Morling v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C-4215098, filed by Ulf Morling. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s), # 3 Summon(s))(Holzberg, Glenn)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
ULF MORLING,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., and
DR. JOHN DOE, a foreign person
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, ULF MORLING by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues the
Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD and alleges as follows:
1.

This is an action for damages that exceeds this Court’s minimum

jurisdictional requirements, to wit, $75,000.00, exclusive of all interest and costs. . This
Court has jurisdiction based upon 28 USC § 1333 and the forum selection clause
contained in the passenger ticket between Plaintiff and Defendant, and under the
general maritime law of the United States.
2.

At all times material, Plaintiff ULF MORLING, was and is a resident of

Malmo, Sweden, and at all times material was a passenger on Defendant’s vessel,
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, Voyager of the Seas.
3.

At all times material, Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD,

(hereinafter “Defendant”) personally or through an agent:
A.

Operated, conducted, engaged and/or carried on a business

venture in the State of Florida, and in particular Dade County, Florida;
B.

Was engaged in substantial business activity in the State of Florida,

and in particular, in Miami-Dade County, Florida;
C.
this state;

Operated vessels and provided vessels for cruises in the waters of

Morling, Ulf vs. RCCL
Complaint
Page 2

D.

Committed one or more acts as set forth in F.S. §48,081, 48.181

and 48.193, which submit the defendant to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.
Further, the defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court due to the
foregoing and 28 U.S.C. §1333 (1);
E.

The acts of defendant set out in the Complaint occurred in whole or

in part in Miami-Dade County and/or the State of Florida;
4.

Dr. John Doe, whose name is unknown to the Plaintiff, was at all times

material hereto the ship’s physicians, and is sui juris.
5.

On or about September 7, 2010, Defendant owned and operated a

passenger cruise ship known as the “ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, Voyager
of the Seas,” such vessel being used as a passenger cruise vessel.
6.

At such time and place, Plaintiff, ULF MORLING, was lawfully and legally

aboard such vessel as a paying passenger with the actual and/or constructive consent
of Defendant to be physically present aboard such vessel.
7.

All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been satisfied,

or otherwise excused, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD including the pre-suit
notice required by the terms and conditions of Defendants’ cruise ticket. (See notice
letter attached as Exhibit “A”) Ticket is no longer in Plaintiff’s possession.
COUNT I
8.

Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraph 1 through 7, and further

alleges as follows:
9.

During the subject voyage, Plaintiff was assigned to an interior room,

despite having requested an outside balcony cabin. This interior room has one bed
(believed to be two attached singles) which spanned the width of the room leaving
virtually no space between either side and the wall. Mr. Morling complained of this
room configuration on check-in but was told nothing was available until ship arrived in
Rome.
10.

On September 7, 2010, and before his cabin could be changed the

Plaintiff, ULF MORLING, was arising from his bed and had to work his way between the
bed and the wall in order to reach the bathroom door because of the poor and tight

Morling, Ulf vs. RCCL
Complaint
Page 3

design and layout of the room. Mr. Morling tripped and fell seriously injuring himself,
striking his head and neck and hitting the deck hard. As a result of this accident Mr.
Morling underwent neck surgery on September 19, 2010. Causing injuries to his back
and spinal column, and loss of use of his left leg due to these injuries.
11.

Accordingly, Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, owed a

duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in operating the vessel in a
reasonably safe manner for the benefit of Plaintiff, ULF MORLING.
12.

At all times material hereto, the Defendant’s actions presented a known,

foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff, ULF MORLING .
13.

Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, breached its duty owed

to Plaintiff by committing one or more of the following acts or omissions, or was
negligent in the operation, maintenance or control of the ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES, LTD Pearl in the following respects:
A. Failing to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its passenger and
in creating a dangerous condition , the layout and size of the bed
provided and its proximity to both side walls in Plaintiff’s cabin;
B. Failing to properly maintain and equip the passenger cabins in a
reasonable safe condition;
C. Failing to inspect the passenger cabins in a sufficient manner to
determine the presence of dangers and obstructions to safe passage
within the cabins;
D. Failing to provide a reasonable amount of space and walkways,
reasonably designed for use by its passengers;
E. Failing to warn passengers of this known dangerous condition of which
Defendant knew or should have known because Defendant created
this condition;
F. Allowing a dangerous condition to exist notwithstanding prior similar
injury incidents on this and other vessels in its fleet and this class in
passenger cabins, similarly arranged;

Morling, Ulf vs. RCCL
Complaint
Page 4

G. Failing to train crew members in the assessment, inspection, discovery
of dangerous conditions in passenger cabins;
H. Failing to remedy known dangerous conditions, and/or conditions that
Defendant reasonably should have known were dangerous in it’s
passenger cabins;
I. Failing to comply with its own internal policies and procedures and
those of RCCL as established by the ISM Code, SMS, SQM and other
internal operational procedures required by the ISM Code, SOLAS, all
applicable health, building and safety codes and ordinances in
accordance with 33 CFR 96.100 et. seq., 46 USC Section 3201 et.
seq. and all Rules and Regulations, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES,
LTD including, but not limited to all relevant NVIC’s of the United
States Coast Guard, and IMO.
14.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and Plaintiff’s

fall, Plaintiff, ULF MORLING, suffered bodily injuries and resulting pain and suffering,
physical and severe mental pain and anguish, disfigurement, disability, loss of capacity
for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization and surgery, medications, therapy,
loss of earnings in the past, loss of the ability to earn money and impaired earnings
capacity, expenses for physical therapy, and medical and nursing expenses and
aggravation of pre-existing conditions. Said losses are either permanent or continuing in
nature and Plaintiff will suffer these losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ULF MORLING, demands judgment, interest and costs
against Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a trial by jury and any such
other relief to which the Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Moreover, Plaintiff demands Trial
by Jury of all issues so triable as a matter of right.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE OF DR. JOHN DOE, A FOREIGN PERSON
15.

Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges paragraph 1 through 7, and further

alleges as follows:

Morling, Ulf vs. RCCL
Complaint
Page 5

16.

The true identity of Defendant DR. JOHN DOE is presently unknown to

Plaintiff and will be discovered in light of discovery regarding the same. However, the
existence of DR. JOHN DOE is known to Plaintiff. A timely amendment to the complaint
will be made upon discovering the identity of DR. JOHN DOE.
17.

At all times relevant to this action, DR. JOHN DOE was an apparent agent

of RCCL.
18.

At all times relevant to this action, DR. JOHN DOE was an officer of the

Voyager of the Seas and a member of the ship’s crew.
19.

At all times relevant to this action, DR. JOHN DOE was a servant of RCCL

20.

At all times relevant to this action, JOHN DOE was an employee of RCCL.

21.

At all times relevant to this action, DR. JOHN DOE was actual agent of

22.

At all times relevant to this action, DR. JOHN DOE was apparent agent of

23.

At all times relevant to this action, RCCL agreed to indemnify DR. JOHN

RCCL.

RCCL.

DOE
with respect to the claims made in this action.
24.

At all times relevant to this action, RCCL represented to the passengers

onboard the Voyager of the Seas, including Plaintiff, that DR. JOHN DOE was their
apparent agent, employee, and/or servant in some or all of the following ways:
A.

DR. JOHN DOE wore an RCCL uniform;

B.

DR. JOHN DOE ate with the ship’s crew;

C.

DR. JOHN DOE was an officer of the ship;

D.

DR. JOHN DOE was addressed by RCCL as an officer of the ship
and held out to the passengers as an officer of the ship;

E.

DR. JOHN DOE was addressed by the ship’s crew as an officer of
the ship;

F.

DR. JOHN DOE was under the command of superior ship officers;

G.

The literature provided by RCCL and its representatives showed
DR. JOHN DOE as a crew member and/or employee of RCCL;

Morling, Ulf vs. RCCL
Complaint
Page 6

H.

DR. JOHN DOE worked in the ship’s hospital;

I.

DR. JOHN DOE was paid a salary by RCCL;

J.

Passengers were able to charge services rendered by DR. JOHN
DOE and/or other shipboard medical personnel to their onboard
account;

K.

A photograph of DR. JOHN DOE was prominently displayed
onboard the ship along with photographs of the ship’s officers;

L.

DR. JOHN DOE was introduced to the passengers along with the
other members of the crew at the Captain’s cocktail party and/or
other shipboard events.

25.

Plaintiff relied on RCCL’s representations that DR. JOHN DOE was its

Agent and the vessel was equipped with a competent medical doctor, and an
appropriately and properly equipped ship’s hospital.
26.

At all times relevant to this action, DR. JOHN DOE was acting within the

scope and course of his role as a shipboard physician.
27.

As the physician who treated Plaintiff, DR. JOHN DOE owed Plaintiff a

duty to provide Plaintiff with competent safe medical care under the circumstances.
28.

Following Plaintiff’s severe neck and back injury DR. JOHN DOE failed to

properly evaluate and recognize the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries and arranged to
transfer Plaintiff to an inferior ill-equipped hospital without facilities, doctors and
equipment to timely treat Plaintiff’s injury worsening his condition.
29.

DR. JOHN DOE breached his duty to Plaintiff in some or all of the

following ways:
a.

failing to properly diagnose Plaintiff;

b.

failing to properly treat Plaintiff;

c.

failing to request that Plaintiff be evacuated from the vessel in a
reasonable time;

d.

failing to supervise Plaintiff during an eventual transport to a
hospital;

Morling, Ulf vs. RCCL
Complaint
Page 7

e.

failing to arrange transfer of Plaintiff to a competent and properly
equipped hospital;

f.

failing to perform surgery on Plaintiff when he knew or should have
known that the surgery was warranted and necessary and that not
performing surgery could cause him to suffer unnecessary physical
and emotion pain and potential life threatening consequences;

g.

failing to properly administer medications, reasonably safe from
tampering and expiration, to Plaintiff.

h.

failure to take appropriate measures to minimize the risk of use of
tampered or expired medications.

30.

As a direct and proximate result of Dr. John Doe’s negligence, Plaintiff

was injured about his body and extremities, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss
of enjoyment of life, physical handicap, disability, disfigurement, and aggravation of
previously existing conditions.

He also incurred medical expenses in the care and

treatment of his injuries, and impairment to his earnings or earning capacity.

The

injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will suffer additional losses
and impairments in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ULF MORLING , demands judgment, interest and costs
against Defendant, DR. JOHN DOE, a trial by jury and any such other relief to which the
Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Moreover, Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury of all issues so
triable as a matter of right.
Dated: November 7, 2011.
LAW OFFICE OF GLENN J. HOLZBERG
Offices at Pinecrest II, Suite 220
7685 S.W. 104th Street
Miami, Florida 33156
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile : [phone]

BY: __/s/ Glenn J. Holzberg______
GLENN J. HOLZBERG
Fla. Bar # 369551