New Jersey Couple Sue Owners of Sandals and Beaches Resorts for Car Accident While on Vacation in the Caribbean

A New Jersey couple who were injured in a car accident while honeymooning in St. Lucia sued the companies which put the Sandals resort vacation package together (as well as the negligent driver), even though the car accident did not involve a Sandals employee or occur on Sandals property. The accident actually occurred because the driver of the taxi they were in fell asleep at the wheel and ran off the road on the way from the airport to the resort. So how were the plaintiffs able to sue Sandals?

The vacation package purchased by the couple included a transportation voucher. Per the instructions on the voucher, the couple presented this voucher to a Sandals representative at the airport; this representative’s job was to meet resort guests at the airport and put them into a taxi. The representative led the couple to the taxi operated by the defendant driver, although the driver himself is not an employee of Sandals.

Sandals filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss them from the case, and this motion was initially granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, however, and this motion was granted by the New Jersey court in Santoro v. UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC. The court felt that enough issues of fact existed that the case should be heard by a jury. A jury might believe there was enough of a connection with the resort that it should be partially responsible for the accident, and so the resort is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Another issue was the Limitation of Damages provision in the contract between Sandals and the honeymooning couple. This provision said Sandals would not be liable for any personal injuries caused by any act or omission on the part of any air carrier or ground transportation carrier. These clauses are standard in many types of contracts, and you have probably signed more than one yourself at one time or another. However, these provision generally only shield the defendant from liability for ordinary negligence, and it could possibly be established at trial that the conduct in this case amounted to gross negligence. In that case, the limitation of damages provision would not apply. This question is another matter to be resolved in court if the parties cannot reach a settlement before their trial date approaches.