AVOIDING LIABILITY: EVEN WHEN IT BONKS YOU ON THE HEAD
Ewing v. Carnival Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118849, 2020 WL 3839699 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2020).
By: Jenna Wright
This civil action arises from an incident that occurred on the Carnival Ecstasy cruise ship. On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff was in his cabin sitting on the lower bunk bed when suddenly, the upper stowed bunk came crashing down on the Plaintiff’s head.[1] Plaintiff experienced extreme pain and dizziness and subsequently was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome.[2] He filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
This case centers on whether companies need to have notice of potential dangers, or if their employees’ alleged knowledge is enough to support plaintiffs’ negligence claims.
Among his negligence claims, Plaintiff alleged a theory of vicarious liability. He claimed Carnival policy dictates that a cabin steward must check the bed each day to make sure it is locked safely into place, and the failure to do so amounts to negligence. Additionally, he argued that notice is not required to prove Carnival was at fault. Further, Plaintiff opined that a ship owner should not be able to avoid liability created by the negligence of an employee simply because it did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous situation created by the negligent employee.
Judge Goodman, while acknowledging the merit of this argument, provided that due to the well-established “prior panel precedent rule” of the Eleventh Circuit, the court is bound by the decision of the first panel to address the issue of law.[3] Therefore, despite any misgivings the court may have, the notice requirement stands. This is because there is no binding Eleventh Circuit case which holds that there is no notice or knowledge requirement in a vicarious liability negligence case. [4]The court explained that if Plaintiff sought to change the benchmark, the only way to do so would be to bring this case either before a panel sitting en banc or to the Supreme Court.
However, when faced with cross motions for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court determined that the Plaintiff presented adequate evidence to avoid summary judgment for the defense only “by a razor-thin margin.”[5]This case will go to trial, and the fact finder will ultimately determine if Carnival had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the injury.
[1] . Ewing v. Carnival Corp., 2020 WL 3839699, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2020).
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at *18; see also Carrol v. Carnival Corp., 955 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir, 2020).
[4] Ewing, 2020 WL 3839699, at *16-17; see also Carrol, 955 F.3d at 1264.
[5] Ewing, 2020 WL 3839699, at *1.
