Download Case Brief Paper - Sites at Penn State

1
Lexi Finley
CASE BRIEF PAPER
Locating the Court Opinion
In order to locate this court opinion, I first went to the website libraries.psu.edu. From
there I logged into the database LexisNexis Academic. In the box labeled “Look up a Legal
Case,” I decided to locate the case using the citation provided to us by Ben. I typed in the citation
6 F.Supp.2d 1314 and LexisNexis directed me to the court opinion.
Introduction
In this case, the travel agency Cruises, Inc. arranged a cruise for a woman Agatha Bryant
with Carnival Cruises. The woman went on the cruise and sustained injuries when she fell down
a flight of stairs. After sustaining these injuries, Bryant filed a claim against Cruises, Inc.
asserting that they had negligently controlled, planned, designed, constructed, inspected, and
cleaned the ship, and that her injuries were caused by the wantonness of Cruises, Inc. Cruises,
Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment. In this case, Agatha Bryant is the plaintiff and
Cruises, Inc. is the defendant. This is an opinion for an initial decision.
Building the Case
The type of law applied in this case is negligence. In order to prove negligence, the
plaintiff must be able to present evidence for four standards. The plaintiff must prove that the
defendant owed them a duty or that there was an expectation of safety from the provider. Then,
the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached this duty. Next, the plaintiff must prove that
this breach of duty caused the damages they experienced. Finally, the plaintiff must prove the
damages or injuries.
In this case, they also discussed wantonness, which “must be established by facts
evincing a reckless disregard of human life or rights which is equivalent to an intentional act or a
conscious indifference to the consequences of an act.”
2
Lexi Finley
Finally, this case discussed breach of warranty which is “interpreted according to general
contract principles.”
The Trial or Pre-trial Process
The first argument that the plaintiff presented was that Cruises, Inc. owed her a duty not
to place her in harm’s way. However, she did not cite an authority for imposing this duty on the
travel agency. According to the cases McCauley v. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. (1968) and
Eastern Steamship Corp. v. Egan (1971), duty will be imposed only a defendant which owns,
operates, maintains, or otherwise controls the ship. Although Cruises, Inc. did not own the vessel
on which Bryant was injured, it was possible for her to overcome this hurdle by presenting
evidence that Cruises, Inc. exerted control over some facets of the cruise ship operation.
However, Bryant did not present any evidence that Cruises, Inc. exerted control over the ship.
The defense presented a witness, Ms. Christen, who established the defendant’s status as a mere
ticket agent. There was no rebuttal to her testimony from the plaintiff.
Furthermore, even if the court assumes the defendant exerted some control over the ship,
a duty only arises if the defendant knew of the dangerous conditions onboard. This was
established with the cases Shurben v. Dollar Rent-A-Car (1996) and Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd.
(1985). Bryant did not present any evidence to prove that Cruises, Inc. knew about the unsafe
condition. On the other hand, Cruises, Inc. provided evidence that they have never received any
complaints of unsafe conditions on Carnival cruises since they began selling Carnival Cruises.
Again, the plaintiff did not rebut this evidence.
The plaintiff did not present any evidence to support the charge of wantonness against the
defendant either. It was necessary for her to establish by facts a reckless disregard of human life
or rights and she did not. The defendant’s chief financial officer testified that Cruises, Inc. was
3
Lexi Finley
unaware of any unsafe conditions on Carnival cruise ships during the fifteen years it has sold
Carnival cruises. The plaintiff did not rebut this testimony. The defendant only sold the plaintiff
tickets for the cruise and that is not enough evidence to suggest that the defendant disregarded
human life or rights.
The plaintiff also charges the defendant with breach of warranty. She claims that the
defendant guaranteed her a safe trip, but she submitted no evidence of such a guarantee. She
asserted an affidavit that Cruises, Inc. was going to be responsible from the day we left for
providing the facilities, services and back-up if needed, but the court determined that Cruises,
Inc. did not express guarantee of traveler safety.
Verdict and Interpretation
This particular case was decided by a judge-only summary judgment. The United States
District Judge Lynwood Smith granted that defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This
decision did not differ from precedent established in other cases and since this was not an appeal,
there were no original decisions to compare it to. Based on the evidence presented for this case, I
agree with the decision that was made. The plaintiff did not present any evidence to prove that
Cruises, Inc. was negligent, wanton or breached a warranty. If I was the lawyer for Agatha
Bryant, I would have suggested that she settled out of court. She did not have enough direct
evidence to prove that Cruises, Inc. owed her any money for the injuries she sustained. If Bryant
had a way to prove that Cruises, Inc. exerted control over some of the facets ship or knew about
the dangerous conditions onboard, I would suggest that she appeal. However, her best option
would have been to settle out of court.
4
Lexi Finley
Works Cited
Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248, 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).
Eastern Steamship Corp. v. Egan, 246 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971).
McCauley v. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc., 211 So. 2d 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968).
Shurben v. Dollar Rent-A-Car, 676 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).
5
Lexi Finley
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
AGATHA BRYANT, Plaintiff, vs. CRUISES, INC., Defendant.
Civil Action No. CV-97-S-1539-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ALABAMA, MIDDLE DIVISION
6 F. Supp. 2d 1314; 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4372
March 26, 1998, Decided
March 26, 1998, Filed, Entered
DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant travel agency brought a motion for summary judgment in district court in
an action in which plaintiff traveler sued the travel agency for injuries that the traveler sustained while on board a
cruise ship. The travel agency had arranged for the traveler's cruise but maintained that it was not liable for the
injuries that the traveler sustained while on the ship.
OVERVIEW: The travel agency arranged for a cruise for the traveler. The traveler went on the cruise and suffered
personal injuries when she fell down a set of stairs. The traveler filed a claim against the travel agency asserting that
it had negligently controlled, planned, designed, constructed, and inspected and cleaned the ship, and that the
traveler's injuries were caused by the wantonness of the travel agency. The travel agency filed a motion for summary
judgment. Upon review, the court granted the motion. The court held that it reviewed the case under the diversity
statute, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332. The court ruled that Florida law applied, based on the traveler's claims that the travel
agency failed to properly inspect and warn of dangers, because that is where the ship was docked. The court held
that a travel agent had no duty to inspect, or otherwise make safe, a cruise ship that it did not own, control, or
otherwise operate. The court stated that even it was to assume that the travel agency had sufficient control over the
cruise ship to impose a duty to warn, this duty would arise only if the travel agency knew of the dangerous
conditions, and the traveler offered no evidence of this.
OUTCOME: The court granted the travel agency's motion for summary judgment.
CORE TERMS: cruise, ship, cruise ship, safe, warranty, vessel, travel agency, ticket, summary judgment,
disclaimer, passenger, diversity, aboard, travel agent, travel, duty to warn, reservation, customer, warn, admiralty
jurisdiction, genuine issue, choice-of-law, negligently, wantonness, supplied, supplier, traveler, carrier, invoice,
bookings
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Admiralty Law > Personal Injuries > Maritime Tort Actions > Negligence > Invitees, Passengers & Stowaways
Admiralty Law > Practice & Procedure > Jurisdiction
Admiralty Law > Shipping > Carrier Duties & Obligations > General Overview
[HN1] Legal rights and liabilities arising from conduct allegedly causing injury aboard ship on navigable waters is
within the full reach of the admiralty jurisdiction and measurable by the standards of maritime law. Under admiralty
law, a ship, as a common carrier, owes a special duty to its passengers. The carrier must subject his passengers to no