Illinois Appellate Court Holds That a Cruise Ship Can Be Vicariously Liable for the Negligence of its On-Board Physician in Treating Passengers
August, 2006
by Kimbley A. Kearney and
Facts
In Mack v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 838 N.E.2d 80 (Ill. App.), James and Sheila Mack sued Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines alleging that James cut his foot on a piece of broken glass in the swimming pool area of a cruise ship owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant was -liable for negligently maintaining its swimming pool area; that defendant was vicariously liable for the negligent medical treatment James received from defendant’s on-board physician; and that defendant was liable to Sheila for loss of consortium. Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss the vicarious liability and loss of consortium claims on the grounds that admiralty law does not recognize those causes of action. While the trial court initially granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss these two counts of plaintiff’s complaint, it later granted plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the vicarious liability count after considering the holding in Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003), appeal allowed, 904 So.2d 430 (Fla. 2005). In Carlisle, the court held that a passenger injured by the negligent treatment of a cruise ship’s on-board doctor could maintain a cause of action against the cruise ship based on vicarious liability.
Analysis
The appellate court considered the applicability of Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star, 848 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1998), in which the Fifth Circuit held that “when a carrier undertakes to employ a doctor aboard ship for its passengers’ convenience, the carrier has a duty to employ a doctor who is competent and duly qualified. If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier. Barbetta, 848 F.2d at 1369. The court further noted that “The Barbetta court justifies its holding that liability for an on-board doctor’s negligence should not be imputed to a cruise line by reasoning that the passenger, rather than the shipowner, controls the relationship between the passenger and the on-board doctor.” Mack, 838 N.E.2d at 89.
The Mack court declined to follow Barbetta, instead relying on the decisions in Nietes v. American President Lines, Ltd., 188 F. Supp. 219 (N.D. Cal. 1959), and Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003). Nietes was the first court to call into question the rule that a carrier will not be held liable for negligent treatment rendered by its on-board doctor. The court in Nietes held that “Where a ship’s physician is in the regular employment of a ship, as a salaried member of the crew, subject to the ship’s discipline and the master’s orders… for the purposes of respondeat superior [he is] in the nature of an employee or servant for whose negligent treatment of a passenger a shipowner may be held liable.” Nietes, 188 F. Supp. at 220. The federal district court in Carlisle found Nietes to be the most convincing precedent and rejected a motion to dismiss a negligence claim based on vicarious liability against the defendant cruise line. Carlisle, 864 So. 2d at 5. The court in Mack found that these two cases, as well as the work of legal scholars, “identify several compelling reasons to depart from the established rule barring vicarious liability claims.” Mack, 838 N.E.2d at 89.
The Mack court, agreeing with the “well-reasoned approach” of Nietes and Carlisle, further stated: “A passenger on a ship who falls ill has no reasonable choice but to seek treatment from the on-board physician and therefore has little control over their relationship.” Id. at 91. Additionally, the court noted that a cruise line should anticipate that an illness would occur at sea. “Accordingly, providing medical treatment for its passengers should be considered a part of a cruise line’s business, as evidenced, in part, by federal maritime law’s willingness to impose vicarious liability on shipowners for their on-board physician’s negligence in treating crew members. Moreover, cruise lines benefit from carrying on-board physicians.” Id. Mack further declared that it would not follow Barbetta because “the question of whether a vicarious liability claim against a shipowner for the negligent treatment by its on-board doctor will stand under maritime law is not settled at this time.” Id. Ultimately, the court declined to follow the traditional rule that a carrier will not be held liable for negligent treatment rendered by its on-board doctor.
Learning Point:
The Illinois Appellate Court departed from the well-established rule set forth in Barbetta, a Fifth Circuit opinion, and instead chose to follow the decisions in Nietes and Carlisle, two district court cases. Mack reflects that state courts motivated to do so may reject maritime law precedent of higher federal courts, in favor of rulings from lower federal courts, or even other state courts. Rather than applying admiralty law as interpreted by the highest federal authority, state courts may select the maritime law holding that best suits the outcome sought to be achieved. •
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2006v2) 2006 Volume 2 Table of Contents
