UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-21900

SANDRA BOGOVICH, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.,

a Bermuda company d/b/a 

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, 

Defendants. 

___________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs, SANDRA BOGOVICH, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

Defendant, NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., a Bermuda company d/b/a NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE

(hereinafter, “NCL”) and alleges:

THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. This is an action seeking damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest,

costs and attorney’s fees.

2. Plaintiff, SANDRA BOGOVICH, is sui juris, and is a resident of New Jersey.

3. Plaintiff was a lawful passenger aboard the cruise ship, the Norwegian Escape,

owned and operated by Defendant, NCL. 

4. NCL is a Bermuda company with its principal place of business and base of

operations located in Miami, Florida. 

5. This Court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

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

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 1 of 12
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.

6. This Court also has Admiralty subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1333 as this case involves maritime torts. The type of incident and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs

had the potential to impact maritime commerce as shore side excursions are a part of the cruise 

experience and sold by cruise lines aboard their cruise ships. 

7. This action is being filed in this Court pursuant to the terms and conditions in the 

Passenger Contract Ticket issued by Defendant, NCL.

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over NCLbecause:

A. NCL’s principal place of business is located within Miami-Dade County, 

Florida;

B. NCL conducts substantial business within the State of Florida, including but 

not limited to operating cruises from Miami, Tampa, Cape Canaveral, Ft. 

Lauderdale, and Jacksonville, markets cruise vacationsto Floridians, contracts

with several Florida companies to provision its cruises ship while in Florida 

ports, and employs several thousand Floridians to work at its Miami 

headquarters; and/or

C. NCL operated, conducted, engaged in or carried on a business venture in this 

state and/or county; and/or

D. NCL had an office or agency in this state and/or county; and/or

E. NCL engaged in substantial activity within this state; and/or

F. NCL committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, Sections 

48.081, 48.181 or 48.193;

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 2 of 12
G. At all times material thereto, NCL owned, operated, managed, maintained 

and/or controlled the vessel, the Dawn.

9. Each year, many U.S. passengers travel to Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada

aboard Defendant’s ships .

10. The “Saint John River Cruise” shore excursion in Saint John, New Brunswick, 

Canada is sold by Defendant, NCL, to U.S. passengers, such as Plaintiff.

11. When passengers, such as Plaintiff, board NCL Cruise Ships, NCL offers, 

recommends, and markets the subject shore excursion in Saint John in various places around the 

ship. Alternatively, NCL allows passengers, such as Plaintiff, to book and pay for the subject shore 

excursion at the ship’s Shore Excursion Desk. There, passengers can talk to NCL crewmembers, 

trained by NCL to answers questions and provide information about NCL’s shore excursions, and 

to assist passengers in purchasing the shore excursions.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. At all times material hereto, Defendant, NCL, markets the Zip Line excursion, the 

“Saint John River Cruise” through its website, print material, onboard announcements, and 

onboard television programming.

13. Cruise passengers cannot purchase shore excursions, including the subject shore 

excursion, unless they have a reservation number from Defendant, NCL, and are confirmed for 

their cruise. While aboard the ship, cruise passengers have three ways to book excursions: 1) visit 

the shore excursion desk; 2) fill out the order form in the guest’s stateroom; and 3) use the 

interactive TV system available on most ships.

14. As the top reasons to book NCL’s shore excursions, Defendant, NCL, states its 

guests are guaranteed priority departure in port, are provided flexible cancellation policies, are 

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 3 of 12
guaranteed return to ship and most importantly, the excursions are planned by insured partners 

who adhere to the highest safety standards in the industry.

15. Plaintiff booked a cruise aboard the Norwegian Escape with Defendant, NCL.

16. After booking his cruise, Defendant, NCL, offered Plaintiff different shore 

excursions to purchase. One of those excursions was the subject excursion, the Saint John River 

Cruise.

17. The fee for the excursion was charged to the Plaintiff and collected from the 

Plaintiff exclusively by Defendant, NCL.

18. Based upon the advertising and the fact that he was purchasing it through

Defendant, NCL, Plaintiff believed that the excursion was operated by Defendant, NCL. 

Moreover, Plaintifs trusted that being an NCL excursion, it would adhere to the highest safety 

standards in the industry.

19. To all outward appearances, Defendant, NCL, was the operator of the excursion,

and any representations contained in any of the fine print of its literature never expressly advised 

Plaintiffs that it was not operating the excursion or advised Plaintiff of the identity of the excursion 

operator to allow them to inquire about the operator’s safety measures and standards. See Shore 

Excursion Ticket and Confirmation attached as Exhibit “A.”

20. Plaintiff would not have participated in the subject shore excursion had she

known the excursion was not operated by Defendant, NCL.

21. On September 13, 2019, the Norwegian Escape called on Saint John, New 

Brunswick.

22. Plaintiff departed the ship for the NCL sponsored tour, the Saint John River 

Cruise (the “subject shore excursion”).

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 4 of 12
23. At the excursion location, Plaintiff listened attentively to the safety briefing and 

followed all directions carefully.

24. At no time during the safety briefing was Plaintiff advised or informed by the 

excursion workers to watch her step as she boarded the ramp from the pier. If such a warning had 

been given, Plaintiff would have been more cautious as she boarded the excursion boat.

25. At no time during the safety briefing was Plaintiff advised or informed by the 

excursion workers that the boarding ramp was not properly attached to the excursion boat and/or 

the pier. If such a warning had been given, Plaintiff would not have attempted to step on the ramp.

26. At no time during the safety briefing was Plaintiff advised or informed by the 

excursion workers that the boarding ramp moved and/or separated from the pier while in use. If 

such a warning had been given, Plaintiff would not have attempted to step on the ramp.

27. At no time during the safety briefing did the excursion workers test and/or inspect the 

boarding ramp to ensure that the gap between the ramp and the pier did not present a danger to 

unsuspecting tour participants. If the excursion workers had conducted a test and/or inspected the ramp

prior to allowing Plaintiff to board the boat, the subject incident could have been avoided.

28. At no time during the boarding process did the excursion workers help tour participants 

in boarding the excursion boat despite knowing that the ramp was not properly attached to the boat and/or 

pier, that the movement of the ship created a gap between the boat ramp and the pier, that the ramp lacked 

safety features such as a handrail, and that tour participants required assistance in boarding the ramp to 

avoid incidents such as the one that occurred. If the excursion workers had helped Plaintiff board the 

excursion boat by assisting her as she attempted to step on the boat ramp from the pier, the subject 

incident could have been avoided.

29. As Plaintiff stepped on the boarding ramp from the pier, her foot got caught in a 

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 5 of 12
gap between the ramp and the pier which caused Plaintiff to fall forward and land on her left arm. 

As a result of the incident, Plaintiff fractured her left humerus and required surgery.

30. Defendant, NCL, caused this incident by failing to properly screen, train, and 

monitor the tour operator and the excursion workers, and by failing to have procedures and 

safeguards in place, like handrails to prevent falls like the one Plaintiff suffered, employees 

stationed at the entrance of the ramp, and inspections of the ramp before tour participants attempt 

to board the ramp.

31. Defendant, NCL, never identified a third-party (if any) as the owner and operator 

of the excursion. See Shore Excursion Ticket attached as Exhibit A.

32. Defendant, NCL, obtains payment for the excursions online and onboard the 

cruise through the guests’ account.

33. At all times material hereto, Defendant, NCL, participated in the income and

losses generated by the operation of the subject excursion.

34. Defendant, NCL, exercises or exercised control over the subject excursion in its

requirements for its operation, insurance and safety.

35. Defendant, NCL, has or had control over the arrangement, marketing and sales of

the subject excursion.

36. Even if the excursion operator were an independent contractor, NCL is not 

relieved of its duty to verify that its representations made in its literature and elsewhere about its 

excursion operators are true, that is, that the insured partners adhere to the highest safety standards 

in the industry.

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

performed, waived, or do not apply.

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 6 of 12
COUNT I

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, NCL

Plaintiffs re-allege all allegations pled in paragraphs 1 through 37 above as if alleged fully

herein.

38. Defendant, NCL, and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers, and/or employees 

owed Plaintiff a duty to warn of dangers of which the carrier knew or reasonably should have 

known. This duty extends beyond the port to places where the passengers are invited to, or may

reasonably be expected to, visit. 

39. Defendant, NCL advertised, marketed and sold the subject excursion to Plaintiff 

and thus should have expected Plaintiff to visit it and participate in it.

40. The dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions of the subject excursion include, 

but are not limited to:

A. The lack of maintenance of the ramp;

B. The lack of inspection of the ramp;

C. That the ramp it is not equipped with handrails to prevent falls;

D. That the excursion workers were not adequately trained or competent to monitor 

the boarding process before allowing participants to enter the ramp;

E. That the excursion workers were not adequately trained or competent to inspect 

the ramp before every ride;

F. That the subject excursion did not have adequate first aid and/or other medical 

supplies to treat persons injured on the excursion; and

G. That the response time for addressing and/or treating persons injured on 

excursion was very slow.

41. The dangerous conditions of the subject excursion were not open and obvious to 

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 7 of 12
Plaintiff.

42. Defendant, NCL:

A. Had actual knowledge of the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions aboard the 

subject excursion:

a) Upon information and belief, Defendant, NCL, visited and participated in the

excursion as part of its approval process for selecting the subject excursion 

to be offered to its passengers and thus knew or should have known of the 

dangerous, risk-creating, and/or defective conditions of the boarding 

process;

b) Upon information and belief, Defendant, NCL, received complaints of 

incidents wherein people were injured by the lack of supervision on the 

subject excursion, 

c) Received guest feedback of the tour in comment forms from previous 

passengers about the dangerous conditions aboard the subject excursion; 

and/or

d) Received complaints from previous passengers about the dangerous 

conditions aboard the subject excursion;and/or,

e) Was told by its passenger(s) that they suffered injuries during the subject 

excursion as a result of the operator’s negligent operation of same; and/or,

f) Reviewed complaints of prior passengers that posted on the internet 

discussing the unreasonably hazardous conditions on the subject excursion. 

B. Had constructive knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous and/or risk-creating 

conditions as they:

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 8 of 12
a) Existed for a sufficient length of time so that NCL should have known of them

by the exercise of ordinary care when visiting the site to ensure it is safe for 

its passengers; and/or,

b) Previous incident(s) such as Plaintiffs’ occurred, and or complaint(s) were 

made, (and although only one incident or complaint is needed to impute 

notice, they also occurred frequently) so as to impute notice upon NCL;

c) Created the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions;

d) Caused Plaintiffs’ injuries through an affirmative act(s), rather than solely 

through premises liability, for which notice is not required.

43. Defendant, NCL, breached its duty to warn Plaintiffs and was negligentby:

A. Failing to provide adequate warnings of the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions 

of the subject excursion; 

B. Failing to warn the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that Defendant, NCL, does 

not inspect and/or maintain the subject excursion;

C. Failing to advise the Plaintiffs and other cruise ship passengers that Defendant, NCL, 

does not verify that boarding ramps used for the subject excursion are reasonably safe 

and/or inspected;

D. Failing to warn the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that the ramp could move 

and/or separate from the pier while in use;

E. Failing to warn the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that the excursion

workers were not adequately trained or competent to monitor the subject 

excursion before allowing participants to board the ramp;

F. Failing to warn the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that the excursion

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 9 of 12
workers were not adequately trained or competent to inspect the ramp before 

allowing participants to board the ramp;

G. Failing to warn passengers that the excursion workers are not adequately trained or 

competent to handle emergency situations such as Plaintiff’s incident;

H. Failing to warn passengers that the tour operator did not have adequate first aid and/or 

medical supplies to treat persons injured on the excursion; and

I. Failing to warn that the response time for addressing and/or treating persons injured on 

the excursion would be very slow.

44. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of the duty alleged above, Plaintiff, 

SANDRA BOGOVICH, suffered bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement,

mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, surgery, 

medical care and treatment and loss of earnings and loss of the ability to earn money. These losses 

are either permanent or continuing.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SANDRA BOGOVICH, demands judgment against NCL for 

damages suffered as a result of the alleged accident and injury including pain and suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for 

the enjoyment of life, hospitalization, medical treatment and lost earnings experienced in the past 

and to be experienced in the future together with all taxable court costs and prejudgment interest.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

Plaintiff re-alleges all allegations pled in paragraphs 1 through 37 above as if alleged fully

herein.

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 10 of 12
45. On the date of the subject incident,

46. Defendant, NCL, had a duty of reasonable care to hire, retain, train, and supervise the 

excursion operator, especially an excursion operator 

47. Defendant, NCL, in this case, was negligent in the hiring, retention, training, and 

supervision of the excursion workers, by its actions and conduct including but not limited to the 

following:

A. Failing to properly screen, investigate, interview, and otherwise hire employees or 

agents;

B. Failing to periodically investigate and verify credentials of the excursion employees or 

agents;

C. Failing to properly and reasonably train the excursion workers to inspect and maintain 

the boarding ramp in proper working condition;

D. Failing to promulgate and enforce sufficient rules, regulations, policies, and procedures 

in regard to routine inspection and maintenance of the zip lines;

E. Failing to properly monitor the boarding ramp to ensure the ramp was not unreasonably 

dangerous;

F. Failing to monitor the excursion workers who are entrusted to supervise and/or assist 

tour participants board the excursion boat;

G. Failing to otherwise reasonably and properly hire, retain, train and supervise the 

excursion operator.

48. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of the duty alleged above, Plaintiff, 

SANDRA BOGOVICH, suffered bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement,

mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, surgery, 

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 11 of 12
medical care and treatment and loss of earnings and loss of the ability to earn money. These losses 

are either permanent or continuing.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SANDRA BOGOVICH, demands judgment against NCL for 

damages suffered as a result of the alleged accident and injury including pain and suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity for 

the enjoyment of life, hospitalization, medical treatment and lost earnings experienced in the past 

and to be experienced in the future together with all taxable court costs and prejudgment interest.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, SANDRA BOGOVICH, hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so 

triable 

of right.

DATED this 6th day of May 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer M. Aronfeld______ 

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 905161

aronfeld@Aronfeld.com 

Abby Hernández Ivey, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1002774

aivey@aronfeld.com 

Matthias Hayashi, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 115973

mhayashi@aronfeld.com

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

One Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

P: (305) 441.0440

F: (305) 441.0198

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-21900-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 12 of 12