Princess Cruises has scored a victory in the sprawling legal fight seeking to hold it accountable for potential coronavirus exposure on one of its ships.
US District Judge Gary Klausner has thrown out 15 of the 27 lawsuits brought by passengers aboard the 21 February sailing of the 107,500-gt Grand Princess (built 1998) from San Francisco.
Klausner, of the federal court for the Central District of California, ruled that without symptoms, the passengers did not have a case and would expand liability to an extreme extent.
"Given the prevalence of Covid-19 in today's world, plaintiffs' proposed rule would lead to a flood of trivial suits, and open the door to unlimited and unpredictable liability," Klausner wrote in his order.
Emotional distress
The plaintiffs in the cases argued they suffered emotional distress over Princess' negligence in handling the situation.
The Grand Princess left San Francisco despite an outbreak on the ship's previous voyage that led to two deaths. Some passengers from that sailing remained aboard for the 21 February trip.
The ruling echoes much of Princess' mid-June argument that the lawsuits should be dismissed, lest nearly every institution in the US be open to potential liability.
The Carnival Corp subsidiary argued schools, malls, parks and others would face lawsuits simply because someone developed Covid-19 symptoms and had been on the premises. The Miami cruise giant's lawyers said students and patrons would simply need to say they were aware of the illness and became distressed by it.
They cited precedent that held plaintiffs needed to develop symptoms before they could bring a lawsuit.
The passengers' attorney, Debi Chalik of Florida's Chalik & Chalik, declined to comment on the ruling.
Each of the lawsuits was seeking $1m over the exposure.
The passengers argued that Princess had an outbreak on another one of its ships, the 115,900-gt Diamond Princess (built 2004), which was held off Japan as the respiratory illness ran rampant, infecting 700 and killing 13.
They said businesses and other entities are not inviting the public in knowing Covid-19 is present and that no other business has had such catastrophic outbreaks.
Klausner disagreed, citing the hypothetical of a prisoner filing a similar lawsuit.
"The individual is 'captive' in a more extreme sense than on a cruiseship. And the prison exerts more control over the environment than a cruiseship operator," he wrote, noting the prisoner would also fail under precedent.
What's left to fight?
Princess has filed nine motions to dismiss in the remaining 12 lawsuits, including three stemming from deaths aboard the Grand Princess. None have been ruled on yet.
In the death lawsuits — from the families of Texas resident Michael Dorety, Pennsylvania resident Carl Weidner and California resident Ronald Wong — Princess describes the complaints, in part, as "shotgun pleadings", or actions that list facts instead of legal claims.
Five others come from passengers who, after leaving the Grand Princess, tested positive for Covid-19. In those cases, Princess argues they have not yet developed symptoms.
One lawsuit, brought together by 27 passengers, made similar allegations to the 15 dismissed complaints.
In the three remaining lawsuits, Princess has not yet moved to dismiss.
One was filed in late June and makes the same arguments as the cases that were dismissed.
Another was initially filed in the San Francisco-based Northern District of California and transferred into the Central District of California, as Princess has a contractual venue-selection clause in its passage contracts.
Another comes from an older California couple who allege that they suffered physical injuries while the Grand Princess was held in San Francisco Bay for several days before the ship was allowed to berth in Oakland.
The couple, Ken and Marla Saltzstine, are both over 65 and diabetic. They claim they should have been among the first to disembark the ship.
Instead, they were held aboard and promised medication, which never materialised, causing physical injury.
