Rojas v. Carnival Corporation
1:13-cv-21897
S.D. Fla.Nov 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Rosa Rojas and Julian Collazos rented a scooter ashore in Nassau during a Carnival cruise; they struck a light pole after losing control and sustained injuries.
- The scooter was rented from an independent vendor (Fathia Scooter Rentals); Carnival had no formal relationship with Nassau scooter vendors.
- Plaintiffs alleged Carnival failed to warn about known dangers of renting scooters and that Carnival delayed securing an air-ambulance for Collazos.
- Carnival presented evidence it disseminated warnings via ship newsletter, announcements, TV broadcast, and gangway signs; Plaintiffs testified they did not see or hear such warnings.
- Court assumed, for summary judgment analysis, Carnival had a duty and breached it, and likewise assumed Carnival assumed (and breached) a duty to secure medical transport; the dispositive issues were causation and evidence linking Carnival’s acts/omissions to plaintiffs’ injuries.
- The summary judgment record lacked evidence that (a) the scooter’s brakes were poorly maintained and that poor maintenance caused the accident, and (b) Carnival’s delay caused Collazos’s later medical conditions (pulmonary embolism, hematoma, heterotopic ossification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn for unsafe scooter rentals | Carnival knew or should have known of risks from vendors and failed to warn passengers | Carnival provided multiple warnings and had no special relationship or notice of vendor-specific brake defects | Summary judgment for Carnival — plaintiffs produced no evidence that vendor maintenance caused brake failure; speculation insufficient for causation |
| Causation for scooter brake failure | Brake failure caused the crash and reflected poor vendor maintenance | Crash may have been caused by hitting a pothole or other non-maintenance reasons; no evidence of maintenance defect | Summary judgment for Carnival — no factual evidence linking improper maintenance to accident (would require speculation) |
| Duty to secure/timely air-ambulance (assumed) | Carnival delayed securing transport and that delay caused additional/greater injuries (pulmonary embolism, blood clot, heterotopic ossification) | Even if Carnival delayed, plaintiffs lack evidence tying the delay to these medical conditions | Summary judgment for Carnival — Collazos produced no evidence connecting delay to subsequent medical conditions or worsening; allegations alone insufficient |
| Sufficiency of summary judgment evidence | Plaintiff relies on pleadings, select testimony, and a news article to show notice and causation | Defendant points to documentary warnings, testimony, and absence of medical/expert evidence supporting causation | Held: Non-moving party must produce admissible evidence; without medical/expert proof or specific facts, claims fail on causation at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and nonmovant must present evidence to survive summary judgment)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (shipowner duty: reasonable care under the circumstances)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruiseline, 867 F.2d 1318 (Eleventh Circuit: carrier liability requires actual or constructive notice of risk-creating condition)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (maritime negligence principles for cruise-ship passenger claims)
- Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225 (shipowner medical duty: reasonable care in treating passengers)