Long v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1313

On August 8, 2011, Josephine Long fell while descending a stair on a Celebrity Cruises ship; she alleges she tripped on a defective metal stair nosing with a broken/plastic light tube protruding above the tread.
Plaintiff contends the nosing was improperly maintained (makeshift sealant repairs) and that ship personnel were responsible for repair; no repairs were reported in the prior three months.
Plaintiff’s daughter inspected and photographed the step soon after the fall; a liability expert opined the nosing repair violated stair safety standards and created a tripping hazard.
Defendant argued Long missed the step, denied a dangerous condition or notice, and raised proximate-cause arguments in its reply.
The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact on existence of a dangerous condition, notice/creation of the hazard, and proximate cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of dangerous condition	Nosing had broken plastic light tube protruding; makeshift sealant repair created tripping hazard	Plaintiff simply missed the step; no dangerous condition shown	Genuine issue of fact exists; evidence supports dangerous condition claim
Notice or creation of condition	Cruise line improperly maintained/created the hazardous condition; notice not required if carrier created it	No actual or constructive notice of defect	Plaintiff presented evidence that defendant created/failed to maintain the hazard; notice requirement satisfied for summary judgment purposes
Proximate cause	Plaintiff’s testimony, daughter’s observations, and expert link protruding tube to the fall	Defendant says plaintiff failed to prove the defect more likely than not caused the fall (raised in reply)	Genuine issue of fact as to causation; proximate cause disputed precluding summary judgment
Scope/timeliness of theory	Plaintiff’s complaint alleged improper maintenance and hazardous nosing; later specificity about light tube falls within original claim	Defendant contends plaintiff switched theories late, prejudicing defense	Court held plaintiff’s more specific theory was within original claim and not a surprise; motion to strike related affidavit denied

Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (shipowner owes passengers reasonable care under the circumstances)
Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (carrier generally liable only with actual or constructive notice unless it created condition)
Hasenfus v. Secord, 962 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1992) (elements of negligence claim)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards and inference limitations)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for sufficient evidence to allow jury to find for nonmoving party)
Fedorczyk v. Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd., 82 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 1996) (causation analysis in cruise-ship slip/trip cases)