In this week’s travel law article, we examine the case of Brown v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., Case No. 17-22645-CIV-ALTONAGE/Goodman (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2018) wherein “Plaintiff (aged 78) and her husband (repeat cruisers)…were passengers on the cruise ship Riviera (and) select(ed) and purchase(d) (a shore excursion) based on the cruise lines’ marketing materials.
When choosing a shore excursion (the plaintiffs) eliminate(d) from (their) consideration all tours with easy or difficult/strenuous symbols, considering only tours with ‘moderate’ symbols’. (On this cruise) Plaintiff(s) purchased the Virgin Gorda and the Baths Excursion in Tortola, British Virgin Islands…after (they) received the Cruise Vacation Guide, a marketing advertisement sent to (them) by defendant (which) described the Excursion as a ‘moderate activity’…While hiking the trail …Plaintiff’s foot got caught between two boulders and her ankle broke…After the cruise ship’s doctor recommended Plaintiff disembark (she) was transported to People’s Hospital in Tortola (but) refused surgery (and) once back in Florida…had surgery on her ankle and was confined to a wheelchair for several weeks”.
Plaintiffs sued and alleged negligence, fraud, violation of Chapter 817.41 Florida Statutes and negligent misrepresentation.
Motions for summary judgment by plaintiffs and defendant denied.
The Brown case raises a novel issue which is the legal significance of shore excursion ratings by which cruise lines describe the activity level of the tours they promote. For example, the subject Virgin Gorda and the Baths Excursion (the Excursion) is described by different cruise lines differently, i.e., Oceania described the Excursion as “moderate activity”; Seven Seas Cruises (also known as Regent) rates the Excursion a ‘strenuous activity’; NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, rated the Excursion an “Activity Level 3″.
Disputes Over The Meaning Of Words
“Defendant notes a number of other cruise lines market the Excursion with varying descriptions, including ‘strenuous’, ‘active’, ‘an extensive amount of walking over steep and slippery terrain’ and ‘moderate’. Defendant asserts the descriptions and warnings given by other cruise lines regarding the Excursion are substantially similar to its own (“moderate activity”). Plaintiff disputes Defendant’s comparison of its description and warnings to those of other cruise lines because there may be ‘discrepancies’ between Defendant’s tour and those offered by other companies”.
Court I-Negligence
“Plaintiff argues she is entitled to summary judgment on her negligence claim because Defendant failed in its duty to warn of the dangers of the Excursion’s terrain, and this failure resulted in her injury. For its part, Defendant insists it is entitled to summary judgment…because its rating of the tour was not an objective description, it repeatedly warned plaintiff of the Excursion’s strenuous nature, the conditions of the path were open and obvious and any negligence on its part did not cause Plaintiff’s injury…Plaintiff admits Defendant provided warnings, but argues the warnings were ‘inadequate’ because they described the Excursion as a ‘moderate’ activity. Plaintiff and Defendant clearly disagree on whether Defendant’s description of the Excursion as ‘moderate’ was an adequate warning, and each party cites to facts from the record to support its interpretation of the warning…The Court will not decide on its own…whether the description satisfied Defendant’s duty to warn Plaintiff of dangers which it knew or reasonably should have known. A clear dispute of material fact exists and) the question of what language is sufficient to warn of the dangers of the Excursion is a factual matter for the jury to decide…Moreover even if the dangers posed by the Excursion were open and obvious, ‘[t]he fat of a complained-of danger is open and obvious is not a total bar to recovery (citing Pucci v. Carnival Corp., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2015)).
Count II-Fraud
“To prove Defendant made a false statement of material fact, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s marketing materials contained ‘a false and woefully inadequate description of the Excursion because they labeled the Excursion as moderate rather than strenuous…To start, the parties cannot even agree on who rated the Excursion as ‘moderate’. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did so; while Defendant states the ‘Excursion ‘[was] marketed as ‘moderate’ at the request of the tour operators, Island Shipping and Trading Co., not Oceania’. The meaning of the content of the marketing materials is also in dispute…Factual determinations about whether Defendant’s marketing materials constitute a false statement are a matter for the jury, not the Court”.
Count III-Misleading Advertising
“Plaintiff’s claim of misleading advertising arises under Section 817.41, Florida Statutes. ‘[T]o maintain a civil action for violation of the statute [a plaintiff must] prove each of the elements of common law fraud in the inducement, including reliance and detriment, kin order to recover damages’…Disputes of fact exist with respect to whether Defendant mad a misrepresentation of material fact. Plaintiff relies of the Excursion ratings issued by Regent Seven Seas Cruises and Norwegian Cruise Line to argue Defendant’s rating of ‘moderate’ is a misrepresentation. According to Defendant, its Excursion rating is not a misrepresentation because the ratings are not intended to represent any objective truth at all [this is a variation of the puffing defense in common law fraud cases]. Defendant also argues the ratings of other operators of Virgin Gorda and the Baths excursion-including those of Carnival Cruise Line, Norwegian Cruise Line and Shire Excursions Group-are similar to its ‘moderate’ rating, indicating the rating is appropriate…The fact underlying these arguments are in dispute”.
ٿڪل
There is a need for uniformity amongst various cruise lines in how the same shore excursion is described. The Brown case helps cruise passengers by focusing the Court’s attention on a cruise line’s self-description of its shore excursion.
پيٽريريا ۽ ٽام ڊيڪرسن
ليکڪ، ٿامس اي ڊڪرسن، 26 جولاءِ 2018ع تي 74 سالن جي ڄمار ۾ گذاري ويو. سندس خاندان جي مهربانيءَ سان، eTurboNews هن جي مضمونن کي شيئر ڪرڻ جي اجازت ڏني وئي آهي جيڪا اسان وٽ فائل تي آهي جيڪا هن اسان کي مستقبل جي هفتيوار اشاعت لاءِ موڪلي هئي.
هون. ڊيڪرسن ايسوسيئيٽ جسٽس آف اپيلٽ ڊويزن جي حيثيت سان رٽائرڊ ٿيو، نيو يارڪ اسٽيٽ سپريم ڪورٽ جي سيڪنڊ ڊپارٽمينٽ ۽ 42 سالن لاءِ سفري قانون بابت لکيو، جنهن ۾ سندس سالانه اپڊيٽ ٿيل قانون جا ڪتاب، ٽريول لا، لا جرنل پريس (2018)، لٽيگيٽنگ انٽرنيشنل ٽارٽس شامل آهن. يو ايس ڪورٽس، ٿامسن رائٽرز ويسٽ لا (2018)، ڪلاس ايڪشن: دي لا آف 50 اسٽيٽس، لا جرنل پريس (2018)، ۽ 500 کان وڌيڪ قانوني آرٽيڪل جن مان گھڻا آھن هتي موجود. اضافي سفري قانون جي خبرن ۽ ترقيات لاءِ، خاص طور تي يورپي يونين جي ميمبر ملڪن ۾، ڏسو IFTTA.org.
ڪيترائي پڙهو جسٽس ڊيڪرسن جا آرٽيڪل هتي.
هي مضمون بغير اجازت جي ٻيهر نه ٿو ڏئي سگهجي.
