"[A] a shipowner owes a duty of reasonable care to those aboard the ship who are not crew members." In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F.3d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir. 1998). Because Plaintiff was a non-crewmember aboard Defendant's ship, Defendant owed Plaintiff at least "a duty of reasonable care."
See Peters v. Titan Nav. Co., 857 F.2d 1342, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). “The degree of care required is always that which is reasonable, but the application of reasonable will of course change with the circumstances of each particular case.” In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F.3d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that a shipowner owes a duty of reasonable care to those aboard a ship who are not crew members).
By contrast, a heightened degree of care is required where the risk-creating condition is peculiar to the maritime context. See Catalina Cruises v. Luna, 137 F.3d 1422, 1425-26 (9th Cir. 1998)(concluding that "where the risk is great because of high seas, an increased amount of care and precaution is reasonable"); Kirk v. Holland American Line, 616 F.Supp. 2d 1101, 1105 (W.D. Wash. 2007)(declining to conclude that risks associated with disembarkation are not unique to cruises); Kearns v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1997 WL 729108, *2 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)(holding that "given the rough weather attending plaintiff's injury, [the defendant cruiseline] owed an enhanced duty of care to its passengers"). Defendants contend that HAL should not be held to a heightened standard of care because the potential to sustain injury during a charity walk is not unique to maritime travel.
As Plaintiffs suggest, Defendant's common carrier status may be relevant for purposes of determining what constituted "reasonable care under the circumstances." See In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F.3d 1422, 1425-26 (9th Cir. 1998); Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1983). However, because this is a maritime tort action for negligence, Defendant may only be held to a standard of reasonable care, not to the higher standard for common carriers.
The owner of a vessel owes a duty of reasonable care to all passengers. In re Catalina Cruises, 137 F.3d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir. 1998). As the Supreme Court has stated, "It is a settled principle of maritime law that a shipowner owes the duty of exercising reasonable care toward those lawfully aboard the vessel who are not members of the crew."
A carrier owes a "duty of reasonable care under the circumstances of each case" to those aboard the ship for legitimate purposes. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632 (1959); see also In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F.3d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir, 1998). Because the definition of reasonable care depends on the circumstances, it may be very high or something less. In re Catalina, 137 F.3d at 1425.
Under maritime law, the owner of a ship owes passengers a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 631-32 (1959); In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F.3d 1422, 1425-26 (9th Cir. 1998). Where the alleged negligence involves unique dangers inherent in maritime travel, those dangers are among the circumstances to consider when evaluating what is reasonable under an ordinary standard of care. Catalina Cruises, 137 F.3d at 1425.
It has been well-settled law since the Supreme Court's opinion in Kermarec that ship owners owe a duty of "reasonable care under the circumstances of each case" to all people on board the ship for legitimate purposes. Kermarec, 358 U.S. at 632, In re Catalina Cruises, Inc. v. Luna, 137 F.3d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir. 1998) (citingKermarec), Beard v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 900 F.2d 71, 73 (6th Cir. 1990) (same), Keefe, 867 F.2d at 1321 (same).Kermarec rejected the concept often used in land-based negligence claims of applying different standards of care depending on the licensee versus invitee status of the person injured.
Importantly, Kressly does not provide any circuit precedent to support her contention that, under the specific circumstances of this case, Oceania owed her a heightened standard of care. She refers to a Ninth Circuit case, Catalina Cruises v. Luna, 137 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1998), but mischaracterizes the court's holding. In that case, the court merely clarified that "where the risk is great because of high seas, an increased amount of care and precaution is reasonable."
The remaining questions are whether the Malleys owed Tau a duty of reasonable care and whether they breached that duty. Catalina Cruises, Inc. v. Luna, 137 F.3d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir. 1998) ( citing Kermarec, 358 U.S. at 630, 79 S.Ct. 406). Assuming there existed such a duty, Tau has failed to show that the Malleys are liable for his injuries because there is no evidence that the Malleys knew of the assailant's dangerous tendencies or that it was foreseeable he would harm someone.