There are many legal avenues a ship owner can take in order to avoid being held liable for negligence, but if a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision is upheld and adopted by other courts, one major avenue will be blocked.
On November 10th of 2014, in the case of Patricia Franza v. RCCL (Franza), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the order of the District Court, which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s allegations of actual and apparent agency against Royal Caribbean. The agency relationship that the plaintiff was trying to establish and that the Court permitted, establishes that Royal Caribbean can be held negligent if its onboard medical providers were indeed negligent. But how can this be? What about the Barbetta Rule, the time-honored rule taken from the 1988 case Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star (Barbetta)?
In Barbetta, common maritime law cannot accredit liability to ship owners; meaning, cruise lines cannot be held vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of the medical team onboard. So, what did the Franza court use for its reasoning in overturning this rule that has been in effect for over twenty five years? What evidence must a claimant show in order to meet the threshold?
First off, the Franza court found that an agency relationship must be established. In Franza, the complaint established agency because (1) it was accepted that the medical personnel acted on the cruise line’s behalf, and (2) the medical staff accepted the commission to do so. Further, because the medical team was paid by the ship owner and the medical facility was created, maintained, and owned by the ship owner (who also marketed the facility via advertisements), it was further demonstrated that the ship owner had the requisite degree of control over the employees of the medical team. Additionally, since the medical staff were required to wear uniforms adorned with the name and logo of the cruise line, and were represented as members of the ship’s crew to immigration authorities, there was sufficient evidence of an agency relationship. But, in what manner is an agency relationship threshold met? Well, the 11th Circuit Court gave us some guidelines to follow.
Elements such as wearing uniforms with the cruise line’s logo and name, the promotion of medical staff in brochures, whether or not medical personnel are represented as members of the crew, and direct billing by the cruise line to passengers for medical costs are all ways a petitioner can demonstrate a basis for their assertions of actual or apparent agency. If a claimant can show a basis for their assertion of agency, whether actual or apparent, they then may be able to pursue the ship owner directly for any damage in relation to claims of medical malpractice. Barbetta told us that a ship is not a floating hospital, and those who seek medical attention do so at their own risk while on a cruise line; however, the Franza court laid out the reasoning for overturning this this rule.
Franza argues that it is deceitful for a cruise line to reject medical expertise “when they routinely provide access to extensive medical care in the infirmaries they have constructed for this very purpose,” not to mention promoting said infirmaries. Thus, the doctors may not be under the control of passengers as the Barbetta court would have you believe, and instead are in fact controlled by the ship owner. If Franza is upheld and adopted, the amount of lawsuits for medical malpractice against a ship owner will most certainly grow. If you have a questions about a potential medical malpractice suit while you were on a boat, do not hesitate to call the maritime lawyers at O’Bryan Baun Karamanian for help.
