## Facts

- Margarita Tello, as personal representative of her son Jose Miguel Pietri Tello’s estate, sued Royal Caribbean after Jose fell overboard from the *Liberty of the Seas* in January 2011 and drowned.
- Jose, who had recently turned twenty-one, spent the night at a ship bar/dance club where bartenders allegedly served him multiple alcoholic beverages until he became intoxicated.
- Around 3:00 a.m., he left the club allegedly inebriated and disoriented and wandered the ship.
- Around 3:30 a.m., he encountered a crewmember cleaning a game room on an ocean deck; the crewmember allegedly recognized Jose appeared intoxicated and that “something was wrong,” but did not assist him.
- Jose then walked onto an open deck and allegedly tried twice to reenter the ship’s interior, but the doors he attempted to open were locked.
- Sometime thereafter, Jose fell overboard. His body was not recovered.
- The amended complaint alleged negligence based on overserving alcohol, failing to monitor or assist an intoxicated passenger, unsafe or inadequate railings and access controls, and inadequate safety and rescue practices.

## Issues

1. Whether the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) governed and supplied the exclusive wrongful death remedy, thereby limiting recoverable damages to pecuniary losses.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged maritime negligence claims against the cruise line under a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.
3. Whether the complaint adequately pled direct negligence and vicarious liability (respondeat superior) theories for the conduct of bartenders and crewmembers.
4. Whether ancillary negligence theories (including negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision) and demands for non-pecuniary damages were legally barred or insufficiently pled.

## Decision

- The court granted the cruise line’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court permitted core DOHSA-based wrongful death negligence claims to proceed, including direct and vicarious negligence theories, based on plausible allegations of breach and causation.
- The court treated DOHSA as controlling and limited recovery to DOHSA-permitted pecuniary losses, dismissing or limiting requests for non-pecuniary damages.
- The court dismissed or required more specific factual allegations for certain institutional-negligence counts (such as negligent hiring/supervision) to the extent the pleading was conclusory regarding notice, unfitness, or similar elements.

## Legal Principles

- For deaths caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas, DOHSA provides the exclusive wrongful death remedy against the vessel owner and restricts recovery to beneficiaries’ pecuniary losses.
- In maritime passenger cases, a cruise line owes passengers a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.
- At the pleading stage, allegations of overservice of alcohol, observable intoxication, crew inaction after noticing distress, unsafe conditions affecting access and fall prevention, and inadequate monitoring or rescue measures can plausibly allege breach and foreseeability sufficient to survive dismissal.
- A carrier may be vicariously liable under respondeat superior for shipboard employees’ negligent acts within the scope of employment, including bartending service and passenger-facing operational conduct.
- Claims for negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision require factual allegations supporting the employer’s knowledge (actual or constructive) of an employee’s unfitness or prior problems; conclusory assertions may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Conclusion

The court allowed the estate’s principal maritime negligence claims to proceed under DOHSA based on plausible allegations that Royal Caribbean’s shipboard practices and employees’ conduct contributed to the overboard death, but it enforced DOHSA’s exclusivity and pecuniary-loss limitation by trimming claims and damage requests that were inconsistent with that remedial scheme or insufficiently pled.


Tello v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 939 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2013)