Cruise Lawsuit Raises Liability Question

Eric Ewing was on a weeklong island cruise with his brother and sister-in-law aboard the Carnival Ecstasy on Jan. 25, 2018, eating pizza as he sat on his bed, when an upper bunk crashed down on his head.

His attorney, Miami maritime lawyer Keith Brais with Brais Law Firm, says his 53-year-old client suffered a traumatic brain injury and equilibrium issues. “Mr. Ewing’s injuries are life-altering and will eventually make it impossible for him to ambulate on his own or even take care of himself,” Brais says.

Vicarious Liability and Notice Requirements in Cruise Cases

Ewing’s lawsuit alleged that Carnival’s cabin stewards are required to check the safety of upper bunks on a daily basis, and that the cruise line was therefore vicariously liable for injuries sustained by Ewing.

However, when Ewing’s case began, long-standing precedent from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that in maritime cases, a cruise operator could be held vicariously liable only if it had “notice.” That can mean either direct knowledge or sufficient opportunity to have had that knowledge.

In Brais’ opinion, the maritime courts had been getting this wrong, contending that an employee’s awareness, or responsibility for awareness, of an unsafe condition should carry over to the employer, “Thereby satisfying, actually nullifying, the ‘notice’ requirement for an employer.”

Need an Admiralty and Maritime Law Attorney?

Federal maritime law covers legal issues and problems as wide and deep as the ocean. Use the Super Lawyers directory to find the top maritime lawyers near you.

Find a lawyer today

Weakening the Notice Defense: Yusko v. NCL (Bahamas)

While Ewing’s case was making its way through the courts, the 11th Circuit issued a separate landmark ruling in Yusko v. NCL (Bahamas), clarifying its precedent on notice requirements.

Yusko held that plaintiffs don’t need to prove that the cruise line had actual or constructive notice in order to win in a vicarious liability claim when the employee’s negligence causes an injury.

Legal Implications of the Ewing v. Carnival Case

In light of Yusko, the Ewing case shifted to proving the employee’s negligence. The suit contended that the upper bunk could be unlocked only with a special key available to crew members, including the steward, and that the steward should have noticed during daily room checks that it was not locked. Ewing recorded a video on his cellphone after the incident, showing that the upper bunks on both sides of his stateroom were unlocked.

The steward, Brais says, testified that he ensured the bunk beds were locked each morning. Carnival maintains that a loose screw, of which the steward was unaware, could have caused the bunk to fall open. Ewing’s expert has challenged that theory.

“As a general principle of law, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees and agents, actual or apparent, so long as the employee acted within the course and scope of their employment.”

Ewing ultimately prevailed in the case and was awarded damages.

Your Legal Rights

If you find yourself in a similar situation with a personal injury case involving cruise companies, reach out to an admiralty and maritime attorney for advice.