365 F. Supp. 3d 1272
S.D. Fla.2019Background
- On June 6, 2017 Mary Stewart slipped and fell on the Carnival Pride's Lido Pool Deck during a dancing event, sustaining injuries.
- Stewart says she fell in a roughly 5×5 foot oily puddle of pool water, was barefoot, did not feel wetness before falling, and later observed moisture on her body.
- Stewart and her sister testified the deck area was dimly lit and shiny, they did not see anyone spill a drink, did not see crew mopping the area during the event, and did not see anyone exit the pool and walk through the spot.
- Stewart sued Carnival for negligence, alleging Carnival should have closed or maintained the deck or posted warnings during the dance event.
- Carnival moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no dangerous condition existed and (2) Carnival lacked actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition.
- The court denied summary judgment, finding factual disputes for a jury on both whether the puddle was an open-and-obvious danger and whether Carnival had constructive notice long enough to correct it; the court did not consider a late-produced enhanced CCTV video per a prior sanctions order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dangerous condition existed (open & obvious) | Stewart: the puddle was not apparent given dim lighting and shiny deck; a reasonable passenger would not expect it. | Carnival: alleged oily film from sunscreen/liners would have been noticeable; plaintiff’s account is speculative. | Court: Genuine dispute exists; a jury could find the puddle non‑obvious and therefore a dangerous condition. |
| Whether Carnival had actual or constructive notice | Stewart: no one spilled in her presence but absence of cleanup and the puddle’s presence for at least ~30 minutes support constructive notice. | Carnival: no evidence employees knew or should have known of the puddle; plaintiff’s timing is speculative. | Court: Evidence suffices to permit inference of constructive notice for a period permitting corrective measures; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (shipowner owes passengers duty of reasonable care under maritime law)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements of maritime negligence claim)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (constructive notice requires hazard present long enough to permit corrective measures)
- Horne v. Carnival Corp., [citation="741 F. App'x 607"] (11th Cir. 2018) (open-and-obvious risk analysis focuses on what an objectively reasonable person would observe)
- Pizzino v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., [citation="709 F. App'x 563"] (11th Cir. 2017) (actual or constructive notice required under maritime law)
- Diczok v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (dark conditions can create fact issue on whether cruise line created a dangerous condition)
- Thomas v. NCL (Bah.), Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 3d 1189 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (fact issues can remain on whether a puddle is open and obvious and whether it existed long enough for constructive notice)
- Watts v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 842 F.2d 307 (11th Cir. 1988) (credibility and weighing of conflicting evidence are jury functions)