Elizabeth Amy v. Carnival Corporation
961 F.3d 1303
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- A three-year-old (W.A.) fell from Deck 14 to Deck 12 on Carnival’s cruise ship Liberty after going over or through a horizontal-bar guard rail; the rail’s courses were 7.87 inches apart.
- Elizabeth Amy sued Carnival on W.A.’s behalf for negligent creation/maintenance of the rail and failure to warn about the rail’s danger to small children.
- Evidence included passenger testimony that Carnival warned at mandatory safety drills not to climb, sit on, lean over, or take selfies on rails; an engineering report (not rebutted) identifying a "ladder effect" and recommending a 4-inch maximum opening; and Carnival witnesses (Vasquez, Clement) admitting the railing was climbable, lacked anti-climb protection, and that Carnival knew about climb risks and safety standards.
- Carnival moved for summary judgment arguing lack of actual or constructive notice; it did not assert an open-and-obvious defense. The district court granted summary judgment, finding no notice and that the danger was open and obvious.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed: it held that evidence (warnings, corporate testimony, and the expert report) created genuine disputes of material fact on notice, and that the district court improperly decided the failure-to-warn claim on an open-and-obvious basis without giving Amy notice or an opportunity to respond. The case was remanded and costs vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carnival had actual or constructive notice of the rail’s risk-creating conditions | Amy: warnings at muster drills, corporate admissions, and expert report show Carnival knew or should have known rail was climbable and hazardous to children | Carnival: no evidence of notice of the specific allegedly dangerous measurements/configuration | Reversed summary judgment — reasonable juror could find notice based on warnings, corporate testimony, and expert report |
| Whether Carnival had a duty to warn (open-and-obvious defense) | Amy: Carnival did not raise open-and-obvious defense; district court should not resolve it sua sponte without notice | Carnival: (did not assert open-and-obvious in district court) | District court erred by deciding open-and-obvious without giving plaintiff notice and time to respond; reversal and remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710 (11th Cir. 2019) (warnings or corrective measures can create issue of fact on notice; summary-judgment evidence must be viewed for nonmovant)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (warning signs and corrective action relevant to notice; owner may still be liable for obvious dangers for negligent-maintenance claim)
- Carroll v. Carnival Corp., 955 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2020) (duty to warn limited to known dangers that are not open and obvious; duty of reasonable care under maritime negligence)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (shipowner liability hinges on actual or constructive notice of risk-creating condition)
- Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (prior-precedent rule; court rejected argument for heightened duty of care)