Fuentes v. Classica Cruise Operator LTD

32 F.4th 1311

Reinier FUENTES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR LTD, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-14639

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed: May 3, 2022

Jordan Redavid, Fischer Redavid, PLLC, Miami, FL, John Phillip Fischer, Fischer Law Firm, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Lauren Eve DeFabio Flanagan, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael John Dono, William F. Clair, Jonathan Holmes Dunleavy, Annalisa Gutierrez, Jerry Dean Hamilton, Hamilton Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Marcus, Circuit Judges.

JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

Under maritime law, a ship owner in "navigable waters owes to all who are on board for purposes not inimical to [its] legitimate interests the duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances of each case." Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale de Transatlantique , 358 U.S. 625, 632, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959). In this case, which arises in a summary judgment posture, a cruise ship passenger and one of his friends assaulted another passenger, Reinier Fuentes, during disembarkation. Our main task, applying Kermarec and its progeny, is to determine what duty the cruise line, Classica Cruise Operator Ltd., owed to Mr. Fuentes under maritime law. See The Admiral Peoples , 295 U.S. 649, 654, 55 S.Ct. 885, 79 L.Ed. 1633 (1935) (injury suffered by a passenger when falling from the gangplank during disembarkation "presented a case within the jurisdiction of admiralty"); Minott v. M/Y BRUNELLO , 891 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 2018) ("An injury caused by a vessel in navigable waters is a maritime tort.").¹

I

As this appeal arises from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Classica, our review is de novo, and we view the facts and inferences in Mr. Fuentes’ favor. See Taylor v. Riojas , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 52, 53 n.1, 208 L.Ed.2d 164 (2020) ; Tolan v. Cotton , 572 U.S. 650, 657, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) ; Jenkins v. Nell , 26 F.4th 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2022). Viewed in that light, here is what the record shows.

Mr. Fuentes and his wife were passengers on a two-night cruise aboard the Grand Classica , a ship operated by Classica. On the evening of May 12, 2018, they were playing foosball on the ship when they were interrupted by Clynt Hadley, another passenger. According to Mr. Fuentes, Mr. Hadley intentionally bumped into the foosball table and made a comment directed at his wife. Mr. Fuentes did not respond to Mr. Hadley's comment and did not report the encounter to any of Classica's employees.

The next morning, after the Grand Classica docked, Customs and Border Protection stopped the disembarkation process, causing the lobby on Deck 5 to become crowded. At the time, Mr. Fuentes estimates there were approximately 20 passengers—including himself and his wife—cueing up in the immigration line waiting to disembark.

Mr. Fuentes noticed Mr. Hadley attempting to cut in front of them. He told Mr. Hadley that he should go to the back of the line and not attempt to "skip" in front of the other passengers. A verbal altercation between Mr. Fuentes and Mr. Hadley then ensued.

Sayyed Azzad Alam, a Grand Classica security officer, was standing nearby when the verbal exchange began and radioed the chief of security for help. Mr. Azzad Alam then approached Mr. Fuentes and Mr. Hadley—who were about four to five feet apart—stepped between them and asked that they "calm down." D.E. 48-1 at 112, 116. After Mr. Azzad Alam spoke to Mr. Hadley, he then turned to speak to Mr. Fuentes. At that point, Mr. Hadley "blindsided" Mr. Fuentes by punching him in the face and charging at him. Id. at 117; see id. at 110, 113. Mr. Fuentes tried to grab Mr. Hadley in a headlock, but Mr. Hadley and one of his friends knocked Mr. Fuentes to the ground, injuring his right elbow in the process. See id. at 114, 117-18, 121. The takedown, according to Mr. Fuentes, was a "spur of the moment type of thing." Id. at 121.

Customs personnel responded to the scene, and then two of the ship's security officers, including the chief of security, arrived. See id. at 126-28. Police were called, and Mr. Fuentes received first aid. He later underwent surgery and was hospitalized for several days.

In his complaint, Mr. Fuentes alleged that Classica was negligent, and responsible for his injuries, because it failed to (a) reasonably and properly train security personnel; (b) have adequate security measures, including adequate security presence and surveillance cameras; (c) warn him of the danger of being physically assaulted while onboard the vessel; (d) promulgate and enforce policies and procedures designed to prevent passengers from physically assaulting other passengers; and (e) exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Classica, ruling that there was no evidence suggesting that Classica had actual or constructive notice of the risk of harm to someone like Mr. Fuentes.

II

As noted, federal maritime law governs this action because Mr. Fuentes was injured while waiting to disembark the Grand Classica . See The Admiral Peoples , 295 U.S. at 654, 55 S.Ct. 885 ; Minott , 891 F.3d at 1283. We therefore dismiss Mr. Fuentes’ contention, see Appellant's Br. at 25 n.8, that we are required to apply state law given the diversity of the parties. See Pope & Talbot v. Hawn , 346 U.S. 406, 410–11, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953) (rejecting the contention that a maritime tort is controlled by state law when the parties are diverse).

When "analyzing a maritime tort case, we rely on general principles of negligence law." Chaparro v. Carnival Corp. , 693 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). To prevail on his negligence claims, Mr. Fuentes had to establish that (1) Classica had a duty to protect him from a particular injury; (2) Classica breached that duty; (3) the breach actually and proximately caused his injury; and (4) he suffered actual harm. See Carroll v. Carnival Corp. , 955 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2020). This appeal concerns the duty element, which presents a question of law. See Coumou v. United States , 107 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir. 1997), opinion withdrawn and superseded in part on reh'g , 114 F.3d 64 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Sutton v. Earles , 26 F.3d 903, 912 n.8 (9th Cir. 1994) ; Matter of Flowers , 526 F.2d 242, 244 (8th Cir. 1975).

A

A cruise line like Classica owes its passengers "a ‘duty of reasonable care’ under the circumstances." Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. , 796 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2015). Generally speaking, a duty of care exists under maritime law "when injury is foreseeable or when contractual or other relations of the parties impose it. In determining the existence of [a] duty a court must examine and weigh the probability of an accident, the potential extent of the injury, and the cost of adequate precautions." 1 Thomas Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 5:4 (6th ed. & 2021 update) (footnotes omitted).

Our cases reflect the same understanding. For example, we have held that "[l]iability [under maritime law] for a failure to warn ... arises from foreseeability, or the knowledge that particular conduct will create danger." Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc. , 616 F.2d 825, 827 (5th Cir. 1980). See also 1 Robert Force & Martin J. Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries § 8:8 (5th ed. & Dec. 2021 update) ("The duty of care includes the duty to anticipate danger that is reasonably foreseeable."); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. for Physical & Emotional Harm § 7(a) (Am. L. Inst. 2010) ("An actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm.").

"In this circuit, the maritime standard of reasonable care usually requires that the cruise [line] have actual or constructive knowledge of the risk-creating condition." Sorrels , 796 F.3d at 1286. Classica's duty and potential liability therefore " ‘hinge[ ] on whether it knew or should have known’ of the dangerous condition." Carroll , 955 F.3d at 1264 (quoting Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc. , 867 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1989). Mr. Fuentes recognizes this, as he acknowledges that "this is a case about notice." Appellant's Br. at 2.²

This case involves an attack on one passenger by other passengers. In the context of passenger-on-passenger violence, a cruise line has a duty to warn and/or protect when it or its employees reasonably apprehend the danger such that the attack was foreseeable. See, e.g., Colavito v. Gonzales , 1981 WL 164457, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 1981) (cited with approval in 1 Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law, at § 5:11 ); Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. , 2012 WL 5512314, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2012) ; 1 Force & Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries, at § 9:16 (citing cases). See also H.S. ex rel. R.S. v. Carnival Corp. , 727 F. Appx 1003, 1006 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) ("Because the proximate cause of H.S.’s injury was an intervening criminal act by ‘a fellow passenger,’ Carnival could not be liable in negligence unless the ‘injury by its nature could have been reasonably anticipated or naturally expected to occur or reasonably foreseen in time [for it] to have prevented the injury."); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm, at § 19 ("The conduct of a defendant can lack reasonable care insofar as it foreseeably combines with or permits the improper conduct of the plaintiff or a third party.").

Before reviewing the evidence as to notice, we address Mr. Fuentes’ framing of the foreseeability inquiry. Mr. Fuentes argues that the district court erred in viewing "the alleged harm" as physical altercations during the disembarkation of cruise ships. See Appellant's Br. at 9. As he sees things, Classica had a duty to warn about or prevent Mr. Hadley's "foreseeable attack" because...