Last week, the District Court for the Central District of California granted a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss filed by Princess Cruise Lines (Princess Cruises) all thirteen cases filed by cruise ship passengers suing for emotional distress stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Grand Princess cruise ship, due to the plaintiff's failure to prove that they were in the "zone of danger" sufficiently to warrant a claim for emotional distress. The initial case that was filed is Weissberger v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02267-RGK-SK.
The Grand Princess, heading for Hawaii, originally departed from San Fransisco on February 21, 2020, with 2,422 passengers and 1,111 crew members on board. Two weeks after the launch, forty-six individuals on the cruise were tested, and twenty-one of those people tested positive. Three days later, while still on the ship, two passengers filed a lawsuit against Princess Cruises alleging negligence and gross negligence for failing to take necessary precautions and employ proper screening protocols to keep its passengers and crew safe and healthy. The couple, Ronald and Eva Weissberger, did not test positive for COVID-19, nor did they suffer any COVID symptoms.
The suit sought recovery for emotional distress based on their fear of contracting the virus while they were quarantined on the ship. The couple sought more than $1 million for putting their health at risk and causing the trauma. Soon after the initial suit was filed, several other suits with similar claims were filed against Princess Cruises. The Court dubbed the cases the "Fear Cases" because the suits all involved plaintiffs who did not test positive or manifest any COVID symptoms but sought to recover solely based on a fear of contracting the virus while on the cruise.
Interestingly, because the ship was on a vessel on or over navigable waters, federal maritime law applied to the tort claims. Since the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for their emotional distress and trauma of fearing the contraction of the disease while on the vessel, the Court found that the claims actually were claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). For a plaintiff's NIED claim to succeed in court under federal maritime law, the "zone of danger" test must be satisfied, so the plaintiff must prove that the defendants conduct caused either (1) physical impact or (2) risk of immediate physical harm. Proving that the emotional distress manifested itself in some sort of physical impact is very difficult, and may need proof such as a doctor's testimony, or evidence of a physical manifestation of that emotional distress, such as stress-induced hair loss or ulcers. So instead, the plaintiffs in these cases argued that they were entitled to recover for emotional danger under the "risk of immediate physical harm" prong, as their physical health was put at risk when the cruise line allowed them to board the ship even though passengers who had disembarked the same day from a prior cruise had exhibited symptoms of COVID. The plaintiffs also sought to create a "cruise ship exception" to the zone of danger test, so they could recover damages for emotional distress resulting from being in close proximity to an infected passenger, despite not manifesting any symptoms themselves.
Princess Cruises responded with an argument that regardless of which prong was implicated in the zone of danger test, the claims were barred because they failed to allege that they either contracted the disease or exhibited symptoms of the disease.
The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover for NIED based only on the proximity to people who had been diagnosed with COVID on the ship, and their resulting fear of contracting the disease. The Court also noted that mere exposure to the virus isn't enough, without contraction of COVID or manifestation of COVID symptoms. The Court stated that a cruise ship exception as described above would lead to a flood of trivial lawsuits, and would undoubtedly open the door to unlimited and unpredictable liability.
So, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all thirteen Fear Cases based on a failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to properly allege they were sufficiently within the zone of danger. The motion was granted with prejudice since the plaintiffs are no longer on the ship anymore so there is no longer a risk of contracting the virus on board.
Editors Note: Although the insurers were not directly implicated in this suit, had the court found for the plaintiffs it would have lead to a windfall of lawsuits some of which would undoubtedly be handed off to the appropriate insurer. A decision for the plaintiffs here would also have raised concerns of unlimited liability for restaurants and other businesses, where we have seen hundreds of COVID-19 and insurance cases filed, and which could potentially have cost millions of dollars across several different industries.
The thirteen cases are, Ronald Weissberger et al. v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. Consolidated For Purposes of Motion to Dismiss: Gleason v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02328-RGK-SK; Kurnial v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02361-RGK-SK; Abitbol v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02414-RGK-SK; Sheedy v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02430-RGK-SK; Austin v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02531-RGK-SK; Jones v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02727-RGK-SK; Mendenhall v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02753-RGK-SK; Jacobsen v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02860-RGK-SK; Lane v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-02865-RGK-SK; Chao v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-03314-RGK-SK; James v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-03868-RGK-SK; Stramel v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. No. 2:20-CV-03960-RGK-SK; Camara v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, No. 2:20-CV-04250-RGK-SK; Piasecki v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. No. 2:20-CV-04663-RGK-SK.