1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-CV-21557

AT LAW AND IN ADMIRALTY

VIVIAN RUGGERI,

Plaintiff

v.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD d/b/a

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

The Plaintiff, VIVIAN RUGGERI, hereby sues the Defendant, NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.

d/b/a NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE and files this Complaint for Damages and says:

THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for damages which exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs, 

and attorney’s fees.

2. THE PLAINTIFF. The Plaintiff, VIVIAN RUGGERI (hereinafter “Plaintiff” OR

“RUGGERI”), is sui juris and is a citizen and resident of Toms River, New Jersey. 

3. THE DEFENDANT. The Defendant, NCL (BAHAMAS) Ltd., A Bermuda 

Company d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line hereinafter as “NCL”) is incorporated in Bermuda, but 

does business in the State of Florida, and at all times material hereto was and is doing business in 

Miami Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto NCL owned and/or operated the cruise 

ship on which the subject negligence occurred.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 1 of 22
2

4. FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Federal subject matter 

jurisdiction arises under and is by virtue of Diversity of Citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 

as this is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States and/or citizens of a State 

and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. This action also arises under and is by virtue of the 

admiralty or maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Further, this action is being filed 

in Federal Court in Miami Dade County, Florida, as required by the venue selection clause in the 

Passenger Contract Ticket issued by the Defendants.

5. VENUE AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION. NCL, at all times material hereto, 

itself or through an agent or representative, in the County and in the District in which this 

Complaint is filed:

(a) Operated, conducted, engaged in or carried on a business venture in this state and/or 

county; and/or

(b) Had an office or agency in this state and/or county; and/or

(c) Engaged in substantial activity within this state; and/or

(d) Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, Sections 48.081, 48.181 

or 48.193.

6. All conditions precedent for filing and maintaining this action have been fulfilled, 

have been waived, or do not apply.

OTHER ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

7. DATE OF THE INCIDENT. The incident occurred on October 25, 2019.

8. LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT. The incident occurred while the NCL Epic

was at tender port in Cannes, France. Specifically, the incident occurred while the Plaintiff was a 

passenger onboard NCL Epic’s lifeboat, which was being used as a tender vessel to bring 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 2 of 22
3

passengers to and from the ship and port. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are governed by general 

maritime law. 

9. STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. At all 

times material hereto, the Plaintiff was a passenger on the subject cruise ship described herein and 

accordingly was an invitee while on the vessel.

10. NCL EPIC. NCL operates seventeen (17) ships used to provide passengers NCL’s 

cruise experience. The NCL Epic stops at various ports of call during a cruise. At some ports of 

call the NCL Epic will pull up to the prier or dock. At a tender port, the NCL Epic is not able to 

pull up to the pier or dock, usually because it's too shallow. NCL operates the lifeboats on board 

the NCL Epic as tender boats to move passengers to and from the cruise ship. At a tender port, the 

only way passengers can get off the ship and explore the city is if they take NCL’s tender boat to 

shore. A removeable/floating dock is used to allow passengers and crew to board the tender boat 

from the cruise ship. In the tender boat passengers sit on benches bolted to the floor. There are no 

seatbelts or handrails for passengers to use while they are seated on the benches. Tender boats

must be operated at a safe speed and in a safe manner given the sea conditions. Tendering can be 

dangerous in rough seas. There are times when NCL is forced to skip a port of call altogether 

because tendering is dangerous if the seas are too rough. This is an ongoing, continuous problem 

of which NCL is well-aware.

11. NOTICE: PRIOR SIMILAR INCIDENTS. NCL knew or should have known 

about the dangerous condition because of prior similar incidents. See Jones v. Otis Elevator Co.,

861 F.2d 655, 661–62 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating that although “evidence of similar accidents might 

be relevant to the defendant’s notice,” “conditions substantially similar to the occurrence in 

question must have caused the prior accident”). See Taiarol v. MSC Crociere S.A., 677 Fed. Appx. 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 3 of 22
4

599 (11th Cir. 2017) (while Taiariol was not required to show that another passenger slipped on 

the same step while in the same theater of the same ship during the same trip, she at least had to 

produce evidence that another person, while aboard one of the defendant’s ships, slipped on the 

nosing of one of the ship’s steps); See Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275, 1287 (11th 

Cir. 2015). (“The ‘substantial similarity’ doctrine does not require identical circumstances....”).

a. Juan Garcia was a passenger on board the NCL Sun on March 14, 2018 

when he was injured on the NCL Sun’s tender vessel. While NCL Sun’s 

tender vessel violently struck the pier/docking area. The violent allision 

caused Garcia’s leg to become pinned between the side of the tender vessel 

and the stationary seating on the vessel. Garcia filed a lawsuit against NCL. 

Juan Garcia v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. Case No. 1:19-cv-20996. NCL also 

owns and operates the NCL Sun.

b. The NCL Epic crashed into the dock in Puerto Rico on February 12, 2019.

While this incident involves the NCL Epic and not one of its lifeboat (being 

operated as a tender vessel), this is an example of NCL inappropriately 

operating a vessel which resulted in a crash.

12. NOTICE: ON-GOING, REPEATIVE PROBLEM. Additionally, NCL knows 

or should know that the sea conditions were not safe for operating a tender vessel because unsafe 

sea conditions are an on-going repetitive problem. Further, NCL knows or should have known that 

it was not safe to operate the tender boats in port in Cannes, France as NCL is often forced to skip 

a port of call altogether because seas are too rough. In addition, NCL is familiar with the rough 

sea conditions in port in Cannes, France as the NCL Epic had been operating its Mediterranean 

itinerary since May 2019. The NCL Epic always stops in Cannes, France during a voyage.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 4 of 22
5

13. NOTICE: POLICY AND PROCEDURES. Additionally, NCL knows or should 

know that that that the sea conditions were not safe for operating a tender vessel because NCL has 

policy and procedures which establish safe conditions for operating a tender vessel. 

14. NOTICE: THE WEATHER REPORT AND DECK LOG. Additionally, NCL 

knows or should know that the sea conditions were not safe for operating a tender vessel because 

of the weather report and the information reported in the deck log.

15. NOTICE: LENGTH OF TIME THE DANGEROUS CONDITION EXISTED. 

Additionally, NCL knows or should know that it was not safe to operate the tender boat in Cannes, 

France from weather reports that were available at least the day before on October 24, 2019.

16. NOTICE: VIOLATION OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS. Additionally, NCL 

knows or should know that relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes dictate safe sea 

conditions for tendering vessels. “[T]he law in the Eleventh Circuit, as established by the former 

Fifth Circuit, is that advisory guidelines and recommendations, while not conclusive, are 

admissible as bearing on the standard of care in determining negligence.” Cook v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Ltd., No. 11–20723–CIV, 2012 WL 1792628, at *3 (S.D.Fla. May 15, 2012) (citing 

Muncie Aviation Corp. v. Party Doll Fleet, Inc., 519 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir.1975); Frazier v. 

Continental Oil Co., 568 F.2d 378 (5th Cir.1978)).Such guidelines are also probative of NCL’s 

constructive knowledge of the allegedly hazardous condition. See Cook, 2012 WL 1792628, at *3; 

Donlon v. Gluck Grp., LLC, No. 09–5379 (JEI/KMW), 2011 WL 6020574, at *6 (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 

2011); See Holderbaum v. Carnival Corp., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (S.D. Fla. February 19, 2015) (the 

court held that based on the IMO recommendation and the record evidence, a reasonable jury could

conclude that the handrail was too large, hazardous, and that Defendant knew it was too large and 

hazardous) Muncie Aviation Corp., 519 F.2d at 1181 (holding that to the extent the defendant's 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 5 of 22
6

pilot failed to consult advisory materials issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, or failed 

to follow their recommendations, “the jury could permissibly infer that he failed to meet the 

appropriate standard of due care”); Frazier, 568 F.2d at 381–82 (holding that the district court 

erroneously excluded testimony concerning violations of industry standards to establish the 

defendant's negligence); see also Donlon, 2011 WL 6020574, at *6 (denying summary judgment 

motion filed by houseboat manufacturer in lawsuit filed by person who fell down the stairs of a 

houseboat, holding that non-binding standards promulgated by the American Society for Testing 

and Materials were admissible because a jury could use the evidence to conclude that the stairs 

“were defectively designed” and because the standards put defendant “on constructive notice of 

the potential danger of the stairs”).

17. DAY OF THE INCIDENT. The NCL Epic stopped as scheduled at the Vieux Port 

in Cannes, France on October 25, 2019. The NCL Epic anchored offshore as the port as it is too 

small to accommodate cruise vessels. NCL’s crewmembers did not provided any warnings about 

rough sea conditions. The rough sea conditions were not readily apparent to passengers on board 

the NCL Epic. Passengers who disembarked the NCL Epic while the ship was in port in Cannes, 

France had no other option but to return to the ship by tender boat. 

18. On October 25, 2019, at approximately 5:30pm, RUGGERI boarded NCL Epic’s

lifeboat, being used at the time as a tender vessel, to return to the ship after spending the day ashore 

in Cannes, France. RUGGERI sat on the last stationary bench towards the back of the tender boat. 

There was another stationary bench perpendicular to the bench RUGGERI was sitting on. The 

removeable/floating dock that is used to allow passengers and crew to board the ship from the 

tender was in the water attached to the NCL Epic. NCL Epic’s lifeboat approached the 

removeable/floating dock and then violently crashed into the removeable/floating dock. As NCL’s 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 6 of 22
7

lifeboat crashed into the removeable/floating dock, RUGGERI extended her right arm to the bench 

perpendicular to her in order to prevent herself from falling off the bench. As a result of the crash, 

RUGGERI tore the subscapularis tendon in her right shoulder. RUGGERI suffered and will continue 

to suffer severe, debilitating, and permanent injuries.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

19. The Plaintiff, RUGGERI, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation 

in paragraphs 1 through 18, above.

20. This is an action for negligence of NCL failing to warn passengers, including 

RUGGERI, of its hazards, risks or dangers.

21. DUTIES OWED BY THE DEFENDANT. NCL owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including RUGGERI. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). NCL also owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1991 WL 

329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Additionally, the Defendant’s “duty is to warn of dangers known to the 

carrier in places where the passenger is invited to or may reasonably be expected to visit.” See Vierling 

v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). NCL is directly negligent for failing to 

warn its passengers of the dangerous condition.

22. NCL owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to provide safe ingress and 

egress to and from the ship. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the part of a carrier to furnish its 

passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the vessel, that this obligation is 

non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses 

Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 7 of 22
8

Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1997). More specifically 

“a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards their passengers,” including the 

“duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board and disembark.” McLean v. 

Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 

339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). This duty is non-delegable and “even the slightest 

negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. 

Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). NCL is 

directly negligent for failing to provide a safe egress and ingress to and from the NCL Epic.

23. NCL owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to safely navigate its vessels 

so passengers are not subject to unreasonably dangerous conditions at sea as well as a reasonable duty 

to warn of the risk of injury associated with dangerous weather and sea conditions, which can result 

in NCL’s tender boat crashing into the removeable/floating dock attached to the NCL Epic. NCL

owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to warn of dangers known to NCL where 

NCL invite or reasonably expect passengers to go. The circumstances are that NCL owns and/or 

manages more than seventeen (17) cruise ships, including the NCL Epic. The NCL Epic stops at 

various ports of call during a cruise. At some ports of call the NCL Epic will pull up to the prier or 

dock. At a tender port, the NCL Epic is not able to pull up to the pier or dock, usually because it's 

too shallow. NCL operates the lifeboats on board the NCL Epic as tender boats to move passengers 

to and from the cruise ship. At a tender port, the only way passengers can get off the ship and 

explore the city is if they take NCL’s tender boat to shore. A removeable/floating dock is used to 

allow passengers and crew to board the tender boat from the cruise ship. In the tender boat 

passengers sit on benches bolted to the floor. There are no seatbelts or handrails for passengers to 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 8 of 22
9

use while they are seated on the benches. Tender boats must be operated at a safe speed and in a 

safe manner given the sea conditions. Tendering can be dangerous in rough seas. There are times 

when NCL is forced to skip a port of call altogether because tendering is dangerous if the seas are 

too rough. This is an ongoing, continuous problem of which NCL is well-aware. This is an 

ongoing, continuous problem of which NCL is well-aware. For these reasons, NCL’s duty of care 

includes warning of dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the NCL lifeboat being 

operated as a tender boat where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. 

24. NCL is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts of its shipboard 

crew members who were employees and/or actual agents of the Defendant. See Franza v. Royal 

Caribbean Cruise Line, Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2014). This ultimately is based on the fact 

that the crew members are employees of the cruise line. Therefore, under respondeat superior the 

cruise line is liable for the negligence of all crew members working aboard its ships.

25. NCL had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had constructive notice of 

the dangerous condition.

26. NCL knew or should have known about the dangerous condition from prior similar 

incidents. NCL documents incidents in various ways which may include prior shipboard safety 

meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs or databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints 

made to guest services throughout its fleet; safety testing and/or inspections testing. 

27. NCL knew or should have known that operating tender boats in rough sea 

conditions is dangerous because NCL’s written policy and procedures establish when it is safe to 

tender passengers to shore at a port of call.

28. NCL knew or should have known that the sea conditions were not safe for operating 

a tender vessel because of the weather report and the information reported in the deck log.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 9 of 22
10

29. NCL knew or should have known at least the day before the incident from available 

weather reports that the sea condition in Cannes, France was not safe for operating a tender boat.

30. NCL knew or should have known that it was not safe to operate the tender boat in 

Cannes, France from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes dictate safe sea conditions 

for tendering vessels.

31. NCL had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition by, inter alia, (a) the 

length of time the dangerous condition existed; (b) the nature of the dangerous condition and/or (c) 

the fact that the dangerous condition, a similar dangerous condition, or the cause of the dangerous 

condition was repetitive, continuous, ongoing, recurring, or occurring with some regularity. Thus, 

the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable and in the exercise of reasonable care NCL 

should have known about it.

32. NCL is aware that it owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to warn of 

dangers known to NCL where NCL invite or reasonably expect passengers to go. NCL distributes

crew member training materials; safety warning messages including those made through verbal 

announcement, newsletters and safety videos. NCL train its crew members to warn passengers of

hazardous or dangerous conditions verbally, with warning signs, and/or marking the area to 

prevent passengers from tripping on the hazardous or dangerous condition.

33. NCL BREACHES OF DUTY. NCL breached by failing to properly, adequately, 

and/or reasonably warn RUGGERI of the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including 

NCL’s tender boat where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. NCL breached its duties 

to the Plaintiff by its actions and conduct. NCL through its crew members failed to reasonably 

and regularly place signs, stickers, lights, and other visual or written notices. NCL’ crew members 

failed to reasonably and regularly make audible announcements about the dangerous condition on 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 10 of 22
11

board the NCL tender boat. NCL breached its duty by failing to warn passengers of NCL’s decision 

to sail into unreasonably dangerous weather conditions and that passengers should be alert at all times 

for sudden vessel movement which could knock passengers off balance. NCL also failed to comply 

with comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the 

Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence or 

proof of the absence of negligence. NCL’s violation of applicable and mandatory safety regulations 

and standards constitutes negligence per se.

34. PROXIMATE CAUSE: NCL’s failure to properly and adequately warn 

RUGGERI of the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the NCL tender boat that 

crashed into the removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019, 

proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Had NCL properly warned RUGGERI of the dangerous 

condition, RUGGERI would have been aware of the dangerous condition. RUGGERI therefore

would have never been injured on board the NCL tender boat on October 25, 2019.

35. NCL’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries and damages to RUGGERI 

in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not limited to economic 

damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in the future; 

household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; and lost 

income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also include but are 

not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, 

scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of 

life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. RUGGERI has suffered these losses in the 

past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 11 of 22
12

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, RUGGERI demands Judgment against NCL for damages 

recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to economic 

damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in the future; 

household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; and lost 

income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in the 

future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest 

due under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the 

General Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT TRAINING OF PERSONNEL

36. The Plaintiff, RUGGERI, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation 

in paragraphs 1 through 18, above.

37. This is an action for negligence of NCL negligent training of shipboard 

crewmembers. 

38. DUTIES OWED BY THE DEFENDANT. NCL owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including RUGGERI. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). NCL also owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1991 WL 

329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). NCL is directly negligent for failing to train its shipboard crew members. 

39. NCL owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to provide safe ingress and 

egress to and from the ship. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the part of a carrier to furnish its 

passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the vessel, that this obligation is 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 12 of 22
13

non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses 

Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); 

Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1997). More specifically 

“a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards their passengers,” including the 

“duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board and disembark.” McLean v. 

Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 

339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). This duty is non-delegable and “even the slightest 

negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. 

Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). NCL is 

directly negligent for failing to train its shipboard crewmembers to provide a safe egress and 

ingress to and from the NCL Epic.

40. NCL owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to train its crewmembers 

to warn of dangers known to NCL where NCL invite or reasonably expect passengers to go and to 

provide a safe egress and ingress to and from the NCL Epic . NCL owes a duty of reasonable care 

under the circumstances. NCL owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. The 

circumstances are that NCL owns and/or manages more than seventeen (17) cruise ships, including 

the NCL Epic. The NCL Epic stops at various ports of call during a cruise. At some ports of call 

the NCL Epic will pull up to the prier or dock. At a tender port, the NCL Epic is not able to pull up 

to the pier or dock, usually because it's too shallow. NCL operates the lifeboats on board the NCL 

Epic as tender boats to move passengers to and from the cruise ship. At a tender port, the only way 

passengers can get off the ship and explore the city is if they take NCL’s tender boat to shore. A 

removeable/floating dock is used to allow passengers and crew to board the tender boat from the 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 13 of 22
14

cruise ship. In the tender boat passengers sit on benches bolted to the floor. There are no seatbelts 

or handrails for passengers to use while they are seated on the benches. Tender boats must be 

operated at a safe speed and in a safe manner given the sea conditions. Tendering can be dangerous 

in rough seas. There are times when NCL is forced to skip a port of call altogether because 

tendering is dangerous if the seas are too rough. This is an ongoing, continuous problem of which 

NCL is well-aware. For these reasons, NCL’s duty of care includes training its crew members to 

warn passengers of dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including NCL’s tender boat

where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019.

41. NCL train its shipboard crewmembers to warn passengers of the dangerous 

conditions on board the NCL Epic, including the NCL tender boat that crashed into the 

removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. NCL knew or should 

have known of the importance of training its crewmembers to warn passengers of the dangerous 

conditions on board the NCL Epic including the NCL tender boat that crashed into the 

removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. NCL train its 

crewmembers that passenger may not know about rough sea conditions NCL knew or should have 

known the importance of training its crewmembers to warn passengers about rough sea conditions. 

NCL knew or should have known the importance of training its crewmembers that passenger may not 

know of the dangerous conditions on board NCL Epic including the NCL tender boat that crashed 

into the removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. NCL train 

its crewmembers to warn passengers of rough sea conditions and dangerous conditions on board 

NCL tender boats verbally and with warning signs. NCL knew or should have known of the 

importance of training its crew members to warn passengers of dangerous conditions verbally, and 

with warning signs. NCL also distributes crew member training materials; safety warning 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 14 of 22
15

messages including those made through verbal announcement, newsletters and safety videos. NCL

also trains its shipboard crewmembers to provide a safe egress and ingress to and from the NCL 

Epic. NCL knew or should have known of the importance of training its crew members to provide 

a safe egress and ingress to and from the NCL Epic However, despite knowing how and the reason 

why NCL should train its crewmembers, NCL failed to do so.

42. NCL had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had constructive notice of 

the dangerous condition.

43. NCL knew or should have known about the dangerous condition from prior similar 

incidents. NCL documents incidents in various ways which may include prior shipboard safety 

meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs or databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints 

made to guest services throughout its fleet; safety testing and/or inspections testing. 

44. NCL knew or should have known that operating tender boats in rough sea 

conditions is dangerous because NCL’s written policy and procedures establish when it is safe to 

tender passengers to shore at a port of call.

45. NCL knew or should have known that the sea conditions were not safe for operating 

a tender vessel because of the weather report and the information reported in the deck log.

46. NCL knew or should have known at least the day before the incident from available 

weather reports that the sea condition in Cannes, France was not safe for operating a tender boat.

47. NCL knew or should have known that it was not safe to operate the tender boat in 

Cannes, France from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes dictate safe sea conditions 

for tendering vessels.

48. NCL had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition by, inter alia, (a) the 

length of time the dangerous condition existed; (b) the nature of the dangerous condition and/or (c) 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 15 of 22
16

the fact that the dangerous condition, a similar dangerous condition, or the cause of the dangerous 

condition was repetitive, continuous, ongoing, recurring, or occurring with some regularity. Thus, 

the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable and in the exercise of reasonable care NCL 

should have known about it.

49. NCL BREACHED ITS DUTY: NCL breached its duty of care owed to RUGGERI

and was negligent by failing to reasonably train its crewmembers to warn passengers of the 

dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the NCL tender boat that crashed into the 

removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. NCL also failed to 

comply with comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes 

the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence

or proof of the absence of negligence. NCL’s violation of applicable and mandatory safety 

regulations and standards constitutes negligence per se.

50. At the time RUGGERI was injured on the NCL tender boat, the crewmember(s)

that was responsible for providing proper and adequate warnings failed to do so. Because that crew 

member was not properly trained, that crew member failed to properly and adequately warn 

passengers, like RUGGERI, of the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the 

NCL tender boat that crashed into the removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on 

October 25, 2019. 

51. PROXIMATE CAUSE: NCL’s failure to properly and adequately train NCL crew 

members proximately caused RUGGERI’ injuries. Had NCL properly trained NCL’s crew 

members to warn passengers about the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the 

NCL tender boat that crashed into the removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on 

October 25, 2019, the crewmember would have warned RUGGERI and RUGGERI would have been 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 16 of 22
17

aware of the dangerous condition. RUGGERI therefore would never have been injured on NCL’s 

tender boat on October 25, 2019.

52. NCL’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries and damages to RUGGERI 

in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not limited to economic 

damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in the future; 

household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; and lost 

income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also include but are 

not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, 

scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of 

life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. RUGGERI has suffered these losses in the past 

and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, RUGGERI demands Judgment against NCL for damages 

recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to economic 

damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in the future; 

household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; and lost 

income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in the future 

including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, 

inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due under the 

applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General Maritime 

Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PERSONNEL

53. The Plaintiff, RUGGERI, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation 

in paragraphs 1 through 18, above.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 17 of 22
18

54. This is an action for negligence of NCL negligent supervision of shipboard 

crewmembers. 

55. DUTIES OWED BY THE DEFENDANT. NCL owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including RUGGERI. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). NCL also owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1991 WL 

329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). The cruise line is directly negligent for failing to supervise its shipboard 

crew members. 

56. NCL owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to provide safe ingress and 

egress to and from the ship. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the part of a carrier to furnish 

its passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the vessel, that this obligation 

is non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses 

Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 

1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. Carnival, 870 So. 2d 

853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1997). More 

specifically “a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards their passengers,” 

including the “duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board and disembark.” 

McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity 

Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). This duty is non-delegable and “even the 

slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 

1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 

2003). The cruise line is directly negligent for failing to supervise its shipboard crew members

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 18 of 22
19

to ensure that the crewmembers were providing safe egress and ingress to and from the NCL 

Epic.

57. NCL owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to supervise its crew 

members to ensure NCL’s crew members are properly warning passengers of dangers known to 

NCL where NCL invite or reasonably expect passengers to go. NCL owes a duty of reasonable 

care under the circumstances. NCL owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. The 

circumstances are that NCL owns and/or manages more than seventeen (17) cruise ships, 

including the NCL Epic. The NCL Epic stops at various ports of call during a cruise. At some 

ports of call the NCL Epic will pull up to the prier or dock. At a tender port, the NCL Epic is not 

able to pull up to the pier or dock, usually because it's too shallow. NCL operates the lifeboats 

on board the NCL Epic as tender boats to move passengers to and from the cruise ship. At a 

tender port, the only way passengers can get off the ship and explore the city is if they take NCL’s 

tender boat to shore. A removeable/floating dock is used to allow passengers and crew to board 

the tender boat from the cruise ship. In the tender boat passengers sit on benches bolted to the 

floor. There are no seatbelts or handrails for passengers to use while they are seated on the 

benches. Tender boats must be operated at a safe speed and in a safe manner given the sea 

conditions. Tendering can be dangerous in rough seas. There are times when NCL is forced to 

skip a port of call altogether because tendering is dangerous if the seas are too rough. This is an 

ongoing, continuous problem of which NCL is well-aware. For these reasons, NCL’s duty of 

care includes supervising its crew members to ensure that passengers are properly trained and 

warned about the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including NCL’s tender boat

where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 19 of 22
20

58. NCL should have become aware that the crew member(s) was failing to properly warn 

passengers about the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the NCL tender boat 

where RUGGERI was injured when it crashed into the removeable/floating dock attached to the 

NCL Epic on October 25, 2019 from prior similar incidents. NCL documents incidents in various 

ways which may include prior shipboard safety meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs or 

databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints made to guest services throughout its fleet; 

safety testing and/or inspections testing. 

59. NCL had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had constructive notice of 

the dangerous condition.

60. NCL knew or should have known about the dangerous condition from prior similar 

incidents. 

61. NCL knew or should have known that operating tender boats in rough sea 

conditions is dangerous because NCL’s written policy and procedures establish when it is safe to 

tender passengers to shore at a port of call.

62. NCL knew or should have known that the sea conditions were not safe for operating 

a tender vessel because of the weather report and the information reported in the deck log.

63. NCL knew or should have known at least the day before the incident from available 

weather reports that the sea condition in Cannes, France was not safe for operating a tender boat.

64. NCL knew or should have known that it was not safe to operate the tender boat in 

Cannes, France from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes dictate safe sea 

conditions for tendering vessels.

65. NCL had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition by, inter alia, (a) the 

length of time the dangerous condition existed; (b) the nature of the dangerous condition and/or (c) 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 20 of 22
21

the fact that the dangerous condition, a similar dangerous condition, or the cause of the dangerous 

condition was repetitive, continuous, ongoing, recurring, or occurring with some regularity. Thus, 

the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable and in the exercise of reasonable care NCL 

should have known about it.

66. NCL BREACHED ITS DUTY: NCL breached its duty of care owed to RUGGERI

and was negligent by failing to reasonably supervise its crew members to ensure that the crew 

members are properly and adequately warning passengers about the dangerous conditions on board 

the NCL Epic including the NCL tender boat that crashed into the removeable/floating dock 

where RUGGERI was injured on October 25, 2019. NCL also failed to comply with comply with 

applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule

and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendants in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence

of negligence. NCL’s violation of applicable and mandatory safety regulations and standards 

constitutes negligence per se.

67. PROXIMATE CAUSE: NCL’s failure to properly supervise NCL crew members 

proximately caused RUGGERI’ injuries. Had NCL properly supervised NCL’s crew members 

to warn passengers about the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic including the NCL 

tender boat that crashed into the removeable/floating dock where RUGGERI was injured on 

October 25, 2019, the crewmember would have warned RUGGERI about the dangerous condition 

and RUGGERI would have been aware of the dangerous condition. RUGGERI therefore would 

have never been injured on board the NCL tender boat on October 25, 2019.

68. NCL’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries and damages to RUGGERI 

in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not limited to economic 

damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in the future; 

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 21 of 22
22

household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; and lost 

income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also include but are 

not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, 

scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of 

life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. RUGGERI has suffered these losses in the 

past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, RUGGERI demands Judgment against NCL for damages 

recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to economic 

damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in the future; 

household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; and lost 

income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in the future 

including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, 

inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due under the 

applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General Maritime 

Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate

By: s/ John H. Hickey, Esq. 

JOHN H. HICKEY, ESQ. (FBN 305081)

hickey@hickeylawfirm.com

LISA C. GOODMAN, ESQ. (FBN 118698)

lgoodman@hickeylawfirm.com

 federalcourtfilings@hickeylawfirm.com 

HICKEY LAW FIRM, P.A.

 1401 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 510

 Miami, Florida 33131-3504

 Telephone: (305) 371-8000

 Facsimile: (305) 371-3542

 Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 22 of 22