Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C-4072464, filed by Sarah Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s))(Eriksen, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
BINDING RULE 39(c) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

SARAH DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. _______________
ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES, LTD, a Liberian
Corporation,
Defendant.
____________________________/
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, SARAH DOE [hereafter “DOE” or “Plaintiff”], by and
through her undersigned counsel, sues the Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES, LTD. [hereinafter “RCCL”], and alleges:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1.

This is an action for damages in excess of the sum of Seventy-Five

Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) and jurisdiction of this claim is further founded
upon the court’s maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A §1333(1).
2.

Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen who resides and is domiciled in the state of

Florida. The plaintiff’s last name, which is well known to the defendant, has been

altered to “DOE” to preserve her privacy, given the personal nature of the injuries
alleged herein.
3.

Defendant RCCL is a Liberian cruise line common carrier which has its

principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
4.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, owns and operates the cruise ship

M/S Oasis of the Seas.
5.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, and for at least a decade prior to

the incident complained of in this lawsuit, knew that there was a serious risk of
crime and injury to its passengers aboard it vessels, because defendant had
experienced and had actual knowledge of such crimes and injuries, perpetrated
aboard its vessels both by crew and by other passengers.

These crimes and

injuries, upon information and belief, included but were not limited to, assaults and
batteries and sexual crimes, and other violence between passengers and between
crew and passengers.
6.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, chooses to sell alcohol to

passengers aboard its vessels. Upon information and belief, such beverage sales are
among the top sources of onboard revenue, which determine the profitability of
each voyage.

Upon further information and belief, defendant RCCL derives

hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue from this source alone.

2

7.

Defendant RCCL knew, or should have known, that the high risk to its

passengers of crime and injury aboard the vessels was enhanced by defendant’s
sale of copious quantities of alcohol on those vessels.
8.

Defendant RCCL also knew, or should have known, from previous

experience, that the risk of crime and injury against passengers aboard its vessels
tended to be greatest in passenger cabins and in bars and public bathrooms aboard
the vessels.
9.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, advertises and markets its cruises

and vessels in a way calculated by RCCL to induce prospective cruisers to sail
with defendant. In doing so, defendant RCCL deliberately emphasizes the positives
of its cruises and vessels, almost to the exclusion of any negatives, such as the risk
of crime and injury aboard the vessels, which was well-known to defendant at all
relevant times. As a consequence, prospective passengers do not receive sufficient
information from defendant to make a fully informed decision to book a cruise
with the defendant, and/or to fully comprehend the need to take precautions for
their own safety while aboard defendant’s vessels.
10.

In early September, 2011, the plaintiff, along with members of her

family, booked a cruise with RCCL on the M/S Oasis of the Seas, and occupied the
same cabin. At the time, the plaintiff was 21 years old, single, and was employed
as a teacher’s aide at a private school in Palm Beach County, Florida.

3

11.

On or about October 4, 2010, and at all other relevant times, the plaintiff

was a fare-paying passenger aboard the subject vessel, which was making way on
navigable waters.
12.

Around midnight on that date, the plaintiff was in The Blaze lounge

aboard the vessel with other members of her party. During this interlude, the
defendant sold the plaintiff alcoholic beverages in a sufficient quantity to
intoxicate her. At some point, the plaintiff’s family members returned to their
cabins.
13.

The plaintiff remained to dance with a male passenger from the

Netherlands [hereinafter “the perpetrator”].
14.

At approximately 12:45 AM, the plaintiff left the lounge because she

needed to find a restroom. She was followed by the perpetrator who, a short time
later, was captured on surveillance videotape by RCCL, pressing the plaintiff up
against a wall and then attempting to get her to accompany him into a nearby
mens’ room. She did not do so. She insisted on finding a women’s room.
15.

Thereafter, in full view of the ship’ surveillance cameras, the perpetrator

steered an obviously disoriented and unstable plaintiff down a hallway.
16.

At 12:47 AM, again in full view of the ship’ surveillance cameras, the

plaintiff stumbled up the portside stairs from Deck 15 Forward to Deck 16, still in

4

search of a women’s room. The perpetrator grabbed onto her and pushed her up
these stairs.
17.

At 12:49 AM, in full view of the ship’ surveillance cameras, the plaintiff,

still in the company of the perpetrator, staggered down a hallway and then abruptly
stumbled and fell to the floor. This incident was witnessed by a ship’s employee in
the immediate area, who did nothing to assist the plaintiff. However, after she was
helped to her feet by the perpetrator, the ship’s employee did place a yellow “Wet
Floor” cone on the spot where the plaintiff fell.
18.

At approximately 12:50 AM, in full view of the ship’s surveillance

cameras, the perpetrator steered the plaintiff to a location just outside a men’s
room on Deck 16 (which is clearly identified as such by a male image on the door).
The perpetrator briefly went inside the men’s room; and then he came out again
and pressed the plaintiff up against a wall. He then invited her to join him in the
men’s room and was seen to open the door and then return to where the plaintiff
was standing. He then beckoned her to some nearby deck chairs; however, the
plaintiff still needed to find a women’s room and walked away, followed by the
perpetrator.
19.

At approximately 12:58 AM, in full view of the ship’s surveillance

cameras, the perpetrator led the plaintiff back to just outside the aforementioned

5

men’s room on Deck 16. The perpetrator again obviously attempted to get the
plaintiff into the men’s room with him. Again, she clearly and obviously refused.
20.

At approximately 12:59 AM, still in full view of the ship’s surveillance

cameras, the plaintiff and the perpetrator arrived at the starboard forward ladies
room on Deck 16 (which is clearly identified as such by a female image on the
door). The plaintiff opened the door and went in – and was followed by the
perpetrator (still in view of the ship’s surveillance cameras).
21.

Over the course of the next ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, the plaintiff

was brutally raped by the perpetrator inside the handicapped stall in the starboard
forward ladies room on Deck 16.
22.

As a direct and proximate result of this incident, the plaintiff suffered

physical pain and mental anguish, aggravated pre-existing conditions, suffered loss
of enjoyment of life, incurred medical expenses in the treatment of the injuries, and
suffered physical handicap and disability and her working ability was impaired.
The injuries are either permanent and/or are continuing in nature and the Plaintiff
will suffer the losses and impairment in the future.
23.

The plaintiff reported the incident to her family and to defendant’s

management aboard the ship; and she provided the defendant with written notice of
her claim within six (6) months of the incident; and she has otherwise satisfied all
conditions precedent to the maintenance of this lawsuit.

6

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
24.

The plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-23 of this complaint

as is expressly set forth herein.
25.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, owed the Plaintiff, as a fare-

paying passenger, a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for
her safety.
26.

The defendant, at all material times, undertook to market, to advertise,

and to otherwise provide information to guests to induce them to book its cruises.
The defendant also undertook to disseminate information to guests once they were
aboard the vessels, e.g., a “Guest Conduct Policy”; and, in doing so, defendant
acquired a duty to exercise reasonable care in those undertakings, including a duty
not to misrepresent or understate the safety characteristics of the cruises and vessel,
and to warn of dangers known to the defendant in places aboard the vessel where
the passenger is invited to, or may reasonably be expected to visit.
27.

The defendant, by undertaking to provide alcohol aboard its vessels, and

to the plaintiff (and to the perpetrator), acquired a special duty to exercise
reasonable care to not over-serve alcohol to guests, and to monitor intoxicated

7

guests, and to intervene if it became apparent that such guests had become a danger
to themselves or others.
28.

The defendant, by undertaking to install video surveillance cameras

aboard the subject vessel, acquired a duty to exercise reasonable care in that
undertaking, including but not limited to assigning sufficient personnel to monitor
the cameras in real-time, with specific guidance as to how to interpret and act upon
the visual imagery.
29.

The defendant also had a duty, at all relevant times, to comply with 46

U.S.C. §3507.
30.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, breached it duties, above, by:

A. By failing to adequately and completely document and report all
occurrences of crimes against persons and property aboard its vessels;
and,
B. By failing to prosecute, or to deliver up for prosecution, known
perpetrators of crimes and violence against persons aboard its vessels;
and,
C. By failing to use forceful language in its communications with
prospective guests and/or with passengers aboard its vessels, to convey
that miscreants would be criminally prosecuted for sexual misconduct
against perpetrated against passengers aboard the vessels; and,

8

D. By failing to warn prospective and current passengers of the true risk of
crime aboard defendant’s vessels in general, and in the passenger spaces
in particular and/or by failing, in its advertising, marketing and other
corporate communications with prospective and actual passengers, to
direct them to external sources of data and information about the crime
rate and risk aboard defendant’s vessels; and,
E. By failing to warn or advise that guests, especially at night and/or after
consuming alcohol, should take extra precautions for their own safety
aboard defendant’s vessels, such as travelling in pairs or groups in the
public areas; and,
F. By over-serving alcohol to the plaintiff and the perpetrator; and by failing
to adequately monitor them after doing so; and,
G. By advertising and marketing its cruises and vessels in such a way as to
convey to prospective customers that the environment they could expect
aboard defendant’s vessels was such that the passengers were free to
exercise little or no vigilance for their own safety aboard the vessels; and,
H. By misrepresenting its cruises and vessels to the plaintiff as safe and
worry-free, including for families, or words to that effect, thereby
influencing plaintiff’s decision to book the cruise and/or to exercise a
lower level of vigilance aboard the ship than if defendant had conveyed

9

complete information about risks of being a victim of crime aboard ship;
and,
I. By failing to assign sufficient and/or trained staff to adequately monitor
the video cameras aboard the vessel and/or by negligently failing to
provide them with criteria to interpret and react to the video imagery;
and,
J. By such other acts and omissions as may presently unknown but which
may be revealed in discovery.
31.

As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of duties by defendant

RCCL, the plaintiff, was injured as set forth in paragraph 23, supra.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment for all allowable damages
and interest, e.g., prejudgment interest, against Defendant RCCL on this count and
requests a binding trial by jury pursuant to Rule 39(c), Fed. Rules Civ. Pro.

COUNT II – WILLFUL, WANTON MISCONDUCT
32.

The plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-31, as if expressly

set forth herein.
33.

Defendant RCCL, at all relevant times, and well in advance of the

booking of the plaintiff on the subject cruise, made a conscious and deliberate
corporate determination, in respect to both its advertising and marketing to

10

prospective passengers and to its on-board communications to actual passengers,
that conveying full and complete information about the risk of crime aboard its
vessels could reduce the number of bookings and/or create a state of vigilance
among passengers, which would not be conducive to the passengers relaxing and
maximizing their patronization of major sources of on-board revenue to the
defendant, e.g., purchases of beverages.
34.

Defendant RCCL, therefore deliberately chose to maximize its own

profits at the expense of its passengers’ safety, by choosing to downplay the risk of
crime aboard its vessels, even though defendant RCCL knew this course of action
would certainly lead to more passengers being victims of such crime, as in the
present case.
35.

Defendant RCCL’s behavior in this respect was wilfull, wanton, and

evinced a reckless disregard for the safety of passengers, including the plaintiff.
36.

As a direct and proximate result of such willful, wanton, and reckless

misconduct by defendant RCCL, the plaintiff, was injured as set forth in paragraph
23, supra.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment for all allowable damages
including punitive damages and prejudgment interest, against Defendant RCCL on
this count and requests a binding trial by jury pursuant to Rule 39(c), Fed. Rules
Civ. Pro.

11

Dated this 14th of September, 2011
West Palm Beach, Florida

ERIKSEN LAW FIRM
2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Ste. 410
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
[phone] (toll-free)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
By:___/s/ Michael D. Eriksen _____
Michael D. Eriksen
Florida Bar No. 316016

12