Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines A/S v. Caproli

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines A/S v. Caproli

534 So. 2d 913, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2689, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5435, 1988 WL 131680

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1988

DocketNo. 87-475

StatusPublished

This text of 534 So. 2d 913 (Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines A/S v. Caproli) 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

Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines A/S v. Caproli, 534 So. 2d 913, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2689, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5435, 1988 WL 131680 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines A/S and Poseidon Services, Ltd., seek reversal of a judgment awarding appellee Sesto Caproli prejudgment interest.

Appellee filed an action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A.App. § 688 (West 1986), and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure claims against appellants, his employers, after he fell during stormy seas and suffered injuries. Pursuant to a jury verdict, the trial court ■ entered judgment on the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claim and a separate judgment on the maintenance and cure claim. This court affirmed. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, A/S v. Caproli, 492 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Subsequently, the court awarded appellee prejudgment interest on both judgments.

The order granting the motion for prejudgment interest stated that the court “not[ed] the agreement of counsel in open court, that this Court has discretion to make such awards.” Appellants disputed the stipulation and the court’s discretion in a motion to vacate the order. The trial court denied appellants’ motion.

Because the record reflects that appellants agreed to the judgment, they are not entitled to review. See, e.g., Cannon Sand & Rock, Inc. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 203 So.2d 636, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (review is precluded “under the established principle that one may not seek review of a judgment entered with his consent or under which he has accepted benefits.”). Cf. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. G & J Inv. Corp., 13 F.L.W. 2510 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 15,1988) (party may not agree to order and then attempt to recover damages for its wrongful issuance). Accordingly, we do not address the issue of appellee’s right to prejudgment interest.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines A/S and Poseidon Services, Ltd., seek reversal of a judgment awarding appellee Sesto Caproli prejudgment interest.

Appellee filed an action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A.App. § 688 (West 1986), and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure claims against appellants, his employers, after he fell during stormy seas and suffered injuries. Pursuant to a jury verdict, the trial court ■ entered judgment on the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claim and a separate judgment on the maintenance and cure claim. This court affirmed. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, A/S v. Caproli, 492 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Subsequently, the court awarded appellee prejudgment interest on both judgments.

The order granting the motion for prejudgment interest stated that the court “not[ed] the agreement of counsel in open court, that this Court has discretion to make such awards.” Appellants disputed the stipulation and the court’s discretion in a motion to vacate the order. The trial court denied appellants’ motion.

Because the record reflects that appellants agreed to the judgment, they are not entitled to review. See, e.g., Cannon Sand & Rock, Inc. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 203 So.2d 636, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (review is precluded “under the established principle that one may not seek review of a judgment entered with his consent or under which he has accepted benefits.”). Cf. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. G & J Inv. Corp., 13 F.L.W. 2510 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 15,1988) (party may not agree to order and then attempt to recover damages for its wrongful issuance). Accordingly, we do not address the issue of appellee’s right to prejudgment interest.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 So. 2d 913, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2689, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5435, 1988 WL 131680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-caribbean-cruise-lines-as-v-caproli-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack