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.
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