Duarte v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duarte v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

761 So. 2d 367, 2000 A.M.C. 1516, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3961, 2000 WL 347570

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-160

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 761 So. 2d 367 (Duarte v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duarte v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 761 So. 2d 367, 2000 A.M.C. 1516, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3961, 2000 WL 347570 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

NESBITT, Senior Judge.

Appellant is a seaman who had been receiving maintenance and cure in Miami for several months when she was seriously injured in an automobile accident. After Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd. (RCCL) refused to pay her maintenance and cure for expenses arising from this accident, the Appellant filed this suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RCCL. We reverse.

Maintenance and cure is an ancient duty under the law of admiralty that arises against a shipowner in favor of a seaman who becomes ill, injured, or incapacitated, or whose condition becomes aggravated or enhanced for any reason, at least until the time that the seaman has achieved maximum medical recovery. See Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962). Admiralty courts have traditionally been liberal in interpreting the scope of this duty. Id. at 531-32, 82 S.Ct. 997. The seamen are wards of the court and maintenance and cure should be afforded as long as there is any ambiguity or uncertainty about the continuation of that status. Id. “The nature and foundations of the liability require that it be not narrowly confined or whittled down by restrictive and artificial distinctions defeating its broad and beneficial purposes.” Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 735, 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107 (1943).

In the instant case, the Appellant was receiving maintenance and cure at the time of the accident because she had yet to obtain maximum medical recovery. Under such a situation, a seaman is still in the service of the ship and thus entitled to maintenance and cure for the additional injuries incurred. To hold otherwise would fly in the face of the long standing principles enunciated above. Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to RCCL is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NESBITT, Senior Judge.

Appellant is a seaman who had been receiving maintenance and cure in Miami for several months when she was seriously injured in an automobile accident. After Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd. (RCCL) refused to pay her maintenance and cure for expenses arising from this accident, the Appellant filed this suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RCCL. We reverse.

Maintenance and cure is an ancient duty under the law of admiralty that arises against a shipowner in favor of a seaman who becomes ill, injured, or incapacitated, or whose condition becomes aggravated or enhanced for any reason, at least until the time that the seaman has achieved maximum medical recovery. See Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962). Admiralty courts have traditionally been liberal in interpreting the scope of this duty. Id. at 531-32, 82 S.Ct. 997. The seamen are wards of the court and maintenance and cure should be afforded as long as there is any ambiguity or uncertainty about the continuation of that status. Id. “The nature and foundations of the liability require that it be not narrowly confined or whittled down by restrictive and artificial distinctions defeating its broad and beneficial purposes.” Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 735, 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107 (1943).

In the instant case, the Appellant was receiving maintenance and cure at the time of the accident because she had yet to obtain maximum medical recovery. Under such a situation, a seaman is still in the service of the ship and thus entitled to maintenance and cure for the additional injuries incurred. To hold otherwise would fly in the face of the long standing principles enunciated above. Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to RCCL is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 367, 2000 A.M.C. 1516, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3961, 2000 WL 347570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duarte-v-royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack