United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 95-2711.
Non-Argument Calendar.
Edil MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Feb. 2, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. (No. 94-991-CIV-ORL-22), Anne C. Conway,
Judge.
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff, Edil Martinez, appeals the district court's
order, which granted the Defendant American Airlines' motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and entered
judgment in favor of the defendant. The Second Amended Complaint
alleged that the defendant breached its common law or contractual
duty of care toward the plaintiff by failing to undertake
reasonable efforts to return the plaintiff to his home in Florida
when the plaintiff fell ill outside the country.
Errors of law in evaluating the dismissal of a complaint are
subject to plenary review by this Court. Linder v. Portocarrero,
963 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir.1992). In our review, we take all the
allegations in the complaint as true, and view the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Peterson v. Atlanta Housing
Auth., 998 F.2d 904, 912 (11th Cir.1993). "A complaint may not be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can prove no set of fact which would
entitle him to relief." Id. (citing H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern
Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 2905, 106 L.Ed.2d
195 (1989)).
Taking all of the plaintiff's allegations as true, we have the
following facts: The plaintiff purchased a round-trip ticket from
the defendant to travel from Florida to Puerto Rico. While in
Puerto Rico, the plaintiff suffered from a medical emergency, which
required the plaintiff to return to Florida immediately.
Unfortunately, the plaintiff did not have an immediate return
reservation, and so he called the defendant to request that a seat
be made available to him as soon as possible due to his medical
emergency. The defendant informed the plaintiff that it did not
have a seat immediately available, and that furthermore the
defendant did not have a policy for handling medical emergencies.
In any event, the defendant told the plaintiff that he would have
to pay additional charges for early departure. Although the
plaintiff responded that he would pay the additional charges, the
defendant told him that no seats would be open for several days.
The plaintiff then called a different office of the defendant
and was told that "he could drive four and one half hours to San
Juan and stand by for first class seating after paying an
additional $400 charge." However, the defendant also told him that
no priority would be made for him, and that it was unlikely that he
would be able to get a seat on that plane. Despite the possibility
of a flight to Florida, the plaintiff decided not to make the trip
to San Juan because of the additional health risks it posed. The
plaintiff attempted to obtain medical treatment in Puerto Rico, but
changed his mind when the hospital he visited appeared unclean.
Several phone calls and five days later, the plaintiff was able to
return to Florida. However, by that time, gangrene had set into
the plaintiff's leg, and the leg had to be amputated below the
knee.
Even taking the above facts as true and construing them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiff's
primary argument is that the defendant's duty to the plaintiff was
not limited to times when the plaintiff was on board the airplane,
but instead extended "throughout the journey continuing until [the
plaintiff] safely arrived at his final destination, back home in
Florida." In this regard, the plaintiff makes two arguments: (1)
that the defendant had a duty to reasonably, safely, and
expeditiously return the plaintiff to Florida when the plaintiff
fell ill; and (2) that the defendant had a duty to transport the
plaintiff to Florida without payment of an additional $240 for
first class or $240 for coach class. In support of that argument,
the plaintiff points to Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd. S.A., 475
So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d. Dist.Ct.App.1985), which held that a cruise
line could be held liable for failing to warn passengers about
tourist areas on port that the cruise line knew to be dangerous.
On the contrary, the defendant contends that Carlisle supports
the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss due
to failure to state a cause of action, and we agree. In Carlisle,
the court stated: "Our holding applies only to carriers that have
a continuing obligation of care for their passengers, and does not
extend to a carrier engaged simply for point-to-point
transportation." Id. at 251. The plaintiff fails to cite, and we
are unaware of, any Florida case or statute that confers a legal
duty on the defendant under these facts. Here, the defendant was
engaged for point-to-point transportation, and did not have a
continuing contractual or common law duty to the plaintiff for the
period after the plaintiff's arrival in Puerto Rico and before his
scheduled return to Florida that would entitle the plaintiff to
relief under these facts. The motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint was proper, as the facts alleged by the
plaintiff fail to state a claim that would entitle the plaintiff to
relief.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because we affirm the district court on the ground that the
plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim, we
do not need to address the alternative grounds that the defendant
raises for affirmance.