Carlisle v. Carnival Corp.
2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 895, 864 So. 2d 1, 2003 WL 22014591 (2004)
Rule of Law:
A cruise line is vicariously liable for the medical negligence of its shipboard physician acting within the scope of employment, rendering exculpatory ticket provisions to the contrary void as against public policy.
Facts:
- The Carlisle family went on a cruise aboard the Carnival ship Ecstasy in March 1997.
- During the voyage, 14-year-old Elizabeth Carlisle suffered abdominal pain, back pain, and diarrhea.
- The ship's physician, Dr. Neri, examined Elizabeth multiple times, diagnosed her with the flu, and specifically assured the family it was not appendicitis.
- Relying on this advice, the family eventually cut the trip short and returned home to Michigan.
- Upon return, Elizabeth was diagnosed with a ruptured appendix.
- The rupture and subsequent infection rendered Elizabeth sterile.
- Dr. Neri's contract defined him as an independent contractor, though he wore a ship officer's uniform and was indemnified by Carnival.
- The passenger ticket contained a clause stating the physician was not an agent of the carrier and the carrier was not liable for his acts.
Procedural Posture:
- The Carlisles sued Carnival and Dr. Neri in state trial court alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Carnival, accepting the argument that cruise lines are not liable for a doctor's negligence.
- The Carlisles appealed the summary judgment order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a cruise line vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of a shipboard physician who negligently treats a passenger during a voyage?
Opinions:
Majority - Nesbitt
Yes, a cruise line owes a duty of reasonable care that extends to the medical treatment provided by its shipboard doctor. The court rejected the longstanding 'Barbetta rule,' which held that cruise lines are not liable for doctor negligence because they lack control over the doctor-patient relationship. The court reasoned that the Barbetta rule relies on the fiction that a passenger at sea has a meaningful choice to seek treatment elsewhere. Adopting the reasoning of 'Nietes v. American President Lines,' the court found that the cruise line effectively controls the medical services (hours, supplies, hiring) and benefits from marketing them. Furthermore, because the ship is already liable for a doctor's negligence toward crew members (under maintenance and cure), it is illogical to deny liability for passengers. Consequently, the ticket disclaimer attempting to waive this liability was declared void under 46 U.S.C.A. § 183c.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the traditional maritime rule (the Barbetta rule) which historically immunized cruise lines from vicarious liability for the malpractice of shipboard doctors. By recognizing the 'city afloat' nature of modern cruises and the captive nature of the passengers, the Florida court modernized the application of agency law in maritime contexts. This ruling forces cruise lines to insure against medical malpractice and subjects them to liability for the quality of care provided in their infirmaries, effectively treating the medical center as an integral part of the cruise line's business rather than a mere convenience for passengers.
