior applies to negligent acts of employees within the scope and course of employment, and agency requires principal acknowledgment, agent acceptance, and principal control.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a night voyage from Miami toward Cozumel, Nina Alvarez became visibly intoxicated after crew bartenders at the Mistral Deck Lounge served her several drinks in rapid succession. A hallway attendant later saw Nina stumbling and trying locked exterior doors but did not call for assistance, and the ship did not begin searching until hours after her sister reported her missing; Nina was later found to have gone overboard.

If Nina's estate sues the cruise line for negligence and the cruise line moves to dismiss, which is the best result?

Explanation. A vessel owner owes passengers reasonable care under the circumstances. At the pleading stage, allegations such as over-service of alcohol, failure to assist an obviously impaired passenger, and failure to initiate a prompt search can plausibly state breach and causation. The opinion treated disputes over the precise contours of specific duties as more appropriate for later stages, not a basis for dismissal.