Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Kormendi

Decision Date29 March 1977
Docket NumberNo. 75--1375,75--1375
PartiesCOMMODORE CRUISE LINE, LTD., Appellant, v. Ilona KORMENDI and George Kormendi, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and Frank Marston, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Stanley M. Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict which awarded appellees, plaintiffs below, both compensatory and punitive damages for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed upon appellee Ilona Kormendi by an employees of appellant during a cruise on appellant's ship; and from a post judgment 'order denying defendant's motion to alter or amend final judgment and/or to set aside the judgment and/or for new trial.'

Appellee, traveling without her husband, was allegedly assaulted and battered by an employee of appellant. The incident was alleged to have occurred one evening, during a Carribbean cruise on appellant's ship, while appellee was a passenger. The assailant apparently attempted to rob appellee's cabin, but was taken by surprise by appellee's presence in said cabin. A scuffle ensued after which the knife-wielding individual ran from the scene. This retreat was, however, not taken before appellee identified the person as a black man in crewman's garb. A subsequent investigation by the ship's captain and officers transpired, however, the identity of the assailant was never discovered.

The cause proceeded to trial upon the theory of breach of contract of common carriage. At trial, there was ample testimony to suggest that the aforementioned investigation to ascertain the identity of the assailant was far from adequate, as there were no black passengers aboard the ship during the cruise and only two black crewmen.

At trial's conclusion, a jury returned a verdict for appellees and against appellant in the sum of Eighty-five Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00) compensatory damages and Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) punitive damages. Post trial motions were filed by appellant and denied by the court and this appeal follows.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. The first point challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of appellees' claim for assault and battery. After reviewing the record, we are of the opinion that there was substantial competent evidence adduced that would support a verdict for appellees. As such, there was no error in denying either appellant's motion for directed verdict or its post-trial motion for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, properly styled a motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict. Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 218 So.2d 213 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So.2d 375 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Appellant's second point concerns the correctness of an award of punitive damages. It is appellant's contention that, pursuant to a cause of action based upon a breach of contract of common carriage, punitive damages are only awardable against an employer when its employee commits an intentional, wilful, wanton or malicious act while within the scope of his employment. Sub judice, no contention or argument was made by appellees that the assault occurred while within the official duties of the employee and therefore, appellant argues, it was error to allow punitive damages.

For the reasons that follow, we agree with appellant's contention and reverse.

Under Florida Law, punitive damages are not generally recoverable for breach of contract unless the acts constituting the breach also amount to an independent cause of action in tort, sustained by proper allegations and proof of an intentional wrong, insult, abuse or gross negligence. Country Club of Miami Corporation v. McDaniel, 310 So.2d 436 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).

Furthermore, under Florida law, a contractual duty arises between a passenger and common carrier obligating the carrier to transport the passenger to his or her destination, exercising the highest degree of care and vigilance for the passenger's safety. Hall v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 84 Fla. 9, 93 So. 151 (1921); 5 Fla.Jur. Carriers, § 108. The carrier's duty is transferred by and through its employees and any wilful misconduct by its employees are actionable as against the carrier-employer. Hall, supra, 14 Am.Jur.2d Carriers, § 1059.

In addition, in comparison to an ordinary master-servant relationship, a common carrier is liable to a passenger for the wrongful acts of his or her employees during the contractual period, notwithstanding the fact that said acts are not within the scope of the employees employment. Pelot v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 60 Fla. 159, 53 So. 937 (1911); Columbia By The Sea, Inc. v. Petty, 157 So.2d 190 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); 14 Am.Jur.2d Carriers, § 1061. Compare Reina v. Metropolitan Dade County, 285 So.2d 648 (Fla.3d DCA 1973),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 22 Diciembre 2004
    ...Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So.2d 1076, 1078-79 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (ambulance common carrier case); Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Kormendi, 344 So.2d 896 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (cruise line Defendants argue that two Florida cases undermine Florida's strict liability rule, citing Rindfle......
  • Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 25 Abril 1985
    ...it was not directed or authorized by Herndon. Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981); Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Kormendi, 344 So.2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 172 Generally, sexual assaults and batteries by employees are held to be outside the s......
  • Stires v. Carnival Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 7 Noviembre 2002
    ...1346-47 with Nadeau v. Costley, 634 So.2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) and cases cited therein and Cotnmodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Kormendi, 344 So.2d 896, 897-98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) ("[A] contractual duty arises between a passenger and common carrier obligating the carrier to transport t......
  • Doe v. Celebrity Cruises
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 26 Febrero 2001
    ...employee's sexual assault of passenger, notwithstanding fact that it was outside scope of employment); Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Kormendi, 344 So.2d 896, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) ("[I]n comparison to an ordinary master-servant relationship, a common carrier is liable to a passenger for t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Houston, we have a (liability) problem.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 112 No. 5, March - March 2014
    • 1 Marzo 2014
    ...and the practical operation of its business as a carrier." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. v. Kormendi, 344 So.2d 896, 897-98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) ("[U]nder Florida law, a contractual duty arises between a passenger and common carrier obligating the ca......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT