The High Court has dismissed a woman’s claim against a cruise company and travel agent after she fractured her elbow during a high-speed jet-boat excursion in St Maarten.
The woman, Siobhan Kellett, had booked the “White Knuckle Jet Boat Thrill Ride” as part of a 2016 cruise holiday with her husband. During a 360-degree turn, she lifted out of her seat and struck her right elbow against the boat’s gunwale. Medical scans in Ireland later showed an undisplaced fracture and a small focal tear.
Kellett argued that the boat was unsafe for the advertised manoeuvres because it lacked a harness or lap belt, sidebars and padding along the gunwales. She also alleged that the skipper should have moved her to a rear bench after an earlier turn had lifted her from her seat. Her engineering expert said those safety measures were practical and inexpensive, but he identified no applicable regulations or standards requiring them.
The defendants accepted that they were organisers under the Package Holidays and Travel Trade Act 1995. They argued that Kellett had chosen a ride advertised to include fast spins and other vigorous manoeuvres, and that the injury was not due to negligence. They also relied on statutory exceptions to organiser liability.
Mr Justice Barr ruled that choosing a risky activity did not mean a participant consented to negligence. He also rejected the defendants’ reliance on the statutory exceptions, finding that Kellett had followed the instructions and that the incident was not an unforeseeable event or force majeure. Those conclusions did not, by themselves, establish negligence.
The judge found that the plaintiff had not established the applicable local or international safety standards. He also rejected the alleged safety failures on their merits: restraints could create a grave danger if the boat capsized; sidebars would not have prevented the injury and could create a trip hazard; and the risk of a passenger striking a gunwale was not likely enough to require padding. He found it would have been dangerous to move passengers between benches while the boat was at sea.
The court was satisfied that the boat was seaworthy and safe for the proposed excursion, and that the ride had been provided with reasonable skill and care. It found no negligence by the excursion operator and therefore no liability for the cruise company or travel agent under the Act. The action was dismissed.