Lalonde v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 1:2018cv20809 - Document 47 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 42 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 1/9/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lalonde v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. Doc. 47 U NITED STA TES D ISTRICT C O U RT SO UTH ERN DISTR ICT O F FLO R IDA M IA M I D IVISIO N CA SE NO .1:18-CV -20809-JLK DENNIS A.LALONDE, Plaintiff, ROYAL CARRIBEAN CRUISES,LTD., a Liberian corporation, Defendant. ORDER GR ANTING DEFENDANT'S M OTION TO DISM ISS CO UNT 11O F PLAIN TIFF'S SEC O N D AM END ED CO M PL AIN T TH IS CA U SE com es before the C ourtupon Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises,Ltd.'s (ICRCCL'')M otion to DismissCount11ofPlaintiffsSecondAmended Complaint(DE 42),filed N ovem ber28, 2018.1 1. BAC K G RO U N D Thiscasearisesfrom PlaintiffsinjuryontheFlowRider,an amusementattractionon the deck oftheRCCL cruiseshipAllureoftheSeas in which an individualfirstlieson theirbelly andthenstandson akind ofsurfboard on i$athinsheetofwatergtlowingloverasloped surface (thatlsimulategslthesurfaceofawave''andmovestheindividualacrosstheFlowRider(DE 39, ! 12). Plaintit-fallegesthat,afterhisinstructoron theFlowlkidernegligently 1etgo ofhisright wrist,heiifellviolentlybackwardsontotheFlowlkiderg,thejwaterjetsgofwhich)thenpropelled him up into the wash-outzone wherehe violently struck the shortened back wall''(id.! 46), fracttlringavertebrainhisneck(id.!48).FollowinghissurgeryuponairlifttoahospitalinFort 1Plaintifffiled a Response in Opposition (DE 43)on Decelnberl2, 20l8' ,RCCL filed a Reply (DE 44) on Decem ber 19,20l8.Accordingly,thismatterisripe fordisposition. Dockets.Justia.com Lauderdale,Plaintiff alleges he continues to sufferfrom pain and lim ited m obility in his neck andweaknessinhisarms(id.!(49-50). CountIof Plaintiffs Seeond Amended Complaintis fornegligence and Count11isfor strictproductsliability allegingtheFlowlkiderhasadefectivedesign and defectivewarnings(id. al18,22,27).OnSeptember5,2018,theCourtgranted RCCL'SM otionto DismissCount11of PlaintiffsFirstAmendedComplaintforstrictproductsliability (DE 19),citingthat(1)Plaintiff Sifailled)to addresswhatmodifkationswere allegedly madeby (RCCLI,''and (2)dsplaintiffis unableto show thatLRCCL)sold ormanufactured theproductcontaining thedefed''Lid. Asthedismissalwaswithoutprejudice,Plaintifffiled hisSecond Amended Complaint(DE 39) on November7,2018. The Second Amended Com plaintaddressesthefirstofthedefectsidentified by the Court in alleging that RCCL made modifications to the FlowRider product that contributed to Plaintifpsinjuries' . 25. Unlikeland-based FlowRiders,Defendant'sFlowRideron the M /S A LLU RE O F TH E SEA S has a shortlkw ash-out''zone.Defendant m odified the FlowRider by shortening the length of the was-out zone in order to fit the FlowRider onto the deck ofits cruise ships.Due to the shorter length,a person who fallsispropelled intotheback wallatahigh velocity ... Defendant placed its FlowRiders on its cruise ships with no padding orothersafetydevices... 30. Padding system s and other safety features w ere in use on landbased FlowRidersand werereadily availableto Defendantto be incorporated into thedesign oftheshipboard FlowRiders. (DE 39).M oreover,PlaintiffallegesthatRCCL modifiedthewarningsontheFlowlkider,which also rendered theprodud defective(seeid.at!33-39).However,RCCL arguesthatPlaintiff's strict products liability claim is still insufficient w here he does not support his allegation that RCCL was isengaged in the business ofselling''the Flow Rider,as required by Section 402A of 2 the Restatement(Second)ofTorts(DE 42,at4). RCCL arguesthatCount11should now be dismissedwithprejudicelid at7). Il. DISCUSSIO N A. LegalStandard on M otionsto Dism iss TosurviveaRule 12(b)(6)motion todismiss,acomplaintmustincludedcenough factsto state aclaim toreliefthatisplausibleon itsface.'' BellAtl.Corp.v,Twombly,550 U.S.544, 570 (2007);Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). (iA claim has facialplausibility when the plaintiff pleads factualcontentthatallowsthe courtto draw the reasonable inference thatthe defendantisliable forthe misconductalleged.'' Ashcrop v.Iqbal,556 U.S.662,663 (2009). As a corollary, allegations absentsupporting facts are notentitled to this presumption ofveracity. 1d at681. W hen evaluating am otion to dismiss,the Courtmusttake a1lofthe well-pled factualallegations astrue.Id at664. However,dtthreadbare recitalsofthe elementsofacause ofaction,supported by mere conclusory statements,do notsuffice.''1d.at663. The Courtmustdism issa com plaint thatdoesnotpresentaplausibleclaim dem onstratingentitlem entto relief. B. StrictProducts Liability Strictproductsliability isrecognized 'daspal'tofthe generalm aritim e law .'' E.RiverS.S. Corp.v.Transamerica Delaval,lnc.,476 U.S.858,865-66,106 S.Ct.2295 (1986). The Restatement(Second)of Torts Section 402A definesthe claim of strictproducts liability as follow s: (1)Onewhosellsanyproductinadefectivecondition unreasonablydangerousto the userorconsumerorto hisproperty issubjectto liability forphysicalharm thereby caused to the ultim ate user or consum er,orto hisproperty, if (a)thesellerisengaged in thebusinessofsellingsuch aproduct,and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantialchangein thecondition in which itissold. (2)Therulestatedin Subsection(1)appliesalthough (a)thesellerhasexercised a1lpossiblecarein thepreparation and saleof hisproduct,and (b)the userorconsumerhasnotboughttheproductfrom orentered into any contractualrelation w ith the seller. Restatement(Second)ofTortsj 402A (Am.Law Inst.1965)(emphasisadded). Therefore,as courtshave recognized,the plaintiffneed notbe a buyerin privity ofcontractwith the seller. Pullum v.Cincinnati,Inc.,476 So.2d657,659--60 (F1a.1985).M oreover,itissettled law that entities upstream from the seller,including manufacturers and entities within the distribution chain which profitfrom itssale,are liable.See,e.g.,Aubin v.Union Carbide Corp., 177 So.3d 489,510-11 (Fla.2015). By defnition,a strictproductsliability claim appliesto sellersof products,ratherthanservices.Porterv.Rosenberg,650 So.2d79(F1a.4thDist.Ct.App,1995), . Restatement(Second)ofTortsj 402A cmt.a.(Gil-hisSection statesaspecialruleapplicable to sellersofproducts.''). C . Plaintifrs Strict Products Liability Claim D oes N ot Sufficiently A llege that R CC L Sold a Product RCCL arguesthatPlaintiffdoesnotstate a claim forstrictproductsliability in Countll, because he doesnotsufficiently allege the essentialelem entthatRCCL sold the FlowRiderafter m odifyingit. Itisfundamentalthata claim forstrictproductsliability requiresa sellertiengaged in the business ofselling''the product. Restatement (Second)ofTorts j 402A(1);see also Samuel Friedland Family Enters. v. Amoroso, 630 So.2d 1067, 1068 (F1a. 1994) ($( The underlying basis for the doctrine of strict liability is that those tntities within a produd's distributive chain who profitfrom the sale ordistribution of(the productlto the public should bearthe financialburdeng.l''). In contrastto a claim of simple negligence,a strict productsliability claim requiresthiselementregardlessofwhetherRCCL isa co-designerorco- m anufacturer of the FlowRider by virtue of m odifying it from land-based FlowRiders, as Plaintiffalleges(DE 39,!7,11,13,18,20,22,23,24,28,37,66,67,68,70,77).Apartfrom a conclusory allegation by PlaintiffthatRCCL tiplaced the Flow Rider w ith a m odified design onto theconsumermarketplace''(seeDE 39,! 24),Plaintiffallegesno factsto supportthatRCCL (thesoledefendantinthisaction)soldorresoldthevesselAllureofthek sktu---oritskdcomponent part''(DE 43,at10),themodified Flow Rider- to anyone,ratherthan selling aservicepackage toPlaintiffwhich included therightto accessand useprem isesitownsand controls. Plaintiffneverthelessarguesthatdûgblased upon EastRiver,Amoroso,and M orris,this Courtshould denyRCCL'SMotiontoDismissCount11''(DE 43,at17). First,Plaintiffcitesthe EastRiver Steamshtp case,which explains that (Cthe generalm aritim e law is an amalgam of traditionalcomm on-law rules,modifications ofthose rules,and newly created rules.'' E.River S.S.Corp.,476 U.S.at864-65.However,in incorporating thetol4ofstrictproductsliability into maritim e law,the high courtfirstnoted the historicalubiquity ofthis type ofclaim in federal maritime law. See id.at865 (stcoul'ts ofAppeals sitting in admiralty ovenvhelmingly have adoptedconceptsofproductsliability.''). In contrast,thetheory Plaintiffnow askstheCourtto adopt,thatRCCL modified the FlowRiderthatcaused Plaintiffs injury,butdid notsellthe FlowRider,ishistorically quitenovel. Plaintiff next analogizes to the Am oroso case from the Florida Suprem e Court,w hich held thata lease of a product,ratherthan a sale ofa product,was sufficientforthistort. See Amoroso,630 So.2d at 1071. ln thatcase,a plaintiffinjured by a sailboatwith a defective crossbar was held to state a claim for strict products liability claim against the com pany that leased him the sailboat,and againstthe hotelthatleased w aterfrontproperty to the sailboatrental company. f#. However, Plaintiffs assertion (nowhere present in his Second Amended Complaint)thatC'RCCL isengaged inthebusinessofleasing...the(modified)FlowRidertoits guests''(id at7)isnotsupportedby any allegationsthatapassengerusing the FlowRiderrents the FlowRiderasa product(i.e.,contractstopossessthe FlowRideraslessee). Amoroso does notholdthatamerepassengeron asailboatwho isinjured onthesailboatmayholdthesailboat ownerliableforstrictproductsliability by virtueofthe owner'sm oditicationstothe sailboat. Additionally,Plaintiffcites to M orris v.Royal Caribbean Cruises,Ltd ,Case N o.11- 23206-CIV-GRAHAM ,2012 W L 13013187 (S.D.Fla.Feb.7,2012),which held thata strict products liability claim against RCCL involving the very same product at issue here, the Flow Rider,w as properly alleged. M orris,20l2 W L 13013187,at *2. That case relied on a single case from the Louisiana Suprem eCourt,Straley v.C' alogneDrayage (Q.Storage,Inc.,346 S().2d 171(La.1977),inwhichabuildingtenant'semployeewasinjuredbyanelevatorthatthe building m odified from its original design. See Straley,346 So.2d at However,the Louisiana Suprem e Courtdid notdiscuss the com mon 1aw claim of strictproducts liability at issue here,butratherpremised its decision on dklaouisiana CivilCode articles2315 and 2316,'' id.,the firstofwhich pertaining to generalliability fordamages,and the second pertaining to negligence. ln contrast,RCCL cites three federaland state rulings that a claim for strictproducts liabilityisnotstatedwhere anamusementpark guestisinjuredon aland-basedamusementpark attraction. Sells v.Six Flags Over Texas,lnc.,N o.CIV .A .2:86-CV -1574-D , 1997 W L 527320, at*2 (N.D.Tex.Aug 14 1997);Bobrykv.fincolnAmusements,Inc.,No.CV9505470845,1996 W L 24566,at*4 (Conn.1996);Siciliano v.Capitol(7/y Shows,475 A.2d 19,25 (N.H.1985). The court in Sells noted that Slplaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not located, any authority forthe proposition thatSix Flags can be considered a (seller'of itsamusem entpark rideforthepurposesofliabilityunderj402A.''Sells,1997W L 527320,at*2. M oreover,Plaintiff cites no Florida or binding federalmaritime (Eleventh Circuitor SupremeCourt)casethatexpandsthelaw ofstrictproductsliabilityto encompassanentitythat m odifiesaproductbutisnotin the businessofselling itoreven renting itoutasaproduct,and theCotu'tisunaware ofany such precedent. III.C O N CLU SIO N W ith hisSecond Am ended Complaint,PlaintiffallegesmodificationsRCCL made to the FlowRiderhe used thatcontributed to his injury,butoffersno supportforhis allegation that RCCL is engaged in the business of selling the m odified Flow Rider so that it m ay be strictly liable as a productseller,as distinctfrom its liability undera theory ofsimple negligence,nor hasPlaintiffoffered asufficientbasisfortheCourtto extend the tortto encompassthefactshere. Therefore,Defendant's instantM otion to Dismiss Count11 is meritorious. Accordingly,it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that RCCL'S M otion to Dism iss Count 11 of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (DE 42) is hereby GRANTED, and Count 11 of PlaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaint(DE 39)isherebyDISM ISSED withprejudice. DONE and O RDERED in cham bers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United StatesCourthouse,M iami,Florida,this9th day ofJanuary,2019. < J M ES LA W CE K IN G ITED STA TES DISTR ICT JU SO U TH ERN DISTRICT OF FLO RID A cc: A llCounselofR ecord
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
