212 F. Supp. 3d 1301
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- Plaintiff Ivan Millan was injured on March 24, 2013 when a metal bar/ceiling piece fell from the Crystal Restaurant ceiling aboard the M/S Bahamas Celebration and struck his head.
- Defendant Celebration Cruise Operator (Bahamas Celebration) owned and operated the vessel since 2009; ship was built in 1982; no recorded prior incidents involving the restaurant ceiling while defendant operated the ship.
- The vessel later ran aground in 2014 and some ship logs were unavailable in discovery.
- Plaintiff seeks to prove negligence under maritime law; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing lack of actual or constructive notice and no duty to warn.
- Plaintiff invoked res ipsa loquitur to create an inference of negligence; defendant argued res ipsa still requires proof of notice.
- Court granted summary judgment in part (no duty to warn as a matter of law given lack of notice) but denied summary judgment overall, holding res ipsa could apply and factual issues remain for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can invoke res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the ceiling collapse | Res ipsa applies: event ordinarily does not occur without negligence; plaintiff had no fault; defendant controlled the instrumentality | Res ipsa is insufficient without proof defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect | Court: res ipsa may apply under maritime law without proof of notice; plaintiff raised triable issues; summary judgment denied on negligence claim |
| Whether defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defective ceiling | (implicit) No evidence of prior incidents; relies on res ipsa to shift burden | No actual/constructive notice; therefore no liability and no duty to warn | Court: no record evidence of notice; court finds defendant lacked notice as a matter of law, but that does not preclude res ipsa inference |
| Whether defendant had a duty to warn Plaintiff of the ceiling condition | N/A (plaintiff argued res ipsa; did not separately press warning claim) | No duty to warn absent actual or constructive notice | Court: no duty to warn as a matter of law because defendant lacked notice |
| Whether summary judgment for defendant is warranted | Plaintiff opposed and sought (untimely) judgment on res ipsa; argued factual disputes exist | Defendant moved for summary judgment on notice/duty grounds | Court: denied defendant’s motion in part (negligence claim survives due to res ipsa/triable issues) and granted in part (no duty to warn) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine issue analysis)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (shipowner duty to exercise reasonable care to passengers)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir.) (maritime requirement that plaintiff show actual or constructive notice for negligence claims against vessel owner)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.) (elements of maritime negligence claim)
- Baycon Indus., Inc. v. United States, 804 F.2d 630 (11th Cir.) (res ipsa in maritime negligence does not require proof of notice)
- Burns v. Otis Elevator Co., 550 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding notice immaterial if res ipsa conditions are met)
- Kadushin v. Philmac Realty Corp., 128 So.2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA) (recognizing that objects falling from ceilings ordinarily indicate negligence)