MARITIME/TRAVEL LAW

Leading Irish case is the decision of the Supreme Court in SCAIFE v. Falcon Leisure Group (Overseas) Limited [2008] 2 IR 359 (3 Judges) where female plaintiff slipped on liquid food substance on the hard marble floor measuring about 30 inches in diameter which, from its description, could properly be found by him to be a soup or a sauce which had fallen on the floor. She won in the High Court and the appeal by the defendant to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful with the Supreme Court stating
“The learned trial judge had before him evidence that the accident was a wholly foreseeable event on the part of the service supplier, the hotel in Spain, that they had in place a system which could have warned of the hazard and/or prevented the accident, but had not operated that system on the evening in question. In the circumstances, the learned High Court judge was entitled to find that the service in question was not supplied with reasonable skill and care. He was therefore correct to find for the Plaintiff. I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of the High Court.”
“The duty of care in tort arises from the proximity created by the contractual relationship. The duty extends to all matters concerning the safety, well being and comfort of the tourists which by the nature of the relationship between the tourists and those providing the service would or should be known to the latter but not to the former. … The defendants in this case were not insurers that nothing would happen to injure the plaintiff. Their obligation stops at taking all reasonable steps to ensure the safety and well being of their customers. … The test is what a reasonably prudent tour operator exercising reasonable care would consider necessary to inform those travelling with it.”

2. Winterthur Swiss Insurance Co v ICI 1990 ILRM P159

3. McMullen v. Ireland [ECHR 422 97/98. 29 July, 2004] – delays

4. Sheridan -v- Kelly & anor Supreme Court decision dated 06/04/2006 [2006] IESC 26
5. Kelly v. Cruise Catering Limited and Kloster Cruise Limited [1994] IESC 3; [1994] 2 ILRM 394 (5th July, 1994) Supreme Court “While it had been contended (by cruiseline) in the High Court that the action was based on tort rather than on contract, Geoghegan J’ s finding against the defendants on this issue was not appealed (by cruiseline).”
6. 2001 English Court of Appeal”cruise ship~large floating commercial enterprise where senior official onboard representing commercial interests of cruise operator=“purser”(hotel manager)who had authority to offer refund to passenger when his cabin refilled after guest left
7. “Regardless of contractual status ascribed to the doctor, for purposes of fulfilling the cruiseline’s duty to exercise reasonable care under #maritimelaw the ship’s doctor is an agent of the cruiseline whose negligence should be imputed to the cruise line.”Ref Carlisle v Carnival (Florida Supreme Court overturned this decision ///U.S. Supreme Court no ruling)
8. Lum v Carnival “Mr. Lum died of retching to death,”Peterson~family’s lawyer. Curtis Mase lawyer~Carnival said in court papers that company was not responsible, contending the death was act of God &Russell Lum’s own negligence contributed to his death and injuries.”
9. Nietes v. American President Lines, Ltd., 188 F.Supp. 219 (http://N.D.Cal .1959) ~the cruise line was held vicariously liable for the negligence of the ship’s doctor who was a member of the crew.
10. In this case the parents of Elizabeth Carlisle, a 14-year-old from Michigan, said she sustained lifelong health problems (including infertility) because a ship’s doctor failed for three days to recognize that her appendix had ruptured.
Cruiseline carrier under no duty to practice medicine but when it undertakes treatment of illness through medical services provided by it aboard ship it assumes duty to treat carefully &vicariously liable for medical malpractice of its doctor ref Carlisle v Carnival
11. Maritime Law embraces the principles of agency (including apparent agency) ref:Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. Inc v V. M/V Montmartre
12. 2016 English Court of Appeal(3 Judges)held failure of cruiseliners to properly implement Hygiene Plan led to passengers winning their claim for contracting Norovirus~Athens Conventions (established fault on part of cruiseline)ref:Swift&OrsvFOCL
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/785.html
13. Ship’s Master ignore a weather forecast of such cataclysmic magnitude and sail into that kind of storm
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160212005822/en/Royal-Caribbean-Cruise-Ship-Allegedly-Ignores-Weather
14. UK Claim won based on s.4 Supply of Goods&Services Act~contract for package holiday contains implied condition~food of satisfactory quality=>irrelevant no breach of local standards(as food contaminated¬ of satisfactory quality) ref: Antcliffe v Thomas Cook Tour Operator
15. Athens 2002 applies by operation of law if Art 2 criteria met&provision in contract seeking to impose lower limits of Athens 1974 will be invalid&passenger entitled to higher limits of Athens 2002 (Art 18).Legal costs&interest on damages additional to limits(Art 10)
16. Unfair terms in Cruise Contracts ref: Ferme & Ors v Kimberley Discovery Cruises Pty Ltd. ~clause permitting cruise company to cancel scheduled cruise&forfeit all fare paid was an ‘unfair term’ under the Australian Consumer Law&consequently void&unenforceable.

17. 2019 Kellett v RCL Cruises Ltd. & ors – Cruiseline took over defence on behalf of travel agent/operator and defeated the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for personal injuries using legalistic pleadings failing to give any expert or factual evidence on the liability aspects (only witness was medical expert in relation to the plaintiff’s injuries). High Court Judge Barr held that where a consumer participated in an “adrenaline” White Knuckle Jet Boat Thrill Ride on St. Maartens(involving 360 degree turns at speed) on the open seas they could not blame anyone where they fractured their elbow on this excursion which was deemed to be part and parcel of the “adrenaline” nature of the excursion. The Judge held the boat to be “in good seaworthy condition and was safe for the activities which were proposed for the excursion” from looking at a photo of boats on the website.
————————————–
AVIATION LAW
Art 5(1) of EC Regulation 261/2004 provides for compensation for passengers whose flight is cancelled