Morhardt v. Carnival Corp., 304 F. Supp. 3d 1290

Plaintiff Frederick Morhardt was electrocuted when he used a hard‑wired hair dryer in his Carnival cruise ship stateroom on November 3, 2015; he alleges burns and a range of injuries including back/leg pain, loss of grip in his right hand, vision problems, and a scar.
Morhardt sought recovery under a single negligence count in admiralty against Carnival; discovery proceeded but Morhardt failed to timely disclose expert witnesses and his motions for extensions were denied.
Relevant record evidence relied on by the parties: Morhardt's deposition, Carnival's 30(b)(6) deposition, and interrogatory responses; Carnival's 30(b)(6) witness testified the hair dryer was inspected each voyage and there were no prior incidents.
The hair dryer was removed and discarded after the incident; Morhardt did not produce testimony or affidavits from ship personnel who investigated or from ship infirmary records despite their identification in Carnival's discovery responses.
Carnival moved for summary judgment arguing Morhardt cannot prove notice, cannot invoke res ipsa loquitur, and cannot establish proximate cause or damages without expert medical testimony; the court held Carnival entitled to summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether maritime notice requirement applies	Morhardt argued Florida premises theories and that notice isn’t required if Carnival created the hazard or negligently maintained the dryer	Carnival argued maritime law requires actual or constructive notice and no evidence shows notice here	Court held maritime law governs; plaintiff must prove actual/constructive notice and failed to do so
Application of res ipsa loquitur	Morhardt argued res ipsa should supply an inference of negligence (hair dryer discarded; lack of direct proof)	Carnival argued plaintiff has available direct evidence and failed to investigate or produce it; res ipsa elements unmet	Court held res ipsa does not apply because plaintiff failed to show lack of direct proof and failed other elements
Medical causation / proximate cause	Morhardt argued he and his treating physicians can prove causation without a disclosed expert	Carnival argued expert testimony is required for non‑readily observable injuries and plaintiff failed to disclose any expert	Court held plaintiff needed and failed to produce a medical expert; proximate cause not established
Damages admissibility without expert	Morhardt sought to rely on lay/treating testimony	Carnival argued treating physicians undisclosed as experts cannot opine on causation/prognosis	Court held damages/causation cannot be proved without proper expert disclosure; summary judgment appropriate

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on moving party)
Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (shipowner owes ordinary care but liability requires actual or constructive notice)
Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (general maritime duty of care principles)
Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir.) (rejecting rule that cruise line liable for negligent creation/maintenance absent notice)
Pizzino v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., [citation="709 F. App'x 563"] (11th Cir.) (affirming notice requirement; no exception for creating hazard)
McDougald v. Perry, 716 So. 2d 783 (Fla.) (elements for res ipsa loquitur under Florida law)
Rivera v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., [citation="711 F. App'x 952"] (11th Cir.) (expert testimony required when causal link not readily apparent)
Chapman v. Procter & Gamble Distrib., LLC, 766 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.) (limits on treating physician testimony and expert disclosure)
Wilson v. Taser Int'l, Inc., [citation="303 F. App'x 708"] (11th Cir.) (lay jurors cannot infer complex medical causation; expert needed)