Muratore v. M/S Scotia Prince - 845 F.2d 347 (1st Cir. 1988)

Rule:

It is axiomatic in maritime law that a carrier owes a duty of exercising reasonable care towards its passengers under the circumstances. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 909 states: Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent if, but only if, a) the principal or a managerial agent authorized the doing and the manner of the act, or b) the agent was unfit and the principal or a managerial agent was reckless in employing or retaining him, or c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment, or d) the principal or a managerial agent of the principal ratified or approved the act.

Facts:

Plaintiff Regina M. Muratore, with her companion, went on a round trip voyage on defendant cruise line's ship M/S Scotia Prince between Maine and Nova Scotia during the Labor Day weekend of 1984. On board the ship, plaintiff slipped and fell down a flight of stairs on the ship. She completed a medical report but she refused medical assistance of the medical doctor. Also, during this time, plaintiff was being continually harassed by the defendant’s sponsored photographer. The photographers would take her photo and it came to a point where plaintiff spent several hours in her cabin in order to avoid the photographers. Sometime after departing from the defendant cruise ship, plaintiff began to experience severe bruising and physical discomfort, in particular, lower back pains. This pain continued in varying degrees. Her injury interrupted activities such as lifting, gardening, or walking for extended periods of time. She was, however, able to work and engage in normal social activity. Over a year and half after the cruise, she filed a complaint based on the physical injuries and mental pain and suffering she sustained while on board the ship. Defendant cruise ship argued that her action was time barred by the one-year contractual limitation provision specified in the contract of passage. The district court granted plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded her compensatory damages and punitive damages. Defendant cruise line sought review of an order granting plaintiff’s action in admiralty to recover damages for physical injuries and mental pain and suffering sustained while on board a ship.

Issue:

Did the district court err in granting plaintiff’s admiralty action to recover damages?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the district court's order granting plaintiff claimant judgment in an action in admiralty to recover damages for physical injuries and mental pain and suffering sustained while on board a ship because the court held that defendant failed to take reasonable steps to provide plaintiff with notice of important contractual limitations which it had a legal duty to do. Moreover, defendant was responsible for its crew's extreme and outrageous conduct. However, the court reversed the part of the judgment where plaintiff was awarded punitive damages since defendant was not liable for punitive damages as it did not authorize or ratify photographer's misbehavior.