Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. - 931 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2019)

Rule:

A cruise line's duty of ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances includes a duty to warn of known dangers beyond the point of debarkation in places where passengers are invited or reasonably expected to visit. If a cruise line owes its passengers a duty to warn of known dangers at excursion destinations, areas over which it usually has little (if any) control, a cruise line certainly owes its passengers a duty to warn of known dangers aboard its ship. 

Facts:

On the day after Christmas in 2015, K.T. embarked on a seven-day Royal Caribbean cruise with her two sisters and her grandparents. She was a minor at the time. She alleged that on the first night of the cruise, a group of nearly a dozen adult male passengers bought multiple alcoholic beverages for her in a public lounge and other public areas of the ship. They plied her with enough alcohol that she became "highly intoxicated," "obviously drunk, disoriented, and unstable," and "obviously incapacitated." The group of nearly a dozen men then steered her "to a cabin where they brutally assaulted and gang raped her." She also alleged that everything (other than the assault and gang rape) happened in the view of multiple Royal Caribbean crewmembers, including those responsible for monitoring the ship's security cameras. But Royal Caribbean's crewmembers allegedly did nothing to stop the group of adult male passengers from buying alcohol for K.T., from getting her drunk, or from leading her away to a cabin while she was incapacitated. They allegedly did nothing to protect or help her. K.T. sued Royal Caribbean and the district court dismissed her lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. 

Issue:

Did the ship breach its duty of ordinary care to K.T.?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the district court erred in dismissing K.T.’s negligence claims for failure to state a claim because the allegations of the complaint were enough to establish that the danger of sexual assault in general and of sexual assault on minors in particular was foreseeable and known. The complaint sufficiently alleged that because the ship's crewmembers did nothing to prevent a large group of men from plying the passenger with enough alcohol to incapacitate her and did nothing to stop them from leading her to a private cabin, the ship breached its duty of ordinary care. The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the ship's failure to warn was a but-for cause of the harm the passenger suffered. The ship must have known about the dangers of sexual assaults aboard its ships.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates