The vast majority of modern day cruise liners carry a doctor or other medical staff onboard. Ordinarily such physicians are independently contracted and recent litigation in the 11th Circuit has focused on whether the ship owner should be held vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligence.
For years the seminal case in this arena has been Barbetta v Bermuda Star 848 F.2d 1364 1998 which held that the ship’s physician is an independent medical examiner engaged on the basis of their professional qualifications, with passengers being free to contract with them for medical services they may require. Barbetta, and many cases since, have held that a ship owner cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the negligence of a shipboard doctor given that it does not possess the expertise required to supervise physicians who are carried onboard as a convenience to the passengers.
However, the 3rd District Court of Appeal (“3rd DCA”) in the case of Carlisle v Carnival Cruise Lines No. SC04-393, 2007 WL 471172 (Fla. Feb. 15, 2007) decided to set a new precedent when ruling that a ship’s doctor is, in essence, held out as an agent of the cruise line and, consequently, any negligence on the part of that doctor can be imputed to the ship owner.
Carnival appealed this decision to the Florida Supreme Court which, in February of this year, overruled the 3rd DCA. Whilst the Court found merit in the plaintiff’s argument, they found that because this was a maritime case that the Court must adhere to the federal principles of harmony and uniformity when applying federal maritime law; At the time the instant case was decided by the 3rd DCA, with one exception, the federal maritime law uniformly held that a ship owner is not vicariously liable for the negligence of the shipboard physician. With that in mind it was held that the ship owner is not vicariously liable under the principle of respondeat superior for the medical negligence of the shipboard physician. This is a success for the cruise industry. However, it should be noted that the plaintiff has now requested an audience with the US Supreme Court. Further updates on this case will be provided in future editions of Sea Venture.
