Carideo v. Whet Travel, Inc.
1:16-cv-23658
| S.D. Fla. | Mar 23, 2018Background
- Plaintiff David Carideo, a passenger on an October 2015 "Groove Cruise" aboard the Carnival Inspiration, was assaulted by two other passengers after an encounter in his cabin that night; he sustained severe, permanent facial and cranial injuries.
- The Groove Cruise was a three-day, adult-only, electronic dance music (EDM) themed charter with heavy alcohol sales and party atmosphere; Carnival used its standard security staffing and Whet Travel provided private security.
- Carnival had seven security officers on duty the night of the incident (plus supervisory security staff); a uniformed officer intervened and attackers were apprehended shortly after the assault.
- Plaintiff sued Carnival for negligence/negligent security; Carnival moved for summary judgment arguing the assault was an unforeseeable third-party criminal act and that Carnival lacked actual or constructive notice of the specific risk.
- Plaintiff argued the cruise’s nature (young adults, round‑the‑clock partying and alcohol), prior fleet reports of assaults, expert testimony, Carnival’s security practices, and the presence of on-board alcohol gave rise to constructive notice and a jury question.
- The court denied Carnival’s summary judgment motion, concluding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence (albeit close) to create a triable issue on foreseeability/constructive notice and proximate causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carnival had actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition (foreseeability) | Groove Cruise's alcohol-focused, youth-oriented character, prior assault reports, expert opinions, Carnival's security presence and practices show constructive notice | No evidence of substantially similar prior incidents on Groove Cruises; generalized risk is insufficient; Carnival exercised reasonable care | Denied summary judgment — jury may find constructive notice given cruise character, prior incidents, and expert testimony |
| Whether Carnival's security breached duty of reasonable care | Security staffing and procedures were inadequate for this specific themed cruise; failure to tailor security created risk | Carnival followed standard policies and staffing levels; imposing greater obligations would turn operator into insurer | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute exists whether security was inadequate and whether breach was a substantial factor in causing harm |
| Whether the criminal acts of third parties were unforeseeable intervening causes | Plaintiff need not show Carnival knew these specific assailants; foreseeability of assaults generally on this cruise is sufficient | The assault was wholly unpredictable; absence of identical prior incidents mandates summary judgment | Denied summary judgment — foreseeability is typically a jury question where evidence permits it |
| Whether plaintiff’s evidence (experts, prior incidents) is admissible/supports liability | Expert testimony and prior incident reports support foreseeability and causation | Carnival challenged experts via Daubert and argued prior incidents not similar | Court granted Daubert in part but left key expert opinions intact; evidence suffices to avoid summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (duty of shipowner to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (carrier liable only with actual or constructive notice of risk-creating condition)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality/genuineness standards for summary judgment)
- Meyers v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., Inc., 833 F.2d 1521 (provision of security can be evidence of foreseeability)
- Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225 (maritime torts informed by general negligence principles)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (maritime negligence applies general negligence rules)
- Belik v. Carlson Travel Grp., Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (elements of negligence outlined in cruise context)
- Burdeaux v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., [citation="562 F. App'x 932"] (prior-assault evidence and notice arguments)