Passengers on Cruise Vessel Stranded: Conduct of Cruise Vessel Not Outrageous

Negron v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113857 *; 2018 WL 3369671

By: Haley Guepet

Background:In November 2017, Plaintiffs Maria Negron, Victor Gonzalez-McFaline, Lizzette Gonzalez-Negron, and Miguel Gongalez-Laugier took a seven-day cruise on Defendant Celebrity Cruises, Inc.’s ship, Celebrity Summit. On the fourth day of their cruise while docked in Barbados, Plaintiff Maria Negron became ill and was diagnosed with a heart attack by onboard medical staff. Negron and the other plaintiffs were taken to a nearby hospital. The plaintiffs allege that they endured “unreasonable wait times, discomfort, exposure to areas contaminated with Ebola, lack of food and drink, and limited communication and information about [Negron’s] condition. Upon return to the ship, the plaintiffs allege that the cruise ship’s staff prevented them from re-boarding the ship and, instead, the staff entered the plaintiffs’ rooms, removed their personal belongings, and transported them to a hotel. The plaintiffs were prevented from enjoying the cruise that they expected and paid for. They filed suit against Celebrity Cruises for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), false imprisonment, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.Analysis:The parties agree that this matter is governed by maritime law, and Courts sitting in admiralty look to the Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 and state law to evaluate claims of IIED in maritime claims. Moreover, Florida law provides that, for a claim of IIED, a plaintiff must show that the act was deliberate, that the conduct was outrageous, that the conduct caused emotional distress, and that the distress was severe. Here, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs’ allegation does not rise to the requisite level of outrageous conduct or severity needed to sustain a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.The court stated that a plaintiff has an extremely high burden to overcome. Because of this, the court found that the defendant’s conduct was not severe or outrageous enough to meet the required standard.Conclusion:The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice.