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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:20-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.

______________________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, STEVEN GAMMONS, a resident and citizen of Texas, files this Amended 

Complaint against 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, amending the 

initial Complaint filed in this action on May 29, 2020, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

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. 

4. Defendant, COX AND COMPANY LIMITED (hereinafter “COX”), upon 

information and belief, is a corporate entity based in St. Lucia.

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

RIDES”), upon information and belief, is a corporate 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. Thus, the action as 

between the Plaintiff and RCL is an action between citizens of different states, while the action 

as between the Plaintiff and the other Defendants is an action between a citizen of a State, Texas, 

and citizens of a foreign country, St. Lucia, so that alienage jurisdiction applies. The damages, 

including comminuted fractures of the Plaintiff’s tibia and fibula, support an award of damages 

in excess of the jurisdictional minimum 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, 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 2 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

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 in St. Lucia pursuant to contracts with cruise lines,

including as Defendant RCL, which carry American passengers and sail from United States ports

to ports in the Caribbean such as St. Lucia. 

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

Florida satisfy the requirements for specific in personam jurisdiction in Florida state and federal 

courts pursuant to 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, specifically the promotion of shore excursions in St. 

Lucia operated by them as part of cruise voyages departing from and returning to Florida ports; 

and/or (b) contractually agreeing to indemnify Florida-based cruise lines such as RCL for any 

harm resulting to cruise passengers through their negligence, thereby insuring a “person, 

property, or risk located within this state.”

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 3 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

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

submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Florida, rather than the courts of St. Lucia; (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, to-wit, RCL, which as noted above is a dual citizen of 

Liberia and Florida for federal jurisdictional purposes. 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 for promotion to 

cruise passengers of shore excursion activities in St. Lucia ; (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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 4 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

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; and/or (k) maintaining active membership in Florida 

Caribbean Cruise Association, based in Florida.

13. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities have been in the business of 

providing excursions in St. Lucia to passengers of Florida-based cruise lines, including RCL, 

with the excursions being promoted to the cruise line passengers through the Florida based cruise 

line contractees. 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 as if they were advertising and promotional 

efforts of the Excursion Entities themselves.

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. 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 5 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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 alternatively 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) if the Excursion Entities are not subject to in personam 

jurisdiction in Florida, they 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’ operations 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 in the United States.

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 RCL 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. 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 6 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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

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

ticket contract with RCL, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. 

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 injury 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 about and descriptions of shore excursions promoted by RCL. These

included an excursion in St. Lucia entitled, “Hotwire Pitons Zipline by the Sea” (hereinafter “St. 

Lucia zipline 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 about and descriptions of shore excursions, including

the St. Lucia zipline excursion. Tickets for shore excursions, including the St. Lucia zipline

excursion, were also available for sale on Carnival’s shore excursion desk aboard the cruise ship.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 7 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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

including the Plaintiff represented that the excursions RCL was promoting, including the St. 

Lucia zipline excursion, were operated or at least overseen by RCL and were accordingly safe

and approved for RCL passengers.

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

passengers concerning shore excursions, including material given the Plaintiff concerning the St. 

Lucia zipline excursion, was based on the description and/or information provided to RCL by the 

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

of the Excursion Entities. Accordingly, Defendants undertook a duty to advise RCL passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, accurately concerning the subject excursion, and Defendants were 

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

25. Relying on the reputation of RCL as well as RCL’s representations regarding its 

shore excursions, including the St. Lucia zipline, Plaintiff purchased tickets for that excursion

directly from RCL. The Plaintiff obtained any information he had regarding the St. Lucia zipline

excursion exclusively from or through RCL and made all of his reservations to participate in the 

excursion exclusively with RCL. In turn, RCL received as consideration for promoting the 

excursion a portion of Plaintiff’s ticket price.

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

purchased and attended the St. Lucia zipline excursion at the same time as the Plaintiff. All 57 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 8 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

passengers obtained the same or similar information as the Plaintiff beforehand and all 57

purchased their excursion tickets directly from RCL.

27. The Plaintiff reviewed the information and/or material concerning the St. Lucia 

zipline excursion provided by RCL, and had no other information or material concerning the 

excursion before buying tickets to participate in it. Plaintiff relied exclusively upon RCL’s 

representations regarding the St. Lucia zipline excursion and relied to his detriment on those 

representations in deciding to purchase excursion tickets from RCL and to participate in the 

excursion during his cruise aboard the FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

28. Based upon RCL’s information and/or material concerning the St. Lucia zipline

excursion, Plaintiff reasonably understood that RCL conducted regular inspections and review of 

the facilities, equipment, amenities, operations and operators of the excursion to ensure that it 

was reasonably safe for participating RCL passengers, and Plaintiff relied upon this

understanding to his detriment when deciding to purchase tickets for the St. Lucia zipline

excursion from RCL and to participate in the excursion during his cruise aboard RCL’s vessel

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 an integral 

part of the cruise aboard the FREEDOM OF THE SEAS vessel. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 9 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

time, the excursion was operated by the Excursion Entities, although RCL did not disclose to 

Plaintiff or its other passenger participants the role of the Excursion Entities.

30. On or about May 30, 2019, during the St. Lucia zipline excursion, the Plaintiff was 

not provided with assistance by guides or with a safety briefing, contrary to RCL’s

representations when promoting the excursion that necessary safety instructions would be 

provided to the participants including the Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff was attempting to initiate 

his zipline descent without proper or adequate instruction in launch or descent techniques, his

foot was caught on a portion of a platform below the platform from which the Plaintiff departed, 

causing him to sustain serious injuries, including comminuted tibia and fibula fractures.

31. The St. Lucia zipline 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 initiated their 

descent; (b) the unsafe manner in which the lines were secured, causing participants 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 ride the zipline safely, particularly in light of the presence of the 

platform below the main launch platform; 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 10 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

hazardous conditions of the subject excursion should and reasonably would have been discovered 

by RCL before the Plaintiff’s injury had RCL conducted an adequate inspection of the zipline 

facilities and the operators of the St. Lucia zipline excursion to ensure that 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 injury, RCL was or should have been on notice that the St. 

Lucia zipline excursion was not reasonably safe for passengers. This notice was or should have been 

acquired through RCL’s initial inspection and approval process and/or regular reinspection and 

review 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 are also required to provide RCL details 

pertaining to the excursion, including, but not limited to, the location, a description, restrictions, 

and/or participation, experience and skill levels for the excursion. Part of the approval process also 

entails RCL’s representatives directly and physically inspecting the excursion being proposed, 

including the activities offered and operations.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 11 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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. As a direct and proximate result of the events described in Paragraphs 30 and 31 

above, the Plaintiff was injured about his body and extremities, including but not limited to 

sustaining comminuted tibial and fibula fractures, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation or activation of preexisting conditions, 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of his injuries, suffered physical handicap, 

and lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. These 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 his vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

COUNT I – MISLEADING ADVERTISING IN VIOLATION OF 

FLORIDA STATUTE § 817.41 AGAINST DEFENDANTS

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 12 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein and further alleges 

the following matters:

36. 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 St. 

Lucia zipline excursion; and/or

b. Mispresenting shore excursions, including the St. Lucia zipline 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, including the St. Lucia zipline excursion,

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 13 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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.

37. 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.

38. 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; 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 14 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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.

39. 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 St. Lucia zipline excursion).

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

made by RCL when Plaintiff purchased tickets for the St. Lucia zipline excursion and 

participated in that excursion.

41. As a direct and proximate result of his reliance on the representations by RCL as 

alleged above, the Plaintiff purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion, participated in the excursion, was injured while participating in the 

excursion as alleged in Paragraph 30 above, and has sustained in the past and will 

sustain in the future the damages alleged in Paragraph 35 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against RCL for all damages recoverable 

under Florida Statute Section 817.41 and demands jury trial of all issues so triable as of right..

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST RCL

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 15 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein and further alleges 

the following matters.

42. 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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 16 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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.

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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 17 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

Plaintiff) to rely on the statements and act by purchasing tickets for shore excursions 

(including the subject excursion).

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 direct and proximate result of his reliance on the negligent misrepresentations by 

RCL as alleged above, the Plaintiff purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia 

zipline excursion, participated in the excursion, was injured while participating in the 

excursion as alleged in Paragraph 30 above, and has sustained in the past and will 

sustain in the future the damages alleged in Paragraph 35 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against RCL for damages and the costs 

of this action and demands jury trial of all issues so triable as of right.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT SELECTION AND RETENTION OF 

EXCURSION CONTRACTOR BY RCL

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

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein and further 

alleges the following matters:

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

reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances. This duty of reasonable care 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 18 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

included the duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting and/or retaining contractors 

to provide the excursions it promoted to passengers, including the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion.

48. At all material times, RCL knew or should have known that the operators of the St. 

Lucia zipline excursion were not operating the excursion safely due to the 

deficiencies in equipment, facilities and operation of the excursion noted in Paragraph 

31 above.

49. At all times material hereto, RCL knew of the foregoing conditions and did not correct 

them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so 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.

50. Notwithstanding its actual or constructive knowledge of the unfitness of the operators 

of the St. Lucia zipline excursion as alleged above, RCL selected, contracted with, 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 19 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

and retained the Excursion Entities to operate the St. Lucia zipline excursion and 

thereby failed to exercise reasonable care and was negligent.

51. The specific failures of reasonable care resulting in injury to the Plaintiff included 

those alleged in Paragraphs 30 and 31 above as well as the following:

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 20 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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 

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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 21 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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.

52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence by RCL alleged above, the Plaintiff 

purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia zipline excursion, participated in the 

excursion, was injured while participating in the excursion as alleged in Paragraph 30 

above, and has sustained in the past and will sustain in the future the damages alleged 

in Paragraph 35 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against RCL for damages and the 

costs of this action and demands jury trial of all issues so triable as of right.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 22 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN BY RCL

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

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein and further 

alleges the following matters:

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

reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances. This duty of reasonable care 

included the duty to exercise reasonable care in warning passengers, including the 

Plaintiff, about actually or constructively known dangers in the shore excursions RCL 

marketed and promoted to its passengers, including the St. Lucia zipline excursion

marketed and promoted to the Plaintiff.

54. At all material times, RCL knew or should have known that the operators of the St. 

Lucia zipline excursion were not operating the excursion safely due to the 

deficiencies in equipment, facilities and operation of the excursion noted in Paragraph 

31 above.

55. At all times material hereto, RCL knew of the foregoing conditions and did not correct 

them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 23 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

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. Notwithstanding its actual or constructive knowledge of the unfitness of the operators 

of the St. Lucia zipline excursion as alleged above, RCL failed to warn passengers to 

whom it promoted and marketed the excursion, including the Plaintiff, of the 

unfitness of the Excursion Entities to operate the St. Lucia zipline excursion and of 

the hazards in its operation, facilities and equipment as alleged in Paragraph 31 above 

and thereby failed to exercise reasonable care and was negligent.

57. The specific failures of reasonable care resulting in injury to the Plaintiff included 

those alleged in Paragraphs 30 and 31 above as well as the following:

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

s. 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

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 24 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-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

u. 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

v. 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

w. 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

x. 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

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

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

z. 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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 25 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

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

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

bb. 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

cc. 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

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

associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

ee. 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

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

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

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

subject excursion; and/or

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 26 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent failure to warn by RCL alleged 

above, the Plaintiff purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia zipline excursion, 

participated in the excursion, was injured while participating in the excursion as 

alleged in Paragraph 30 above, and has sustained in the past and will sustain in the 

future the damages alleged in Paragraph 35 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against RCL for damages and the 

costs of this action and demands jury trial of all issues so triable as of right.

COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

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

one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein.

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

Lucia zipline excursion.

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

Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances in their maintenance and 

operation of the St. Lucia zipline excursion, including reasonable care in the 

maintenance of the excursion facility and equipment and the provision of adequate 

instruction to the participants.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 27 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

28

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

61. 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.

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

of the Excursion Entities in the operation of the St. Lucia zipline excursion 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 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 28 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

29

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 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 29 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

30

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.

63. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 30 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

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

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.

64. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Excursion Entities as alleged 

above, the Plaintiff was injured as alleged in Paragraph 30 above and has sustained and 

will in the future sustain the damages alleged in Paragraph 35 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Excursion Entities for 

damages and the costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of 

right.

COUNT VI – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST RCL

BASED ON APPARENT AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL

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

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein.

65. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the apparent agents of 

RCL by virtue of the following transactions or events, such that RCL is estopped 

from denying that the Excursion Entities were the apparent agents of RCL:

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 31 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

32

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 made all arrangements for the subject excursion without disclosing to 

Plaintiff in any manner before he purchased his ticket that the subject excursion 

was being run 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 that its passengers not engage in excursions, tours and/or 

activities other than those sold through RCL; and/or

e. Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion, the Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the excursion was with 

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

f. The fee for the St. Lucia zipline 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 St. Lucia zipline excursion 

exclusively from RCL.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 32 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

33

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

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:

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 33 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

34

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. 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

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. It was reasonable for Plaintiff to believe that the Excursion Entities were RCL’s 

employees, servants or agents 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 to the Plaintiff 

in particular that the Excursion Entities were not agents, servants or employees of 

RCL.

68. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff relied on the matters above to his detriment and 

thereby reasonably believed the operators of the St. Lucia zipline excursion to be 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 34 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

35

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

employees, servants or agents of RCL and relied upon this reasonable belief in 

choosing the subject excursion. 

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. At all material times, the Excursion Entities failed to exercise reasonable care in the 

operation of the St. Lucia zipline excursion and were thereby negligent as alleged in 

Paragraphs 30 and 31 above and in the following respects:

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

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

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

s. 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

t. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 35 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

36

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

proper and safe distance between them so that riders departing from one would 

avoid the others; and/or

u. 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

v. 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

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

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

x. 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

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

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

z. 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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 36 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

37

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

aa. 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

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

associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

cc. 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

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

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

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

subject excursion; and/or

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

71. At all material times RCL was vicariously liable for the negligence of the Excursion 

Entities in operating the St. Lucia zipline excursion, since the Excursion Entities were 

at all material times the apparent agents, employees or servants of RCL as alleged 

above.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 37 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

38

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

72. As a direct and proximate result of his reasonable reliance on the reasonable belief 

that the operators of the St. Lucia zipline excursion were the agents, servants or 

employees of RCL, the Plaintiff purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion, participated in the excursion, was injured while participating in the

excursion as alleged in Paragraph 30 above due to the negligence of the Excursion 

Entities as alleged above, for which RCL is vicariously liable as alleged above, and 

has accordingly sustained in the past and will sustain in the future the damages 

alleged in Paragraph 35 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against RCL for damages and the 

costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

COUNT VII – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST RCL

BASED ON ACTUAL AGENCY 

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

paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) as though alleged originally herein.

73. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the actual agents of RCL

by virtue of the following transactions or events:

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

Plaintiff in any manner before he purchased his ticket that the subject excursion 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 38 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

39

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

i. 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

j. 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

k. RCL recommended that its passengers not engage in excursions, tours and/or 

activities other than those sold through RCL; and/or

l. Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion, the Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the excursion was with 

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

m. The fee for the St. Lucia zipline excursion was charged to the Plaintiff, and 

collected from the Plaintiff, exclusively by RCL; and/or

n. Plaintiff received the receipt for the purchase of the St. Lucia zipline excursion 

exclusively from RCL.

74. At all material times, the Excursion Entities failed to exercise reasonable care in the 

operation of the St. Lucia zipline excursion and were thereby negligent as alleged in 

Paragraphs 30 and 31 above and in the following respects:

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 39 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

40

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

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

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

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

ii. 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

jj. 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

kk. 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

ll. 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

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 40 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

41

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

mm. Failure to promulgate and enforce adequate policies and procedures 

prevent guests departing from the top platform to strike the platform below; 

and/or

nn. 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

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

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

pp. 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

qq. 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

rr. 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 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 41 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

42

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

ss. 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

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

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

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

subject excursion; and/or

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

75. At all material times RCL was vicariously liable for the negligence of the Excursion 

Entities in operating the St. Lucia zipline excursion, since the Excursion Entities were 

at all material times the actual agents, employees or servants of RCL as alleged 

above.

76. On or about May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia 

zipline excursion, participated in the excursion, was injured while participating in the 

excursion as alleged in Paragraph 30 above due to the negligence of the Excursion 

Entities as alleged above, for which RCL is vicariously liable as alleged above, and 

has accordingly sustained in the past and will sustain in the future the damages 

alleged in Paragraph 35 above.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 42 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

43

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 against RCL for damages and the 

costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

COUNT VIII – 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-five (35) as though alleged originally herein.

77. 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).

78. 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, to participate in the St. Lucia zipline excursion.

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 St. Lucia zipline 

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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 43 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

44

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

partnership with the Excursion Entities, about the St. Lucia zipline excursion 

being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or

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

zipline excursion; and/or

e. RCL determined the amount of money charged for the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or

f. RCL collected the amount of money charged for the St. Lucia zipline excursion 

being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or

g. RCL shared profits with the Excursion Entities for the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion by retaining a portion of the ticket sales for the excursion after the 

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

ticket sales for the excursion; and/or

h. RCL shared any losses with the Excursion Entities for the St. Lucia zipline 

excursion, including, for instance, when RCL issued a refund to passengers for 

the Excursion Entities’ excursion(s), including, but not limited to, the St. Lucia 

zipline excursion.

79. 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 44 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

45

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

80. 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.

81. 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.

82. 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 dayto-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.

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

purpose: to operate the subject excursion for a profit.

84. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 45 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

46

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 collecting money for such excursion, and the Excursion Entities 

had a proprietary interest in the time and labor expended in operating the subject 

excursion.

85. 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.

86. 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.

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

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

88. 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.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 46 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

47

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

89. 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.

90. At all material times while operating the St. Lucia zipline excursion, the Excursion 

Entities were acting as members of the joint venture with RCL alleged above.

91. At all material times, the Excursion Entities failed to exercise reasonable care in the 

operation of the St. Lucia zipline excursion and were thereby negligent as alleged in 

Paragraphs 30 and 31 above and in the following respects:

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

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

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

yy. 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

zz. 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 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 47 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

48

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

aaa. 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

bbb. 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

ccc. Failure to promulgate and enforce adequate policies and procedures 

prevent guests departing from the top platform to strike the platform below; 

and/or

ddd. 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

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

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

fff. 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

ggg. 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 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 48 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

49

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

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

dangers associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

iii. 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

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

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

kkk. Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated 

the subject excursion; and/or

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

92. At all material times RCL was vicariously liable for the negligence of the Excursion 

Entities in operating the St. Lucia zipline excursion as a member of the joint venture 

alleged above.

93. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Excursion 

Entities in operating the St. Lucia zipline excursion as alleged above, for which RCL 

and the Excursion Entities as members of a joint venture are all jointly and severally 

liable, the Plaintiff purchased from RCL tickets for the St. Lucia zipline excursion, 

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 49 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

50

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

participated in the excursion, was injured while participating in the excursion as 

alleged in Paragraph 30 above due to the negligence of the Excursion Entities as 

alleged above, for which RCL and the Excursion Entities are jointly and severally 

liable as alleged above, and has accordingly sustained in the past and will sustain in 

the future the damages alleged in Paragraph 35 above. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally against all 

Defendants for damages and the costs of this action and further demands trial by jury 

of all issues so triable as of right.

Case 1:20-cv-22240-FAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 50 of 51
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22240-FAM

51

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

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Executed, this 27

th day of July, 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 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 51 of 51