SCULLION v. Carnival Corporation et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 12 Motion to Dismiss Counts II & IV and DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 6/3/2024. See attached document for full details. (dyg)

UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR THE
SO U TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLO RIDA
M iam iDivision
Case N um ber:23-24817-CIV -M O R EN O
M ON ICA SCU LLION ,
Plaintiff,
V S.

CARN IV AL CORPORA TIO N ,ON E SPA
w o ltlr LLc,and oN E SPA W O RLD

(BAHAMAS)LTD.,
D efendants.
O RD ER G R AN TIN G D EFEN D AN TS'M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS C O U NT S 11 A N D IV A N D
D ENY IN G D EFEN DA N TS'M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS C O UN T 111.

This case involves a vacation cruise m assage Gtgone wrong.'' Plaintiff alleges thatduring
her m assage on the Carnival vessel, a m asseuse em ployed a m aneuver that tzltim ately caused

Plaintiffto suffer severe and permanent injuries. Plaintiff filed suitagainstDefendants for
vicariousliability and negligence in this Court.

THIS CAUSE cam e before the Courtupon Defendants'M otion to DismissPlaintiff's

Amended Complaint(D.E.12),filed on Februarv 6.2024. THE COURT hasconsidered the
m otion,the response in opposition,the reply,and pelinentportionsofthe record. Forthereasons

setfol'
th below,theCoul'tgrantsDefendants'M otion toDismissCount11(NegligenceAgainst
Carnival),CountIV (NegligentFailuretoW arn AgainstDefendants)with leavetoamend,and
denie
'sDefeùdants'M otionstoDismissCountIIIt'NegligenceAgainstOneSpaW orld).

FA CTS

Thefollowing factsfrom the Complaintazeassumed to betruefozpurposesofevaluating
the M otions to D ism iss. In late January 2023,Plaintiff M onica Scullion w as a passenger aboard

theCarnival-ownedcrtziseship,theCarnivalRadiance.(ECFNo.12at!!10,16q.W hilePlaintiff
wasaboardthevessel,shegotamassage.Lld at!17q.DefendantCarnivalhadexclusivecontrol
ofthevessel,andDefendantsOneSpaW orldLLC andOneSpaW orld(Bahàmas)Ltd.(GçoneSpa

W orld'') owned and operated the spa aboard the vesselwherein itprovided spa services to
Camival'spassengers.L.
ld at!! 11,12).,
Duringthecourseofthemassage,Plaintiffnotifiedthe
masseusethatthemaneuverbeingperformedtoherbackwashurting herleg. Lld.atjg181.The
masseuseignoredPlaintiffsrequestto stop,andPlaintiff'spain continued. g.JJ). Afterawhile,
Plaintiffslegwentnum b,andPlaintifftoldthem asseusetostop againbecauseher1eg wentnum b.

(.
J#.1. Themasseuse stopped and began to massage Plaintiffsieg. gf#.l. Ultimately,Plaintiff
1

allegesthata1loftheforegoingcausedhertosuffersevereandpermanentinjuries,whichrequired
surgery. E.J#.).
Pfaintiffalso allegesthatDefendants knew or should have lcnown that itwashighly

probably forpassengerstobe injuredby crewmembersand/orspaemployees,consideringprior
similarincidentsoccuningonvesselsbyOneSpaW orldemployees. Lld.at!202.Plaintiffcites
to fourincidents. On M ay 18,2022,apassengeraboard a RoyalCaribbean vesselwas severely

injuredwhen shereceived an intentionally aggressive,unwanted,andnegligentmassage. L1d).
OnDecember4,2021,apassengerwasaboard aCarnivalvesselandwasseverely injured when
shereceivedadangerous,forceful,andimproperbnmboomassage.Ef#.j.OnSeptember16,2016,
apassengeraboardaCarnivalvesselwasseverelyinjured when shereceived abamboomassage
during which unreasonableand/orimpropermassagetecbniqueswereused. L1d?. On July 25,

2

2015,a passengeraboard a Carnivalvesselwasseverely injured when he received ahot-rock
massagewhichincludedanaggressivemanipulationofthepassenger'shead,neck,andback.L1d ).
Asaresult,Plaintifffiled thislawsuitagainstCnrnivalCop oration,One SpaW orld LLC,

and One Spa W orld (Bahnmas)Ltd. Plaintiffassertsfour counts againstDefendants for:(1)
vicariousliabilityforbatteryagainstDefendants;(11)negligenceagainstCarnival;(111)negligence
againstOne Spa W orld;and (IV)negligentfailure to warn againstDefendants. Defendants
subsequently filed theirm otion to dismisscountsI1,111,and1V .

LEGAL STANDARD:RULE 12(b)(6)M OTION TO DISM ISS
ln deciding a Rule 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss forfailure to state a claim,the Coul't
considersonly thefourcornersofthecom plaint.A courtm ustacceptastrue the facts as setforth
in the com plaint.

'$To survive a m otion to dism iss, plaintiffs m ust do m ore than m erely state legal
conclusions,''instead plaintiffsm ustçlallege som e specific facm albasisforthose conclusionsor

facedismissaloftheirclaims.''Jaclcsonv.BellsouthTelecomms.,372F.3d 1250,1263(11thCir.

2004). W hen rulingon a motionto dismiss,a courtmustview thecomplaintin thelightmost
favorabletotheplaintiffandaccepttheplaintiffswell-pleaded factsastnle.SeeSt.Joseph'
sHosp.,

Inc.v.Hosp.Corp.ofzqm.,795 F.2d 948,953 (11th Cir.1986).Thistenet,however,doesnot
applytolegalconclusions.SeeAshcrojtv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,129S.Ct.1937,1949,173L.Ed.
2d868(2009).M oreover,Içgwjhilelegalconclusionscanprovidetheframeworkofacomplaint,
theymustbesupportedbyfactualallegations.''1d.at1950.Those(lgfjactualallegationsmustbe
enough to raise a right to relief aboke the speculative level on the assum ption that all of the

complaint'sallegationsaretnle.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U .S.544,545,127 S.Ct.1955,

3

167 L.Ed.2d929 (2007). In short,thecomplaintmustnotmerely allegemisconduct,butmust
demonstratethatthepleaderisentitled torelief SeeIqbal,129 S.Ct.at1950.

FED ER AL M A RITIM E LA W

lncidentsoccurring onnavigablew atersandbearingasignificantrelationship to traditional
m aritim e activities are governed by m aritim e law. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale

Transatlantique,358 U.S.625,79 S.Ct.406,3L.Ed.2d 550 (1959);Kee.
R v.Bahama Cruise
Line,lnc.,867F.2d1318,1321(11thCir.1989).Itiswellsettledthatthe1aw govenzingpassenger
suitsagainstcruiselinesisthegeneralm aritim elaw.See,e.g.,Schoenbaum ,Thom asJ.,Admiralty

andM aritimeLaw 53-5(4thEd.2004);Keefe,867F.2dat1321.
AsDefendantspointout,according totheallegationsoftheAmended Complaint,Plaintiff
wasaçtpayingpassenger''aboard theCarnivalRadiance.Accordingly,theCourtholdsthatfederal
m aritim e1aw appliesto theinstantaction.

DISC U SSIO N

Asstatedsupra,DefendantsmovefordismissalofCount11(negligenceagainstDefendant

Carnival);CountIII(negligenceagainstDefendantsOneSpaW orld);andIV (negligentfailureto
warn againsta11Defendants).

LEG A L STAN D AR D - N EG LIG EN C E & NE GL IG ENT FAILU R E TO W A RN

(sM aritim e1aw governsactionsarising from alleged tortscomm itted aboard aship sailing

innavigablewaters.''Guevarav.NCL (Bah.
)Ltd.,920F.3d710,720(citingKeefev.Bah.Cruise
Lfnc,Inc.,867F.2d 1318,1320-21(11thCir.1989:.çtlnanalyzingamaritimetortcase,gcourts)

4

reiy on generalprinciplesofnegligencelaw.'' Chaparro v.CarnivalCorp.,693 F.3d 1333,1336

(11th Cir.2012)(quotingDaiglev,PointLanding Inc.,616F.2d825,827(5th Cir.1980:. ITO

pleadnegligence,aplaintiffmustallegethat(1)thedefendanthadadutytoprotecttheplaintiff
from a particular injury;(2) the defendant breached thatduty;(3) the breach actually and
proximately causedtheplaintiffsinjury;and (4)theplaintiffsuffered actualharm .'' Chaparro,
693 F.3d at1336. M oreover,itisblack letlerlaw thatç$ashipownerowesthe duty ofexercising
reasonable care towards those lawfully aboard the vesselwho are notm embers ofthe crew .''

Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1336 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique,358 U.S.625,630,79 S.Ct.406,409,3 L.Ed.2c1550 (1959))(emphasisin
original).
Tostateaclaim fornegligentfailuretowarn,Plaintiffmustallege:(1)thatDefendantlcnew

ofthe allegedly dangerous conditions;and (2)thatthe condition was notopen and obvious.
Carrollv.Carnival Corp.,955 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir.2020) (citing Guevara v.NCL
(Bahamas)ZJJ,920F.3d710,720n.5(11thCir.2019:.
Asaprerequisiteto imposing liability forboth claim sofnegligence and negligentfailure
tow anl,thecarrierm usthavehad actualorconstnlctivenoticeoftherisk-creating condition.See

Keefe,867,F.2d at1322.(W ctualnoticeexistswhen thedefendantltnowsaboutthedangerous
condition.''Brewton v.CarnivalCorp.,No.23-23785-C1V-M 01V ,2024U.S.Dist.LEXIS 33779

(S.D.Fla.Feb.27,2024)(citingHollandv.CarnivalCorp.,50F.4th 1088,1095(11thCir.2022(
9.
Constructive notice exists where çdthe shipowner ought to have know n of the peril to its

passengers.'' Keep ,867 F.3d at1322. Constructivenotice can beestablishedwhen aplaintiff
plausiblyallegesthat:(1)thehazardouscondition existed t&forasufficientlength oftime'';or(2)

5

substantially sim ilarconditionsm usthave caused substantially sim ilarpriorincidents. Holland,
50 F.4th at1096.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs notice allegations are insufficient to establish that

Defendants had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition thatcaused the m assage incident.
Thus,DefendantsurgetheCourttodism isscount1I,111,and IV ofPlaintiffsAm ended Com plaint.
TheCourtaddressesthenoticeargumentson both sidesbelow.

LEGAL ANALY SIS -NOTICE
A .Acm alNotice
To plead actualnotice,thedefendantm ustknow ofthedangerouscondition.SeeHolland,
50 F.4th at1095.However,Plaintifffocusessolely on constnzctivenotice,notactualnotice. On
review ofthe Com plaint,PlaintiffdoesnotallegethatDefendantsacm ally knew ofthedangerous

condition,only thatDefendants knew orshould haveknown (Gitwasreasonably foreseeable for

passengersto be injured''atld Cthighly probably forpassengersto beinjured.'' Thus,theCourt
findsthatPlaintifffailsto establish thatDefendants had actualnotice ofthe dangerousmassage
condition.

B . Constructive N otice

To plead constructive notice,the defendantmustestablish with evidence that (1)the
defective condition existed fora suffcientperiod oftimeto invitecorrective measures,or(2)
thzough substantially sim ilarincidentsin which conditionssubstantially similarto theoccurrence
in question m usthave causedtheprioraccident. See Guevara,920 F.3d at720.

First,Plaintiff does allege thatthe defective condition existed for a suffcientperiod of
tim e.However,theseallegationsarecompletely conclusory and arenotaccom panied by factsor
details.

The meatofthe argument(on both sides)hinges on the second Gssubstantially similaz
incidents''prong.Plaintiffarguesthatherallegationsofconstnzctivenoticearesufficientby listing
four sim ilar incidents occurring on vessels by One Spa W orld employees. Further,industry
standardshavebeen implem ented forcrewm embersand spa employeesto abideby professional
standards rendering servicesto warn passengers,which meansthatDefendants knew orshould
haveknown ofpossible dangersto avoid. Defendantsarguefirstthatthe incidentsreferenced in
the Am ended Complaintare notsubstantially sim ilar. Further,Defendants m ite thatPlaintiff
failed to state whatspecificstandards Calmivaland One Spa W orld allegedly violated,how they
wereviolated,andhow thestandardsrelatetonoticeoftheallegedrisky condition in thiscase.

i.

Count11.NegligenceagainstDefendantCarnival

W ithrespecttoCount11(negligenceagainstCarnival),theCourtagreeswith Defendants.
W'
hilePlaintiffiscon-ectthatidenticalcil-cum stancesarenotrequired,thereisaline.SeeSorrels

v.NCL (Bahamas)Ltd,796,F.3d 1275,1287 (11thCir.2015).Itistz'
uethatin a11theincidents
alleged,the One SpaW orldDefendantsowned,operated,and m anaged the spaaboardthevessel.
Butthe Courtfindsithard to im aginethatDefendantCarnivalwould bep
'uton noticebecauseof
that.There isa layerofcontroland communication between Carnivalcontrolling thevesseland
the One Spa D efendants controlling the spa w ithin the vessel. A lso,considering that it is not

alleged that these incidents involved the sam e m asseuse,one of the incidents was not even

involving Carnival,andthemassagesthemselvesweredifferent(bambooandhot-rock massages

as opposed to the Swedish massage here),itis tmlikely thatDefendantCarnivalwasputon
constructive notice.

Even though the incidenton the RoyalCazibbean wasa sim ilarm assage,itdoesnotput
DefendantCarnivalon notice. ln Brewton v.CarnivalCorp.,this Coul'tfoupd thatconstructive

noticewasproperlypled. No.23-23785-C1V-1101V ,2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 33779 (S.D.Fla.
Feb.27,2024). TheCourtcitedtocasesthatwerenotidentical,butinvolved excursionsoffthe
vesselthat defendant Carnival was also involved in (unlike the instance here with Royal

Caribbean).Seeftf at6-8.Similarly,in Spottsv,CarnivalCorp.,No.23-CV-22906,2024W L
111921,at*3(S.D.Fla.Jan.10,2024),thenoticeofslip andfallincidentsaroseinthesamefleet

astheoneon whichtheplaintiffwasinjured.
Excluding theincidentarising on theRoyalCaribbean,theCourtstillfindstheallegations
ofpriorincidentsconclusory,asthereisno realexplanation ofwhich priorincidentsputCarnival

on notice orhow the incidentsputCarnivalon notice. Other courts in thisdistricthave found
sim ilarly.l Thefactthatthe One SpaW orld Defendantsm anaged,owned,oroperatedthe spaon
aCarnivalvesselisnotenough toputDefendantCarnivalonnotice.Thefactthatconsumersw ere

formerly injured on aCarnivalcnzisevesseldueto an improperbamboo massageandhot-rock
m assage does notinform ornotify Carnivalthat itshould be similarly aware ofthe allegedly
dangerousSwedish massageinthiscase.Itisnotenough thatPlaintiffallegethatallthem assages

1SeeSegarrav.CarnivalCory,No.2l-CV-23661,2022U.S.Dist.LEXIS 160724,at*8(S.
D.Fla.,Sept6,2022)
(findingthattheallegationofpriorsimilarincidentswithoutmorefactsisconclusoryanddoesnotpleadnotice);
Hollandv.CarnivalColp.,2021WL 86877,at*3(findingthattiplaintiffassertionofpriorslipandfallhlcidentsis
conclusoryandthereforeinsufficienttoestablishthatCarnivalwasonnoticeofthehazardwhichcauseinjuryto
Plaintiff'');SeeSerra-cruzv.CarnivalCorp.,No.18-CV-23033,2019WL 13190647,at*8(S.D.Fla.Feb.12,
2019)(findingthatbecausePlaintiffdidnotexplainwhichprioraccidentsputCarnivalonnoticeorhow the
incidentsputCarnivalonNoticetheyfailedtostateaclaim fornegligence);Polancov.CarnivalCorp.,No.IO-CV21716,2010WL l1575228,at*3,2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS 150857,at*7(S.D.Fla.Aug.11,2010)(holdingthe
allegationsofpriorsim ilarincidentswereCtbereflofinform ation''and thattheplaintiffscom plainttçthereforefailsto

stateaclaim fornegligence.'').
8

wereçsforcefuland improper''and Ctimpropertechniqueswereused.A smentioned above,both the
techniquesand masseuses were entirely different. Thus,the Coul'tholdsthatthe priorincidents
alleged by Plaintiffarenotsim ilazenough to give Carnivalconstructivenotice.
Further,the Courtfinds unpersuasive thatD efendants m ay be on notice m erely Cçbased on

policies and industry standards for crem nembers to abide by professional standards when

rendering services to and to warn passengers like the Plaintiff,ofpossible dangers.'' Plaintiff
m akesa blanketstatem entsaying thatDefendantsare incorrectwhen itcom es to çspolicies and
procedures''and çsindustry standards''butproceedsto citeH eller,which isunrelated to Glabiding
by professionalstandards''and only speakson awarenessthrough inspections. 191F.Supp.3d at
1358.

On theargumentofnoticetllrough inspection,the caselaw doesnotprovide supporthere.

PlaintiffcitestoKennedyv.CarnivalCorp.,385F.Supp.3d 1302,1331(S.D.Fla.2019),where
the courtfotm d sufficiency of constnzctive notice through inspection. There,the defendantknew

orshould have known ofthe possible dangers associated with the water intlatables orchanging
tidesduring inspection. 1d H owever,here,a generalinspection ofthespato ensurethatthe spa
was reasonably safe for passengers is inadequate. The allegations pertain to the dangers of
im properm assage techniques and m aneuversand aggressive and intentionalm anipulation during

themassagebyaspecificmasseuse.Alzinspection (unlessduringthemassage)doesnotsuffce.
Accordingly,the CourtgrantsDefendants'm otion todism isscountIl- negligenceagainst
D efendantCarnival.

Count111:NegligenceagainsttheOneSpa WorldDe# ndants
The Courtreaches a different conclusion on whether the One Spa W orld Defendants
received constructivenotice. Asstated above,al1fourincidentsin thiscase involvetheOneSpa

W orld Defendants. W hen separating One Spa W orld and Cnrnival(and focusing on One Spa

W orld),itdoesnotmatlerwhichvesselorcruisecompanyadangerousmassageincidentoccurred
on.In both Brew ton v.CarnivalCorp.,N o.23-23785-C1V -M ORE,2024 U .S.D ist.LEX IS 33779

(S.D.Fla.Feb.27,2024)andSpottsv.CarnivalCorp.,No.23-CV-22906,2024 W L 111921(S.D.

Fla.Jan.10,2024)thepriorsubstantiallysimilarconditionsal1involvedthesamefleetorvessel.
Similarly,here,themassageincidentsa11involve the One Spa W orld Defendants.
W here above discussing count II,the variables like different t/pes of naassages and
differentcnlise companiestook DefendantCarnivaloutofthe realm ofconstructive notice,the
Courtfinds thatthere are less variables and differences when it comes to the One Spa W orld
Defendants. Simply put,itis alleged thatthe One Spa W orld Defendantsowned,operated,Or

managed spas where multiple massage incidents that severely injured consumers occurred.
Because the One Spa W orld Defendantswere more directly providing spa servicesto Ca
't'
nival
passengers,thereislessofaneed by Plaintiffto explain how theOne SpaW orld Defendantswere
puton noticeatthisstageofthe case.One SpaW orld hasmoreoversightto thespaand massages
in generalthan Carnival.
Thus,the CourtfindsthatPlaintiffhassuffciently alleged constructivenoticeand denies
Defendants'm otion to dism issCountIll- negligenceagainstDefendants One SpaW orld.

10

iii.

CountIV:NegligentFailureto WarnAgainstDe# ndants

Asstated abovein section I& ii,Plaintiffdidnotsufficiently pleadthatDefendantCxrnival
was puton constnlctive notice butsufficiently pled thatthe One Spa W orld Defendants were.
Thus,the Courtgrants Defendants'motion to Dism iss CountIV as it comm ingles allegations
between DefendantCarnivaland Defendants One Spa W orld. The Coul'twillallow Plaintiffto
am end theAmended Complaintto clarify the allegationsin CountIV .

C O N CLU SION

Accordingly,itis ORDERED AND ADJUD GED thattheM otion to Dism issCount11is
GRAN TED ,Count1I1isDENIED,and CountIV isGRAN TED with leaveto amend.

DONE AND ORDERED in Cham bersatM iami,Florida,this ,1 of 2024.
FED E
A .M OREN O
> 1 D STA TES D ISTRICT JUD GE

Copiesfum ishedto:
Cotm selofRecord