Leigh Marshall v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Leigh Anne Marshall. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-10259

Date Filed: 11/30/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10259
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-21140-KMM
LEIGH ANNE MARSHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 30, 2017)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leigh Marshall brought this maritime personal injury action against Royal
Caribbean Cruises for injuries she allegedly sustained while on board the

Case: 17-10259

Date Filed: 11/30/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Enchantment of the Seas on March 5, 2016. It had rained off and on throughout
that day, and it was undisputed that Ms. Marshall and her traveling companions
were aware of the rain and the wetness of the external surfaces of the ship. Near
midnight, as Ms. Marshall reached the bottom of a flight of external stairs she was
descending, she slipped on a puddle on the deck at the bottom of the stairs and
twisted her ankle.
Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor
of Royal Caribbean, concluding that any alleged danger presented by the wet
external deck was open and obvious, and that Royal Caribbean had no duty to
specifically warn Ms. Marshall of the wetness. The court also found that Ms.
Marshall had failed to present sufficient evidence that Royal Caribbean had actual
or constructive notice of any dangerous condition regarding the wet floor or the
staircase. Ms. Marshall now appeals.
After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, and for the reasons
outlined in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned discussion of the duty
owed by Royal Caribbean to Ms. Marshall, as well as the open and obvious nature
of the danger presented, we affirm. First, Ms. Marshall cannot establish that Royal
Caribbean had a duty to warn her about the wet or slippery nature of the external
decks because it was an open and obvious condition of which she was or should
have been aware. See Isbell v. Carnival Corp., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1238 (S.D.
2

Case: 17-10259

Date Filed: 11/30/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Fla. 2006) (under federal maritime law, an operator of a cruise ship has a duty to
warn of “known dangers which are not apparent and obvious”); see also Samuels v.
Holland Am. Line-USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948, 951, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
Isbell). Second, Royal Caribbean had no duty to protect Ms. Marshall from any
dangerous condition of which it had no actual or constructive notice. See Keefe v.
Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1989) (“as a prerequisite
to imposing liability, [the carrier must] have had actual or constructive notice of
the risk-creating condition”). Third, the district court properly found that Ms.
Marshall failed to present evidence showing that Royal Caribbean created the
dangerous wet condition on the deck or designed or manufactured the staircase.
See Thomas v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 3d 1189, 1194 (S.D. Fla. 2016)
(“a cruise line cannot be held liable for an alleged improper design if the plaintiff
does not establish that the ship-owner or operator was responsible for the alleged
improper design”). Nothing in the record creates a genuine issue of material fact
regarding any of these issues, and the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to Ms. Marshall.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

3