Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cruise Ship Operator Not Insulated from Responsibility for Health Care Provider
Breaking with longstanding precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has declined to follow the Fifth Circuit's decision in Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star, 848 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1988), concluding after much analysis that previous case law holding cruise ship operators blameless for the negligence of their onboard medical personnel is based on outdated norms. This decision may have far-reaching consequences for shipboard medical malpractice claimants and their representatives.
The case of Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21375 (11th Cir., 11/10/14), involved an elderly man who was injured when he slipped and fell in Bermuda near the ship on which he was traveling. Unconscious, the man was carried on-board the ship where he was seen by the ship's nurse. She allegedly did almost nothing to treat him, and released him before he was seen by the doctor. The doctor saw the injured passenger four hours after he sustained his injury, but the doctor too allegedly failed to render adequate treatment. The passenger died of his injuries a week later.
The deceased's daughter, Patricia Franza, brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. ' 1333 and the general maritime law against the cruise ship's operator, Royal Caribbean, seeking damages on the theories of respondeat superior (otherwise known as actual agency ' i.e., that the doctor and nurse were employees of the cruise ship line and acting on its behalf) or of apparent agency (i.e., that the cruise line implied that the doctor and nurse were working on its behalf and the deceased relied on that manifestation to his detriment). Franza made no individual claims against any of the medical personnel involved.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.