UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22240-FAM

STEVEN GAMMONS,

A resident and citizen of Texas,

Plaintiff,

v .

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,

a Liberian Corporation, COX AND 

COMPANY LIMITED, a St. Lucian Corporation,

and SOUFRIERE HOTWIRE RIDES INC.,

a St. Lucian Corporation,

Defendants.

______________________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, STEVEN GAMMONS, a resident and citizen of Texas, sues Defendants ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD, a Liberian Corporation with its principal place of business in

Florida, COX AND COMPANY LIMITED, a St. Lucian Corporation, and SOUFRIERE 

HOTWIRE RIDES INC., a St. Lucian Corporation and alleges:

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES

1. This is an action for damages in excess of seventy-five thousand ($75,000.00) 

dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.

2. Plaintiff, STEVEN GAMMONS is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the State 

of Nevada.

3. The Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. (RCL) is a Liberian 

corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. RCL 

accordingly is a citizen both of Liberia and of Florida for jurisdictional purposes. 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 1 of 25
4. Defendant, COX AND COMPANY LIMITED (hereinafter “COX”), upon 

information and belief, is an entity based in St. Lucia.

5. Defendant, SOUFRIERE HOTWIRE RIDES INC. (hereinafter “HOTWIRE 

RIDES”), upon information and belief, is an entity based in St. Lucia.

6. Subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, based on diversity of 

citizenship between the parties. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Texas, and Defendant RCL 

is a citizen of Liberia and Florida for jurisdictional purposes, while Defendants COX and 

HOTWIRE RIDES are citizens of St. Lucia for jurisdictional purposes. The damages, including 

comminuted fractures of the Plaintiff’s tibia and fibula support an award of damages in excess of 

$75,000.00. 

7. At all material times, Defendant RCL has conducted ongoing substantial and not 

isolated business activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, so 

that in personam jurisdiction over the Defendant exists in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida.

8. At all material times, Defendant RCL has engaged in the business of operating 

maritime cruise vessels for paying passengers, including the Plaintiff. 

9. At all material times, Defendants COX AND COMPANY LIMITED and 

SOUFRIERE HOTWIRE RIDES INC. (collectively, the “Excursion Entities”) have engaged in the 

business of operating shore excursions pursuant to contracts with cruise lines such as Defendant 

RCL which carry American passengers and sail from U.S. Ports to the Caribbean. 

10. At all times material hereto, the activities of the Excursion Entities in Florida satisfy 

the specific jurisdiction provision of Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a), by acts that include, but are not 

limited to, (a) reaching out to Florida-based cruise lines, insurers, cruise industry associates, and/or 

premium financing companies for purposes of operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a 

business or business venture in this state; and/or (b) contractually agreeing to indemnify FloridaCase 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 2 of 25
based cruise lines (entities mostly located in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale) for any harm resulting to 

cruise passengers, thereby insuring a “person, property, or risk located within this state.”

11. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities entered into a contract with RCL 

concerning the subject excursion, which (a) contains a choice-of-law clause designating Florida law as 

the governing law; (b) contains a provision whereby the Excursion Entities agree to submit to the 

exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Florida; (c) involves consideration of not less than $250,000 or 

relate to an obligation arising out of a transaction involving in the aggregate not less than $250,000; 

(d) does not violate the U.S. Constitution; and (e) has at least one party of the contract that is a 

resident of Florida or incorporated under the laws of Florida. Therefore, the contract between RCL 

and the Excursion Entities meets all requirements to satisfy a finding of specific jurisdiction under 

Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(9).

 12. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities have engaged in 

substantial and not isolated activity within this state, including, but not limited to: (a) reaching out 

to cruise lines in Florida and establishing long-term partnerships with them; (b) deriving a 

substantial portion of their revenues from their business with Florida-based cruise lines; (c) 

periodically traveling to Miami to meet with cruise line executives for purposes of maintaining the 

business relationships and/or obtaining new business; (d) procuring insurance through companies 

in Florida; (e) maintaining Florida entities as “Agents of Record” for insurance purposes; (f) 

agreeing to insure and indemnify entities in Florida; g) signing premium financing agreements with 

Florida entities in order to obtain a loan to pay for liability insurance premiums; (h) buying parts 

and/or supplies from Florida-based suppliers to operate their excursions; (i) signing powers of 

attorney and/or appointing attorneys-in-fact in Florida to carry out their Florida operations; (j) 

participating in cruise industry trade shows in Miami (e.g., Sea trade); and/or (k) maintaining active 

membership in Florida Caribbean Cruise Association, based in Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 3 of 25
13. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities have been in the business of 

providing excursions to cruise line passengers in St. Lucia through Florida-based cruise lines, 

including Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity and/or NCL. In entering into contracts with these 

Florida-based cruise lines, the Excursion Entities agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in

Florida. Additionally, by being under contract with the Florida-based cruise lines, the Excursion 

Entities receive the benefit of the cruise lines’ advertising and promotional efforts.

14. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities’ arrangement with the Florida-based 

cruise lines and the circumstances of this case are markedly different than those at issue in Daimler AG 

v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Herein, unlike Daimler, the Plaintiff is suing a Florida-based cruise 

line (RCL) for injuries sustained while participating in an excursion operated by agents of the cruise 

line (the Excursion Entities) -- agents set up almost exclusively to do business with cruise lines (a 

majority of which are based in Florida). Further unlike Daimler, RCL is “at home” in this jurisdiction 

because RCL maintains its principal place of business in Florida. Thus, under Daimler, the Excursion 

Entities are also deemed “at home” in this jurisdiction by their direct and indirect contacts with Florida 

(through the Florida-based cruise lines).

15. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities are also subject to jurisdiction 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because (a) the instant maritime tort claims arise 

under federal law; (b) the Excursion Entities are not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of 

general jurisdiction; and (c) exercising jurisdiction over the Excursion Entities is consistent with the 

United States Constitution and laws based on the Excursion Entities’ minimum contacts with the 

United States as a whole such that the maintenance of this lawsuit does not offend traditional notions 

of fair play and substantial justice. These minimum contacts are set forth in the above allegations, and 

include, but are not limited to, the Excursion Entities’ location and operation in the United States, as 

well as marketing, promoting, and selling tickets for its excursions in the United States directly and/or 

through cruise lines as their agents located all over the United States.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 4 of 25
GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

16. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant RCL requires fare paying 

passengers such as the Plaintiff to bring any lawsuit against the Defendant arising out of injuries 

or events occurring during the cruise voyage, including but not limited to those occurring during 

shore excursions, in this federal judicial district. Further, venue is also proper in this district 

because Defendant RCL’s principal place of business is located in this district. 

17. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action. The 

Plaintiff gave Defendant RCL timely written notice of the claim as required by the Plaintiff’s 

ticket contract with RCL. 

LIABILITY AND DAMAGE ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

18. At all material times, Defendant RCL was engaged in the business of operating 

maritime cruise vessels for fare paying passengers and for this purpose operated, among other 

vessels, the “FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.”

19. At all material times, including the accident date of May 30, 2019, the Plaintiff 

was a fare paying passenger aboard the FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

20. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and/or operated the 

subject excursion, which was offered, arranged for, sponsored, recommended, marketed, sold, cooperated and/or managed by RCL.

21. After booking the subject cruise, RCL sent Plaintiff promotional material, which 

provided information and descriptions of shore excursions, including the excursion entitled, 

“Hotwire Pitons Zipline by the Sea” (hereinafter “zipline excursion” or “subject excursion”).

22. RCL also had promotional materials at its shore excursion desk aboard the cruise ship 

and/or other areas of the ship with information and descriptions of shore excursions, including the 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 5 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

6

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

subject excursion. Tickets for shore excursions, including the subject excursion, were also available 

for sale on Carnival’s shore excursion desk aboard the cruise ship. Therefore, at all material times 

RCL reasonably anticipated and reasonably foresaw that passengers on the cruises during which it 

was offering the shore excursions operated by the Excursion Entities, including the Plaintiff, would 

be participating in the shore excursions operated by the Excursion Entities and during those shore 

excursions would be in premises and areas controlled and operated by the Excursion Entities.

23. The information and/or material RCL made available and/or distributed to the Plaintiff

by RCL represented that the excursions, including the subject excursion, were operated and/or 

overseen by RCL and/or they were safe.

24. The information and/or material RCL made available and/or distributed to 

passengers concerning shore excursions, including the Plaintiff concerning the subject excursion, 

was based on the description and/or information provided to RCL by the Excursion Entities and/or 

by Carnival’s inspections and/or approval of the subject excursion and/or of the Excursion Entities

as operators of the excursions. Accordingly, RCL had a duty accurately to advise passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, concerning the risks of the subject excursion which were or should have 

been known to RCL through its inspection and approval process and through the information the 

Excursion Entities provided to RCL.

25. Relying on the safety and reputability of RCL as well as on RCL’s representations 

regarding the shore excursions it marketed and promoted, including the subject excursion operated 

by the Excursion Entities, Plaintiff purchased tickets for the subject excursion directly from RCL. 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 6 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

7

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

The Plaintiff obtained all of the information regarding the subject excursion from RCL and made all 

of the reservation arrangements for the subject excursion exclusively with RCL. In turn, RCL 

received a portion of Plaintiff’s ticket price for the subject excursion.

26. Notably, fifty six (56) other passengers from the FREEDOM OF THE SEAS all 

purchased and attended the same shore excursion at the same time as the Plaintiff, all of whom 

obtained the same or similar information from RCL as the Plaintiff and all of whom, like the Plaintiff,

purchased their tickets directly from RCL.

27. The Plaintiff reviewed RCL’s information and/or material concerning the subject 

excursion and relied upon RCL’s representations exclusively and to Plaintiff’s detriment in 

deciding to purchase the subject excursion from RCL and to participate in same during Plaintiff’s 

cruise aboard the FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

28. Based upon RCL’s information and/or material concerning the subject excursion, 

Plaintiff reasonably understood that RCL conducted regular inspections of the facilities, amenities, 

vessel(s), operations and operators of the subject excursion to ensure that they were reasonably 

safe, and Plaintiff relied upon such understanding to Plaintiff’s detriment in deciding to purchase 

the subject excursion from Carnival and to participate in same during Plaintiff’s cruise aboard the 

FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

29. On or about May 30, 2019, as part of Plaintiff’s cruise aboard the FREEDOM OF THE 

SEAS, Plaintiff participated in the zipline excursion in St. Lucia. This excursion was arranged for, 

sponsored, recommended, operated, marketed, promoted and/or sold by RCL as part of the cruise 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 7 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

8

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

aboard the FREEDOM OF THE SEAS vessel. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, the excursion 

was operated by the Excursion Entities.

30. On or about May 30, 2019, during the zipline excursion, the Plaintiff was not provided 

with assistance by guides, or with a safety briefing as RCL represented would be provided to the 

Plaintiff. While attempting to utilize the zipline, the Plaintiff’s foot was caught on a portion of a

platform below the platform from which the Plaintiff departed, causing him to sustain serious 

injuries.

31. The subject excursion was not competently operated by properly trained and/or 

supervised persons, and/or it was unreasonably hazardous for reasons that include, but are not limited 

to: (a) the unsafe distance between the platforms from which guests took off; (b) the unsafe manner 

in which the lines were secured which caused guests such as the Plaintiff to catch their foot on a 

different platform after departing on the zipline, (c) the unreasonably dangerous condition created by 

the failure to properly secure and/or harness passengers while operating the zipline, (d) the lack of an 

adequate equipment protecting the users, like Plaintiff, from the dangers posed by the platform below, 

(e) the failure to properly train passengers such as the Plaintiff to safely ride the zipline; and (d) the 

failure to warn passengers such as the Plaintiff of the danger posed by the platform below. The 

incompetence of the excursion operator and/or hazardous conditions of the subject excursion should 

have been discovered by RCL before the incident had RCL conducted an adequate inspection of the 

zipline facilities and the operators of the subject excursion to ensure it was reasonably safe before 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 8 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

9

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

repeatedly recommending the excursion to its passengers, including Plaintiff, to the exclusion of 

other excursions not offered by RCL.

32. Further, before Plaintiff’s incident, Carnival was or should have been on notice that the 

excursion was not reasonably safe for passengers for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, 

through information provided by the Excursion Entities, RCL’s initial approval process, and RCL’s

yearly inspections of the subject excursion.

33. Specifically, before offering excursions to passengers, the excursions and/or the 

excursion operators are subject to RCL’s approval pursuant to policies and procedures promulgated 

by RCL. This is a duty undertaken by RCL, in part, so that it may make the aforementioned 

representations concerning the subject excursion to its passengers in an effort to generate a profit for 

RCL. Accordingly, RCL is required to execute this duty with reasonable care under the 

circumstances. During the excursion approval process, RCL is supposed to verify whether the 

operator is qualified. The excursion operators also provide RCL details pertaining to the excursion, 

including, but not limited to, the location, a description, restrictions, and/or participation levels for 

the excursion. Part of the approval process also entails RCL’s representatives inspecting the 

excursion being proposed, including the activities offered and operations.

34. Moreover, once an excursion is approved and accepted by RCL, RCL sends excursion 

operators standards, policies, and/or procedures that the operators must adhere to while RCL is 

offering their excursions to its passengers. Additionally, the excursion operators are subject to yearly 

inspections and/or approval by RCL, wherein RCL is supposed to conduct site inspections of the 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 9 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

10

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

excursion as well as the vessel/island/facilities/amenities and/or operations of the excursion. The 

yearly inspections and/or approval process also requires excursion operators to submit yearly “bids” 

and/or reports to RCL, wherein the operators disclose the details of incidents that occurred during the 

excursion involving cruise line passengers (among other information). Thus, before Plaintiff’s 

incident, RCL was or should have been on notice that cruise ship passengers were injured participating 

in these types of excursions.

35. At all times material hereto:

a. RCL made all arrangements for the subject excursion without disclosing to 

Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being operated by another entity (and/or 

entities); and/or

b. RCL marketed the subject excursion using its company logo on its website and/or 

in its brochures and/or on its ship without disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject 

excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or

c. RCL maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby it offered, sold, provided 

information to, and answered questions of passengers about the subject excursion 

without disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another 

entity (and/or entities); and/or

d. RCL recommended its passengers to not engage in excursions, tours and/or 

activities that are not sold through RCL; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 10 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

11

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

e. Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the subject excursion, the 

Plaintiff’s exclusive contacts concerning the subject excursion was with RCL 

and/or RCL’s onboard excursion desk; and/or

f. The fee for the subject excursion was charged to the Plaintiff, and collected from 

the Plaintiff, exclusively by RCL; and/or

g. Plaintiff received the receipt for the purchase of the subject excursion exclusively 

from RCL.

36. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff relied on the above, to Plaintiff’s detriment, 

so as to believe that the Excursion Entities were the employee(s) and/or agent(s) of RCL or 

approved by RCL, in choosing the subject excursion. At no time did RCL represent to Plaintiff 

in particular, or the ship’s passengers in general, in a meaningful way that the Excursion Entities 

were not agent(s) and/or employee(s) of RCL.

37. At all times material hereto:

a. RCL and the Excursion Entities entered into an agreement whereby: RCL made 

all arrangements for the Plaintiff, on behalf of the partnership with the Excursion 

Entities, for the subject excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or

b. RCL marketed on RCL’s website and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship, on 

behalf of the partnership with the Excursion Entities, the subject excursion being 

run by the Excursion Entities; and/or;

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 11 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

12

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

c. RCL maintained an excursion desk on its ship where it offered, sold, provided 

information to, and answered questions of passengers, on behalf of the partnership 

with the Excursion Entities, about the subject excursion being run by the 

Excursion Entities; and/or

d. The Excursion Entities provided the equipment to be used in the subject 

excursion; and/or

e. RCL determined the amount of money charged for the subject excursion being 

run by the Excursion Entities; and/or

f. RCL collected the amount of money charged for the subject excursion being run 

by the Excursion Entities; and/or

g. RCL shared profits with the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion by 

retaining a portion of the ticket sales for the subject excursion after the tickets 

were sold, and paying the Excursion Entities the remaining portion of the ticket 

sales for the subject excursion; and/or

h. RCL shared losses with the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion, 

including, for instance, when RCL issued a refund to passengers for the Excursion 

Entities’ excursion(s), including, but not limited to, the subject excursion.

38. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and operated the subject 

excursion. The Excursion Entities were involved in providing the subject excursion to the Plaintiff. 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 12 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

13

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the agent(s), apparent agent(s), joint 

venturer(s), servant(s), and/or employee(s) of Carnival and at all times acted within the course and 

scope of their agency, apparent agency, joint venture, service and/or employment.

COUNT I- NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in 

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

39. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of RCL, as operator of a cruise line to 

provide Plaintiff, as its passenger, with reasonable care under the circumstances. This duty 

included a duty of reasonable care in warning or advising passengers, including the Plaintiff, of 

actually or constructively known dangerous conditions in places RCL reasonably anticipated or 

foresaw its passengers would be.

40. At all material times RCL reasonably anticipated and foresaw, for the reasons set forth 

in Paragraphs 21 through 28 above, that the passengers to whom it marketed and promoted the 

excursions operated by the Excursion Entities would participate in those excursions and hence 

would be in premises or areas controlled by the Excursion Entities as the excursion operators.

41. Notwithstanding its duty to warn passengers including the Plaintiff as described 

above, RCL at all material times failed to warn the Plaintiff of the dangerous conditions relating 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 13 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

14

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

to the operation of the excursion, as set forth in Paragraph 31 above. RCL accordingly breached 

its duty of reasonable care to the Plaintiff and was negligent.

42. As a direct and proximate result of RCL’s negligent failure to warn, the Plaintiff 

participated in the zipline excursion in St. Lucia described in Paragraphs 29 through 31 above and 

was injured as described in Paragraph 30 above. The Plaintiff was injured about his body and 

extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, 

disfigurement, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical 

expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings 

and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature 

and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the 

benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against RCL for all damages 

recoverable under the law.

COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

43. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and/or operated the 

subject excursion.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 14 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

15

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

44. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of the Excursion Entities to provide 

Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.

45. On or about May 30, 2019, the Excursion Entities and/or their agents, servants, and/or 

employees breached their duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.

46. On or about May 30, 2019, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or negligence 

of the Excursion Entities as follows:

a. Failure to provide a safe excursion; and/or

b. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor excursion providers so as to ensure 

that the subject excursion was reasonably safe for passengers; and/or

c. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure 

that the facilities, structures, and equipment, including, but not limited to, the 

zipline, harnessing equipment, and platforms were reasonably safe for passengers; 

and/or

d. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure 

that the facilities, structures, equipment, including, but not limited to, the zipline 

platforms were placed in a reasonably safe place, so as to maintain a proper and 

safe distance between them so that riders departing from one would avoid the 

others; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 15 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

16

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

e. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure 

that excursion participants were being adequately assisted/and or monitored by 

tour guides or excursion staff; and/or

f. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure 

that the excursion participants were being provided with adequate instructions by 

tour guides or excursion staff; and/or

g. Failure to promulgate and enforce adequate policies and procedures prevent 

guests departing from the top platform to strike the platform below; and/or

h. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure 

that tour guides or excursion staff were providing passengers with a reasonably 

safe area for taking off; and/or

i. Failure to adequately inspect the zipline excursion before the subject excursion so 

as to identify its poor condition and falling hazards; and/or

j. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate standards, policies, and/or 

procedures for the Excursion Entities to require that passengers participating in 

the subject excursion are adequately assisted by tour guides or excursion staff; 

and/or

k. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate standards, policies, and/or 

procedures for the Excursion Entities to require that passengers participating in 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 16 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

17

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

the subject excursion are provided with adequate instructions by tour guides or 

excursion staff; and/or

l. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff) of the dangers 

associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

m. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff) that the subject 

excursion would not include assistance or supervision from the tour guides or 

excursion staff; and/or

n. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff) of the dangers 

involved in taking off on the zipline excursion; and/or

o. Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the subject 

excursion; and/or

p. Having a shore excursion that was not competently operated.

47. All or some of the above acts and/or omissions by the Excursion Entities and/or 

their agents, servants, and/or employees, caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiff being severely 

injured while participating in the subject excursion.

48. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities created and/or knew of the 

foregoing conditions causing the subject incident and did not correct them, or the conditions 

existed for a sufficient length of time so that the Excursion Entities, in the exercise of reasonable 

care under the circumstances, should have learned of them and corrected them. This knowledge 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 17 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

18

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

was or should have been acquired through: (a) the Excursion Entities complete and thorough 

evaluation of the excursion; (b) the routine and regular inspections by the Excursion Entities of 

the excursion, the facilities, and the guides/excursion staff; and/or (c) from prior incidents 

involving passengers injured on the Excursion Entities’ excursions that have occurred during 

cruises and/or that have been reported within the industry.

49. As a result of the negligence of the Excursion Entities, the Plaintiff was injured about 

Plaintiff’s body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, 

disability, disfigurement, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred 

medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost 

earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost 

the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Excursion Entities for all 

damages recoverable under the law.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS BASED ON 

JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN RCL AND THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 18 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

19

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

50. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities engaged in a joint 

venture to provide excursions to passengers aboard RCL’s ships, the terms of which are set forth 

in Paragraph 37 above.

51. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities entered into an 

agreement where RCL would sell the subject excursion to its passengers and the Excursion Entities 

would operate the subject excursion.

52. As its part of the joint venture, RCL arranged for, sponsored, recommended, 

marketed, operated, marketed, sold and/or collected money for the subject excursion, and the 

money was then shared between RCL and the Excursion Entities. As its part of the joint venture, 

the Excursion Entities provided labor and/or operated the subject excursion.

53. RCL, on behalf of the joint venture, charged a fee to passengers who utilized the 

excursions. The fee paid by the passengers, including the Plaintiff, was split between RCL and the 

Excursion Entities, such that RCL and the Excursion Entities shared a profit of the money made 

from the shore excursion.

54. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities had joint and/or shared 

control over aspects of the joint venture. The Excursion Entities had control over the day-to-day 

workings of the excursions. RCL also had control over the day-to-day workings of the excursions 

in that they required the Excursion Entities to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the 

subject excursion. RCL had control over the arrangements, marketing and sales of the excursion.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 19 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

20

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

55. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities shared a common 

purpose: to operate the subject excursion for a profit.

56. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities had a joint proprietary 

and/or ownership interest in the subject excursion. RCL had an interest in arranging, sponsoring, 

recommending, advertising, operating, and selling the subject excursion as well as collecting 

money for such excursion, and the Excursion Entities had a proprietary interest in the time and 

labor expended in operating the subject excursion.

57. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities shared and/or had the 

right to share in the profits of the subject excursion, as RCL retained a portion of the ticket sales 

for the subject excursion after the tickets were sold, and RCL paid the Excursion Entities the 

remaining portion of the ticket sales for the subject excursion.

58. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities shared and/or had a 

duty to share any losses that may have been sustained with the subject excursion, including, for 

instance, when RCL issued a refund to passengers for the Excursion Entities’ excursion(s), 

including, but not limited to, the subject excursion.

59. RCL and the Excursion Entities are jointly and severally responsible for each other’s 

negligence as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture.

60. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities therefore:

a. Had an intention to create a joint venture;

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 20 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

21

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

b. Had a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter of the venture;

c. Had mutual control and/or joint control over the subject matter of the venture with 

respect to the provision of excursions to passengers aboard the ship;

d. Had a right to share in the profits of the joint venture; and

e. Would share losses which may have been sustained.

61. As joint venturers, RCL and the Excursion Entities are liable for 

each other’s negligence. As a result, RCL is liable for the negligent conduct of the 

Excursion Entities, and vice versa.

62. As a result of the negligence of the Excursion Entities set forth in 

Paragraph 46 above, for which Defendants as joint venturers are liable, the Plaintiff was 

injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of any previously existing 

conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s 

injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and 

future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses 

and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 21 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

22

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all counts as allowed by law.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 22 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

23

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 13, 2020, we electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the 

attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who 

are not authorized to receive electronic Notices of Electronic Filing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: PHILIP M. GERSON

PHILIP M. GERSON

Florida Bar No.

pgerson@gslawusa.com 

NICHOLAS I. GERSON

Florida Bar No.

ngerson@gslawusa.com

EDWARD S. SCHWARTZ

Florida Bar No.

escwartz@gslawusa.com

DAVID L. MARKEL

Florida Bar No.: 78306

dmarkel@gslawusa.com

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1980 Coral Way 

Miami, Florida 33145 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 23 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

24

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 24 of 25
Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

CASE NO. 20-cv-22240-FAM

25

GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. • 1980 Coral Way • Miami, Florida 33145-2624

Dade (305) 371-6000 •Broward (954) 845-0535 • Fax (305) 371-5749 •Toll Free (877) 475-2905

www.injuryattorneyfla.com

SERVICE LIST

Nicholas I. Gerson, Esq. Noah Silverman, Esq..

Florida Bar No. 20899 FOREMAN FREIDMAN

ngerson@gslawusa.com 2 S Biscayne Blvd

Philip M. Gerson, Esq. Suite 2300

Florida Bar No.: 127290 Miami, FL 33131

pgerson@gslawusa.com 305-358-6555

Edward S. Schwartz , Esq. Nsilverman@fflegal.com

Florida Bar No. 346721 LRose@fflegal.com

eschwartz@gslawusa.com 

David L. Markel, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 78306 

dmarkel@gslawusa.com 

Gerson& Schwartz, P.A.

1980 Coral Way

Miami, Florida 33145

Telephone: (305) 371-6000

Facsimile: (305) 371-5749

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 25 of 25