A.H., Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A

April 02, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

IN ADMIRALTY

CASE NO.                                                    

A.H.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

                                                                        /

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff sues Defendant and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

  1. Plaintiff, A.H., is a citizen of the state of Alabama.
  2. Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Panama, having its principal place of business in Florida.
  3. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
  4. In the alternative, if diversity jurisdiction does not apply, then this matter falls under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court.
  5. At all times material hereto, Defendant personally or through an agent:
    1. Operated, conducted, engaged in or carried on a business venture in this state and/or county or had an office or agency in this state and/or county;
    2. Was engaged in substantial activity within this state;
    3. Operated vessels in the waters of this state;
    4. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statute §§ 48.081, 48.181 and/or 48.193;
    5. The acts of Defendant set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in this county and/or state.
    6. The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing to the public and to the Plaintiff in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard their vessel.
  6. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this state.
  7. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the General Maritime Law of the United States.
  8. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled the vessel, the Carnival Fascination.
  9. At all times material hereto, Defendant had exclusive custody and control of the vessel, the Carnival Fascination.
  10. On or about March 15, 2014, Plaintiff was a paying passenger on Defendant’s vessel which was in navigable waters.
  11. On or about March 15, 2014, Plaintiff was severely injured when she slipped and fell on and unmarked step located in the bathroom of her passenger cabin aboard the vessel.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE

The Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through eleven (11) as though alleged originally herein.

  1. It was the duty of Defendant to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.
  2. On or about March 15, 2014, Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.
  3. On or about March 15, 2014, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees as follows:
    1. Failure to have reasonably safe step(s); and/or
    2. Failure to utilize reasonably safe flooring material for the steps; and/or
    3. Failure to have adequate lighting at or around the subject step(s); and/or
    4. Failure to have adequate handrails at or around the subject step(s); and/or
    5. Failure to utilize mats and/or anti-slip devices; and/or
    6. Failure to adequately mark the step(s) to be readily apparent to the Plaintiff and not hidden and/or camouflaged; and/or
    7. Failure to use contrasting flooring surfaces so as to make the change in level readily apparent to the Plaintiff; and/or
    8. Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of the danger posed by the step(s); and/or
    9. Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of other fall accidents previously occurring on the same or similar type of step(s); and/or
    10. Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of other fall accidents previously occurring in the same or similar manner as the Plaintiff’s incident; and/or
    11. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures to ensure that passengers like the Plaintiff are warned of the danger posed by the step(s); and/or
    12. Failure to correct hazardous conditions following prior trip-and-fall accidents on the same type of step(s); and/or
    13. Failure to correct hazardous conditions following prior trip-and-fall accidents occurring in the same manner as the Plaintiff’s incident; and/or
    14. Failure to analyze prior trip-and-fall accidents in the cabin bathrooms aboard Defendant’s vessels so as to remedy such hazardous conditions; and/or
    15. Failure to analyze prior trip-and-fall accidents aboard Defendant’s vessels involving steps without handrails so as to remedy such hazardous conditions; and/or
    16. Failure to analyze prior trip-and-fall accidents aboard Defendant’s vessels involving steps unmarked and/or hidden and/or camouflaged steps so as to remedy such hazardous conditions; and/or
    17. Failure to adequately inspect and/or maintain the subject steps in a reasonably safe condition, including, but not limited to, without trip-and-fall hazards; and/or
    18. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures to inspect and/or maintain the subject steps in a reasonably safe condition; and/or
    19. Failure to provide passengers like the Plaintiff with a reasonably safe stairway and/or walking surface and/or flooring surface; and/or
    20. Failure to incorporate applicable standards, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to changes in level open to passengers like the Plaintiff;

all or some of which caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiff falling on step(s) located in the bathroom of her passenger cabin aboard the vessel.

  1. Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that Defendant in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances should have learned of them and corrected them. In addition, Defendant violated the International Safety Management Code and failed to have a proper, adequate and safe Safety Management System Manual (SQM) and/or failed to follower their SQM manual. All the above caused the Plaintiff to be injured.
  2. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of any previously existing conditions there from, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost wages and her working ability has been impaired. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law against the defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

 

LIPCON, MARGULIES,

ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 S. Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel.: (305) 373-3016

Fax: (305) 373-6204

 

By:   /s/ Jason R. Margulies                        

JASON R. MARGULIES

Florida Bar No. 57916

JACQUELINE GARCELL

Florida Bar No. 104358