Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

تمرين 1

E H Cruises, Ltd. v. Baker 88 So.3d 291 (Fla. App. 2012)
Slips-and-Falls on Pirate Ships: A Jurisdictional Problem
Facts
Patricia Baker (plaintiff) was a passenger aboard the MV Mariner of the Seas , which was operated by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Inc. ("RCCL"). Ms. Baker purchased a ticket to participate in a mock pirate ship excursion tour in the Cayman Islands. The Excursion Tour was operated by E H Cruises, Ltd., a Cayman Islands corporation. While transferring to the mock pirate ship, Ms. Baker was injured. She filed suit against RCCL and E H (defendants) under various theories of liability. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendants appealed.
Judicial Opinion
CORTIÑAS, Judge
When determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over a non-resident defendant, the trial court conducts a two-step inquiry. The trial court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient jurisdictional facts in the complaint such that the action is within the ambit of Florida's long-arm statute. For the second step, the trial court must make a determination as to "whether 'sufficient minimum contacts exist between Florida and the defendant to satisfy due process requirements.'"
Although E H's principal admitted to traveling to Miami on more than one occasion for the purpose of attending an annual Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association ("FCCA") charity dinner, he specified that he had "attended that … more on [his] personal behalf." He acknowledged that he has also "been to a few of the FCCA conventions that they hold on the different islands every year." Mere attendance at fundraisers that happen to be held in Miami, particularly where it is acknowledged that related events are held "on the different islands every year" does not meet the statutorily required threshold of "continuous and systematic contacts" with Florida.
Furthermore, the fact that E H utilized a Florida broker to obtain an insurance policy, which covered only potential claims arising out of its activities outside of the United States, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
At no time did E H maintain any offices or employees in Florida, own any assets or real estate in Florida, or directly sell any of its services in Florida. E H did not advertise in Florida. Accordingly, we do not find the requisite "systematic and continuous" contact with Florida necessary for general jurisdiction.
Plaintiff argues that RCCL and E H entered into a Tour Operator Agreement in relation to the pirate excursions and that E H thereby was conducting business in Florida through an agency or joint venture relationship with RCCL. The Tour Operator Agreement specifies that E H "acknowledges that the control and responsibility of the Shore Excursion remains exclusively with E H." RCCL has no control over, nor say in, how the Excursion Tours are operated. [T]here can [is] no joint venture between E H and RCCL for purposes of determining personal jurisdiction.
[T]he Tour Operator Agreement clearly specifies that E H is an independent contractor and, again, the plaintiff simply cannot show that RCCL had any control over E H's actions with respect to how the Excursion Tours were operated, or vice-versa.
We further note that the mere fact that tickets to E H's Excursion Tours are available for purchase in Florida through RCCL is also insufficient to constitute "[o]perating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture."
The plaintiff was not a resident of Florida, the injury occurred in the territorial waters of the Cayman Islands, and there was no property involved in the plaintiff's injury that was located within Florida at the time of contracting.
The plaintiff further asserts that personal jurisdiction may be found pursuant to the indemnification provision found in the Tour Operator Agreement. The plaintiff, however, overlooks that she was not a party to that agreement, [therefore] she cannot use same as a basis for jurisdiction.
Reversed and remanded.
Case Questions
1. List the factual issues Ms. Baker raised in trying to establish jurisdiction.
2. What factors did the court determine were important in denying jurisdiction?
3. What did you learn about your rights as a traveler on an off-shore excursion?