## Facts

- Darce Carlisle sued on behalf of her minor daughter, Elizabeth Carlisle, a passenger aboard Carnival’s cruise ship *Ecstasy*.
- During the cruise, Elizabeth (age 14) developed abdominal and back pain with diarrhea and was treated repeatedly in the ship’s infirmary by the ship’s physician, Dr. Mauro Neri.
- Dr. Neri repeatedly advised the family that Elizabeth had the flu, assured them it was not appendicitis, and provided antibiotics.
- After leaving the cruise and returning home, Elizabeth was diagnosed with a ruptured appendix; surgical removal followed, and complications allegedly left her sterile.
- The complaint alleged (1) Dr. Neri’s medical negligence, (2) Carnival’s vicarious liability based on actual and apparent agency, and (3) negligent hiring by Carnival.
- Carnival’s passenger ticket contained a clause purporting to disclaim liability for negligence of the ship’s doctor.
- The physician’s contract and related arrangements included: a fixed weekly salary as the physician’s sole cruise income, performance under Carnival physician guidelines, required availability including emergencies, issuance of a ship’s uniform, Carnival’s power to dismiss for unsatisfactory performance, treatment of the physician as a ship officer, permission to use the physician’s name/likeness for marketing, and Carnival’s indemnity and control over defense of claims.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of Carnival’s relationship with the ship’s physician created a triable issue that the physician was Carnival’s actual agent, making Carnival potentially vicariously liable for alleged malpractice.
2. Whether Carnival could be vicariously liable under apparent agency based on how the physician was presented to passengers and passengers’ reliance on that presentation.
3. Whether the ticket’s liability-disclaimer clause barred, as a matter of law, claims seeking to hold Carnival liable for the ship’s doctor’s negligence.

## Decision

- The court reversed the summary judgment entered for Carnival.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence for a jury to find actual agency based on Carnival’s retained control and operational integration of the ship’s physician.
- The court held the record also supported a jury question on apparent agency, given how the physician was held out to passengers and the passengers’ potential reasonable reliance.
- The court rejected reliance on the ticket disclaimer to defeat liability at the summary judgment stage.
- The court remanded for further proceedings and certified to the Florida Supreme Court a question of great public importance on cruise-line vicarious liability for shipboard medical malpractice.

## Legal Principles

- Under maritime law, a passenger carrier owes passengers a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence permits competing inferences on whether an alleged tortfeasor acted as the carrier’s agent.
- Actual agency may be supported by evidence of the principal’s control over work conditions, termination authority, compensation structure, and integration into ship operations.
- Apparent agency may be established where the principal’s conduct holds out a service provider as its agent and a passenger reasonably relies on that representation in seeking care.
- A carrier’s contractual disclaimer in a passenger ticket does not necessarily eliminate, as a matter of law, potential liability where the duty of reasonable care and passenger reliance on ship-provided medical services are implicated.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence concerning Carnival’s control over, and presentation of, its shipboard physician could allow a jury to find actual or apparent agency, making vicarious liability possible, and that the ticket disclaimer did not warrant summary judgment; the case was remanded and a certified question on cruise-line liability for onboard medical malpractice was sent to the Florida Supreme Court.


Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)