P.H., vs CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A

July 28, 2015

P.H., vs CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Complaint

This is a Complaint filed on behalf of a cruise ship passenger who was severely injured when she attempted to open a door located on the Lido Deck of the Carnival Splendor vessel and, as she was holding on to the door handle, the door flew open due to the wind and/or the tunnel effect created when another adjacent door was open at the same time.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

 

CASE NO.                                                    

 

P.H.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

                                                            /

 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff sues Defendant and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

  1. Plaintiff, H., is a citizen of New York.
  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. In the alternative, if diversity jurisdiction does not apply, then this matter falls under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court.
  4. Defendant, at all times material hereto, personally or through an agent:

a. 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;

b. Was engaged in substantial activity within this state;

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state;

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes §§ 48.081, 48.181 and/or 48.193;

e. The acts of Defendant set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in this county and/or state.

f. The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing to the public and to the Plaintiff in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard the vessel, the Carnival Splendor.

  1. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this state.
  2. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the General Maritime Law of the United States.
  3. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled the vessel, the Carnival Splendor.
  4. On or about October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was a paying passenger on Defendant’s vessel, which was in navigable waters.
  5. On or about October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff attempted to open a door located on the Lido Deck of the subject vessel. As the Plaintiff was holding on to the door handle, the door flew open due to the wind and/or the tunnel effect created when another adjacent door was open at the same time. As a result, the Plaintiff was severely injured.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through nine (9) as though alleged originally herein.

  1. It was the duty of Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.
  2. On or about October 22, 2014, Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees breached its duty to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.
  3. On or about October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or negligence of Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees as follows:

a. Failure to provide safety devices, such as door dampers, appurtenant to the door; and/or

b. Failure to maintain safety devices, such as door dampers, appurtenant to the door in proper working condition; and/or

c. Failure to provide, implement and/or utilize protective equipment, gear and/or devices to prevent against the type of injury alleged herein; and/or

d. Failure to inspect the door and/or safety devices appurtenant to the door; and/or

e. Failure to provide an adequately safe door in light of the anticipated purpose and high traffic; and/or

f. Failure to adequately and regularly inspect and maintain the door; and/or

g. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures regarding inspecting, monitoring and/or maintaining the door and/or safety devices appurtenant to the door in a reasonably safe condition; and/or

h. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures to prevent injuries from doors; and/or

i. Failure to adequately provide instruction to passengers (including the Plaintiff) on preventing injuries from doors; and/or

j. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff) of hazards posed by the door; and/or

k. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff) that the door would forcefully open; and/or

l. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff) that the subject door would forcefully open when the other adjacent door was also open; and/or

mFailure to ascertain the dangers involved with opening the subject door when the other adjacent door was also open; and/or

n.Failure to inspect the subject door and dangers associated therewith as it relates to the other adjacent door; and/or

o. Failure to identify the inadequacy of the door and/or warnings concerning the relationship between the subject door and the other adjacent door; and/or

p. Failure to change and/or correct the inadequacy of the door and/or warnings concerning the relationship between the subject door and the other adjacent door; and/or

q. Failure to test the speed of the door opening to determine whether the door was reasonably safe; and/or

r. Failure to ascertain whether the doors meet applicable standards, such as ASTM F1166; and/or

s. Failure to close off access to the subject area and door(s) due to weather conditions; and/or

t. Failure to ascertain the cause of prior similar accidents occurring on any of the Defendant’s vessels fleetwide, so as to take adequate measures to prevent their reoccurrence and this incident specifically.

  1. All or some of the above acts and/or omissions by Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees, caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiff being injured when the door flew open while the Plaintiff was holding on to the door handle.
  2. Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing the Plaintiff’s accident and did not correct them. Defendant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition(s) was specifically acquired through its inspection of the subject door and/or area prior to this incident and/or through prior incidents involving the same or similar doors on its vessels, including the Carnival Splendor. Alternatively, the foregoing 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.
  3. 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 the Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law against the Defendant and demands trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

 

LIPCON, MARGULIES,

ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204

 

By: /s/ Michael A. Winkleman                   

MICHAEL A. WINKLEMAN

Florida Bar No. 36719

JACQUELINE GARCELL

Florida Bar No. 104358