Taylor v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd,

Filing 19

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss. ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Court dismisses Taylors claims against RCCL without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Any pe nding motions are denied as moot. Motions Terminated: 11 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 6 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 11/19/2020. See attached document for full details. (amb)

Case 1:20-cv-22161-RNS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 1 of 6

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Pamela Taylor, Plaintiff,

)
)
v.
)
) Civil Action No. 20-22161-Civ-Scola
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., a
)
Liberian Corporation, Defendant.
)
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
This maritime action arises from damages Plaintiff Pamela Taylor
sustained when she was injured while a passenger aboard the Allure of the
Seas, a cruise ship owned and operated by Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises
Ltd. (“RCCL”). (Am. Compl. (“Compl.” Or “complaint”), ECF No. 6 at ¶¶ 9-10.)
The Court struck Taylor’s initial complaint because it was a shotgun pleading,
impeding the Defendant’s and the Court’s assessment of Taylor’s claims. Taylor
filed the instant version of her complaint on June 23, 2020, which fixed some
of her earlier complaint’s shortcomings. The complaint asserts three counts.
Count I is for Negligent Failure to Warn, Count II is for Negligent Maintenance
of the Gangway Flooring, and Count III is for Negligent Failure to Follow
Disembarkation Policies and Procedures. RCCL moved to dismiss, Taylor filed a
response, and RCCL filed a reply. (Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 11; Pl.’s Resp., ECF No.
12; Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 13.) After careful consideration, the Court agrees with
the Defendant and grants the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11.)
1. Background. 1
Taylor was severely injured aboard the Allure of the Seas on or about May
26, 2019, “when she tripped and fell,” resulting in a surgery to treat a left tibial
plateau fracture, while “disembarking the vessel on a dangerous condition.”
(ECF No. 6 at ¶¶ 18, 20.) One of the “busiest” areas of the ship is the gangway,
a pedestrian walkway, or “ramp,” that connects the ship to land for
embarkation and disembarkation. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.) Embarkation and
disembarkation appear to be prone to crowding and bottlenecks. From its
launch in 2009 until June 2016, the Allure of the Seas was the world’s largest
passenger vessel. (Id. at ¶13.) At maximum capacity, it can carry almost 9,000
individuals. (Id. at ¶14.)

The Court accepts Taylor’s factual allegations as true for the purposes of evaluating RCCL’s
motion to dismiss. Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th
Cir. 1997).
1

Case 1:20-cv-22161-RNS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 2 of 6

The complaint alleges that RCCL’s failure to make the disembarkation
process safe resulted in Taylor’s injury. Specifically, it alleges that RCCL is
aware that due to the high traffic during disembarkation, “there is a need for
Defendant to provide sufficient warnings, order, and organization so as to
maintain a safe and even-flow of passengers . . . .” (Id. at ¶16.) Additionally, the
complaint alleges RCCL knew that a lack of organization, warnings, and
direction during disembarkation “can cause jams, slowed exiting, and packed
crowds, resulting in potential pushing and shoving and people tripping, falling
and injuring themselves on the uneven gangway exiting the vessel.” (Id.)
Relatedly, RCCL allegedly knew that “a lack of maintenance and inspection of
its gangway flooring and surrounding area create dangerous conditions, which
can cause – and have in the past – trip and fall incidents . . . .” (Id.)
2. Legal Standard
When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all the complaint’s allegations as
true, construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v.
McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). A pleading must only contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In
assessing the legal sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations, the Court is bound
to apply the pleading standard articulated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is,
the complaint “must . . . contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna
Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). “Dismissal is therefore permitted when on the basis of a dispositive issue
of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of
action.” Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations omitted) (citing Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall
Cnty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A court must dismiss a plaintiff’s claims if
he fails to nudge his “claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

Case 1:20-cv-22161-RNS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 3 of 6

Thus, a pleading that offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not survive
dismissal. See Id. at 555. “Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure
from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not
unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
3. Analysis
“To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the
defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury, (2) the
defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach actually and proximately caused
the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm.” Guevara v. NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710, 720 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). “With
respect to the duty element in a maritime context, a shipowner owes the duty
of exercising reasonable care towards those lawfully aboard the vessel.” Id.
(quotations omitted). To prevail on a negligence or failure-to-warn claim with
respect to a dangerous condition, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “had
actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition, at least where, as
here, the menace is one commonly encountered on land and not clearly linked
to nautical adventure.” Id. (quotations and alterations omitted); Keefe v.
Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1989) (requiring
notice with respect to a duty-to-warn claim); Horne v. Carnival Corp., 741 Fed.
App’x 607, 609 (11th Cir. 2018) (requiring notice with respect to a failure-tomaintain claim).
Each Count of the complaint must be dismissed because the complaint
fails to adequately allege causation. The Court is mindful that notice pleading
does not require the pleader to allege a “specific fact” to cover every element or
to plead “with precision” each element of a claim, but it is still necessary for a
complaint to “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal
theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir.
2001). As explained below, at no point does the complaint meet the third
element of negligence; namely, that “the breach actually and proximately
caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Guevara, 920 F.3d at 720. As the complaint fails
to satisfy this threshold requirement, the Court need not and does not reach
the question of RCCL’s notice of the purportedly dangerous condition.
Count I, for negligent failure to warn, must be dismissed for failure to
properly allege causation. In Flaherty v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., the
Court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that the defendant’s
failure to warn proximately caused his injury, as the complaint ““fail[ed] to

Case 1:20-cv-22161-RNS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 4 of 6

allege any facts that would put Royal Caribbean on notice of what caused
Plaintiff to fall.” Case No. 15-22295, 2015 WL 8227674 at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7,
2015) (Lenard, J.) (alteration added; emphasis in original). The same result is
warranted here. Taylor’s complaint alleges that the gangway, which is used for
embarkation and disembarkation, was “uneven.” (ECF No. 6 at ¶16.) The
complaint also alleges that crowding on the gangway “can cause jams, slowed
exiting, and packed crowds, resulting in potential pushing and shoving and
people tripping . . . .” (Id. (emphasis added).) The complaint goes on to allege
that RCCL “is aware that a lack of maintenance and inspection of its gangway
flooring and surrounding area create dangerous conditions, which can cause –
and have in the past – trip and fall incidents while passengers are walking on
the gangway.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
While the complaint repeatedly alleges that the purportedly dangerous
conditions “can cause” injuries, at no point does it affirmatively allege that the
dangerous conditions did cause Taylor’s injuries. Was the gangway so crowded
that she could not see its unevenness? How uneven was the gangway? The
complaint describes the gangway as a “ramp,” which would make it sloped, or
“uneven,” by definition. (ECF No. 6 at ¶16.) The complaint also suggests that
Taylor could have been “push[ed] and shov[ed].” (Id.) The complaint only raises
these and other questions. It does not answer them. Leaving the causation-infact inquiry to guesswork falls short of the pleading standard. Additionally, at
least one of these potential causes – pushing and shoving – is particularly
problematic because if the “Plaintiff was injured after being pushed by a fellow
tourist[,] [s]uch an incident would likely be a supervening cause absolving
Defendant of liability.” Brown v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., Case No. 17-22645-CIV,
2017 WL 10379580, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017) (Altonaga, J.).
The Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Brown by arguing that the complaint
in that case did not explicitly state that Ms. Brown fell – rather, the complaint
in that case “jump-cuts” from describing the dangerous condition (traversing
over “treacherous rocks and boulders”) to describing Ms. Brown’s injury. (ECF
No. 12 at 5-6.) However, the court’s concern in Brown was not that the
complaint did not allege that Ms. Brown fell. The Brown court, like this Court,
was expressly concerned with the proximate cause of the injury. See id. at *5
(“The Court does not know one way or the other whether a failure to warn by
Defendant could have plausibly been a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury.”).
Although the actual cause of an injury might be the blunt force trauma arising
from a fall, neither Ms. Brown nor Taylor alleged the proximate, or legal, cause
of the injury. Without alleging what caused Taylor’s fall (and the resulting
injury), the complaint does not give RCCL notice as to what warnings would
have been adequate to help Taylor avoid the fall.

Case 1:20-cv-22161-RNS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 5 of 6

The additional allegations specific to Count II, for negligent maintenance
of the gangway flooring, fare no better. Count II alleges that RCCL breached its
duty of care to Taylor by “failing to reasonably maintain the flooring, including
but not limited, to inspecting the gangway for worn and damaged treading,
unreasonably large gaps in the flooring, loose screws in the flooring, as well as
structural and other components of the flooring that was [sic] not in proper
condition . . . .” (ECF No. 6 at ¶29.) The Court accepts these allegations as true.
But even if RCCL breached its duty to maintain treading, close gaps in the
flooring, and tighten screws, the complaint does not allege that these failures
caused Taylor’s injuries. Again, RCCL is left to guess whether Taylor slipped on
substandard treading, lost her balance after her foot fell into one of the
“unreasonably large gaps,” or tripped on a loose screw. In her response to the
motion to dismiss, Taylor argues that she alleges that the cause of injury was
the “unevenness of the gangway flooring surface.” (ECF No. 12 at 8.) Taking
that as true, the complaint does not allege that maintaining the treading,
closing gaps, or tightening “screws in the flooring” would have removed the
“unevenness.” A plaintiff cannot recover for a breached duty without showing
that said breach caused her injuries.
The Court also dismisses Count III, which alleges that RCCL failed “to
follow its own policies and procedures . . . .” (ECF No. 6 at ¶31.) Those policies
and procedures include “limiting the number of passengers exiting the gangway
at a single time, reducing the flow of passengers’ movement off the vessel,
permitting too many passengers to carry luggage and other items off the vessel,
having only the scheduled passengers exit during their proper disembarkation
time, for the benefit and safety of passengers.” (Id.) The failure to adequately
allege causation plagues Count III as well, and the allegations specific to Count
III only amplify the complaint’s shortcomings by introducing the possibility that
luggage may have had a role in Taylor’s injury. Two things can be true at the
same time: (1) RCCL permitted too many passengers to carry luggage and other
items off the vessel; and (2) excess luggage on the gangway had no causal
relationship to Taylor’s injuries. In other words, Taylor did not allege that the
failure to follow policies and procedures is related to her injuries.
4. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants RCCL’s motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 11). The Court dismisses Taylor’s
claims against RCCL without prejudice and without leave to amend. Avena
v. Imperial Salon & Spa, Inc., 740 Fed. App’x 679, 683 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e’ve
rejected the idea that a party can await a ruling on a motion to dismiss before
filing a motion for leave to amend.”) (noting also that “a motion for leave to

Case 1:20-cv-22161-RNS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 6 of 6

amend should either set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or
attach a copy of the proposed amendment”) (quotations omitted).
The Clerk is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are denied
as moot.
Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida on November 19, 2020.

Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge