Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Cruise Ship Update  

Juror Bias in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made waves in the legal landscape with a February 2024 decision to reverse a trial verdict and remand for a new trial in Carelyn Fylling v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (Case No. 21-13612). The ruling highlights the critical importance of jury impartiality and underscores the court’s duty to thoroughly investigate claims of potential juror bias. 

Background of the Case 

The case arose from a 2017 trip and fall incident aboard the Harmony of the Seas on Deck 5. Plaintiff, Carelyn Fylling, suffered a severe head injury after tripping and falling on the cruise ship. Fylling filed a negligence lawsuit against Royal Caribbean in the Southern District of Florida, claiming the cruise line did not maintain safe conditions onboard.  

After a two-week trial, the jury found Royal Caribbean negligent but attributed 90% of the fault to Fylling herself, awarding her only $75,000.00 of the $750,000.00 in assessed damages. However, the trial proceedings were called into question when it was revealed mid-trial that one of the jurors—referred to as “Juror Eight”—had a niece employed by Royal Caribbean. 

The Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling 

In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Lagoa, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by failing to investigate potential bias when Juror Eight disclosed her family connection to Royal Caribbean. The court emphasized that the trial judge had a duty to conduct a thorough inquiry to determine whether Juror Eight could remain impartial, particularly given the nature of her niece’s employment. 

The court criticized the trial court for relying on Juror Eight’s earlier general assurances of impartiality during voir dire, noting that such broad questions are insufficient once specific allegations of bias arise. Citing precedent, the Eleventh Circuit explained that “specific and direct questioning” of the juror was necessary to assess the risk of actual or implied bias. 

Key Legal Takeaways 

1. The Duty to Investigate Juror Bias: 
   The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed that trial judges must fully investigate claims of juror bias, particularly when they involve family ties to a party in the case. Failure to do so undermines the fairness and impartiality of the trial process. 

2. The Standard for Implied Bias: 
   The court clarified that familial relationships between jurors and employees of a party can raise a “reasonable possibility” of bias, requiring further inquiry. Without such investigation, any resulting verdict may lack integrity. 

3. Reversal and Remand: 
   The court’s decision to reverse and remand highlights the significance of juror impartiality in both civil and criminal trials, ensuring that all parties receive a fair hearing. 

Implications for Cruise Line Litigation 

This case underscores the challenges cruise lines face in maintaining favorable trial outcomes, particularly when jury issues arise. For plaintiffs and defendants alike, it serves as a reminder that procedural missteps can lead to costly retrials, even after lengthy and expensive litigation. 

As the case heads back to the district court for a new trial, all eyes will be on the proceedings to see how the facts and allegations are reevaluated with a newly impaneled jury. Will the new jury see this trip and fall on a cruise ship as fault of the plaintiff? Or will the injury on the cruise ship be seen as the fault of Royal Caribbean?  

Outcome 

On June 11, 2024, the District Court entered an Order Continuing Trial, which reset the Trial to begin on October 28, 2024. See Fylling v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 2018-cv-21953 at Ecf. 269 (June 11, 2024). Thereafter, a Stipulation of Dismissal was entered by the Plaintiff on September 11, 2024. Id. at Ecf. 270. The stipulation of dismissal was likely entered as the Parties agreed to settlement prior to the new trial.  

Eleventh Circuit Reverses in Part and Remands for New Trial on Pain and Suffering Damages in Carnival Case 

In a significant decision impacting personal injury claims against cruise lines, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed a trial court’s decision in McBride v. Carnival Corporation on May 24, 2024. The appellate court ordered a new trial limited to the issue of past pain and suffering damages, marking a pivotal moment for plaintiffs seeking compensation for non-economic losses in a cruise ship personal injury case. 

Background of the Case 

The case stems from a November 2015 incident aboard the Carnival Ecstasy, when plaintiff Earlene McBride was being pushed in a wheelchair by a Carnival crewmember during disembarkation. McBride alleges the wheelchair tipped over a bump on the gangway. This unsafe condition on a cruise ship caused her to fall violently to the ground. Carnival countered that McBride’s fall was less severe, asserting that the crewmember partially caught her as she fell. 

McBride subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against the cruise line in the Southern District of Florida, seeking damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and related losses. The jury ultimately awarded $10,543.59 in past medical expenses for emergency care immediately following the incident but awarded nothing for pain and suffering. 

The Eleventh Circuit’s Findings 

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, addressing two key issues: 

1. Deposition of the Carnival Employee 
   McBride objected to the admission of deposition testimony from the Carnival crewmember who had pushed her wheelchair, arguing that Carnival failed to establish the witness’s unavailability under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision, concluding that McBride’s objections were untimely and that she had waived the issue by failing to raise it earlier in the trial process. 

2. Inadequacy of the Jury’s Verdict 
   The court found that the jury’s award of zero damages for pain and suffering—despite awarding economic damages for medical expenses—was inconsistent and legally insufficient. The court noted uncontradicted evidence that McBride experienced immediate pain following the incident, citing testimony from both McBride and Carnival’s expert witness, Dr. Sinnreich. Under Florida law, the court concluded, a zero-dollar award for pain and suffering is inadequate where such pain is clearly documented in a cruise ship personal injury case. 

Implications of the Ruling 

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision underscores the importance of jury consistency in awarding damages. By remanding the case for a new trial on the sole issue of past pain and suffering, the court ensures that plaintiffs are not unfairly denied compensation for documented injuries on a cruise ship. 

This ruling also highlights procedural challenges in maritime litigation, particularly regarding witness testimony. The court’s affirmation of the deposition’s admission serves as a reminder of the importance of timely and specific objections during trial. 

Next Steps 

The case now returns to the district court for a new trial focused solely on past pain and suffering damages as a result of the plaintiff’s fall on a cruise ship. The outcome of this retrial could set an important precedent for similar cases, particularly for plaintiffs seeking fair compensation in cruise lines personal injury claims. 

As the legal landscape for maritime litigation and cruise line personal injury continues to evolve, this decision reinforces the need for diligent trial preparation and thorough evaluation of jury awards to ensure fairness and consistency in verdicts. 

Outcome 

On August 14, 2024, the District Court entered an Order Referring the Case to the Magistrate Judge for a Settlement Conference and  reset the Trial to begin on January 8, 2025. See McBride v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 2016-cv-24894 at Ecf. 303 (August 14, 2024). Thereafter, the settlement conference was conducted on December 11, 2024, during which the case settled. Id. at Ecf. 308. A Stipulation of Dismissal was enter by the Plaintiff on January 10, 2025. Id. at Ecf. 310.  

Eleventh Circuit Vacates Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal in Crew Member Lawsuit Against Cruise Operators 

In a June 2024 decision that underscores the complexities of international maritime law, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a forum non conveniens dismissal in Usme et al. v. CMI Leisure Management, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22-11324). The ruling focused on whether non-signatory defendants could enforce a forum-selection clause included in crew members’ employment contracts, which required disputes to be litigated in the Bahamas under Bahamian law. 

Background of the Case 

The lawsuit arose after the M/V Greg Mortimer, a cruise ship bound for Antarctica, became embroiled in the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Seven crew members alleged they contracted the virus due to negligence by the cruise ship’s operators. The plaintiffs claimed the ship embarked on its voyage despite warnings from medical staff about the dangers of the pandemic. 

After passengers tested positive for COVID-19, the ship activated quarantine protocols. While passengers were disembarked in Uruguay, the crew remained confined onboard. Eventually, 33 of the 85 crew members tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiffs, who were eventually repatriated, sued the cruise line in the Southern District of Florida, alleging claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law for negligence, maintenance and cure, and emotional distress. 

The Eleventh Circuit’s Analysis 

At the district court level, the defendants—CMI Leisure Management, Inc., Cruise Management International, Inc., and Vikand Medical Solutions, LLC—argued that the claims should be dismissed because the crew members’ employment agreements contained a forum-selection clause requiring litigation in the Bahamas. The district court agreed and dismissed the case based on forum non conveniens. 

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal, ruling that the defendants, as non-signatories to the employment agreements, could not enforce the forum-selection clause through equitable estoppel. The appellate court provided the following key findings: 

1. Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply: 
   The court held that the crew members’ claims were not “intimately founded in and intertwined with” the employment agreements. The claims were based on general maritime principles, not the terms of the contracts. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that equitable estoppel requires a direct reliance on contract terms, which was absent in this case. 

2. Forum Non Conveniens Analysis Was Flawed: 
   By relying on the forum-selection clause, the district court improperly shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to justify their choice of forum. The Eleventh Circuit clarified that the defendants, as non-signatories, could not invoke the clause to support their forum non conveniens argument. 

3. Key Takeaways on Forum-Selection Clauses: 
   The decision reinforces that forum-selection clauses in employment agreements cannot be enforced by parties who were not signatories to the agreements, absent a valid exception like agency or assumption. 

Implications for Cruise Industry Litigation 

This ruling highlights the challenges cruise operators face when attempting to enforce forum-selection clauses in cruise crew member disputes. The decision underscores that non-signatories must meet a high threshold to invoke these clauses and demonstrates the importance of carefully drafted employment agreements in mitigating legal risks. 

As the case returns to the district court, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to pursue their claims against the cruise line in the Southern District of Florida. The decision provides a clear reminder that procedural missteps in enforcing forum-selection clauses can significantly impact maritime litigation outcomes.  

Eleventh Circuit Reverses $400 Million Judgment in Havana Docks Case, Limiting Scope of Helms-Burton Act 

In a closely watched decision issued in October 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated over $400 million in judgments against four major cruise lines, including Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Carnival Corporation, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, and MSC Cruises. The case, Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (Case Nos. 23-10151 and 23-10171), revolved around allegations of “trafficking” in property confiscated by the Cuban government under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. 

Background of the Case 

Havana Docks Corporation filed suit under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, a statute that permits U.S. nationals to sue entities that “traffic” in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Havana Docks alleged that the cruise lines used its former property, the Havana Cruise Port Terminal, to dock ships, disembark passengers, and facilitate shore excursions between 2016 and 2019. 

Havana Docks, which held a 99-year concession to operate piers and terminals at the Port of Havana, lost its property when the Cuban government expropriated it in 1960. The concession would have expired in 2004, but Havana Docks claimed that the cruise lines trafficked in its confiscated property by using the port. 

In a landmark summary judgment, the district court awarded Havana Docks over $400 million in damages, finding that the cruise lines’ use of the property amounted to trafficking under the Helms-Burton Act. The cruise lines appealed, challenging the scope of Title III and arguing that Havana Docks’ property interest had long since expired. 

Key Findings from the Eleventh Circuit 

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgments, ruling that the cruise lines had not trafficked in confiscated property under Title III because Havana Docks’ property interest—a usufructuary concession—expired in 2004, well before the alleged trafficking occurred. Judge Jordan, writing for the majority, emphasized the following points: 

1. Temporal Limits on Property Rights 
   The court ruled that Havana Docks’ 99-year concession, granted in 1905, ended in 2004. The court rejected Havana Docks’ argument that the Cuban government’s expropriation in 1960 transformed the property interest into a perpetual right. Judge Jordan wrote, “Congress did not intend to convert time-limited property interests into fee simple ownership through the Helms-Burton Act.” 

2. Definition of Trafficking 
   The court clarified that to constitute trafficking under the Helms-Burton Act, a defendant must exploit property that was still a valid interest at the time of confiscation. The court held that because Havana Docks’ concession was no longer valid after 2004, the cruise lines could not have trafficked in the property from 2016 to 2019. 

3. Impact on Title III Cases 
   This decision underscores that not all confiscated property claims are actionable under the Helms-Burton Act. The ruling narrows the scope of the Act, particularly for claims involving property interests with clear temporal limits. 

Implications for the Cruise Industry 

This ruling is a significant victory for the cruise lines and sets an important precedent limiting the reach of Title III. By focusing on the nature and duration of property interests, the court has curtailed potential liability for companies accused of trafficking in property confiscated by foreign governments. 

For plaintiffs, the decision highlights the need to carefully assess the scope and validity of property interests before pursuing claims under the Helms-Burton Act. While the ruling protects cruise lines in this instance, it leaves open the door for claims involving property with indefinite or ongoing ownership rights. 

Dissenting Opinion 

In a strong dissent, Judge Brasher argued that the majority’s decision undermines the intent of the Helms-Burton Act, which was designed to provide broad remedies for U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government. He contended that the statute does not require plaintiffs to prove a hypothetical present-day interest in confiscated property and that the focus should remain on the property’s status at the time of expropriation. 

Looking Ahead 

The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings related to claims of trafficking from 1996 to 2001, which occurred before Havana Docks’ concession would have expired. The ruling will likely influence future Helms-Burton Act litigation, shaping how courts interpret the definition of confiscated property and the scope of trafficking claims. 

Stay tuned for more updates as this case evolves and its implications ripple across the legal landscape of international maritime law.