Assignment 1- Jurisdiction and Litigation
Uwem E. Akangson
Argosy University Online
B7616 G01| International Business Law & Practice
Module 2 Assignment 1
Group A: Uwem Akangson & Stephanie Ardrey
Dr. Russel Riggs
14th May, 2016
Brief by Group A:
a. Party: Carson Jones (the Plaintiff).
b. Facts: Sometime on or about June 15, 2006, the Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen who resides in California being desirous of embarking on a Caribbean cruise from Miami, Florida contracted with the Defendant Messrs. Italian Cruise Ships, (though an Italian corporation) maintains a sales and marketing office in Miami, Florida out of which the Plaintiff purchased ticket for the Caribbean cruise which ticket was issued out of the Defendant’s Miami, Florida’s office. Furthermore, the Defendant indeed carried internet advertising and marketing brochures which contains a U.S. phone number and mailing address. The Defendant in discharging its contractual obligation to the Plaintiff was reckless in trying to ferry the Plaintiff and other passengers from the ship in a small boat to the port of Acapulco which capsized and thereby causing grievously injuring the Plaintiff (and other passengers). The plaintiff arising from the Defendant’s reckless conduct suffered a broken arm and loss of two toes severed from his right foot by a sharp object. The Plaintiff has suffered loss or business, grievous bodily hurt and a breach of contract from the Defendant’s reckless conduct who has failed to discharge its contractual obligation thereunder.
c. Issue 1: Negligent and or reckless breach of contract by the Defendant causing grievous bodily hurt, loss of limbs to the Plaintiff.
d. Arguments: The Plaintiff entered into a contractual relationship with the Defendant in Miami, Florida to take the Plaintiff on a Caribbean cruise from Miami, Florida. By virtue of 28 U.S. Part IV. Cap. 87 S. 1391 (b) & (d), the court in Miami, Florida has jurisdiction to determine this cause of action because the contract was entered into wholly in Miami, Florida and the Defendant by virtue of its Miami, Florida office where the Plaintiff’s ticket was issued, resides and carries on business within the jurisdiction of Miami, Florida and has therefore submitted to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida to adjudicate on the cause of action. The cause of action is breach of contract because the Defendant contracted to take the Plaintiff on a Caribbean cruise but has breached that contract and in the process occasioned grievous bodily injuries to the Plaintiff. In the celebrated case of Dillon. v. Admiral Cruises Inc. (1992) a case of a passenger involved in an accident while on a cruise. The court held that the cruise liner may be estopped from relying on the time limitation to commence a legal action. In relying on this case, I therefore submit that the Defendant should be estopped from relying on Section 13 of the contract on time limit for noticing claims and filing and service of law suits on the grounds of equity, natural justice and good conscience. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to have his case heard in the District Court of Miami, Florida to substantiate a case of breach of contract, recklessness occasioning grievous bodily harm to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Section 3(6) of the Shipping Act of 1984 46 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(6) is very clear on strict liability as being available and applicable in cruise ship injury cases. The law states that the cruise ship is duty bound to show care and discharge same in ensuring that every passenger who boards a ship especially from the U.S. soil must be protected from any kind of harm or injury for the duration of the cruise until the passenger safely gets to their destination failing which the ship cruiser is liable under this provision. This provision of the law was followed in the case of New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brockett (1887) as well as the case of Holland America Cruises, Inc. v. Underwood (1985) where it was also held that common carrier has strict liability to protect passengers from crime and injury or hurt on ships.
e. Issue 2: Insurance Claims/Compensation to the Plaintiff.
f. Argument: All cruise boats by law are entitled to be insured and by passengers buying the tickets to embark on a cruise, the passengers are contractually covered under the insurance policy in the event of injury, loss of limbs or death to be so covered and are entitled to be indemnified accordingly. The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission has stated that every passenger who embarks on a ship cruise from US soil is covered by insurance and the ship owner is entitled to discharge the contractual obligation by indemnifying the Plaintiff who in the course of the cruise has suffered broken arm and lost two toes as a result of the recklessness and negligence of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to claim under the Admiralty Laws governing the issuance of insurance to cover all passengers on a ship or boat cruise in the event of an accident occasioning injury or death.
g. Conclusion: Accordingly, therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim and to succeed under his claims against the Defendant under the strict liability rule for breach of contract of care, where the Defendant failed to ensure that the Plaintiff reached his destination safely and return on the Caribbean cruise. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is covered by insurance policy against injury or death occasioned by the accident and should therefore be reinstated to the position he was physically, medically and financially before the accident. The Defendant has caused the Plaintiff a lot of stress and emotionally trauma leading to his disability by the loss of limbs which cannot be adequately compensated for in damages alone. The Defendant should undertake medical bills to ensure that the Plaintiff has artificial limbs that could assuage his physical disability and emotional trauma as a result of the accident. The Plaintiff therefore claims USD$1,000,000.00 (One Million Dollars) only as compensation in addition to all the medical bills to be incurred for surgeries resulting here from. The Plaintiff’s case has merit on all ramifications.
References:
Dillon v. Admiral Cruises, Inc. (1992) 960 F.2d 743, 746 (8th Cir. 1992)
Holland America Cruises v. Underwood (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1885) 470 So.2d 19, 20.
New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brockett (1887) 121 U.S. 637, 645-646.
sunshyne33
m2_a1_akangson_groupa_brief.docx
