Gerald E. Samuels and his children were passengers on a Holland American Line cruise, during which they visited Lover’s Beach in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. While swimming in the Pacific Ocean at this location, Samuels was severely injured due to turbulent waves. He subsequently sued Holland American, claiming the cruise line failed to warn him of the swimming dangers. The district court granted summary judgment for Holland American, determining that the ocean's conditions were open and obvious and that there was no evidence of hazardous conditions or prior incidents at the beach. Samuels appealed the decision.
The background details reveal that Samuels, unfamiliar with Cabo San Lucas, received assurances from Holland American staff about visiting Lover’s Beach. Upon arrival, he arranged for skiff transport to the beach, which has no lifeguards or warning signs. After initially wading in the Sea of Cortez, Samuels observed other swimmers in the Pacific Ocean and, believing the conditions safe, entered the water. He soon experienced a violent underwater incident, resulting in severe neurological injuries and his classification as a high-functioning quadriplegic. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Holland American.
Holland America had been operating cruises to Cabo San Lucas for 27 years, with approximately 96,000 passengers visiting in 2008. According to sworn declarations from the company's Risk Management and Fleet Security directors, there were no claims or complaints related to swimming at the Pacific Ocean side of Lover’s Beach, nor were there any warnings from other cruise companies or Mexican authorities regarding swimming risks. Holland America does not own property at Lover’s Beach and lacks control over independent tour operators and water taxis at the local pier.
After sustaining injuries, Samuels sued Holland America for negligence, claiming the cruise staff failed to warn him of swimming dangers, which he asserts would have prevented his entry into the ocean. Holland America filed for summary judgment. In response, Samuels presented expert declarations from Dwight Hutchinson and Karin Larson. Hutchinson, a former cruise line industry manager, had no recent experience with Cabo San Lucas and relied on limited internet research and conversations with former colleagues. He claimed knowledge of the dangers at Lover’s Beach but could not provide supporting evidence or examples of other injuries.
Larson, with extensive travel industry experience, confirmed the known dangers of swimming at Lover’s Beach due to hazardous currents caused by the confluence of the Pacific Ocean and Sea of Cortez. She stated that it was common practice in the travel industry to advise against swimming on the Pacific side, emphasizing that this knowledge has been prevalent for years.
Larson's declaration lacked information on the source of her knowledge or how she reached her conclusions, and Samuels failed to provide evidence contradicting Holland American's officials’ sworn statements that no claims or complaints had been received about the Pacific Ocean side of Lover’s Beach prior to Samuels’s injuries. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Holland American, striking key parts of Hutchinson’s and Larson’s declarations. Hutchinson was deemed unqualified as an expert due to insufficient personal knowledge about Lover’s Beach and a lack of training in beach safety, along with outdated experience in Cabo San Lucas shore excursions. Larson’s declaration was also stricken for failing to establish her qualifications as an expert on cruise line safety standards. The court determined there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Holland American's duty to warn, concluding that the ocean conditions at Lover’s Beach were open and obvious, and there was no evidence of hazardous conditions or prior accidents. On appeal, Samuels argues that the district court improperly excluded Hutchinson's and Larson's testimony, erred in finding no evidence of hazardous conditions, and wrongly concluded that those conditions were open and obvious. The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo, and the court must favor the nonmoving party while assessing whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. The district court's exclusion of expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is based on a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual assessment. Expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702 if it is based on sufficient facts, reliable principles, and methods, and if the witness applies these reliably to the facts.
The district court serves as a gatekeeper, assessing the validity of expert testimony's reasoning and methodology in relation to the facts at hand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93). This responsibility extends to all forms of expert testimony, not solely scientific (United States v. Hermanek, 289 F.3d 1076, 1093). Expert knowledge must transcend mere belief or speculation (Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590), and the applicable Daubert factors vary based on the issue, the expert's expertise, and the subject matter (Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 150).
In the present case, the district court excluded expert declarations from Samuels’s witnesses regarding the dangers of entering the Pacific Ocean at Lover’s Beach, citing Hutchinson's lack of supporting materials or inquiries to other cruise lines about warnings, and his outdated knowledge since leaving Cruise West in 2000. His limited research, consisting mainly of a brief internet search and phone calls, justified the court's decision to strike his declaration. Similarly, Larson's declaration, while noting her 30 years in the travel industry, lacked specificity about the information she relied upon and did not establish her qualifications as an expert on Lover’s Beach dangers. Thus, the district court rightly excluded significant portions of her declaration due to insufficient supporting evidence.
For a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages (Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1070). Ship owners owe a duty of reasonable care to onboard individuals (Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632). The standard of care varies based on the unique dangers of maritime travel compared to everyday life (Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F.2d 169, 172), as illustrated by a case where an injury from a stool on a dance floor did not meet these criteria, leading to dismissal.
A carrier, such as Holland American, is only liable for a plaintiff's claim if it has actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition, as established in Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc. In the case at hand, involving Samuels's injury while wading at Lover’s Beach, the facts indicate that this activity was not uniquely maritime. There was no evidence that Holland American was aware of any danger associated with swimming in that area, nor had any other passengers reported injuries during the 96,000 visits to Cabo San Lucas that year. The absence of prior incidents, coupled with the striking of key expert declarations by Samuels, led to the conclusion that Holland American lacked the required notice of danger. Consequently, the court found no duty to warn Samuels about swimming there. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Holland American, rendering further examination of potential dangers at the location unnecessary.
