McBride v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:2016cv24894 - Document 113 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part 84 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 8/1/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McBride v. Carnival Corporation Doc. 113 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M IA M ID IV ISIO N CASE NO.1:16-CV-24894-JLK EARLINE M CBRIDE, Plaintiff, CARNIVAL CORPORATION d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, lN C., Defendant. O RDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT THIS M ATTER com es before the Court upon Defendant Carnival Corporation's pkCccarnival'')M otionforSummaryJudgment(é$M otion'')(D.E.84),tlledJuly8,2019 1 . 1. BACKG RO UND Thispersonalinjury case arisesfrom Plaintiffsfallfrom herwheelchairwhile in the processofdisembarking Carnival'svesselEcstasy atthe PortofM iam ionN ovember23, 2015. ln herComplaint,Plaintiffclaim sthatheraccidentwascaused by Carnival'snegligence in, inter J/f(7,(a)idfailling)to provideareasonably safemtansof...egressfrom the subjectvesselfor passengtrsi''(b)fifailging)to warn passtngers ...oftht dangtrouscondition which txisttdi'' (c)i'faillinglto properly train itsemployttsintheustofthtgangwayforthedisembarkation of clisabled passengersi''(d)difailling)to providean appropriately designed gangwayi''and (e)its em ployees,S'operating in thecourseand scope oftheiremploym ent, failling)tosafely disembark lThe Courthas also considered Plaintiff'sResponse in Opposition (D .E.94),Gled July 22,2019;and Carnival'sReply (D.E.1044,fited Juty26,2019. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintifp'(D.E,1,at6-7,!(25b,f,g,1,m).Moreover,PlaintiffallegesthatSr efendantwason actualorconstructivenoticeofthepresenceofsaidconditions''(id at7,!26). . The Court'sdeadline foral1discovery in thisaction wasJuly 3, 2019,overthirty m onths after Defendantfiled itsAnsweron Decem ber27, 2016 (D. E.9). Following theclose ofall discovery,Carnival tlled the inslant Motion for Summary Judgment(D E,84),requesting . iudgmentasamatteroflaw that(1)itisnotliablefortheallegednegligenceofM r Charles,the . manpushingPlaintiff'swheelchair,becausehewasnotdirectly employedby Carnival(id at5. 7);(2)itisnotliableforthedesign ofthegangwayorthegangwayramp lid at7-8);and (3)it hadnonoticethattherewasadangerousconditioninthegangway(id.at8-12). II. DISCUSSION A. LegalStandard on Sum m ary Judgm ent SummaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethereisSlnogenuineissueasto anymaterialfact and thatthemoving party is entitled tojudgmentasa matteroflaw.'' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c) (emphasisadded);Anderson v.Liberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U.S.242,247-48 (1986). An issue is gtnuineifareasonablefactfindtrcouldretum averdictforthenonmovingparty. M izev.Jefferson (7ftp##.ofEduc.,93F.3d739,742(11thCir.1996).A factismaterialifitmayafftcttheoutcomt ofthe case underthe applicablt substantive law. Allen v.Tyson Foods, lncv,121F.3d 642,646 (11thCir.1997).Themovingpartyhastheburdenofestablishingboththeabsenceofagenuine isstleofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeMatsushitaElec. lhdus.Co.v.ZenithRadioCorp.,106 S.Ct.1348,1356(1986). B . M aritim e Negligence Toprevailonamaritimentgligenceclaim,aplaintiffmustestablishthat(1)thedefendant owed theplaintiffa duty (e.g.,to maintain theship in asafecondition forpassengers,to warn passengersofdangersthatarenotopen and obvious);(2)thedefendantbreached theduty;and (3)the breach actually and proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. See, e.g.,Chaparro v. CarnivalCorp.,693F,3d 1333,1336(11thCir.2012).Theduty ofcarethatashipownerowesto passengersisiçordinary reasonablecareunderthecircumstances.''Kee fev.Bahama CruiseLine, Jac.,867 F.2d 1318,1322 (11th Cir.1989). Therefore,the plaintiffmustprove there wasa conditionontheshipthatnotonlycausedhisorherinjury,butalsothatcouldreasonablybeseen asunsafe. Assuch,tobe held liableforbreach ofaduty ofcare,aship ownerm usthavehad içactual orconstructive notice ofthe unsafe condition,''m eaning thatitknew orreasonably should have knownofthecondition,ld.at1322 (Forliability toexist,'sthecanierEmust)havehad actualor constructivenoticeoftherisk-creating condition,atleastwhere ...the menace isonecom monly encounteredonlandandnotcleaxlylinkedtonauticaladventtlre.''). An exampleofconstructive notice iswhere aishazard ghas)been presentforaperiod oftimeso lengthy asto (reasonably) invite corrective measures''by the shipowntr. Evidence of Sssubstantially sim ilar''prior accidtntsoroccurrtnetsmaysupporttheshipowntrhavinghadnotict,seeSorrelsv.NCL (Bah. ) Ltd.,796F.3d 1275,1287-88(11thCir.2015),butthisisnotata1ltheexclusivemtansofproving a ship owner'snotice. C . C arnival's Duty to Provide Safe Egress isN ondelegable First,CarnivalarguesthatitisnotliablefortheallegednegligenceofM r.Charles,because the record show sthatM r.Charlesw as Ssem ployed by SM S,a non-party independentcontractor''z (D.E.84,at5),andthatitdidnotowePlaintiffç$anon-delegabledutytoprovidesafeegressfrom thevesselsuchthatitwouldbeliableforanyntgligenceofSM S''(id.at15-16).Plaintiffalleged 2Thecompany'sfullname isSM S lnternationalShore Operations US Inc. 3 inherComplaintthatCarnivalowedhersuchanondelegableduty(id at12(citingD.E.1,at3,! . 9)),andtheEleventh Circuitopinion Vierlingv.CelebrityCruises,Inc., 339F.3d 1309(11th Cir. 2003)(Tjoflat,J.)clearlystates: A high degree ofcare isdem anded ofcom mon carriers toward theirpassengers. fIncluded in thishigh degreeofcare istheduty to maintain reasonable, safemeans orpassengers to board and disembark.This#? z/z isnondelegable,and the failure ofshipownerstoprovidesuch ameansrendersthem liable in damages. rl.at1319 (emphasisadded)(internalcitationsomitted).Camivalherecontendsthislanguageis a mere dicta,where iithe issue ofwhetherornotthe passengerhim selfwasowed a nondelegable dutywasnotbeforetheeourtonapptal''(D,E.84,at14).Indeed,thtEleventhCircuitin Vierling wasruling ontheship'sentitlementto indemnifcation from thePortAuthority. See Vierling,339 17.3dat1319-20. Nevertheless,Plaintiffresponds- andCam ivaladmits(D.E.84,at13n.ll- thatdistrict courtshave relied on Vierling forthe proposition thata ship hasa nondelegable duty to provide safe egress:M cLean v.CarnivalCop.,Case No.12-cv-24295-CM A,2013 W L 1024257,at *3 (S.D.Fla.Mar.14,2013);Crouch v.CarnivalCorp.,Case.No.06-cv-22660-ASG,2007 W L 9702149,at*7(S.D,Fla.Oct.30,2007)(D.E.94,at3-4).lnaddition,Plaintiffcitesseveralcases fioln aroundtheUnited Statesconsideringtheseissuesandholding sim ilarly to Vierling,including Samuelov v.CarnivalCruise Lines,Inc.,870 So.2d 853,856 (F1a.3d Dist.Ct.App.2003); Arceneauxv.Ingram BargeCo.,Civ.A.No.94-2505,1995W L 527635,at*2(E.D.La.Sept.5, 1995);andHamiltonv.MarineCarriersCorp.,332F.Supp.223,232(E.D.Ptnn.1971)(id.at3- ThisCourtagreeswithJudgeTjotlat'sreasoningin Vierling thatacommon canierhasa çddutytomaintainreasonable,safemeansforpassengersto...disembark''andthatStltjhisdutyis nondelegable.'' Vierling,339 F.3d at1319. Assuch,the CourtholdsthatCarnivalhere cannot avoid liability forM r.Charles'sactions during Plaintiffs disem barkation ofCarnival's ship by ikdelegating''itsduty to providesafe egress. D. CarnivalIsNotLiablefortheDesign oftheGangway Ramp Second,Carnivalarguesitisentitled tojudgmentasamatterof1aw on Plaintiff'sclaim thatit(çfailed to providean appropriately designed gangway''and thatitfsnegligently selected an unsafe design for the area in question,''because Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that Carnivalparticipatedinthedesignofthegangway (D.E.84,at7-8(quotingD.E.1,!! 251,27: . In response,Plaintiffddconcedesthattheevidence . . . showsthatCam ivalw asnotinvolved in the physicaldesign and placementofthe gangway ramp in the PortofM iami''(D.E.94,at14) . Therefore,Carnival'sM otion forStlmm aryJudgmentasto thisclaim isdueto be granted. E. W httherCarnivalH ad NoticeRaisesGenuineIssuesofM aterialFact Third,Carnivalargutsthatitdid nothave actualor constructive notice ofa dangerous conditiononthtgangwayforwhtelchairsandthatthtrtforeitistntitltd tojudgmentasamatter oflaw on atleastPlaintifps failure to wam claim ,citing Taiariolv.M SC Crociere S.A.,677 F. App'x 599(11th Cir.2017)(percuriam)(D.E.84,at8-12;D.E.104,at7-9). ln Taiariol,the EleventhCircuitaffirmedadistrictcourt'sgrantingofsummaryjudgmentontheplaintiffsfailure towarn claim,wheretheplaintiffpresentednoevidencewhatsoeverSithatthedefendanthad notice ofanyrisk-creatingcondition.''ld at601. lnparticular,asCamivalemphasizes(D.E.84,at9; D.E.104,at7),theplaintiffpresentednoevidenceofapriorincidentsubstantially similarto her tislipping onthenosing ofoneof'thestep'sinthebalcony ofatheateron theship.See id at600- 01.Furthermore,in itsReply (D.E.104,at8-9),CarnivalcitesGorczycav.M SC Cruises,S.A., 715F.App'x919(11thCir.2017)(percuriam),inwhichsummaryjudgmentwasaffirmedonthe issueofnoticewheretheplaintiffd'failedtoproduceevidencethatany otherpassengersbeforeher tripped on the stepsofthe Pantheon Theaterdue to a faulty orloose m etalnosing,''id at922. Here,the evidence thatCam ivaltianticipatesthatM s. M cBride willrely on''to establish Carnival'snotice(D.E.84,at9)includes(a)theminutesofanM /S CarnivalEcstasy Shipboard Safety Committee meeting dated M arch 2,2014 (D.E.84-7)thatdocuments thatSsthe deck 7 gangwayhasa very steep shortramp and thiscreatesachallenge forwheelchairpusherstrying to gettheguestsovertheramp intothegangway''(id.at4);(b)aPassengerInjuryStatementfilled outin handwriting by JoanneRyan on April18,2015 thatstatesthatshewasbeing wheeled in a wheelchairin fitunnelboarding ship''andthatthewheelchairtipped over(D.E.84-5,at1);and (c)antmaildatedApril18,2015from Andrew Leiva(M anagerofPierOperationsforCarnival) toshipstaffstatingthatdklalt2:00pm wehadaguest,JoanneRyan ...fallwhilebeing assistedin awheelchairbyoneofthecrew members...in thegangway''lid at3). Carnivalcontendsthat t'M s.M cBride has notgathered any additionalevidence ...thatwould indicate any similarity betweenM s.Ryan'sincidentandMs.M cBride'sg,suchas)evidencethatitwasthesamegangway, oreven evidenceasto whatspecifically caused Ms.Ryan tofallfrom herwheelchair''(D.E.84, a, t10).Equally,Carnivalarguesthatdfltlhereisnoindicationthat(the)meetingminuteevenrefers tothegangway atthePortofM iami''(id at11).3 Plaintiffconteststhesepoints(seeD.E.94,at 1* .19),forexampleby citing deposition testimony ofSM S'Scoporaterepresentative Andrius Zickeviciussupporting thatiscarnivalhasroutinely only used the same two gangways located at TerminalsD andE inthePortofM iami''(f#.at16(citingZickeviciusDep.,at80:18-81:19(D.E. 94-5,at3-. 4))). 3Carnivalquotesfrom thedeposition ofCarnival'scorporaterepresentativeon thispoint(D.E 84,at11l2)andcitesilExhibitçD'at109:21to 11l:5''(id.at12). However,thosepagesaremissingfrom Exhibit . E)to Defendant'sM otion;assuch,theCourtunableto considerthisevidence. 6 Notwithstanding Carnival'sargumentsforsummaryjudgment,theCourtconcludesthat the evidence proffered by Plaintiffis sufficientto create a genuine issue ofm aterialfactasto whether Carnival knew or should have known of any condition in the gangway potentially hazardous to passengers in wheelchairs disembarking the ship. Thus,whetherPlaintiff's own incidentwascaused by aknown orforeseeabledefectorStgap''in the gangway isagenuineissue appropriate forresolution attrial. 111. CONCLUSION Therefore,CarnivalisentitledtosummaryjudgmentonPlaintiffsnegligentdesignclaim, but Plaintiffs remaining negligence claim s should be resolved at trial. Accordingly, it is ORDERED,ADJUDGED,and DECREED thatDtfendant'sM otion for Summ ary Judgm ent (D.E.84)be,and thesameis,hereby GRANTED inpartsothatCamivalisawardedjudgment a. sam atteroflaw thatitisnotliableforthe design ofthegangway,and otherwiseDENIED . DONE and O RDERED in Chambers at the Jam es Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United StatesCourthouse inM iami, Florida,on this31stday ofJuly,2019. #*u4,% 1 M ES LAW ,N E KING ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA cc: A lIC ounselof Record 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
