UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

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.

______________________________________________/

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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 1 of 31
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 Florida-based cruise lines (entities mostly located in Miami and Ft. 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 2 of 31
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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 3 of 31
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 Floridabased 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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 4 of 31
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, 

co-operated 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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 5 of 31
CASE NO. 

2

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.

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

Plaintiff 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. Accordingly, Defendants undertook a duty to accurately advise passengers, including the 

Plaintiff, concerning the subject excursion in order to obtain a profit for Defendants, and 

Defendants were required to execute that duty utilizing reasonable care under the circumstances.

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

regarding its shore excursions, including the subject excursion, Plaintiff purchased tickets for the 

subject excursion directly from RCL. 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 as the Plaintiff beforehand and all of whom purchased 

their tickets directly from RCL.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 6 of 31
CASE NO. 

3

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

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 and/or sold by RCL as part of the 

cruise 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 7 of 31
CASE NO. 

4

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

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 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. This notice was or should have been acquired 

through Carnival’s initial approval process and/or its 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 8 of 31
CASE NO. 

5

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 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 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, the Excursion Entities were the agents and/or apparent 

agents of RCL by virtue of the following, such that RCL is estopped from denying that the 

Excursion Entities were the agents and/or apparent agents of RCL:

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

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

entities); and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 9 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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

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, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 10 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

37. At all times material hereto, RCL was the owner or co-owner of the subject 

excursion. At all times material hereto, RCL was responsible for, and liable for, the actions of 

the Excursion Entities with respect to the subject excursion.

38. In the alternative, at all times material hereto, a partnership and/or joint venture 

existed between the Excursion Entities by virtue of the following, whereby RCL and the 

Excursion Entities are jointly and severally responsible for the negligence of each other as 

partners of the partnership and/or joint venture:

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;

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 11 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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.

39. At all times material hereto, Carnival was a partner in the subject excursion.

40. 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. 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 12 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

COUNT I – MISLEADING ADVERTISING IN VIOLATION OF 

FLORIDA STATUTE § 817.41 AGAINST DEFENDANTS

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

paragraphs one (1) through forty (40) as though alleged originally herein.

41. At all times material hereto, RCL’s promotional material, brochures and/or 

website contained misrepresentations of material facts, including:

a. Misrepresenting the actual activity level and/or activities involved in the subject 

excursion; and/or

b. Mispresenting shore excursions, including the subject excursion, as being RCL’s 

excursions and using RCL’s guides through the use of proprietary language;

and/or

c. Misrepresenting that RCL’s excursions are “guided” when the tour guides or 

excursion staff do not actually provide sufficient supervision and/or assistance; 

and/or

d. Misrepresenting that the excursion providers are safe, reliable and/or reputable, 

when in actuality, passengers’ comments, complaints or information concerning 

safety concerns and/or prior incidents are censored, altered and/or deleted on 

publicly available website(s) operated and/or controlled by RCL; and/or

e. Representing that shore excursion providers are insured, when such insurance 

may not cover claims outside of the providers’ area of operation and/or may 

contain other limitations, such as the amount and types of claims covered; and/or

f. Representing and/or implying that excursion providers would be subject to personal

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 13 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

jurisdiction in the United States and/or subject to United States and/or Florida 

law by contractually requiring all RCL passengers (including the Plaintiff) to file 

suit in a specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the 

subject cruise (including incidents that occur while participating in shore 

excursions) and/or advertising that its excursion providers are insured.

42. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 817.41(4), RCL as well as the Excursion Entities are 

responsible for the foregoing false and/or misleading advertisements because Defendants were 

named in and/or obtained the benefits of the statements and/or advertisements.

43. At all times material hereto, the foregoing statements RCL made and/or 

disseminated were known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or 

might have been ascertained, to be false and/or misleading. This knowledge was or should have 

been acquired through: (a) RCL’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the 

excursion, including, but not limited to, having RCL’s representative(s) take the excursion; (b) 

RCL’s yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but not limited 

to, conducting site inspections; and/or (c) prior incidents involving RCL passengers injured on the 

Excursion Entities’ excursions and/or ziplining excursions, and/or other incidents reported within 

the cruise industry involving the Excursion Entities’ excursions and/or ziplining excursions.

44. At all times material hereto, the statements were so made or disseminated with the 

intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of inducing passengers (including Plaintiff) to rely 

on the statements and act by purchasing tickets for shore excursions (including the subject 

excursion).

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 14 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

45. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff justifiably relied on the representations 

made by Carnival when Plaintiff purchased tickets for the subject excursion and participated in 

the subject excursion.

46. As a result thereof, 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 for all damages recoverable under the law.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST RCL

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

paragraphs one (1) through forty (40) as though alleged originally herein.

46. At all times material hereto, RCL’s promotional material, brochures and/or website 

contained misrepresentations of material facts, including:

a. Misrepresenting the actual activity level and/or activities involved in the subject 

excursion; and/or

b. Mispresenting shore excursions, including the subject excursion, as being RCL’s 

excursions through the use of proprietary language; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 15 of 31
CASE NO. 

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. Misrepresenting the RCL’s excursions are “guided” when the tour guides or 

excursion staff do not actually provide sufficient supervision and/or assistance; 

and/or

d. Misrepresenting that the excursion providers are safe, reliable and/or reputable, 

when in actuality, passengers’ comments, complaints or information concerning 

safety concerns and/or prior incidents are censored, altered and/or deleted on 

publicly available website(s) operated and/or controlled by RCL; and/or

e. Representing that shore excursion providers are insured, when such insurance 

may not cover claims outside of the providers’ area of operation and/or may 

contain other limitations, such as the amount and types of claims covered; 

and/or

f. Representing and/or implying that excursion providers would be subject to 

personal jurisdiction in the United States and/or subject to United States and/or 

Florida law by contractually requiring all RCL passengers (including the Plaintiff) 

to file suit in a specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from 

the subject cruise (including incidents that occur while participating in shore 

excursions) and/or advertising that its excursion providers are insured.

47. At all times material hereto, the foregoing statements RCL made and/or 

disseminated were known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or 

might have been ascertained, to be false and/or misleading. This knowledge was or should have 

been acquired through: (a) RCL’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 16 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

excursion, including, but not limited to, having RCL’s representative(s) take the excursion; (b) 

RCL’s yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but not limited 

to, conducting site inspections; and/or (c) prior incidents involving RCL passengers injured on the 

Excursion Entities’ excursions and/or ziplining excursions, and/or other incidents reported within 

the cruise industry involving the Excursion Entities’ excursions and/or ziplining excursions.

48. At all times material hereto, the statements were so made or disseminated with the 

intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of inducing passengers (including Plaintiff) to rely 

on the statements and act by purchasing tickets for shore excursions (including the subject 

excursion).

49. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff justifiably relied on the representations 

made by Carnival when Plaintiff purchased tickets for the subject excursion and participated in 

the subject excursion.

50. As a result thereof, 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 for all damages recoverable under the 

law.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 17 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

COUNT III – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CARNIVAL

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

paragraphs one (1) through forty (40) as though alleged originally herein.

51. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of RCL to provide Plaintiff with 

reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances.

52. On or about May 30, 2019, RCL and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or 

employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable or ordinary care under the

circumstances.

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

of RCL and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or employees as follows:

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

b. Promoting the subject excursion as “hand selected” by RCL, thereby implying 

the excursion’s facilities/amenities/destinations and/or operations were 

reasonably safe under the circumstances, when in fact they were not; and/or

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

that the subject excursion was 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, and equipment, including, but not limited to, 

the zipline, harnessing equipment, and platforms offered as part of the excursion 

was reasonably safe for passengers; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 18 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

e. 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

f. 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

g. 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

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

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

i. 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

j. Failure to adequately inspect the zipline excursion before the subject excursion 

so as to identify its poor condition and falling hazards; 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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 19 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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

and/or

l. 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 provided with adequate instructions by tour guides or 

excursion staff; and/or

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

associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

n. 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

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

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

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

subject excursion; and/or

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

54. All or some of the above acts and/or omissions by RCL and/or its agents, servants, 

and/or employees, caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiff being severely injured while 

participating in the subject excursion.

55. At all times material hereto, RCL 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 20 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

that RCL, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of them 

and corrected them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through: (a) RCL’s initial 

approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but not limited to, having 

RCL’s representative(s) take the excursion; (b) RCL’s yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities 

and/or the excursion, including, but not limited to, conducting site inspections; and/or (c) prior 

incidents involving RCL passengers injured on the Excursion Entities’ excursions and/or ziplining

excursions, and/or other incidents reported within the cruise industry involving the Excursion 

Entities’ excursions and/or ziplining excursions.

56. As a result of the negligence of RCL, 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 for all damages recoverable under 

the law.

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

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

one (1) through forty (40) as though alleged originally herein.

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

subject excursion.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 21 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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

Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.

59. 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.

60. 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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 22 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 23 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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.

61. 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.

62. 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 

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.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 24 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

63. 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 for all damages recoverable under the 

law.

COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

BASED ON APPARENT AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL

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

paragraphs one (1) through forty (40) as though alleged originally herein.

64. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the apparent agent(s) of 

RCL.

65. At all times material hereto, RCL is estopped to deny that the Excursion Entities 

were their agent(s) or employee(s).

66. At all times material hereto, RCL and the Excursion Entities made manifestations 

which caused the Plaintiff to believe that the Excursion Entities had authority to act for the 

benefit of RCL. These manifestations included:

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 25 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

a. RCL allowed its name to be utilized in connection with the advertising of the 

Excursion Entities; and/or

b. RCL made all arrangements for the subject excursion without effectively 

disclosing to the Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another 

entity (and/or entities); and/or

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

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

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

d. 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 effectively disclosing to the Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being 

run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or

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

f. RCL recommended to Plaintiff to not engage in excursions, tours or activities that 

are not sold through RCL as RCL has no familiarity with other tours or their 

operations; and/or

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

Plaintiff, exclusively by RCL; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 26 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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

from RCL.

i. The Excursion Entities never represented that they were not an affiliate or agent 

of RCL.

67. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the above, to his detriment, so as to believe that the 

Excursion Entities were the employee(s) and/or agent(s) of RCL in choosing the subject 

excursion.

68. It was reasonable to believe that the Excursion Entities were RCL’s employee(s) 

and/or agent(s) because the Plaintiff booked, paid for and made all necessary arrangements for the 

subject excursion with RCL. RCL’s actions caused Plaintiff to believe that the Excursion Entities 

had authority to act on RCL’s behalf. At no time did the Excursion Entities represent to the ship’s 

passengers or the Plaintiff in particular in a meaningful way that the Excursion Entities were not 

agents or employees of RCL.

69. Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance was detrimental because Plaintiff would not have 

booked, paid for and/or participated in the subject excursion or incur any injuries had the 

Plaintiff known that the subject excursion was not operated by RCL.

70. The foregoing acts of negligence of RCL and/or the Excursion Entities were a 

direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

71. As a result of the negligence of the Defendants, 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 27 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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 for all damages recoverable under 

the law.

COUNT VI – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS BASED ON 

JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN CARNIVAL AND THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

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

paragraphs one (1) through forty (40) as though alleged originally herein.

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

venture to provide excursions to passengers aboard RCL’s ship(s).

73. 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.

74. 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.

75. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 28 of 31
CASE NO. 

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

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

made from the shore excursion.

76. 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 dayto-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.

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

purpose: to operate the subject excursion for a profit.

78. 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.

79. 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.

80. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 29 of 31
CASE NO. 

26

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

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

including, but not limited to, the subject excursion.

81. RCL and the Excursion Entities are jointly and severally responsible for each 

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

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

a. Had an intention to create a joint venture;

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.

83. 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.

As a result of the negligence of Defendants, 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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 30 of 31
CASE NO. 

27

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.

Executed, this 29th day of May, 2020.

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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 31 of 31