Antoinette Pizzino v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
709 F. App'x 563
11th Cir.2017Background
- Pizzino slipped and broke both wrists on a wet corridor floor aboard Norwegian’s ship after a barista (Hulea) carried buckets of water/bleach between the casino and a coffee bar late at night.
- CCTV shows Hulea carrying a bucket shortly before the fall; passengers testified there were puddles at the scene and no "wet floor" sign was present.
- Hulea denied seeing a leak while carrying the buckets; after the fall he wiped the floor only after being told about the water.
- Pizzino sued Norwegian for negligence, alleging Norwegian created and failed to remediate the hazardous condition.
- The district court instructed the jury that plaintiff must prove actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition; the court declined Pizzino’s requested instruction that notice was unnecessary if the ship created the hazard.
- The jury returned a verdict for Norwegian; Pizzino appealed the refusal to give her requested instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a cruise operator can be liable without actual or constructive notice when the operator created the hazardous condition | Pizzino: If the operator created the unsafe or foreseeably hazardous condition, proof of notice is unnecessary | Norwegian: Federal maritime law requires actual or constructive notice for liability; creation alone is insufficient | Court: Refuses instruction; creation does not eliminate the notice requirement under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding creation of a defect by a carrier does not eliminate the requirement of actual or constructive notice)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (establishing that notice is a prerequisite to imposing liability for common land-type hazards under maritime law)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (reiterating carrier’s duty of reasonable care under maritime law; acknowledged but did not decide the creation rule when not contested)