Facts
- A 13-year-old passenger suffered a severe allergic reaction after eating shellfish aboard a cruise ship owned by Norwegian Cruise Line Limited.
- The ship’s physician, a nonresident of Florida, attempted multiple intubations; the child died before intubation was successfully completed.
- The incident occurred while the ship was 11.7 nautical miles east of Florida’s shore.
- Evidence indicated the western edge of the Gulf Stream was approximately 14 nautical miles off the Florida coast that day.
- The decedent’s parents filed a wrongful-death/medical-malpractice action in Florida state court against the cruise line and the ship’s doctor.
- The doctor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the conduct occurred outside Florida.
- The trial court dismissed the claims against the doctor, finding the event occurred outside Florida’s territorial waters; claims against the cruise line remained pending.
Issues
- Whether alleged medical malpractice occurring 11.7 nautical miles off Florida’s east coast, but shoreward of the Gulf Stream’s western edge, occurred within Florida’s territorial waters under the Florida Constitution.
- Whether, if within Florida’s territorial waters, the conduct constitutes “committing a tortious act within this state” sufficient for long-arm personal jurisdiction over a nonresident physician under § 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).
- Whether federal law or international law limits Florida’s territorial waters to three nautical miles for purposes of state-court personal jurisdiction.
Decision
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held the incident occurred within Florida’s territorial waters as defined by article II, section 1 of the Florida Constitution (to the edge of the Gulf Stream or three miles, whichever is greater).
- Because the alleged tort occurred “within this state,” Florida’s long-arm statute authorized personal jurisdiction over the nonresident physician.
- The court rejected arguments that the Submerged Lands Act or international law restricted Florida to a three-mile boundary for this jurisdictional question.
Legal Principles
- Florida’s long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident for claims arising from “committing a tortious act within this state.” § 48.193(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997).
- Florida’s Atlantic boundary extends to the Gulf Stream’s edge when that lies farther than three miles from the coastline. Fla. Const. art. II, § 1.
- If the tortious medical treatment occurred within Florida’s territorial boundaries, that fact satisfies the long-arm statute’s “within this state” requirement for jurisdiction.
- Federal law governing seabed/resource rights (including the Submerged Lands Act) does not bar Florida from applying its constitutional boundary definition to determine whether surface conduct occurred within the state for long-arm jurisdiction purposes.
Conclusion
The court held that alleged malpractice aboard a cruise ship 11.7 nautical miles off Florida’s east coast, but shoreward of the Gulf Stream, occurred within Florida’s territorial waters under the state constitution; thus, Florida courts could exercise long-arm personal jurisdiction over the nonresident ship’s doctor and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was reversed.