Cruise passenger was served 33 drinks, pepper sprayed and restrained before he died, lawsuit says
By: Royal Caribbean (ArcaMax)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Cruise passenger was served 33 drinks, pepper sprayed and restrained before he died, lawsuit says
Salvador Hernandez, Los Angeles Times on Dec 9, 2025
LOS ANGELES — A passenger who died on a Royal Caribbean cruise was doused with pepper spray and physically restrained by staff members after he was served 33 alcoholic drinks and became violent, according to a lawsuit the man's family filed against the company.
Video from aboard the Royal Caribbean Cruises ship showed Michael Virgil at times screaming, kicking at a door, shirtless and then being restrained on the ground.
According to a lawsuit filed against the cruise line in Florida last week, crew members had served Virgil at least 33 drinks before he died on an all-inclusive, four-day journey from Los Angeles to Ensenada, Mexico, last year.
"What was supposed to be a beautiful family vacation came to an unimaginably tragic end due to the reprehensible way the situation — that should have never occurred — was handled," said Kevin Haynes, who is representing the family in the suit, in a statement.
In an email, a spokesperson for Royal Caribbean declined to comment on the lawsuit.
"We were saddened by the passing of one of our guests, worked with authorities on their investigation, and will refrain from commenting any further on pending litigation," the statement from Royal Caribbean Group read.
The lawsuit says that Virgil, who was from Riverside, boarded the ship on Dec. 13, 2024, with his longtime fiancee, Connie Aguilar, and their 7-year-old son, but they were told to wait in a bar area with live music because their cabin was not ready.
Virgil's son and Aguilar left at one point to check on their cabin, but the suit alleges Virgil was served at least 33 alcoholic drinks shortly after boarding the ship.
Virgil had purchased Royal Caribbean's "Deluxe Beverage Package," according to the suit, which gives passengers all-inclusive drinks.
The suit alleges that before the violent confrontation with crew members, Virgil had shown signs of intoxication to the ship's staff, who continued to serve him dozens of drinks.
"ROYAL CARIBBEAN crew members negligently served alcoholic beverages to [Virgil] in excess, causing his judgment and faculties to become substantially impaired," the suit states.
While intoxicated, the suit alleges, Virgil became frustrated when he got lost and was unable to locate his family's room.
Ship staff and security "tackled him to the ground and stood over his body with their full weight," according to a statement released by Haynes.
The crew was "applying compressive force to [Virgil's] body, causing [Virgil] to stop moving," according to the complaint.
Staff also used several cans of pepper spray and injected him with a sedative, Haloperidol, according to the suit.
The physical restraint, the use of pepper spray, and the sedative used to restrain Virgil, and the dozens of alcoholic drinks affected breathing and cardiovascular instability, the suit alleges, led to his death.
According to the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's office, Virgil's death was determined to be caused by the combined effects of mechanical asphyxia, obesity, cardiomegaly, and ethanol intoxication.
The medical examiner's office also determined his death was a homicide.
"Michael's family has suffered unimaginable heartache and torment caused by Royal Caribbean, a mega cruise line that prioritizes profit over passenger safety," Haynes said in the statement.
After Virgil's death, according to the suit, the ship continued on the cruise toward Ensenada, Mexico, and kept Virgil's body refrigerated until it returned to Los Angeles on Dec. 16, 2024.
Virgil's family is seeking damages, including loss of support, inheritance, and medical and funeral expenses.
©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Share
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
He was on the "all you can drink" plan.
In my opinion, unless they actually waterboarded him with alcoholic drinks he's as much to blame for his death as the cruise line is. The first point defence counsel should make is that he bought the "all inclusive drinks" package that must have cost big bucks, which didn't mean he just wanted a glass of wine with dinner - he WANTED to drink a lot of alcoholic drinks, and he must have ordered those 33 drinks.
Exactly, unless the family's lawyers can prove the cruise forced him to drink that much the ship is not at fault
I'm not so sure about that. Shouldn't the bartender and wait staff be training on spotting drunken behavior and cut the person off for the day? I know that most states (have to say most as I do not know if all states have laws for this) have laws to can place bartenders and wait staff as well as the establishment in legal trouble for over serving an individual.
Secondly, the sedative they administered. Was it administered by a doctor who examined him before or was it given by a member of security? It's well established that alcohol and drugs can have serious complications when mixed so there is that issue.
So I wouldn't say the cruse line or any individual involved is clear of any legal issues. There is a lot of investigation that is needed for this, I suspect the cruise line will be happy to offer a seven figure settlement in the hopes that this just goes away.
And just as importantly, the public perception of the cruise line is damaged by this incident. Public perception can do a lot.
Well, Snuffy, you're right that normally the bartending staff should cut off a person whose drunken behaviour becomes obvious, but I wonder if the staff are instructed to ignore that in the case of the "all inclusive drinks" situation, and perhaps the victim is capable of really "holding his liquor" and not showing the usual signs of drunkeness at the time of imbibing.
I would hope that staff is not instructed to ignore signs of drunkenness and if the victim is capable of hiding the signs (as everybody reacts differently to drinking), I think that provides even more emphasis on the investigation that a court case would require. I say require as I would hope that it would be an honest and fair investigation which I find hard to see if only one party does any investigation. If staff is instructed to ignore the obvious signs, wouldn't that make things even worse for the cruise line as far as putting them deeper into liability?
I think that this is a case that could end up being one for law schools to use for a lesson.
That is not correct.
This is from a website for a law firm that claims expertise in the area of cruise ship injuries:
IMO no they are there to do their jobs and sell and serve drinks/food etc and depending on the crowd size and how busy they were may not have realized what this person was up to.
But then again I'm a big believer in personal responsibility
Sorry for the confusion but I was stating my personal beliefs not the laws viewpoint of the matter
Got it.
I believe there is a valid public policy reason for holding purveyors of liquor liable for allowing customers to become excessively intoxicated. We want to prevent drunks from harming themselves and others. Most states have Dram Shop laws that hold sellers of alcohol liable for damages caused by over-served patrons. It is supposed to act as a deterrent to prevent injuries, for which we know drunk drivers are often responsible. Some states even allow private individuals (social hosts) to be held liable for damages caused by over-served persons.
I'm a big believer in personal responsibility as well, but there are several states that I know of that have laws mandating the responsibilities of bartenders and service staff when it comes to their responsibility around alcohol. Just because they are busy doesn't negate their responsibility in this.
I know (these laws are common here in Canada) but that doesn't change my belief that a person is responsible for their actions and the consequences that follow
Well at least we partially agree, that's more than happens in most discussions here
The fact that the purveyor of liquor may be held liable does not absolve the individual who gets drunk and causes damages from liability. It is just another source of legal recovery, although, as I mentioned, there is a very good public policy reason for holding them responsible as well as the individual who caused the harm. It promotes safety, which is a good thing.
33 drinks in what period of time?
How big was he?
My assumption would be that it would be at one sitting.
Good questions, I know I've drank that much in one sitting but it takes a fair amount of time
Maybe the problem was really one of his propensity for violence - not everyone who gets drunk becomes violent.
Yep his actions had consequences, hopefully his family will realize this was his fault instead of trying to win the lawsuit lottery