Carnival Passenger Lawsuit Blames Line For Pax On Pax Injury

Carnival Passenger Lawsuit Blames Line For Pax On Pax Injury
Carnival Passenger Lawsuit Blames Line For Pax On Pax Injury

Carnival Passenger Lawsuit Blames Line For Pax On Pax Injury – On Wednesday, September 25, 2018, Marianne Meyer from Charleston, South Carolina,  was sailing aboard Carnival Cruise Lines ship Carnival Ecstasy for a  five-night Bahamas cruise (see video below).

Another passenger, allegedly walked into her on deck 11, the pool deck, causing her to fall and become injured with a “transverse fracture through the distal radius” (wrist). What did Marianne Meyer do about it? Did she complain to the passenger who was at fault?  No, in Marianne Meyer v Carnival Corp, Meyer sued deep pocket Carnival Cruise Lines for the negligence of the other passenger on January 29, 2019.

Carnival Ecstasy departed Charleston, South Carolina on Saturday, September 22, 2018 for a five-night Bahamas cruise with calls at Nassau and Freeport in the Bahamas.

According the lawsuit, “The incident occurred on or about September 25, 2018 while Plaintiff was a lawfully paying passenger aboard Defendant’s cruise ship vessel, the Carnival Ecstasy. The Plaintiff was traversing deck 11 port side aft walking in the direction of the bow aboard the Carnival Ecstasy when another cruise passenger walked into Plaintiff and caused her to fall. As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff suffered injuries that included, but are not limited to, a transverse fracture through the distal radius that required reconstructive surgery.Carnival Ecstasy Pool Deck 11

At all times relevant, the open air weather deck was unreasonably dangerous, riskcreating, defective, outdated, improperly designed, improperly installed, and/or otherwise unsafe. This area lacked adequate safety features to prevent Plaintiff’s fall. These hazardous conditions were known, or should have been known, to Defendant in the exercise of reasonable care. These hazardous conditions existed for a period of time before the incident. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, at all times relevant, Defendant failed to adequately inspect the area of Plaintiff’s incident for dangers.

At all times relevant, Defendant failed to adequately supervise and control the crowds on the open air weather deck to ensure that it was reasonably safe, and in a reasonably safe condition. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to eliminate the hazard(s). At all times relevant, Defendant failed to properly maintain this area. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to maintain the floor which made up this area. At all times relevant, Defendant participated in the design and/or approved the design of the open air weather deck.  At all times relevant, Defendant participated in the design and/or approved the design of the area surrounding the open air weather deck. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to properly train and supervise its crew including relating to crowd control measures. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to employ sufficient number of crew in the area to supervise and control the large crowd on the open air weather deck.

Furthermore, the lighting was inadequate to enable Plaintiff to notice any hazards. The medical care that Plaintiff received on board the vessel was below the standard of care which required her to have additional medical care and which prolonged her recovery and increased her pain and suffering.”

The lawsuit further alleges the following fourteen points:

a. Failing to keep and maintain its open air weather decks in a reasonably safe condition, so as to help prevent hazards to its passengers;
b. Failing to inspect, clean, keep and maintain its decks in a reasonably safe condition
c. Failing to install proper and reasonable safeguards to prevent passengers from being injured when traversing the subject area;
d. Failing to take proper precautions for the safety of passengers entering the subject area;
e. Failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk-creating conditions of the its decks, and the area surrounding them;
f. Failing to have adequate policies and procedures in place for inspection, cleaning and maintenance of its decks, and the areas surrounding them;
g. Creating a risk-creating condition and/or failing to remedy a risk-creating condition which was known by the Defendant and which in the exercise of reasonable care should have been known by the Defendant;
h. Failing to adequately train its crew to keep its decks, and the areas surrounding them clean and free of hazards;
i. Failing to employ sufficient crewmembers or adequately trained crewmembers to properly inspect, clean, and maintain the area of the ship where Plaintiff’s incident occurred, and Defendant knew or should have known that this ship was inadequately staffed;
j. Failing to treat its weather decks and adjacent areas to prevent them from becoming unreasonably slippery, sticky, or otherwise unreasonably dangerous;
k. Failing to provide adequate lighting to enable passengers to notice any hazards;
l. Failing to comply with applicable standards, statutes, or regulations the violation of which is negligence per se and/or evidence of negligence.m. Failing to otherwise maintain the area and the premises in a safe and reasonable manner; and/or
n. Failing to provide prompt, proper and adequate medical care to the Plaintiff in the infirmary through its employees, agents and/or apparent agents;
o. Through other acts or omissions constituting a breach of the duty to use reasonable care which will be revealed through discovery.

Carnival Cruise Lines Response – February 19, 2019

Carnival response, “Any and all allegations pertaining to any negligence or liability of the Defendant, CARNIVAL, are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, the Defendant, CARNIVAL, demands that the Complaint be Dismissed with Prejudice to and at the cost of Plaintiff, MARIANNE MEYER.”

“For its Sixth Affirmative Defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were proximately caused by the conduct of third parties, such as co-passengers, not subject to the control, supervision or direction of this Defendant, thereby precluding or diminishing Plaintiff’s recovery herein.”

“For its Eighth Affirmative Defense, the Defendant asserts that to the extent that the Plaintiff’s Complaint relates that a dangerous condition existed on the vessel of this Defendant, this Defendant would affirmatively aver that any such condition, if in existence, was such an open and obvious condition that the Plaintiff did or should have observed and comprehended same; thus, avoiding the alleged accident and as such, any recovery of the Plaintiff herein is barred or should be accordingly reduced. ”

Carnival Ecstasy was built at Kvaerner Masa Yards (Finland) in 1991. Carnival Ecstasy has ten decks with 1026 passenger cabins for 2056 passengers, who are cared for by a crew of 920.

Article Resources:

Recent Carnival Ecstasy Articles:

Video: Carnival Ecstasy | September 27 – October 1, 2018 | Top Deck View

Please follow and like us: