Marianne Malley v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD
713 F. App'x 905
11th Cir.2017Background
- Marianne Malley fell while stepping onto a raised coaming (threshold) to access the helicopter deck of Royal Caribbean’s ship Allure of the Seas during a cocktail event where drinks were handed out prior to boarding the deck.
- Malley was holding a glass and purse, could not use the handrail, saw the step but underestimated its height, and sustained serious injuries including a fractured shoulder.
- Evidence about the coaming’s height and markings is imprecise: no measurements or clear photos; plaintiff alleges about a foot or "two normal steps"; conflicting testimony on presence of yellow/black tape.
- No evidence showed prior incidents, complaints, or warnings about the coaming’s height; several passengers successfully crossed before Malley fell.
- District court granted summary judgment for Royal Caribbean, finding the coaming not unreasonably high and, in any event, its height was open and obvious; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn of an unreasonably high coaming | Malley: ship should have warned that the coaming was unreasonably high and dangerous | Royal Caribbean: no notice of dangerous height; no duty to warn if condition is open and obvious | Held: No duty to warn — ship lacked notice of an unreasonable height and the height was open and obvious to a reasonable person |
| Liability for creating/allowing a dangerous condition | Malley: coaming was unreasonably high and crew actions (handing out drinks before crossing; no attendant) increased risk | Royal Caribbean: knew of the step but lacked notice that its height was dangerous; no prior incidents or complaints | Held: No liability — no actual or constructive notice that the coaming’s height was dangerous |
| Negligent mode of operation | Malley: company practices (serving drinks before crossing, no assistance) made operation unsafe | Royal Caribbean: admiralty law requires notice of the dangerous condition; mode-of-operation claim under Florida law does not fit admiralty | Held: Not recognized as a standalone admiralty claim; alternatively fails for lack of notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (admiralty law governs shipboard passenger negligence and notice requirement)
- Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir. 1984) (carrier liable for negligence, not as insurer)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (elements of maritime negligence and proving notice)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (notice requirement where danger is commonly encountered on land)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (knowledge that a condition exists is not enough; defendant must know it is dangerous)
- Deperrodil v. Bozovic Marine, Inc., 842 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2016) (duty to warn only for non-open-and-obvious dangers)
- Samuels v. Holland Am. Line-USA, Inc., 656 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2011) (open-and-obvious doctrine bars failure-to-warn claims)