No. The captain's statement was not legally 'outrageous' enough for a lawsuit. The law says that for this type of claim, the behavior has to be completely unacceptable in a civilized society. Here, the captain wasn't just making up a cruel lie to hurt the mother. His statement was based on what he saw happen—a person climbing a railing and falling. Even though his words were very painful, they were connected to the real event. Because the captain wasn't just trying to be mean for no reason, his conduct doesn't meet the high legal standard for 'outrageous' behavior.

Yes, I think the cruise ship company might not have taken good enough care of Jose. They gave him too much alcohol, didn't help him when he was confused, and didn't start looking for him quickly enough when he went missing. These things might have led to Jose's accident. I'm letting the case continue so we can look into this more carefully. However, I don't think the company did anything extremely terrible on purpose to upset Jose's mom, so I'm not letting that part of the case continue. I'm also not letting the part about the company hiring bad workers continue because there's not enough information to show that. The company might be responsible for what its workers did wrong, like giving Jose too much alcohol or not helping him, so I'm letting that part of the case continue too.

No. The captain's statement does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). To establish IIED under Florida law, the conduct must be so outrageous and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Here, the captain’s characterization of Jose's death as a suicide was based on the factual predicate that Jose had climbed a railing and fallen overboard. Unlike a baseless lie or a practical joke, the statement had a connection to the actual events. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the captain knew of Tello's specific religious beliefs or made the statement with the intent to cause her additional suffering. Therefore, the conduct, while deeply upsetting, was not legally 'outrageous.'

Yes. I find that Margarita has adequately pled a cause of action for negligence. The facts alleged support a plausible claim that Royal Caribbean failed to exercise 'reasonable care under the circumstances' in several respects — e.g., over-serving Jose, failing to assist him, failing to initiate a prompt search-and-rescue, etc. — and that Royal Caribbean's acts or omissions precipitated Jose's death. I deny Royal Caribbean's Motion to Dismiss as to Count I because the issue of whether Royal Caribbean owed various specific legal duties is more properly addressed at later stages of the case. Regarding Count II (Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision), I find Margarita's allegations insufficient. She does not allege facts indicating that Royal Caribbean's crewmembers were unfit for employment or that Royal Caribbean knew or should have known of their unfitness. The negligent training and supervision claims are duplicative of those in Count I. For Count III (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress), Margarita's claim is insufficient because she alleges no physical impact or manifestation of physical injury beyond mere mental distress, which is required under Florida law. Count IV (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is also dismissed. The captain's conduct in informing Margarita of Jose's apparent suicide does not rise to the level of 'outrageous' behavior required for this claim. Finally, I deny the motion to dismiss Count V (Respondeat Superior/Agency Liability). Margarita has stated a plausible claim for vicarious liability based on the alleged negligence of crewmembers in over-serving, failing to assist, monitor, safeguard, or promptly search for Jose.

Tello v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot