263 F. Supp. 3d 1261
S.D. Fla.2017Background
- On May 3, 2015, passenger John Diczok tripped and injured his shoulder in the Rende-vous Lounge aboard the Celebrity Summit after turning a corner; he claims he tripped over the outside corner of a small table’s square base.
- Diczok alleges three theories: negligent design of the Lounge (tables in dim walkways), Celebrity created a dangerous condition by removing chairs (exposing a dark table base projecting into the walkway), and failure to warn.
- Celebrity moved for summary judgment arguing lack of notice, that the table/condition was open and obvious, and that Diczok’s inattention, not any condition, proximately caused the fall.
- The parties agree Celebrity owed a duty of reasonable care and that Diczok suffered damages; the dispute centers on breach (creation/notice/warning) and proximate cause.
- The court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether Celebrity created the dangerous condition by removing chairs, whether the table was open and obvious (duty to warn), and proximate cause, but held insufficient evidence that Celebrity actually participated in or approved the specific design of the table (negligent design claim fails as a matter of law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent design | Celebrity participated in/approved Lounge design; placement/dim lighting made tables hazardous | Celebrity had no actual involvement or approval of specific table design; builder was responsible | Denied for plaintiff — insufficient evidence of Celebrity's actual participation/approval; negligent-design claim dismissed |
| Creation of dangerous condition by removing chairs | Removing yellow chairs exposed a dark table base that projected toward walkway, creating a hazard | Table was not a dangerous condition; plaintiff only points to his fall | For plaintiff — genuine issue of material fact exists whether removal of chairs created the dangerous condition |
| Duty to warn | Table was not open and obvious (dim lighting, dark table blending with wall/carpet); Celebrity should have warned | No notice; condition open/obvious so no warning required | For plaintiff — whether Celebrity had a duty to warn depends on factfinder’s determination whether the hazard was open and obvious; issue reserved for jury |
| Proximate cause | Table/base was a substantial factor in causing fall | Plaintiff’s inattention was the proximate cause, not any condition | For plaintiff — genuine issue of material fact exists as to proximate cause; summary judgment denied on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine issue)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment procedure)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (elements of maritime negligence claim)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 626 (duty of care owed by ship operators to passengers)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (notice requirement for breach)
- Long v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (no notice required when defendant created condition)
- Groves v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., [citation="463 F. App'x 837"] (negligent-design requires actual involvement in design)
- Exxon Co. U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830 (federal admiralty may look to state proximate-cause law)
- Smolnikar v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (duty to warn where hazard not open and obvious)