Carnival Cruise Lines Not Liable for Teen’s Sexual Assault on Ship, Appeals Court Finds

Carnival Cruise Lines could not have foreseen a sexual assault on a teenager, despite a lack of security presence at the time, the sneaking of booze on to the ship by an alleged assailant, and reports of more than 100 previous assault incidents on the lines’ cruise ships, a federal appeals court decided this week.

The U.S. 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower federal court ruling in Florida that had dismissed the young woman’s lawsuit. The plaintiff was identified only as J.F., who said she was assaulted in a locked state room by three young men.

“The sexual assault on J.F., as she describes it, was both tragic and depraved. But the question here is whether Carnival is responsible,” 11^th Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom wrote in the June 17 opinion. “We hold that it is not. Carnival—which oversees a vast fleet of ships, each the site of countless human interactions—couldn’t have known about or foreseen the attack. Accordingly, it can’t be liable.”

The case was a maritime tort case, but it could have implications for insurers in other premises-liability litigation that focuses on foreseeability and security protection at businesses with previous incidents. The court’s decision also found that when a corporation has previously taken corrective actions or has instituted preventive policies, that cannot be considered evidence of foreseeability.

“True, as J.F. points out, Carnival worked with consultants to develop assault-prevention policies, including a sexual-predator screening process,” the court noted. “But any risk of which this corrective action might have put Carnival on notice either is defined at too high a level of generality or doesn’t match up with the facts here.”

Each case is fact-specific, the court noted. Previous court rulings by the 11^th Circuit have found that while previous incidents can demonstrate constructive notice for the cruise company, the court also has said that a cruise line’s duty “is to protect its passengers from a particular injury.”

J.F.’s attorneys had argued that one of the alleged assailants had been caught trying to smuggle a bottle of liquor onto the ship. Carnival’s policies call for removing such perpetrators from the ship or at least placing a curfew on the person, J.F. argued. Instead, the ship let the young man off with a warning. That served as a notice that having the youth on board was risky, the young woman’s team said.

“We aren’t persuaded,” the appellate judges wrote. “One failed attempt to smuggle alcohol on board isn’t a sign that a passenger is poised to commit sexual assault. A ‘single incident’ can’t ‘constitute constructive notice’ of a risk when the incident is completely ‘different in kind’ from the risk.’”

The alcohol smuggling has no meaningful connection to the subsequent assault, the court noted. Carnival couldn’t have predicted on the basis of a single non-violent breach of one of its policies that a gang rape was in the offing. “Accordingly, we hold that the smuggling doesn’t count as constructive notice.”

J.F. also argued that the cruise ship had 20 security officers on board the huge ship, but only seven were working at the time of the 1 a.m. assault. The woman and the three men, whom she had been hanging out with on the ship, had stopped by one of the men’s rooms to retrieve a phone charger. She entered to use the restroom and one of the youths locked the state room door.

Her attorneys contended that had Carnival kept more officers on duty, one would likely have confronted the youths and reminded them of a security presence on board.

“We can’t accept J.F.’s argument, which heaps speculation on top of speculation,” the court panel wrote. “We therefore hold that the assault wasn’t a foreseeable result of Carnival’s staffing levels.”