Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): maritime law [D.E. 21 at 5-8]. The Court has already determined that Plaintiffs claims against Norwegian fall within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction, as Plaintiff has conceded [D.E. 23 at 7-9]. Torts committed within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction are governed by maritime law. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generole Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 628, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959). For this reason, Plaintiff’s claims against Norwegian must be based on maritime law; and to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to assert a negligence claim against Norwegian based on premises liability or any other theory of negligence under Florida law, this claim must be dismissed. See, e.g., Stewart-Patterson v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., No. 12-20902-CIV, 2012 WL 2979032, at *2 (S.D.Fla. July 20, 2012) (<HOLDING>). To state a negligence claim under maritime 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that nonpecuniary damages created under florida law were available in an admiralty action (B) holding claim is not cognizable (C) holding claim is cognizable (D) recognizing that the seventh amendment applies to admiralty claim that is cognizable at law (E) holding that a claim based on a cruise lines negligent mode of operation under florida law is not cognizable under federal admiralty law
Output (English): holding that nonpecuniary damages created under florida law were available in an admiralty action