Beneath the Waves: Yacht Negligence and Liability in Florida’s Courts
- FULR Management
- Jul 23
- 5 min read
By Sofia Hernandez '28
Reel Wild, the tender of the 221-ft Motor Yacht Loon, barreled across the water at nearly 50 miles per hour on the night of December 21st, 2024. Six crew members were hospitalized following the crash, igniting an intense legal battle against Captain Paul Clarke for alleged negligence. (1) When accidents like this occur, questions of liability ripple across borders, implicating international crews, foreign-flagged vessels, and U.S.-based corporate owners. These legal tensions are now on full display in a March 2025 lawsuit brought in Florida’s Broward County by Natalia Niznik, a Polish citizen, and Klara Holubova, a citizen of the Czech Republic, against Clarke, an Australian national domiciled in Broward County. The case raises pressing questions about negligence under admiralty law, corporate liability in the luxury yachting sector, and the jurisdictional reach of U.S. maritime statutes. As Florida emerges as a hub for luxury yachting and international vessel litigation, this incident emphasizes the need to revisit how maritime law protects crew members and holds operators accountable at sea.
According to the complaint, Captain Paul Clarke allegedly abandoned the helm while the vessel was traveling at speeds over 48 miles per hour, leaving no one in control as it crashed. The impact left crew members injured, with Niznik and Holubova claiming serious injuries and psychological trauma. (2) Their suit argues that Clarke’s actions constituted a clear breach of duty and that the employer’s failure to ensure proper operation and supervision of the tender further compounded the negligence. (3) Clarke’s defense has since moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds.
Claims of negligence under general maritime law are at the core of the plaintiffs’ argument, where tort-like principles are applied to incidents occurring on navigable waters. In Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, the Supreme Court affirmed that seamen are entitled to reasonable care while aboard a vessel. (4) Through this precedent, Niznik and Holubova allege that Clarke, by abandoning the helm of a fast-moving tender, breached his duty to operate the vessel safely. Maritime negligence requires showing that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty through unreasonable conduct, and that the breach caused actual harm. (5) In the M/Y Loon case, the plaintiffs argue that all elements have been met: the captain owed a duty to his crew, his failure to remain at the helm constituted a breach, and the resulting crash directly caused physical and emotional injuries. The speed of the vehicle, its lack of supervision, and the captain’s absence jointly support their contention that Clarke’s actions were not merely negligent, but dangerously irresponsible.
This raises a further question: can the owning company also be held liable for the injuries sustained by its crew? Under maritime law, liability can extend beyond individual actors to the corporate entities that operate or manage a vessel. In Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., the Supreme Court established that employers owe their seamen a duty of seaworthiness, which is understood as a strict liability standard that holds vessel owners responsible for unsafe conditions, regardless of negligence. (6) While Clarke’s alleged abandonment of the helm implicates personal fault, the plaintiffs may also argue that the company failed to provide a seaworthy vessel or proper oversight, particularly if it can be shown that the tender’s high-speed capacity and any potential lack of safeguards fall within the company’s responsibility. (7) This argument may be further supported by Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, which asserted that vessel operators can be liable for failing to prevent or correct dangerous conditions known to them. (8) Therefore, if the corporate owner knew or should have known that tenders were being operated at high speeds without supervision, liability, under the duty of seaworthiness doctrine, may extend to them as well.
Another key issue in this case is jurisdiction: can Florida courts properly hear a case involving foreign nationals and an incident that occurred in international waters? Captain Clarke is an Australian citizen, and the incident took place near St. Barths, far off the coast of Florida. However, the plaintiffs assert that sufficient connections exist between the case and Florida to establish personal jurisdiction. Under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, a court may express jurisdiction over a defendant when they have “minimum” contacts with the forum state such that maintaining the lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (9) In this case, Captain Clarke is allegedly domiciled in Broward County, Florida, and the yacht M/Y Loon frequently docks and operates out of Florida ports. The Court may also reference Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, which upheld forum selection clauses in passenger contracts on the grounds that such provisions promote judicial efficiency and are not inherently unfair or the result of bad faith. (10) This may be used as an analogous argument to crew contracts or company policies involving Florida as the legal forum. If the plaintiffs were hired or managed through Florida-based operations, or if the employer is registered in the state, these facts may further support the case for jurisdiction in Florida courts.
The Reel Wild incident underscores broader challenges in maritime law, particularly as Florida becomes an increasingly prominent venue for international yacht litigation. The case highlights the need for clearer regulatory standards governing high-speed tenders, stronger safeguards for international crew members, and more consistent enforcement of jurisdictional principles across borders. As the luxury yachting industry continues to expand, courts will face mounting pressure to balance the mobility of foreign-flagged vessels with the legal rights of those who serve aboard them. Whether through legislative reform or judicial precedent, cases like this one will play a pivotal role in defining the boundaries of liability, corporate responsibility, and jurisdiction beneath the waves of Florida’s increasingly global maritime courts.
Endnotes
“Former Motor Yacht Loon Stews Suing Capt. Paul Clarke for Personal Injury as a Result of Negligence.” Triton. Accessed June 12, 2025. Former Motor Yacht Loon Stews Suing Capt. Paul Clarke for Personal Injury as a Result of Negligence | Triton
“Former Loon Yacht Crew Sue Captain for Injuries.” Megayacht News. Accessed June 30, 2025. Former Loon Yacht Crew Sue Captain for Injuries - Megayacht News
“Yacht Loon Crash Captain Sued in Court for Negligence.” SY News, episode 453. Accessed June 30, 2025. Yacht Loon Crash Captain Sued in Court for Negligence | SY News ep453
“Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Kermarec v. Compagnie General Transatlantique | 358 U.S. 625 (1959) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
“Negligence Claims Defense.” Boat Law. Accessed June 30, 2025. Negligence Claims Defense | Boat Law
“Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (1960).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/539.
“The Doctrine of Unseaworthiness.” Maritime Injury Center. Accessed July 7, 2025. The Doctrine of Unseaworthiness - Maritime Injury Center
“Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981).” U.S. Reports. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep451156.
“International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. International Shoe Co. v. Washington | 326 U.S. 310 (1945) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
“Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute | 499 U.S. 585 (1991) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center