Elaine Carroll v. Carnival Corporation
955 F.3d 1260
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- On a Carnival Pride cruise ship, Elaine Carroll tripped on the leg of a lounge chair while walking along a curved, narrowing walkway on Deck 11 and was injured.
- The walkway ran between lounge chairs set along a curved restaurant glass wall and the ship rail; it narrowed after the first chair so Carroll followed behind her husband, whose body obstructed her view.
- Carroll sued Carnival for negligent maintenance (chairs narrowing/protruding into the pedestrian path) and negligent failure to warn passengers of the hazard.
- Carnival moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was open and obvious and that it lacked actual or constructive notice; the district court granted summary judgment for Carnival on both grounds.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding genuine disputes of material fact on (a) whether the danger was open and obvious (view obstruction and narrowing could prevent a reasonable person from seeing the chair leg) and (b) whether Carnival had notice (employee testimony showed policies and patrols to keep chairs upright/in-line). The court also held that an open-and-obvious risk defeats only a failure-to-warn claim, not a negligent-maintenance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn — Is the lounge-chair hazard "open and obvious"? | Carroll: narrow layout and being forced to follow her husband obstructed her view, so a reasonable person in her position would not have observed the hazard. | Carnival: chair placement on an open deck on a clear day is objectively open and obvious; Carroll admitted she could have looked down. | Reversed: genuine dispute of material fact exists; court must view inferences for Carroll; open-and-obvious not established on summary judgment. |
| Notice — Did Carnival have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous chair placement? | Carroll: testimony shows Carnival required chairs be upright, staff patrolled and moved chairs, and corrective actions indicate knowledge of the risk. | Carnival: contends it lacked notice; there is some conflicting employee testimony on chair setup practices. | Reversed: factual disputes (policies, patrols, corrective action) create a triable issue as to notice. |
| Effect of creation of condition on notice requirement | Carroll: if Carnival created the dangerous condition, she should not need to prove notice. | Carnival relied on precedent requiring notice. | Court did not overrule prior precedent (Everett) but found other record evidence sufficient to show notice; declined to modify rule here. |
| Negligent maintenance — Does an open-and-obvious risk bar negligent-maintenance liability? | Carroll: even if obvious, Carnival may still be liable for creating/maintaining an unsafe walkway; open-and-obvious relates to comparative fault, not duty. | Carnival: argued open-and-obvious defeats both failure-to-warn and maintenance claims. | Reversed: court adopted Restatement Third approach and Arthur precedent — open-and-obvious defeats only duty to warn; negligent-maintenance claim may proceed and open-and-obviousness is a factor in fault allocation, not a categorical bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710 (11th Cir. 2019) (duty to warn only for dangers not open and obvious)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (notice can be shown by corrective measures and industry custom evidence)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (maritime negligence analyzed under general negligence principles)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (shipowner liability requires actual or constructive notice of risk-creating condition)
- Arthur v. Flota Mercante Gran Centro Americana S.A., 487 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1973) (open-and-obvious condition does not bar negligent-maintenance claim; comparative negligence governs)
- Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, 139 S. Ct. 986 (2019) (federal courts may develop federal maritime law using various sources)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959) (maritime law adopts comparative negligence principles)