Albert Kornberg and Laura Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.

Citations: 741 F.2d 1332; 40 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 105; 1985 A.M.C. 826; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18511Docket: 83-5221

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; September 18, 1984; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Albert and Laura Kornberg filed a class action lawsuit against Carnival Cruise Lines, claiming damages due to the sanitary system failures on the TSS Tropicale during a Caribbean cruise. The district court denied class certification, citing insufficient class size and atypicality of the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court dismissed the suit on summary judgment, referencing disclaimers in the passage contract. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded the class certification for further consideration, determining the reasons for denial were inadequate.

Discovery revealed that the Tropicale experienced sanitary issues on the cruise and prior voyages, with 18% of surveyed passengers reporting toilet complaints. The plaintiffs asserted diversity of citizenship and admiralty jurisdiction, with maritime law governing the case.

As a common carrier, Carnival has a heightened duty to its passengers, which includes providing reasonable comforts and avoiding unnecessary suffering. Breaches of this duty constitute maritime torts, and while a carrier is not an insurer, it is liable for negligence. Carnival attempted to negate its responsibilities using disclaimers in the passenger contract.

The Carrier is not liable for any loss of life, personal injury, or delays, regardless of cause, including negligence by its employees. There are no implied warranties regarding the seaworthiness or condition of the Vessel. If the voyage is disrupted due to various factors (e.g., war, labor strikes, vessel breakdowns), passengers and their baggage may be disembarked at any port, at which point the Carrier's responsibility ceases, and the contract is considered fulfilled. 

The document outlines three disclaimers: liability for negligence, seaworthiness, and performance interruptions. While disclaimers are generally enforceable if adequately disclosed, broad disclaimers like those in this case lack judicial support. Notably, 46 U.S.C.A. Sec. 183c invalidates any contract terms limiting a ship owner's liability for negligence towards passengers, reinforcing that such disclaimers are void as against public policy. 

Carnival's reliance on the disclaimer of seaworthiness is flawed. This disclaimer does not align with Carnival's obligations as a common carrier and, if construed as a waiver of duty, would also be void. The warranty of seaworthiness applies traditionally to cargo and seamen, not passengers, meaning any claims by passengers cannot be based on unseaworthiness, rendering the disclaimer irrelevant.

Carnival's disclaimer of seaworthiness is ineffective as it undermines public policy. A sea carrier cannot entirely relinquish its obligations to the public, as established in Liverpool and Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance Co., where it was noted that exemptions that negate essential duties are unacceptable. The carrier must maintain a clean vessel and ensure safe shuttle services during voyages, as these are essential functions. Additionally, a failure to warn of hazards constitutes negligent conduct, which cannot be contracted away under Section 183c. The analysis of warranty responsibilities in product sales, as per Miller Industries v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., indicates that a seller's duty to warn about known defects is a matter of public policy, paralleling the shipowner's obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel. Carnival's disclaimers do not pertain to its duty to provide adequate accommodations, therefore the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment to Carnival.

Regarding class action status, a federal district court initially certified the class but later decertified it after transferring the case to Florida, citing a failure to satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity and typicality. The court determined that only 30 passengers met the notice requirement within the stipulated 185 days, and since the plaintiffs lacked authorization from the other passengers, the suit did not serve as adequate notice. This decision stands unless deemed an abuse of discretion.

Filing a class action initiates the suit for the entire class concerning the statute of limitations, regardless of individual awareness. There is no distinction between contractual and statutory limitations, and the plaintiffs met the numerosity requirement. A district court previously ruled that the plaintiffs were atypical representatives due to their specific experiences with a malfunctioning toilet, noting that many passengers reported satisfaction with their cruise. For class representation, claims or defenses must be typical of the class, meaning they must arise from the same event and legal theory, though not necessarily identical. The plaintiffs' claims are typical as they stem from a single event and share the same legal theory, and variations in damages do not impact typicality. The district court's concern regarding the broad class definition is noted, but this only necessitates a limitation of the class rather than decertification. The court's orders to decertify the class action are reversed and remanded for further determination of compliance with other class action requirements under Rule 23.