K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 1 of 19
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14237
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-25157-KMM
K.T.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 24, 2019)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
ED CARNES, Chief Judge:
According to the complaint in this case, on the day after Christmas in 2015,
K.T. embarked on a seven-day Royal Caribbean cruise with her two sisters and her
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 2 of 19
grandparents. She was a minor at the time. 1 She alleges that on the first night of
the cruise, a group of nearly a dozen adult male passengers bought multiple
alcoholic beverages for her in a public lounge and other public areas of the ship.
They plied her with enough alcohol that she became “highly intoxicated,”
“obviously drunk, disoriented, and unstable,” and “obviously incapacitated.” The
group of nearly a dozen men then steered her “to a cabin where they brutally
assaulted and gang raped her.”
She also alleges that everything (other than the assault and gang rape)
happened in the view of multiple Royal Caribbean crewmembers, including those
responsible for monitoring the ship’s security cameras. But Royal Caribbean’s
crewmembers allegedly did nothing to stop the group of adult male passengers
from buying alcohol for K.T., from getting her drunk, or from leading her away to
a cabin while she was incapacitated. They allegedly did nothing to protect or help
her.
1
While the complaint and amended complaints allege that K.T. was a minor when the
events took place on December 26, 2015, they do not otherwise specify her age on that date.
When she filed her Third Amended Complaint on November 7, 2017, K.T. alleged that she was
at least 18 years old by that date, which would mean that she had been 16 or 17 when the events
occurred. In various submissions to the district court and in her opening brief to this Court,
however, K.T. asserted that she was only 15 on the day in question. In any event, according to
all of the relevant allegations and assertions, K.T. was a minor, somewhere between the ages of
15 and 17 at the time of the cruise.
2
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 3 of 19
K.T. sued Royal Caribbean and the district court dismissed her lawsuit under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.
This is her appeal.
I.
This Court “review[s] de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to
dismiss under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.” Butler v. Sheriff of Palm
Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).
When doing that, “we accept the factual allegations supporting a claim as true and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.” Newton v. Duke
Energy Fla., LLC, 895 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2018). To get past a motion to
dismiss, “[t]he plaintiff’s [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Butler, 685 F.3d at 1265 (second
alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). Stated a bit differently, “[t]o
survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
The operative complaint 2 included more claims, but the only ones relevant to
this appeal are for Royal Caribbean’s negligence, both in failing to warn
2
In its order dismissing K.T.’s claims against Royal Caribbean, the district court treated
her Second Amended Complaint as the operative one. K.T. filed her Third Amended Complaint
3
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 4 of 19
passengers and prospective passengers of the danger of sexual assault on a cruise
ship, and in failing to take action to prevent the physical assault, including the
sexual assault, that K.T. suffered. The district court found that K.T.’s negligence
claims against Royal Caribbean failed because they did not sufficiently allege that
Royal Caribbean breached its duty of care or that any breach proximately caused
her injuries. Reviewing the matter anew, as we must, we conclude otherwise.
II.
“In analyzing a maritime tort case, we rely on general principles of
negligence law.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir.
2012) (quotation marks omitted). 3 “To plead negligence, a plaintiff must allege
that (1) the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury;
(2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach actually and proximately
caused the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm.” Id.“Determination of negligence tends to be a fact-intensive inquiry highly dependent
while this appeal was pending to clear up any doubt about diversity jurisdiction. There is no
material difference between the Second and Third Amended Complaints as far as the negligence
claims against Royal Caribbean are concerned. We will treat the Third Amended Complaint as
the operative one because it is the last one.
3
“[F]or federal common law to apply” in a diversity case like this one, the “suit must also
be sustainable under the admiralty jurisdiction.” Norfolk. S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 23,
125 S. Ct. 385, 392–93 (2004) (emphasis omitted). This one is. See Doe v. Celebrity Cruises,
Inc., 394 F.3d 891, 900–02 (11th Cir. 2004). So we apply federal admiralty law, which is the
law “argued by the parties.” Id. at 902.
4
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 5 of 19
upon the given circumstances.” Souran v. Travlers Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 1497, 1506
(11th Cir. 1993).
K.T. has sufficiently alleged that she suffered actual harm. And the parties
agree that Royal Caribbean owed K.T. a duty of “ordinary reasonable care under
the circumstances, a standard which requires, as a prerequisite to imposing
liability, that the carrier have had actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating
condition, at least where, as here, the menace is one commonly encountered on
land and not clearly linked to nautical adventure.” Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line,
Inc., 867 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Kermarec v. Compagnie
Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 630, 79 S. Ct. 406, 409 (1959) (“[A]
shipowner owes the duty of exercising reasonable care towards those lawfully
aboard the vessel who are not members of the crew.”); Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas)
Ltd., 920 F.3d 710, 720 (11th Cir. 2019) (“In this circumstance, a cruise ship
operator’s liability hinges on whether it knew or should have known about the
dangerous condition.”) (quotation marks omitted). The scope of Royal
Caribbean’s duty to protect its passengers is informed, if not defined, by its
knowledge of the dangers they face onboard. And it allegedly knew a lot.
The allegations are that Royal Caribbean “had experienced and had actual
knowledge of . . . assaults and batteries and sexual crimes, and other violence
between passengers and between passengers and crew,” and “anticipated and
5
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 6 of 19
foresaw that crimes would be perpetrated on passengers aboard its vessels.” Not
only that but Royal Caribbean also allegedly “had experienced and had actual
knowledge of minors wrongfully being provided with or allowed to gain access to
alcohol, and then becoming the victim of assaults and batteries and sexual crimes,
perpetrated aboard its vessels both by crew and by other passengers.” It allegedly
“knew or should have known, that the high risk to its passengers of crime and
injury aboard the vessels was enhanced by [its] sale of copious quantities of
alcohol on its vessels,” and “knew or should have known of the need to prevent
minors wrongfully being provided with or allowed to gain access to alcohol, both
by crew and by other passengers.”
Those allegations, which we must accept as true for present purposes, are
enough to establish that the danger of sexual assault in general and of sexual
assault on minors in particular was foreseeable, and indeed was known, to Royal
Caribbean. And that foreseeable and known danger imposed on Royal Caribbean
and its crew a duty of ordinary reasonable care, which included the duty to monitor
and regulate the behavior of its passengers, especially where minors are involved.
The allegations are that Royal Caribbean and its crew breached that duty by
failing to: “adequately monitor the public areas” of its ship; “promulgate and/or
enforce adequate policies and/or procedures to prevent alcohol being served to
minors”; “promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures to
6
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 7 of 19
prevent sexual assaults on minors aboard [its] ships”; and “intervene to prevent the
service of alcohol to a minor and/or to assist an obviously intoxicated minor, when
a reasonable and prudent crewmember would have taken action.” The complaint
alleges that Royal Caribbean already “had experienced and had actual knowledge
of minors wrongfully being provided with or allowed to gain access to alcohol, and
then becoming the victim of assaults and batteries and sexual crimes, perpetrated
aboard its vessels . . . by other passengers.” And Royal Caribbean allegedly
“knew . . . from previous experience[] that the risk of crime and injury against
passengers aboard its vessels tended to be greatest in passenger cabins and in
bars.”
The complaint also alleges that K.T. was a minor on the day in question, so
the duty of ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances required Royal
Caribbean’s crewmembers to do more than simply refuse to sell alcoholic
beverages to her directly; the duty also required that they refuse to sell alcoholic
beverages to any adult male passengers they knew were “purchas[ing] multiple
alcoholic beverages” for K.T. And it certainly required that crewmembers
intervene when they saw a group of nearly a dozen men steering a “highly
intoxicated,” “obviously drunk, disoriented,” “unstable,” and “obviously
incapacitated” girl to a private cabin. Even though that allegedly happened “[i]n
7
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 8 of 19
view of multiple crewmembers and still under surveillance by the ship’s security
cameras,” no crewmember did anything to help K.T. as she was led away.
In sum, the complaint has sufficiently alleged that because Royal
Caribbean’s crewmembers did nothing to prevent the large group of men from
plying K.T. with enough alcohol to incapacitate her and did nothing to stop those
men from leading her away to a private cabin, Royal Caribbean breached the duty
of ordinary care it owed her. And it is self-evident from the allegations of the
complaint that but for Royal Caribbean’s breach of its duties of care to K.T. she
would not have been brutalized and gang raped. If the allegations are true, Royal
Caribbean proximately caused the alleged injuries. The complaint states a claim
against Royal Caribbean.
Royal Caribbean protests that allowing liability for its alleged failures would
effectively impose strict liability for harm passengers suffer aboard its ships and
would make cruise lines insurers of their passengers. We recognize that “[a]
carrier by sea . . . is not liable to passengers as an insurer.” Kornberg v. Carnival
Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1334 (11th Cir. 1984). But we are not talking
about strict liability. We are talking about negligence in failing to act to prevent a
foreseeable or known danger. If K.T. can prove the allegations in her complaint,
Royal Caribbean is liable for its negligence and that of its crew.
8
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 9 of 19
III.
We turn now to K.T.’s second theory of negligence, which is based on the
claimed failure of Royal Caribbean to warn K.T. and her grandparents of known
dangers. “A defendant’s failure to warn [a] plaintiff does not breach” the duty of
reasonable care under federal maritime law “unless the resultant harm is
reasonably foreseeable.” Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc., 616 F.2d 825, 827 (5th Cir.
1980). “Liability for a failure to warn thus arises from foreseeability, or the
knowledge that particular conduct will create danger.” Id.We have held that a cruise line’s duty of “ordinary reasonable care under the
circumstances” includes a “duty to warn of known dangers beyond the point of
debarkation in places where passengers are invited or reasonably expected to
visit.” Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1336 (quotation marks omitted). If a cruise line owes
its passengers a “duty to warn of known dangers” at excursion destinations,
id. — areas over which it usually has little (if any) control — a cruise line certainly
owes its passengers a “duty to warn of known dangers” aboard its ship. See Keefe
v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1989).
The allegations in the complaint demonstrate that Royal Caribbean must
have known about the dangers of sexual assaults aboard its ships. See supra pp. 5–
6. They are that Royal Caribbean: “anticipated and foresaw that crimes would be
perpetrated on passengers aboard its vessels;” “knew, or should have known, that
9
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 10 of 19
the high risk to its passengers of crime and injury aboard the vessels was enhanced
by [its] sale of copious quantities of alcohol on its vessels;” and “knew, or should
have known of the need to prevent minors wrongfully being provided with or
allowed to gain access to alcohol, both by crew and by other passengers.” So
Royal Caribbean allegedly had abundant notice and actual knowledge of the
dangers that K.T. alleges resulted in the injuries she suffered during the cruise.
In short, the allegations in the complaint are that Royal Caribbean’s duty of
ordinary care under the circumstances required it to warn K.T. and her
grandparents about the dangers of violent sexual crimes aboard its ships, including
those committed against minors who have been wrongfully provided with alcohol.
And it is alleged that Royal Caribbean breached that duty by not warning its
passengers, including K. T. and her grandparents, of those dangers. The complaint
also makes the additional (unnecessary but relevant) allegation that “Royal
Caribbean willfully chooses not to warn its passengers about rapes and sexual
assaults aboard its ships so as not to scare any prospective passengers away.”
That leaves the element of causation. The complaint alleges that because of
Royal Caribbean’s failure to warn K.T. and her family members of the dangers and
prevalence of sexual assault on its vessels, including sexual assaults on minors,
they were unaware of the need to take any special precautions. It alleges that K.T.
was injured due to Royal Caribbean’s failure to warn passengers. More
10
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 11 of 19
specifically, the complaint alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate result” of Royal
Caribbean’s negligence and failures, K.T. “was directly and proximately caused to
be sexually assaulted and/or physically battered and/or gang raped.” The
complaint sufficiently alleges that Royal Caribbean’s failure to warn was a but-for
cause of the harm K.T. suffered.
“A carrier by sea” is liable to its passengers “for its negligence,” Kornberg,
741 F.2d at 1334, and K.T.’s allegations are “more than a mere recitation of the
elements of the cause of action.” Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337. Her allegations “are
plausible and raise a reasonable expectation that discovery could supply additional
proof of [Royal Caribbean’s] liability.” Id. As a result, “the district court erred in
dismissing [the] negligence claim[s].” Id.
IV.
On its website, Royal Caribbean Cruises assures all who are thinking of
sailing with it that “the safety and security of our guests and crew is our highest
priority and fundamental to our operations.” 4 It boasts that it “is committed to
preventing illegal activity,” and “[d]uring each voyage, we remain dedicated to
4
Safety & Security, Royal Caribbean Cruises,
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/resources/safety-and-security (last visited July 24, 2019). In
keeping with Eleventh Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 10, “Citation to Internet Materials in
an Opinion,” under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 36, copies of all of the internet
materials cited in this opinion are available at this Court’s Clerk’s Office.
11
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 12 of 19
safeguarding our guests and crew.” 5 And it promises that the ship’s Captain “will
take appropriate action to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of our guests.”6
Not if the allegations of the complaint are true.
Royal Caribbean’s website also proclaims that the cruise line has an
“ongoing commitment to innovation and continuous improvement in every aspect
of [its] business.”7 Again, if the allegations of the complaint are true, Royal
Caribbean’s approach to protecting passengers from being sexually assaulted and
raped certainly could be improved. One of the purposes of tort law is to spur along
such improvements.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
5
Id.
6
Royal Caribbean Guest Conduct Policy, Royal Caribbean Cruises,
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/dam/royal/resources/pdf/guest-conduct-policy.pdf (last
updated Nov. 12, 2018).
7
Safety & Security, supra note 4.
12
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 13 of 19
ED CARNES, Chief Judge, concurring specially:
Of course, I concur in every word of the Court’s opinion. See United States
v. Hough, 803 F.3d 1181, 1197 (11th Cir. 2015) (Carnes, C.J., concurring) (“Not
surprisingly, as the author of the Court’s opinion I concur in all of it.”). Usually,
there is nothing else for the author of a majority opinion to say, but here there is. I
write separately to point out that, in addition to K.T.’s allegations, publicly
available data (of which we can take judicial notice) reinforces the allegations in
the complaint that Royal Caribbean knew or should have known about the danger
of sexual assault aboard its cruise ships.
Since 2010 cruise lines have been required to keep records of all complaints
about certain crimes — including sexual assault and rape — that occur aboard any
of their ships during a cruise “that embarks or disembarks passengers in the United
States.” 46 U.S.C. § 3507(g)(1)(A); see id. § 3507(k)(1). Cruise lines must report
those complaints to the FBI and the Department of Transportation. Id.
§ 3507(g)(3)(A)(i), (ii). The DOT has a statutory duty to compile the reports and
publish quarterly “statistical compilation[s]” about certain crimes — including
sexual assault and rape — that occur on board cruise vessels. See id. § 3507(g)(4).
Those compilations are called Cruise Line Incident Reports. Cruise Line Incident
Reports, U.S. Dep’t Transp., https://www.transportation.gov/mission/safety/cruise-
line-incident-reports (last updated Apr. 17, 2019).
13
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 14 of 19
We may take judicial notice of Cruise Line Incident Reports. See Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b), (d); Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997, 1000 n.4 (5th Cir. June
1981) (en banc) (“Absent some reason for mistrust, courts have not hesitated to
take judicial notice of agency records and reports.”); In re PEC Sols., Inc. Sec.
Litig., 418 F.3d 379, 388 & n.7, 390 & n.10 (4th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice
of information in public documents the parties had filed with a federal agency).
And in ruling on a motion to dismiss courts may supplement the allegations
in a complaint with facts contained in judicially noticed materials. See Tellabs,
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S. Ct. 2499, 2509
(2007) (“[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other
sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to
dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and
matters of which a court may take judicial notice.”) (emphasis added); Lozman v.
City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1075 n.9 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Although this
matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss, we may take judicial notice of the
court documents from the state eviction action.”); Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 464 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“Among the
information a court may consider on a motion to dismiss are public records subject
to judicial notice.”) (quotation marks omitted).
14
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 15 of 19
We may take judicial notice of matters that the district court did not. See
Fed. R. Evid. 201(d) (“The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the
proceeding.”); United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2006)
(taking judicial notice of a fact even though the district court did not); Coney v.
Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that although the matter was
“not made a part of the record before the district court, we may take judicial notice
of the same”).
The attorneys were put on notice at oral argument that we might consider
Cruise Line Incident Reports, and Royal Caribbean’s counsel agreed that
knowledge of those reports could be imputed to Royal Caribbean. See Oral
Argument at 11:42–14:14. 1
1
The relevant exchange with Royal Caribbean’s counsel went as follows:
Q: [P]art of the thing that, in my view — and I’m speaking my tentative position to
give you an opportunity to convince me to the contrary — part of the thing that
does turn it into a cause of action is that it’s a sad and often told tale. Sad and
repeated facts. This is not the first time this has happened on one of Royal
Caribbean’s vessels. You’re familiar, of course, with the Cruise Vessel Safety and
Security Act of 2010 requiring that there be a compilation of incidents, statistical
incidents, in which passengers or crew were sexually assaulted, are you not?
A: I am.
Q: And your client, of course, is too.
A: Yes.
15
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 16 of 19
For all of those reasons, it is appropriate to take judicial notice of the
contents of the Cruise Line Incident Reports. According to the reports covering
Q: And according to those reports, even if you exclude all those that are still under
investigation, in the five-year period before this assault, 2010 to 2015, there were
twenty assaults, actually sexual assaults, on your client’s vessels, were there not?
A: I don’t know that statistic offhand, but it’s possible.
Q: Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Except it’s not reasonable to allow that to happen.
A: I would agree.
Q: And on all cruise lines, 64. So that knowledge is imputed to your client, is it not?
A: I would agree.
Q: So they were well aware of the risk. And that’s what the plaintiff has alleged. In
paragraph 11: “knew of the serious risk of crime and injury to its passengers
aboard”; “had experienced and had actual knowledge of such crimes and injuries
perpetuated aboard its vessels both by crew and by other passengers”; “assault and
batteries and sexual crimes and other violence.” And so having that knowledge,
you’d agree that under just general negligence law they had an obligation to protect
their passengers and crew from those kinds of sexual assaults that they knew happen
all too frequently, didn’t they?
A: Well I do think there is a distinction there, and if I may go into it for a minute, your
honor —
Q: I mean, before you go into it, you’re telling me they didn’t have an obligation to
take reasonable efforts, measures, to protect the passengers from that?
A: Of course. Under the law their obligation is to provide reasonable care under the
circumstances, and that applies in this case just as it would in any other negligence
case.
Oral Argument at 11:30–14:14, K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 17-14237 (11th Cir.
Nov. 7, 2018).
16
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 17 of 19
the period from 2010 to September 30, 2015, which was just before the alleged
events in this case, cruise lines had reported a total of at least 66 complaints of
sexual assault committed by passengers aboard cruises embarking or disembarking
passengers in the United States. 2 See Cruise Line Incident Reports, supra. And
Royal Caribbean itself had reported receiving at least 20 complaints of sexual
assaults committed by passengers, which is nearly one-third of the number
reported for all cruise lines. See id.
Those numbers probably understate the number of complaints of sexual
assault Royal Caribbean received because the reports include only matters that
were “no longer under investigation” by the FBI at the time of the report. See 46
U.S.C. § 3507(g)(4) (2012), amended by Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-281, § 321, 128 Stat. 3022, 3054
(2014) (codified at 46 U.S.C. § 3507(g)(4)(A)(i) (2018)). As a congressional staff
report explained:
[W]ith respect to alleged sexual assault crimes, the 13 alleged crimes
publicly reported [in the Cruise Line Incident Reports] in 2011
represented only 31% of the 42 alleged crimes reported to the FBI, and
in 2012 the 11 alleged crimes publicly reported represented only 38%
of the 28 alleged crimes reported to the FBI.
2
These numbers do not include any of the complaints of sexual assaults by passengers
that are contained in the Cruise Line Incident Reports for the fourth quarter of 2015 –– the
quarter in which K.T. embarked on the cruise in question. I have excluded from the totals those
last quarter numbers to ensure that no alleged rapes that occurred after K.T.’s were included.
17
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 18 of 19
Staff of S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transp., 113 Cong., Cruise Ship
Crime: Consumers Have Incomplete Access to Cruise Crime Data 11 (2013).
The reports this Court cited in Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d
1204 (11th Cir. 2011), also support K.T.’s allegations that Royal Caribbean was on
notice a decade before K.T.’s cruise that sexual assaults on cruise ships were a
serious problem. In that opinion we stated:
Unfortunately, if congressional reports are to be believed, sexual
assaults and other violent crimes on cruise ships are a serious problem.
The House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Staff has reported that:
At a hearing in March 2006 convened by the
Committee on Government Reform, cruise industry
executives testified that 178 passengers on North
American cruises reported being sexually assaulted
between 2003 and 2005. During that same period, 24
people were reported missing and four others reported
being robbed.
From fiscal year 2000 through June 2005, the FBI
opened 305 case files involving “crime on the high seas,”
and during those five years about 45% of those cases were
sexual assaults that occurred on cruise ships.
Salvador Hernandez, Deputy Assistant Director of
the FBI, testified before Congress in 2007 about sexual
and other physical assaults that have taken place on cruise
ships: “Sexual assault and physical assaults on cruise ships
were the leading crime reported to and investigated by the
FBI on the high seas over the last five years, 55 percent
and 22 percent respectively . . . .”
Id. at 1208 n.4 (citations omitted).
18
Case: 17-14237 Date Filed: 07/24/2019 Page: 19 of 19
All of this data supplements the allegations contained in the complaint and
reinforces the conclusion that the complaint states a valid claim and adequately
pleads that, among other things, Royal Caribbean knew or should have known that
there was a serious problem of violent crime, including passenger-on-passenger
sexual assaults, on cruise ships including its own. The Cruise Line Incident
Reports, after all, are based in part on information Royal Caribbean itself
submitted. And it would be absurd to suggest that a multi-billion dollar business
like Royal Caribbean was not aware of congressional reports about the problem of
sexual assaults aboard its cruise ships.
The allegations of the complaint alone are enough to state a cause of action.
If anything else were needed, the reports of which we can take judicial notice
would provide it.
19