Pablo Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
920 F.3d 710
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Pablo Guevara slipped on a darkened outdoor cruise-ship deck step at ~11:30 p.m., broke his arm, and later noticed an unlit globe lamp above a nearby warning sign reading “WATCH YOUR STEP.”
- Guevara sued NCL for negligent failure to warn of the step down and negligent maintenance/inspection of lighting.
- Guevara disclosed expert Dr. Ronald Zollo late and served two supplemental reports after discovery deadlines; the district court struck portions of the first supplement and the entire second supplement as untimely under Rules 26/37.
- NCL moved for summary judgment arguing no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the step or the burned-out bulb; the district court granted summary judgment on both claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed striking the supplemental expert reports and affirmed summary judgment on negligent maintenance (no notice of the burned bulb), but reversed and remanded the failure-to-warn claim, holding the permanently affixed warning sign could create a triable issue of the carrier’s notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of untimely expert supplemental reports | Late supplements were justified by defendant’s late production and would create triable issues | Supplements were untimely, prejudiced NCL, and were not substantially justified or harmless | District court did not abuse discretion in striking portions of the first supplement and the entire second supplement (affirmed) |
| Duty to warn based on posted warning sign | The permanently affixed “WATCH YOUR STEP” sign gives NCL actual or constructive notice of the deceptive step and supports a failure-to-warn claim | Presence of a sign (installed by builder) does not prove NCL knew of the hazard; allowing notice from any onboard sign would make carriers insurers | Reversed: a reasonable jury could infer NCL had notice from the sign; failure-to-warn claim survives summary judgment (remanded) |
| Negligent maintenance of lighting (burned-out bulb) | Regular inspection gap and bulb outage made the area unsafe—no need to show prior complaints | No evidence when the bulb went out; NCL had routine inspections twice daily; plaintiff cannot show constructive or actual notice | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to show actual or constructive notice of the burned bulb; summary judgment proper |
| Role of constructive notice and prior warnings/incidents | Warning sign (and its placement immediately before the step) and any similar prior incidents could establish constructive notice | Must show the condition existed long enough to invite corrective measures or prior similar incidents; ownership/operation alone is insufficient | Court applies established constructive-notice principles; sign-related notice can create inference of knowledge, but maintenance/inspection claims require evidence of notice period or prior incidents |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (evidence that crew posted warnings can create an issue of carrier notice)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (shipowner owes reasonable care and must have actual or constructive notice of landlike hazards)
- Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (operation/ownership of ship alone does not establish notice of a condition)
- Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2008) (striking late expert disclosures warranted when the late filing prejudices opposing party and discovery could have been extended)
- Monteleone v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 838 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1988) (constructive notice can be established if condition existed long enough to invite corrective measures)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and party may show absence of evidence supporting nonmoving party)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (maritime negligence principles and elements of duty and notice)