This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Maritime Law
Gross Negligence

Ronald Weissberger, Eva Weissberger v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd.

Published: Oct. 2, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 14, 2020 | Filing Date: Mar. 20, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-02267-RGK-SK Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

R. Gary Klausner

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Debi F. Chalik
(Chalik & Chalik PA)

Michael A. Simmrin
(Simmrin Law Group)


Defendant

Jeffrey B. Maltzman
(Maltzman & Partners PA)

Edgar R. Nield
(Maltzman & Partners PA)

Gabrielle DeSantis-Nield
(Maltzman & Partners PA)

Rafaela P. Castells
(Maltzman & Partners PA)


Facts

Ronald Weissberger and Eva Weissberger went on a Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. cruise. While on the cruise, they learned another passenger had contracted COVID-19. As a result, the Weissbergers sued Princes Cruise Lines for negligently exposing them to COVID-19.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant exposed them to a passenger on the cruise ship that had tested positive for COVID-19. Plaintiffs were therefore placed in immediate risk of contracting COVID-19.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to state a valid claim because plaintiffs did not test positive for COVID-19. Plaintiffs did not even exhibit signs of the disease. As a result, plaintiffs' claims failed the required zone of danger test and failed to show they were placed in immediate danger by defendants, leaving their claims meritless. Accordingly, defendant contended that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed.

Result

The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove they were placed in immediate harm and that to allow the case to proceed on the instant facts would open the door for an influx of similarly trivial suits. The case was therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Other Information

This was a consolidated ruling dismissing a number of identical cases.


#135638

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390