A bride who claimed a cake containing coconut ruined her wedding reception on a cruise ship has sailed off with a settlement from the ship's operator in which she received a “nominal amount” of damages and credits toward a future cruise.

Sandra Newsom did not allege that the catering staff of the Carnival Freedom knew she was “severely allergic” to coconut before the reception. She sued Carnival Cruise Lines for at least $75,000 under the theory that it was liable for the “natural and probable” consequences of failing to serve the “white cake with vanilla frosting” she had ordered.

Newsom's reaction to the coconut-containing cake was so violent, she alleged in a complaint filed June 16, that her husband spent his wedding night “caring for an ill bride.”

An allergy to coconut is so rare that Carnival could have argued there was nothing “natural or probable” about Newsom's alleged injury. But the parties agreed to a settlement before Carnival had even answered the complaint.

“The case was settled quickly and amicably ... We settled for a nominal amount and future cruise credits so [the Newsoms] will be able to enjoy a terrific cruise experience,” Carnival spokesman Tim Gallagher tells On Point.

Newsom had her reception on the first night of an eight-day Caribbean cruise. According to her attorney, Paul M. Hoffman, the catering staff gave her a choice for her wedding cake of “vanilla or chocolate cake with vanilla, chocolate or butter cream frosting. Because she was not told that coconut cake was a possibility, she did not feel she had to disclose her allergy.”

“In substituting a cake without telling her, Carnival is liable for all the consequences of its breach of duty even if the particular consequences are unforeseeable at the time of the negligent act,” Hoffman said.

But Florida courts have warned against attaching tort liability “for results which, although caused-in-fact by the defendant's negligent act or omission, seem to the judicial mind highly unusual, extraordinary, bizarre, or, stated differently, seem beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant's negligence.” Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So. 2d 14 (1983).

By Matthew Heller
8/3/09