Osorio et al v. Princess Cruise Lines, LTD.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., a foreign corporation d/b/a PRINCESS CRUISES, INC.. Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C-4784035, filed by Fernando Osorio, Denia Iveth Rodriguez-Vissuette. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s))(Leesfield, Ira)

IN THE UNITED STATES DIStRlCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRlCt OF FLORlDA
CASE NO.: ~~~~~~~~_
FERNANDO OSORlO and DENIA IVETH
RODRlGUEZ-VISSUETTE,
as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD.,
d/b/a PRINCESS CRUISES, a
foreign corporation,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, FERNANDO OSORlO and DENIA IVETH RODRlGUEZVISSUETTE ("OSORlO"), by and through their undersigned counsel and file this Complaint against
the Defendant PRlNCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. d/b/aPRlNCESS CRUISES, a foreign corporation
("PRlNCESS"), and state as follows:
Background Facts
1.

This is an action for compensatory damages in excess of One Million Dollars

($1,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
2.

This is a general maritime action against PRlNCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD.

("PRINCESS") arising out ofthe negligent, intentional and/or reckless actions and omissions ofthe

1

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint

Defendant andlor the captain, officers andlor crew members aboard the STAR PRlNCESS on or
about March 10,2012.
3.

Jurisdiction exists in this case under 28 U.S.C. §1332 since there is complete diversity

of citizenship between the parties as the Defendant PRINCESS is a citizen of either Florida or
California, while the Plaintiff's are citizens of Panama and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00
4.

At all times material hereto, the Defendant PRlNCESS owned andlor operated the

cruise ship STAR PRlNCESS.
5.

The master, officers and crew ofthe STAR PRlNCESS were employees andlor agents

ofthe Defendant PRINCESS and accordingly, the Defendant PRlNCESS is vicariously liable for the
actions of said master, officers and crew members.
6.

At all times material hereto, Fernando Ariel Osorio Rodriguez, age 16 was the son

ofDenia Iveth Rodriguez-Vissuette and Fernando Osorio and residing with his parents and family
members in Rio Hato Sur, Panama, including his sisters Aleska (age 6), Melissa (age 14) and Yarelis
(age 20) and his brother Oscar (age 15).
7.

On February 24, 2012, Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and two friends, Oropeces

Betancourt, and Adrien Vasquez entered into an agreement with Edwin Moreno to use his 26 foot
"panga" called the "Fifty Cents" to fish off the coast of Panama. Shortly after the group left from
Rio Hato, the engine of the Fifty Cents died and the boat drifted out to sea.
8.

On or about March 10, 2012, after the boat had been drifting without power for 15

days, it drifted within sight ofthe STAR PRlNCESS, which is a luxury cruise ship with a passenger
2

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
capacity of2590 and a crew capacity of 1150. At the time the Fijiy Cents was so far from shore that
it was obvious that it was not fishing, but instead without power and adrift.
9.

When the decedent Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and his companions Adrian Vasquez

and Oropeces Betancourt saw the STAR PRINCESS, they repeatedly signaled that they were in
distress and in need of rescue, waving their arms, waving a shirt tied to a pole and otherwise
signaling to the passengers and crew of the STAR PRINCESS their dire predicament.
10.

Three passengers aboard the STAR PRINCESS, who were using special optical

equipment for bird watching, spotted the Fifty Cents and its occupants signaling for help and quickly
recognized that the boat was in distress and that the men were in danger of dying if not rescued by
the STAR PRINCESS.
11.

These three passengers immediately reported the dire and life threatening condition

of the occupants of the powerless and drifting fishing boat to a crew member of the STAR
PRINCESS and provided him with their equipment to see for himself. After looking through this
equipment, the crew member acknowledged to the passengers that he recognized that the Fifty Cents
was adrift and in a dire emergency state and he in tum reported this emergency situation to the
bridge.
12.

The STAR PRINCESS is an extremely modem 109,000 ton cruise ship built atacost

of over $430 million with the most sophisticated navigational, radar and tracking equipment and a
crew trained to locate other vessels and potential navigational hazards while sailing. As a result of
its highly sophisticated equipment and crew, the decedent Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and the other
occupants of the Fifty Cents were identified and/or through the exercise of reasonable care should
3

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
have been identified as a vessel in distress by the STAR PRINCESS even without the express
notification of the passengers as described above.
13.

Despite this express notification that the Fifty Cents was adraft and in dire distress,

as well as the fact that it was in clear view of this modern cruise ship with all of its sophisticated
equipment, the STAR PRINCESS failed to discharge its duty under the law to render assistance to
the stranded vessel and its occupants, literally leaving them to die.
14.

Several days after they reported the stranded Fifty Cents on March 10,2012, the three

passengers who witnessed the distressed boat followed up with an Officer ofthe STAR PRINCESS
and asked him what had happened to the distressed boat they reported. This Officer did not have an
answer for them and walked away without explanation.
15.

Even after receiving this follow up report of the distressed vessel, the Officer of the

STAR PRINCESS did nothing to alert anyone of this emergency situation. This Officer was given
express notification that the stranded boat had been abandoned by the STAR PRINCESS on March
10,2012 and once again, despite a second chance, the Defendant PRINCESS, failed to discharge its
legal duty.
16.

Following the failure of the STAR PRINCESS to come to the aid of the stranded

fishing boat, Oropeces Betancoml died ofheat stroke and/or dehydration. Five days after the STAR
PRINCESS abandoned the Fifty Cents, Fel11ando Osorio Rodriguez also died as a result of heat
stroke and dehydration. Adrian Vasquez survived and was rescued thiIleen days later by another
fishing boat near the Galapagos Islands.

4

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
Jurisdiction

17.

PRINCESS is a for profit foreign corporation, headquartered in Santa Clarita,

California, with a base ofoperations in various locations in the United States, including a substantial
base of operations in South Florida. PRINCESS conducts substantial business in the State of
Florida.
18.

At all times material hereto, PRINCESS personally or through an agent:
a.

b.

Engaged in substantial business activity in the State of Florida;

c.

Operated vessels and provided vessels for cruises in the water of this state;
and

d.

19.

Operated, conducted, engaged in and/or carried on a business venture in the
State of Florida;

Committed one or more acts as set forth in Florida Statutes § 48.161,48.181,
and 48.193, which submit PRINCESS to jurisdiction and venue ofthis Court.

PRINCESS personally or through an agent, among other things:
a.

Maintains at least three (3) offices in Florida. At least one of these offices is
an operational facility. This one operational facility solicits and accepts
employment applications for administrative, secretarial, management,
warehouse and other employment opportunities with PRINCESS. Another of
the at least three offices is a consolidation center located in Fort Lauderdale.
This consolidation center is one of only two in the United States which
PRINCESS identifies in its Freight Shipping Information Guide for
Suppliers. The consolidation center is a hub to which suppliers of nearly
every manner of goods ship their respective goods for PRINCESS to
subsequently distribute to its various ships, ports, properties or people.
Another facility PRINCESS maintains in Broward County is a warehouse
facility;

b.

PRINCESS maintains in Florida numerous employees, agents, telephones,
facsimiles, inventory, mail boxes and/or post office boxes. PRINCESS also
maintains its bank accounts in Broward County from which it transacts
business;

5

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
c.
d.

PRINCESS utilizes the Port ofMiami and POIt Everglades as its embarkation
point for a multitude of cruises, including the CARIBBEAN PRINCESS,
CORAL PRINCESS, DAWN PRINCESS, GOLDEN PRINCESS, ISLAND
PRINCESS, REGAL PRINCESS, ROYAL PRINCESS, SEA PRINCESS,
STAR PRINCESS and SUN PRINCESS;

e.

PRINCESS solicits business for its cruise operations in Miami-Dade County
and state-wide. PRINCESS' website allows Floridians to simply type in an
address and/or zip code to be directed to a travel agent nearest them, which
agent will be able to book a PRINCESS cruise without hesitation;

f.

PRINCESS solicits and entices people from around the globe to visit Miami
and Fort Lauderdale as a shore excursion, and, fUlthermore, makes provision
for a tour of the cities' attractions;

g.

PRINCESS enters into contracts with various companies in Florida and
Miami in particular, including Steiner Leisure to supply personnel to work in
the spas and gyms aboard its ships. In addition, it also employs people as
casino dealers and slot technicians through Carnival Corporation,
headqumtered in Miami, Florida;

h.

PRINCESS is part of Carnival Corporation, the largest cruise line operation
in the world, which is headquartered in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida;

i.

PRINCESS is one ofseventeen (17) cruise lines whose presence in Dade and
Broward Counties accounts for business activity output of over one billion
dollars and local tax revenue of over forty million dollars. Together with
these sixteen (16) other cruise operations, PRINCESS is responsible for
directly employing over 6,500 people in Dade and Broward Counties;

J.

20.

PRINCESS has a registered agent in Florida;

PRINCESS is an active member ofthe Cruise Line International Association
("CLlA"), which is an agent for PRINCESS and the trade organization for the
cruise industry; CLIA has a headqualters and of its base of operations in
Florida.

PRINCESS has purposefully established minimum contacts with Florida by

intentionally availing itselfofthe privilege ofconducting business in Florida, such that PRINCESS

6

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
reasonably is expected to be haled into CoUtthere. As such, PRINCESS is subject to the jurisdiction
of the COUtts of this State, and, particularly, the instant Court.

Princess' Legal Duty
21.

It is a fundamental principle ofthe Law ofthe Sea as recognized by both longstanding

international and U.S. law that a vessel has the mandatory legal duty to provide assistance to any
vessel on the high seas in distress.
22.

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), which was

originally promulgated in response to the sinking of the Titanic, provides in Regulation 10:
The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide
assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress
at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible
infOlming them or the search and rescue service, that the ship is doing so.
(Emphasis added).
23.

Similar requirements are set forth in numerous other international conventions and

treaties, including but not limited to the Convention on the High Seas recognized by United Nations
Treaty and the International Convention on Salvage.
24.

The United States Congress has recognized a similar duty by its adoption of46 U.S.C.

§2304 as part of United States Shipping Code, which provides in pettinent part:
A master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance to any
individual found at sea in danger of being lost, so far as the master or
individual in charge can do so without serious danger to the master's or
individual's vessel or individuals onboard.
(Emphasis added).
25.

PRINCESS has acknowledged this mandatory duty and in fact issued the following

press release:
7

Osorio v, Princess
Complaint
We all understand that it is our responsibility and also the law of the sea to
provide assistance to any vessel in distress, and it is not an uncommon
occurrence for our ships to be involved in a rescue at sea, In fact, we have
done so more than thirty times in the last ten years."
(Emphasis added).

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
26,

The Plaintiffs repeat and adopt paragraphs one (I) through twenty-five (25) above and

fmiher avers:
27,

The Defendant PRINCESS breached its legal duties and obligations to the decedent

Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and his companions by failing and/or refusing to rescue them when its
vessel, officers and/or crew knew, or should have known, of their precarious and life threatening
situation and need for rescue.
28.

As set fmih in detail above, the crew ofthe STAR PRINCESS was expressly notified

of the need to rescue Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and his companions by passengers aboard the
vesseL This information was conveyed to a crew member, who acknowledged receiving it and
further confirmed the accuracy of this infonnation based upon his own observations. The crew
member advised the passengers that he would report this information to the officers, Captain and
bridge, This information was communicated again to an Officer on the vessel two days later with
a request for an explanation as to why the vessel had not diverted to pick up the stranded fishermen.
Even after this further notice, the ship failed to take any action to either attempt to locate the stranded
seamen or to notifY the appropriate naval authorities, who were involved in searching for them.
29.

Even in the absence of such notification by its passengers, the STAR PRINCESS

either knew or should have known of the life threatening peril that Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and
8

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
his companions were in as a result of their distressed vessel by virtue of its modem state of the art
equipment, which was clearly capable of identifYing the stranded vessel on its own.
30.

Despite the foregoing knowledge and notice, the STAR PRINCESS, its officers

and/or crew abandoned the decedent, Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and literally left him to his death.
31.

At the very least, the above-described actions of the Defendant, its master and crew

clearly constitute negligence, which negligence was a proximate cause ofthe decedent's subsequent
extreme pain and suffering, severe psychological and emotional distress and bodily injury, which
eventually led to the decedent's untimely and wrongful death.
32.

That as a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence ofthe Defendant PRINCESS,

the Estate and survivors of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez are entitled to recover under the applicable
law the following compensatory damages:
a.

The decedent's extreme pain and suffering, severe emotional and
psychological injuries, and his physical and bodily injuries occurring from the
date of the Defendant's refusal to rescue him up until the time of his death;
and

b.

DENIA IVETH RODRIGUEZ-VISSUETTE, decedent's mother, is entitled
to recover for her moral damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain
and suffering, anguish, loss of support and services and all other damages
permitted under the applicable law for the death of her son.

c.

FERNANDO OSORIO, decedent's father, is entitled to recover for his moral
damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain and suffering, anguish,
loss of support and services and all other damages permitted under the
applicable law for the death of his son.

d.

The Estate of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez is entitled to recover decedent's
loss of earnings, loss of net accumulations, loss of inheritance and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law.

9

Osorio v, Princess
Complaint
e,

Aleska, Melissa, Oscar and Yarelis Osorio, the decedent's siblings are each
entitled to recover for their moral damages, loss of affection and feelings,
mental pain and suffering, anguish, loss of support and services and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law for the death of their brother.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs FERNANDO OSORlO and DENIA IVETH RODRlGUEZVISSUETTE as the Personal Representatives ofthe Estate of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez, demand
judgment for all damages recoverable under any applicable law against the Defendant, including
those damages set forth in paragraph 32 above and demands trial by jury of all issues triable as a
right by a jury.

COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE PER SE
33.

The Plaintiffs repeat and adopt paragraphs one (I) through twenty-five (25) above and

further avers:

34.

The Defendant PRlNCESS had a statutory non-delegable duty to rescue and come

to the aid ofthe decedent Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and failed andlor refused to do so in violation
of the above-described statutory and treaty obligations and accordingly, is guilty of negligence per
se.
35.

The decedent Fernando Osorio Rodriguez was in the class ofpersons intended to be

protected by the above-described statutory and treaty obligations.
36.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence per se of the Defendant

PRlNCESS, the Estate and survivors ofFernando Osorio Rodriguez are entitled to recover under the
applicable law the following damages:
a.

The decedent's extreme pain and suffering, severe emotional and
psychological injuries, and his physical and bodily injuries occurring from the
date of the Defendant's refusal to rescue him up until the time of his death;
and
10

Osorio v, Princess
Complaint
b,

DENIA IVETH RQDRIGUEZNISSUEITE, decedent's mother, is entitled
to recover for her moral damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain
and suffering, anguish, loss of SUppOlt and services and all other damages
permitted under the applicable law for the death of her son.

c.

FERNANDO OSORIO, decedent's father, is entitled to recover for his moral
damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain and suffering, anguish,
loss of support and services and all other damages permitted under the
applicable law for the death of his son.

d.

The Estate of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez is entitled to recover decedent's
loss of earnings, loss of net accumulations, loss of inheritance and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law.

e.

Aleska, Melissa, Oscar and Yarelis Osorio, the decedent's siblings are each
entitled to recover for their moral damages, loss of affection and feelings,
mental pain and suffering, anguish, loss ofSUppOlt and services and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law for the death of their brother,

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, FERNANDO OSORIO and DENIA IVETH RODRIGUEZVISSUEITE as the Personal Representatives of the Estate ofFemando Osorio Rodriguez, demand
judgment for all damages recoverable under any applicable law against the Defendant, including
those damages set forth in paragraph 36 above and demands trial by jury of all issues triable as a
right by a jury.

COUNT III - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
37,

The Plaintiffs repeat and adopt paragraphs one (I) through twenty-five (25) above and

further avers:
38,

Although the Defendant PRINCESS, by and through its agents and employees had

express knowledge that Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and his companions were stranded on a small
panga, which was adrift over 100 miles from the nearest land, its vessel, officers and crew refused
to rescue the decedent and his companions, despite an absolute legal duty to do so with the

II

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
knowledge and/or substantial certainty that Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and his companions would
either die, or be subjected to extreme and unconscionable mental distress, psychological injury,
bodily injUlY and pain and suffering.
39.

This extreme conduct ofthe Defendant PRINCESS tln'ough the STAR PRINCESS,

its officers and crew was outrageous and under the circumstances so beyond all bounds of decency
as to be regarded as shocking, atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society, especially in
light of their knowledge that their actions would be substantially certain to subject the decedent to
thirst, starvation, dehydration, sun stroke and other perils of the sea and most likely result in his
death, which they did.
40.

As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions of PRINCESS, its vessel, officers and

crew, the decedent Fernando Osorio Rodriguez suffered significant and extensive bodily injury
including, but not limited to physical, emotional and psychological injuries, pain and suffering and
anguish, dehydration and sunstroke which eventually resulted in his death.
41.

As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and reckless acts ofthe Defendant

PRINCESS, and its vessel, officers and crew, the Estate and survivors of Fernando Osorio are
entitled to recover under the applicable law the following compensatory damages:
a.

The decedent's extreme pain and suffering, severe emotional and
psychological injuries, and his physical and bodily injuries occuning from the
date of the Defendant's refusal to rescue him up until the time of his death;
and

b.

DENIA IVETH RODRIGUEZ-VISSUETTE, decedent's mother, is entitled
to recover for her moral damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain
and suffering, anguish, loss of support and services and all other damages
pennitted under the applicable law for the death of her son.

12

Osorio v, Princess
Complaint
c,

FERNANDO OSORIO,decedent's father, is entitled to recover for his moral
damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain and suffering, anguish,
loss of support and services and all other damages permitted under the
applicable law for the death of his son,

d,

The Estate of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez is entitled to recover decedent's
loss of earnings, loss of net accumulations, loss of inheritance and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law.

e.

Aleska, Melissa, Oscar and Yarelis Osorio, the decedent's siblings are each
entitled to recover for their moral damages, loss of affection and feelings,
mental pain and suffering, anguish, loss of suPPOtt and services and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law for the death of their brother,

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, FERNANDO OSORIO and DENIA IVETH RODRIGUEZVISSUETTE, as the Personal Representatives ofthe Estate of Femando Osorio Rodriguez, demand
judgment for all damages recoverable under any applicable law against the Defendant, including
those damages set fOlth in paragraph 41 above and demands trial by jury of all issues triable as a
right by a jury.
COUNT IV - INTENTIONAL TORT AND/OR RECKLESS MISCONDUCT
42,

The Plaintiffs repeat and adopt paragraphs one (1) through twenty-five (25) above and

fmther avers:
43.

Although the Defendant PRINCESS by and through its agents and employees had

express knowledge that Fernando Osorio Rodriguez and his companions were stranded on a small
panga which was adrift over 100 miles from the nearest land, its vessel, officers and crew
consciously and intentionally refused to rescue the decedent and his companions, despite an absolute
legal duty to do so and acted with the knowledge and/or substantial celtainty that Fernando Osorio
Rodriguez and his companions would either die, or be subjected to extreme and unconscionable
mental distress, psychological injury, bodily injury and pain and suffering.
13

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
44.

As a direct and proximate result of the deliberate and intentional actions of

PRINCESS, its vessel, officers and crew, the decedent Fernando Osorio Rodriguez suffered
significant and extensive bodily injury including, but not limited to physical, emotional and
psychological injuries, pain and suffering and anguish, dehydration and sun stroke which was
eventually resulted in his death.
45.

As a direct and proximate result ofthe deliberate and intentional acts ofthe Defendant

PRINCESS, vessels, officers and crew, the Estate and survivors of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez are
entitled to recovery under the applicable law of the following compensatory damages:
a.

b.

DENIA IVETH RODRIGUEZ-VISSUETTE, decedent's mother, is entitled
to recover for her moral damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain
and suffering, anguish, loss of support and services and all other damages
permitted under the applicable law for the death of her son.

c.

FERNANDO OSORIO, decedent's father, is entitled to reeover for his moral
damages, loss of affection and feelings, mental pain and suffering, anguish,
loss of support and services and all other damages permitted under the
applieable law for the death of his son.

d.

The Estate of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez is entitled to recover deeedent's
loss of earnings, loss of net accumulations, loss of inheritance and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law.

e.

46.

The decedent's extreme pain and suffering, severe emotional and
psychological injuries, and his physical and bodily injuries oecurring fi'om the
date of the Defendant's refusal to rescue him up until the time of his death;
and

Aleska, Melissa, Oscar and Yarelis Osorio, the decedent's siblings are each
entitled to recover for their moral damages, loss of affection and feelings,
mental pain and suffering, anguish, loss ofsuppOll and services and all other
damages permitted under the applicable law for the death of their brother.

In addition, as a fUilher direct and proximate result ofthe deliberate and intentional

conduct of the Defendant PRINCESS, its vessel, officers and crew, which were performed with the

14

Osorio v. Princess
Complaint
knowledge and/or substantial certainty that Fernando Osorio and his companions would either die,
or be subjected to extreme and unconscionable mental distress, psychological injury, bodily injury
and pain and suffering, the decedent's estate and survivors are further entitled to a recovery of
punitive damages from the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, FERNANDO OSORIO and DENIA IVETH RODRIGUEZVISSUETTE, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Fernando Osorio Rodriguez, demand
judgment for all damages recoverable under any applicable law against the Defendant, including
those set fOlth in paragraphs 45 and 46 above and demands trial by jUly of all issues triable as a right
by a jury.
DATED this

--:L day of

j'v,-J ...... , 2012.

Miami, Florida.

By: ~li.~:::-C~~~~~
RA H. LEESFIELD,
Florida Bar No.: 14 70
Email: [e-mail]
ROBERT D. PELTZ, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 220418
Email: [e-mail]
THOMAS B. SCOLARO, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 178276
Email: [e-mail]
LEESFIELD & PARTNERS, P .A.
2350 S. Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

15