Last night, I gave my final in both of my torts classes at George Washington University. I teach dram shop litigation and a new case involving Royal Caribbean could well be part of next year’s lecture. The company is being sued by the family of a 35-year-old man who died aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise after allegedly being served 33 alcoholic drinks and then restrained (and drugged) when he allegedly became violent. Notably, the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide. The family has filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Michael Virgil, 35, and his family boarded Royal Caribbean’s Navigator of the Seas in Los Angeles on Dec. 13, 2024. They were looking forward to a four-day cruise to Ensenada, Mexico. It would be tragically cut short.
Virgil was traveling with his fiancée and their young son, who has autism. When they boarded, they were told that their room was not ready and directed to a bar with live music. However, their 7-year-old son became restless, so he left with his mother to check the room. Virgil remained and continued to drink.
Virgil purchased the “Deluxe Beverage Package,” which gives passengers access to nearly all of the ship’s drink offerings, including alcoholic beverages.
Within a matter of a few hours, crew members allegedly served Virgil at least 33 alcoholic drinks.
Drunk, he went to find his cabin but became disoriented and increasingly agitated because he was unable to find the right cabin. A video shows him kicking doors in a hallway.
Security and crew members sought to restrain him. They tackled the overweight man and held him down to keep him from moving. They reportedly used three cans of pepper spray. They alleged that the staff was then given permission by the captain to inject him with the sedative Haloperidol.
The complaint alleges that the restraint, alcohol, sedative, and pepper spray caused significant hypoxia, impaired ventilation, respiratory failure, cardiovascular instability, and ultimately cardiopulmonary arrest.
The medical examiner found that the cause of death was “combined effects of mechanical asphyxia, obesity, cardiomegaly, and ethanol intoxication.” The report also said the injury occurred from “body compression during restraint by multiple ship security personnel” and “ingestion of ethanol.”
The case has classic elements of “overserving.” Most states have such laws that expose businesses to liability for failing to cut off clearly intoxicated individuals.
The typical dram shop law imposes liability when alcohol was “sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employee when the said customer was visibly intoxicated.”
One of Royal Caribbean’s top revenue streams comes from alcohol sales. The complaint below alleges that “to maximize this revenue, ROYAL CARIBBEAN deliberately designs its vessels, including the Navigator of the Seas, to ensure that there are alcohol serving stations in every nook and cranny of the ship.”
Since people are not driving, there may be an increased risk of overindulging. However, it is the company’s responsibility to cut off consumption when a person is visibly intoxicated.
The case has the added elements of being a common carrier (where liability is generally easier to establish) and possible negligence in the restraining and drugging of the passenger.
The use of a sedative on a drunk, overweight man in these conditions seems manifestly high-risk. That is particularly when the man has been compressed by the weight of the crew and subjected to pepper spray. This is not to excuse the conduct of Virgil, but the sedative may have crossed the line of a reasonable response.
There will, of course, be substantial plaintiff’s conduct issues. California, for example, follows a pure comparative negligence rule where you can still collect even if you are more than fifty percent at fault in your own injury. The award is reduced by the percentage of responsibility assigned by the jury to the plaintiffs. Thus, if Virgil is found to be 75 percent at fault in a $100 verdict, his family would receive only $25.
Florida, where this lawsuit was filed, follows a modified comparative negligence approach, under which individuals are barred from compensation recovery if they are more than 50% responsible for causing their own injuries. (However, this does not apply to claims based on medical negligence). Individuals who are 50% or less at fault for their injuries will recover compensation for their losses, but the award is still reduced by their percentage of fault.
The company may view this case as clearly exceeding the 50% line for comparative negligence.
The case is tough for the company in the combination of allegedly negligent acts from the over-serving to the restraint. We have not heard from Royal Caribbean to hear its side of this horrible case. However, this is a particularly strong complaint, especially with the support from the medical examiner’s report.
The complaint also alleges that employees were improperly trained and supervised. The plaintiffs are also seeking recovery under the Death on the High Seas Act, including loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of past and future earnings, loss of net accumulations, loss of services, and funeral and other related expenses. Notably, contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery under the Act.
We will be following the case.
Here is the complaint: Michael Virgil Complaint
If a cruise ship is considered a ‘common carrier’, I would assume the heightened duty of care required of a common carrier towards its passenger would come into play. When viewed through that lens, liability seems clear.
“The complaint alleges . . .”
The complaint should state, as a proven fact: I chose badly.
WAS HE RELATED TO KAMALA???
First thing is “What country’s flag are they carrying”.
With USA rules, the ships would never get out of port.
Liberia and office as citizen in Florida
^^^ Liberia is on the west coast of Africa between Sierra Leone and ivory coast. One of the poorest nations in the world. Their standards may be low.
Before passing judgment on anything done by security or the ship’s captain, shouldn’t it be acknowledged that there existed no fail-safe alternative to their actions? The medical examiner, an expert only on administering his skills to the dead, found a way to attribute to a case he deemed homicide every action taken by security personnel. But what else could they have done? Hell, as we learned from the George Floyd case, even knee pressure to the shoulder can be branded as murderous if the medical examiner includes in his list of considerations the side-effects of filthy politics.
How about ship captain impersonating, acting as a physician added.
“The staff” must have included a physician.
A 35 year old belligerant man dies after consuming 33 alcoholic drinks on board a cruise ship and an injection of a drug by staff while restrained.
George Floyd? Florida has tort restrictions.
Is that it? No clue
^^^ RIP , commenters are far more sympathetic to a woman being shot through a door than a drunk man being shot with drugs.
Comments don’t like alcoholics, juries either. He’s not black either which would change the Comments significantly.
His limit was 33 The extra 34th shot killed him!
3 cans of pepper spray also.
Also, no blood alcohol indicated in complaint. The number of drinks may be inaccurate. Unkn blood alcohol level
This man was seriously abused. He was refrigerated as cruise continued on course. Good grief what was his wife doing and child as cruise continued. Pull into port and chopper back to Florida. The family was abused.
I see what you did⬆️⬆️⬆️ here. 😏… I can’t laugh because someone lost their life. But… You Win… 🏆🏆🏆
On a ship, the Captain IS God.
Don’t cross him.
Complaint says staff captain , not ship’s captain. It does say doctors and nurses but does say drug administered?
NOT say drugs given…idk. massively abusive to entire family.
Your George Floyd comment is misplaced. The Dirtbag cop had his knee on his neck, not on his shoulder, and he cut off his Air Supply. The Dirtbag cop had his knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes, there was no justifiable reason for his knee to be on his neck for any length of time, much less 10 minutes m. It was ego, stupidity and much more than mega negligence, it was an intentional harm in my book, involuntary homocide.
Given the sheer size of these vessels, I would have thought that there would at least be some level of medical personnel on-board. Perhaps not a full MD, but a Nurse-Practitioner or at least an RN. Before any drug is administered to a passenger, shouldn’t a medical professional be involved and not just the captain?
Unless they forced the passenger to drink those drinks, passenger is 100% responsible for his own death due to his own actions, IMHO.
If they refused to serve him after he became drunk, he likely would have attacked those refusing him. Either way, he was proven to have a propensity for being belligerent by his actions prior to being restrained, and normal methods of subduing him did not work.
While the injection of the drug was a mistake and should never have happened, the motivation was to protect the crew, other passengers and the belligerent passenger himself.
I don’t think so…Cliff Jackson. By the way, have you been drinking prior to sending your thoughts ?
Cliff, you’re flat out wrong. On the law. No one should be given 33 drinks, unless it’s club soda. He should have died from alcohol 🍸 poisoning. 33 drinks = 33 ounces of hard alcohol= Death by BAL, Alcohol Poisoning.
It seems pretty clear that his ordering and consuming he drinks was the main cause of his death, at least greater than 50%. Also how weak are these drinks that one can drink 33 and still stand?
33 DRINKS WAS HIS LIMIT- the 34TH killed him
The 33 drinks part of the scenario just does not add up. That would be equivalent to 33 oz of hard alcohol, which would kill anyone and everyone on planet Earth.
I have taken many cruises and consumed alcohol daily but in moderate amounts. Some cruises are all-inclusive, drinks included. Others require you to present your ship card and get charged for every miscellaneous item along the way, and that’s where the drink package is a significant convenience and not just a ticket to being stupid. I suffered through first-year torts learning all the ways personal irresponsibility could be laid off on someone else. Yes, the medical angle weighs heavily against the cruise line, but what kind of idiot would consume 33 drinks in one sitting? And that was the precipitating event for everything that followed.
As stated, his cabin was not ready and the crew directed him to the bar. One would wonder how many other cabins were not ready and individuals were sent to the bar? Why not another location like the promenade deck with lounge chairs? Another question is why was his cabin not ready? These cruise ships have a fast turn around scheduled and the crew supposedly to accomplish it. On the one cruise I went on there was no problems on the 6 cabins we had from ocean balconies to the dredges of the ship. I am not making excuses but there are still a lot of questions.
You just gave the most brutal cross-examination I’ve ever seen in the comment section of the professor’s website. Winner =🏆🏆🏆
A case like this, depending on the outcome, could have significant impact on Royal Caribbean’s business practices.
If they face a whopping judgment (or settlement), the Deluxe Beverage Package would likely be reconsidered, as well as the overstaffing of bartender locations on the ship. The collision of the profit motive with doing harms lands properly in civil court — this marvelous system makes possible a pluralistic economy of free actors that values fairness and justice over a party’s financial clout.
The fine-grained decisions are delegated to a jury of 12 Americans, who fill in the gaps where the law is murky with their collective common sense. Since no lawmaking body can ever anticipate the infinitude of possible conflicts, juries stand as the “gap fillers” that complement the legislative product. It’s a clever, stunningly beautiful design — though messy and anguishing for the litigants during their case.
The war in Ukraine is being fought for this type of pluralistic system vs. “blat” (the traditional Russian way of resolving conflict based on who you know, bribery, intimidation, and a kangaroo court that gives only appearances of fair process).
If you think it doesn’t matter which system Ukraine ends up having, I pity your empathy-sinkhole and ingratitude for the legal heritage you were gifted by birthplace.
“. . . which system Ukraine ends up having . . .”
It currently has a kleptocracy — at the expense of Americans. I pity your lack of sympathy for those *Americans* who have been systematically looted to line the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian officials.
Corrupt leaders would have cut and run. The fight is over the principle of nation state sovereignty. That principle benefits all nations large and small. It keep the peace. If Russia is forced to back out of Ukraine, no other belligerent regimes will dare try this again for decades. That’s the goal, and it’s a gift to the future.
By contributing intelligence and material to this war, the US military has very up-to-date warfighting experience.
You can’t underestimate the value of that, given the rapid change in how ground wars are being fought with drones, signal intel, jamming techniques, and cyber.
The graft you cite was self-corrected by Zelinskyy by firing his own chief-of-staff. That sends a message to others tempted. Meanwhile, the Russian leadership on the front is stealing the system blind, including the pay due to their soldiers. The corruption on the Russian side explains why their numerical superiority as a population has not been decisive. The Russians cheat each other at every opportunity. They will lose this war as a result.
“The graft you cite was self-corrected by Zelinskyy . . .”
BS. It is *systematic* corruption. See the NYT’s *recent* series exposing that corruption.
Kleptocracy is a real thing as are narco-states and mafia-states. We’re currently in a narco-state.
There is a lot to unpack in this case. It has been established in many states that continuing to serve alcohol to someone who is already drunk is negligent and the individual serving the drinks can be liable for the acts of the drunk individual, including if they go out and get in a car, drive off and hit or kill a pedestrian. That occurred in our town years ago and established a precedent that has spread to many other states. Dealing with a psychotic drunk, apparently from the description, is difficult in the best of circumstances. A whole host of other questions need to be answered as to the subjects vital signs, maintenance of an airway, what means were employed to restrain, the use of Haldol which is very potent and can drop the blood pressure and sedate the individual even more and compromise the breathing. What was being monitored and by whom and was it in an appropriate medical unit, was oximetry used to monitor oxygenation. Lots of questions with few answers in this note.
A Captain can order the use of Haldol! That’s a new one to me. Does he have any medical training? Where was the ship’s doctor and why was he not assessing the patient and instituting treatment. I would not want to on the defendant’s side in this one. Better to settle and fast.
And I would add to the list of haloperidol risks sited by GEB the risk of haloperidol and other drugs in this class to induce a particular cardiac arrhythmia that will likely result in cardiac arrest. This risk would be increased if the person developed severe electrolyte abnormalities due to severe alcohol intoxication. What a mess.
I agree with better settle fast, but there’s not much to unpack. I’ve read enough already. Why put on a trial? Think of the bereft fiancée and autistic child. Imagine the captain testifying like Jack Nicholson, “You’re goddam right I gave the order!” or like Lt. Michael Byrd, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” When you think about, this is basically the Ashli Babbitt case.
I don’t see the connection, except that Ms. Babbitt was drunk with mob power after swallowing too many false narratives.
Both decedents acted recklessly, but didn’t deserve to die. Both deaths were ultimately caused by intentional acts of others.
Nope it was murder…/s
Free Derek Chauvin
I’d have to hear how he was behaving while they gave him drinks. But even if he was visibly drunk, it would still likely be mostly his fault. He probably agreed to go on the cruise bc of the drink package and availability to drink on every floor. It is still his responsibility not to get drunk. I’ve only gone on two cruises, don’t really like them, but I managed not to have a single drink on either. Certainly no one pushed them on me or insisted.I have one. I’m sure it was the same there.
It does not concern me all what they did to try to restrain him. They have to ensure the safety of all passengers and their crew., and he was a threat to everyone. Unless there is evidence, they tried to kill him, it’s all, or at least mostly his fault.
This is one of the problems our country has had for many decades, maybe a century in some cases. We encourage irresponsibility.
There are laws established about serving intoxicated patrons. There atr a multitude of cases that bartenders and establishments have been found liable for death caused by their actions. This is a civil suit against a multimillion dollar cruise-line conglomerate. They will get paid off, the lawyers will get their blood money 33.3% off the top and that will be the end of it.
Wow, that will be a great exam question, either for Torts class or the Bar exam.
After reading your summary, my first question would be the authority of the Captain to order the injection. Was that with or without the advice of a qualified physician? If a physician was present, one would think that there is the claim for medical malpractice. If not, would the Captain have some degree of personal liability for ordering that injection?
And for his fiance, could she recover from the Act? My first thought would be no, although she can pursue an action for the son.
So much to unwrap. But then again I did not deal with these issues in my failed practice, so perhaps one of the other failed attorneys who post here can point me in the right direction.
Selah
It seems this case may be a delight for the attorneys as they wear their swashbuckler garb to debate the fine points of the law. Can they suggest this fellow, who bought the Deluxe Drinks Package expressly for the purpose of heavy drinking, may have been well buzzed before he even boarded the ship? Your law students will love it next term.
I remember learning about comparative liability in business school. That was in the 80’s. I would have bet the trial lawyers had put paid to that concept decades ago.
Looks like it’ll be a slow day on the blog … no red meat.
Well, you could beat it…