11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Minor’s Claim for Rape Against Cruise Line
H.S. v. Carnival Corp., No. 17-14372, LEXIS 6378 at *, 2018 WL 1251787 (11th Cir. March 12, 2018)
By: Shiena Marie Normand
H.S., a 14-year-old girl, decided to participate in a youth program offered on the CARNIVAL PRIDE when she was vacationing with her parents in late January 2015 and was sexually assaulted. The PRIDE had a program for adolescents between the ages of 12-14, but H.S.’s mother registered H.S. for Club O2, which was a program designed for 15-17 year olds. The program allowed teenagers to “come and go as [they] please[d]” from a lounge containing couches, a dance floor, and gaming systems. The vessel had specially trained staff for the club “to meet important educational and professional requirements.” H.S. was involved with two teenaged passengers and drank whiskey provided to her by one of the boys, E.H. Inside Club O2, E.H attempted to remove her clothing and digitally penetrate her; but she resisted and stopped the sexual activity. H.S. was then coaxed into E.H.’s stateroom where she drank alcohol and engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with him.H.S. sued Carnival for negligence, fraud in the inducement, and fraudulent concealment. For her negligence claim H.S. alleges that Carnival breached a duty to supervise her and that the breach actually and proximately caused her injury. She alleged that she was sexually assaulted because Carnival was negligent in failing to adequately train its security staff and crew members how “to supervise adolescents onboard and at Club O2,” in failing “to warn parents…concerning the past history of sexual assault on board its vessels,” and in failing to observe or prevent the sexual contact between her and her assailant.Carnival filed a motion to dismiss which the district court granted and ruled that H.S. failed to state a claim of negligence because she alleged no facts showing that the proximate cause of her injury was due to the breach of duty by Carnival or that the criminal acts were foreseeable by Carnival. The district court also ruled that she failed to plead fraud in relying on the misrepresentations about Club O2 as an age appropriate and professionally supervised, alcohol-free environment. Additionally, H.S. failed to provide any details about the time or place when Carnival fraudulently concealed information about the rate of sexual assaults on its vessels. Furthermore, the district court reasoned that it was too far a leap to infer that Carnival’s failure to supervise and prevent minors from engaging in consensual touching and sexual activity in a public area of the ship, then to a sexual assault in a private area of the ship foreseeable based on what Carnival should have observed.The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with prejudice and held that the district court did not err by dismissing H.S.’s claim of negligence. The court held that Carnival could not be liable in negligence as H.S. failed to allege how Carnival could have foreseen from the teenagers’ conduct in Club O2 that H.S. would visit E.H.’s stateroom, become intoxicated, and be sexually assaulted. The court held that H.S.’s allegations established instead that Carnival was obligated to supervise her inside Club O2. Additionally, the court held that H.S. alleged no facts to support a plausible inference that Carnival was aware of teenaged boys sexually assaulting teenage girls on its vessels or, more specifically, that teenage girls were leaving the youth nightclub, visiting peers’ staterooms unchaperoned, and being sexually abused. H.S. does not dispute that she failed to satisfy the particularity requirement to plead her claim of fraud, which the court deemed abandoned any argument that H.S. could have made contesting the dismissal of this claim.
