ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22463-FAM

ASHLEY HODSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MSC CRUISES, S.A.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON (“Plaintiff”), through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A. (“Defendant”), and demands trial by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and 

attorney’s fees.

2. This Court has admiralty and maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1333. 

3. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 

citizens of different states and/or citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. 

4. Suit is filed in federal court because of the federal forum selection clause in the 

passenger contract ticket issued by Defendant.

5. Plaintiff is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of Florida.

6. Defendant is a foreign corporation who is authorized to conduct and who does 

conduct business in the state of Florida, who at all times material hereto was and is doing business 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 1 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 2 of 33

in Broward County, Florida, and who maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of 

business in Broward County, Florida.

7. Defendant is a citizen of the state of Florida and the nations of Italy and/or 

Switzerland.

8. Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial pursuant to Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So. 3d 561,

562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

9. Defendant, at all times material hereto, personally or through an agent, in Broward 

County Florida, in the Southern District of Florida:

a. Operated, conducted, engaged in or carried on a business venture; and/or

b. Had an office or agency; and/or

c. Engaged in substantial activity; and/or

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, §§ 48.081,

48.181 or 48.193.

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

been waived, or do not apply.

DEFINITIONS AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Hereinafter, the phrase, “subject area,” shall include, but not be limited to, the stairs, and 

all material and effects pertaining thereto, including the nosing, metal strips, the surface, the carpet, the 

floor, the handrails, places where drying mechanisms should have been to dry persons before using the 

stairs and/or where passengers should have otherwise dried off, the noise in the area, the nearby arcade,

the unreasonably crowded condition of the subject area, drains that were or should have been in the 

area to reduce the amount of liquid in the area, any sources of liquid in the area, slip resistant materials 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 2 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 33

that were or should have been applied, the lighting in the area, the stairs’, carpet’s, and surface’s design 

and/or visual condition, and/or any other applied, adhesive, and/or other material.

12. At all times material hereto, Defendant, MSC CRUISES, S.A., owned, operated, 

managed, maintained, and/or controlled the vessel, the MSC Seaside.

13. On or about September 1, 2019 Plaintiff was a lawfully fare paying passenger aboard 

Defendant’s cruise ship vessel, the MSC Seaside.

14. On or about September 1, 2019, as Plaintiff descended the stairs from approximately 

deck 17 to deck 16 of the MSC Seaside in a normal and proper manner, she slipped and/or tripped

on the unreasonably wet, slippery, water lodged, wet, deformed, warped, uneven, distorted, 

bunched up, and/or separated carpet/surface of a stair step, and the flip flops Plaintiff was wearing 

got caught in between the carpet and the metal strip on the step, causing her to suffer traumatic 

injuries that include, but are not limited to, multiple fractures to her tibia and ankle, as well as other 

injuries.

15. There were passengers with wet cloths/swimsuits using the subject stairs, and these 

people were not required to dry before entering the interior of the ship and/or using the stairs, and 

there were no adequate measures and/or adequate mechanisms to dry these people before entering 

the interior of the ship and/or using the stairs. The area was also noisy from a nearby arcade, and 

the subject area was unreasonably crowded, thereby hindering Plaintiff’s ability to perceive any 

dangers in the subject area. Moreover, the lighting was inadequate. Furthermore, the handrails

were inadequate to prevent or mitigate Plaintiff’s fall.

16. The dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions of the subject area and vicinity were

known or should have been known by Defendant because Defendant’s crew members regularly 

used this area and were familiar with the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions thereof, the 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 3 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 33

lengthy period of time the conditions existed, the amount of water present in the subject area, the

fact that passengers were known to use the subject area and the vicinity while wet, prior incidents

and/or complaints involving, among other things, other incidents where passengers slipped and 

fell on the same and/or similar stairs and/or surfaces on Defendant’s premises, and/or other 

reasons.

17. In addition, Plaintiff presented to the ship’s medical center, where the ship’s medical 

staff failed to diagnose all of Plaintiff’s injuries, wrapped Plaintiff’s leg incorrectly, and failed to 

remedy this incorrect wrapping, it did not take adequate measures to prevent water from getting 

into Plaintiff’s splint/wrapping, it failed to give adequate pain medicine to Plaintiff, it failed to 

properly administer and/or continue to administer medicine and/or treatment for blood clots, it

failed to provide Plaintiff with an adequate wheelchair to use initially when it treated plaintiff, and 

it failed to provide adequate care for Plaintiff’s injuries and failed to provide adequate follow up 

care, causing further injuries and/or worsening/prolonging Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff was also 

not initially provided with an adequate handicap room, and Plaintiff had to endure additional pain, 

suffering, and other complications from having to maneuver in a non-handicap room. 

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

18. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 11

through 17 as if set forthherein.

19. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances 

for the safety of its passengers.

20. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to provide its passengers reasonable 

care to inspect for, resolve, and/or repair dangerous, hazardous, and/or risk- creating conditions that 

passengers, including Plaintiff, will likely encounter.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 4 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 33

21. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to maintain its ship in a reasonably safe 

condition for the use and enjoyment of its passengers

22. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to warn passengers of hazards which 

passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

23. At all times material, Defendant, through its officers, managers, recruiters, vessel, 

and/or other agents, employees, staff, crew, and/or representatives, who were acting in the course 

and scope of their employment and/or agency with MSC CRUISES, S.A., breached the duty of 

reasonable care owed to Plaintiff and was negligent through negligently vetting, selecting, hiring, 

and/or retaining its crewmembers responsible for inspecting, cleaning, and/or maintaining the 

subject area and the vicinity, warning passengers of the dangerous conditions, and/or otherwise 

making sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, and Defendant knew or should have known that 

these crewmembers were dangerous, incompetent, unqualified, and/or liable to do harm.

24. It was foreseeable to Defendant that passengers like Plaintiff would suffer incidents

if the subject area became unreasonably slippery.

25. It was therefore foreseeable that the area would require proper inspection, cleaning, 

maintenance, warnings for passengers of risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or other 

efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

26. At all times material, Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in hiring and/or 

retaining all crewmembers.

27. When Defendant elected to hire its crewmembers, it had a duty to vet, select, and/or 

hire crewmembers who were adequately qualified, trained, and experienced to work aboard ships 

and to adequately conduct inspections, cleanings, maintenance, warnings for passengers of risk 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 5 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 33

creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or to make other efforts to make sure the area where 

Plaintiff fell was safe.

28. Defendant knew or should have known that the ship’s crewmembers were dangerous and 

incompetent and liable to do harm to its passengers.

29. Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation regarding the competence of the 

ship’s crewmembers responsible for inspecting, cleaning, and/or maintaining the subject area and 

the vicinity, warning passengers of risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or otherwise 

making sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, including failing to adequately evaluate its 

crewmembers’ performance during their tenure with Defendant, and including, but not limited to, by 

failing to properly review and/or analyze their success record in how often they were able to adequately 

inspect, clean, and/or maintain the subject area and the vicinity, warn passengers of risk creating 

and/or dangerous conditions, and/or otherwise make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, and 

failing to adequately discipline and/or terminate their employment when their track record was 

inadequate and/or improper.

30. Both prior to and during the course of employment of said crewmembers, Defendant 

became aware or should have become aware of problems with said crewmembers that indicated their 

unfitness and/or predisposition to failing to adequately inspect, clean, and/or maintain the subject 

area and the vicinity, to warn passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or 

to otherwise make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, for reasons that include, but are not 

limited to, that Defendant received, made, and/or was otherwise aware of complaints of the same or 

similar errors, as well as previous failures to adequately perform inspections, cleanings, maintenance, 

warning passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or failures to perform 

other activities to help make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe. Defendant received 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 6 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 33

complaints of these crewmembers’ incompetence, and/or was otherwise aware that they did not have 

adequate training, qualifications, or experience for performing inspections, cleanings, maintenance, 

warning passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or to perform other 

activities to help make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, which indicated their unfitness 

and/or predisposition to committing errors, but Defendant failed to take further action such as 

investigating, discharging, or reassignment.

31. Defendant owed Plaintiff and its passengers a duty of care, when hiring crewmembers to 

hire and retain only competent crewmembers.

32. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by hiring and retaining incompetent 

crewmembers.

33. As a proximate result, Defendant’s crewmembers’ failed to perform adequate 

inspections, cleanings, maintenance, failed to warn passengers of the risk creating and/or 

dangerous conditions, and/or failed to do other activities to help make sure the area where Plaintiff 

fell was safe, and Plaintiff’s incident occurred, and Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result.

34. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that, but for 

Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred and/or would have been 

substantially lessened.

35. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of ability 

to earn money, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

36. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 7 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 33

37. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs that 

Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, 

disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, 

nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, loss of ability to earn money, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief 

which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING

38. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 11 

through 17 as if set forthherein.

39. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances 

for the safety of its passengers.

40. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to provide its passengers reasonable 

care to inspect for, resolve, and/or repair dangerous, hazardous, and/or risk-creating conditions that 

passengers, including Plaintiff, will likely encounter.

41. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to maintain its ship in a reasonably safe 

condition for the use and enjoyment of its passengers

42. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to warn passengers of hazards which 

passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 8 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 33

43. At all times material, Defendant, through its officers, managers, recruiters, vessel, 

and/or other agents, employees, staff, crew, and/or representatives, who were acting in the course 

and scope of their employment and/or agency with MSC CRUISES, S.A., breached the duty of 

reasonable care owed to Plaintiff and was negligent through negligently supervising and/or 

training its crewmembers, whom Defendant knew or should have known were dangerous, 

incompetent, unqualified, and/or liable to do harm.

44. It was foreseeable to Defendant that passengers like Plaintiff would suffer incidents

if the subject area became unreasonably slippery.

45. It was therefore foreseeable that the area would require proper inspection, cleaning, 

maintenance, warning passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or other 

efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

46. At all times material, Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in supervising 

and/or training all crewmembers.

47. Defendant elected to hire crewmembers to inspect, clean, and/or maintain the subject 

area and the vicinity, warn passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or 

make other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, and it owed a duty to Plaintiff 

and its passengers to properly supervise and train these crewmembers to adequately perform these 

inspections, cleanings, maintenance, warnings for passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous 

conditions, and/or other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

48. Defendant negligently knew or should have known that these crewmembers were 

dangerous and incompetent and liable to do harm to its passengers.

49. Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation regarding the competence of these 

crewmembers, including failing to adequately evaluate its crewmembers’ performance during their 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 9 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 10 of 33

tenure with it, including, but not limited to, by failing to properly review and/or analyze their success 

record in how often they were able to adequately inspect, clean, and/or maintain the subject area and 

the vicinity, and warn passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or make 

other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, and failing to adequately discipline 

and/or terminate their employment when their track record was inadequate and/or improper.

50. Both prior to and during the course of employment of said crewmembers, Defendant 

became aware or should have become aware of problems with said crewmembers that indicated their 

unfitness and/or predisposition to failing to adequately inspect, clean, and/or maintain the subject 

area and the vicinity, warn passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or 

otherwise make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, for reasons that include, but are not limited 

to, that Defendant received, made, and/or was otherwise aware of complaints of the same or similar 

errors, as well as previous failures to adequately perform inspections, cleanings, maintenance, 

warnings for passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or failures to perform 

other activities to help make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe. Defendant received 

complaints of these crewmembers’ incompetence, and/or was otherwise aware that they did not have 

adequate training, qualifications, or experience for performing inspections, cleanings, maintenance, 

warnings for passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or failures to perform 

other activities to help make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, which indicated their 

unfitness and/or predisposition to committing errors, but Defendant failed to take further action such 

as investigating them, discharging them, or reassigning them.

51. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by failing to provide its crewmembers 

with proper supervision and/or training to adequately conduct inspections, cleaning, maintenance, 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 10 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 33

warning passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or other efforts to make 

sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

52. As a proximate result, Defendant’s crewmembers’ failed to perform adequate 

inspections, cleanings, maintenance, failed to warn passengers of the risk creating and/or 

dangerous conditions, and/or failed to do other activities to help make sure the area where Plaintiff 

fell was safe, and Plaintiff’s incident occurred, and Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result.

53. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that, but for 

Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred and/or would have been 

substantially lessened.

54. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of ability 

to earn money, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

55. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

56. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs that 

Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, 

disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, 

nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, loss of ability to earn money, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 11 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 12 of 33

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief 

which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS

57. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 11 

through 16 as if set forth herein.

58. At all times relevant, Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including Plaintiff.

59. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty that Defendant owes to warn 

passengers of any dangers that it knew or should have known that were not open and obvious to 

Plaintiff.

60. Such duty also includes, but is not limited to, the duty to warn passengers of hazards 

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

61. At all times material, Defendant, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, staff 

and/or representatives, who were acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency 

with Defendant, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to Plaintiff and was negligent by failing 

to warn Plaintiff of the dangers posed by the subject area and the vicinity, of which Defendant 

knew or should have known of.

62. These dangerous conditions were also created by Defendant.

63. Defendant either failed to adequately inspect the subject area and the vicinity to 

ensure that there were no dangerous conditions that passengers needed to be warned of, or 

Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff despite knowing of the dangers.

64. In addition, Defendant either knew or should have known of these dangerous 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 12 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 13 of 33

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, prior substantially similar incidents, 

complaints of incidents, complaints of these conditions, the length of time that these conditions 

existed, Defendant’s participation in the instillation and/or design of the subject area and the 

vicinity, Defendant’s acceptance of the ship with these design defects, because these conditions 

violated relevant safety standards/recommendations/other guidelines, and/or for other reasons that 

will be revealed during discovery.

65. Furthermore, the subject area and the vicinity were also on a cruise ship in the water

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear and tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

maritime travel, and as such were “clearly linked to nautical adventure.”

66. These dangerous conditions existed for a period of time before the incident. 

67. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to Plaintiff. 

68. Defendant’s breach was the cause in-fact of Plaintiff’s great bodily harm in that, but 

for Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.

69. Defendant’s breach proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that the incident 

that occurred was a foreseeable result of Defendant’s breach.

70. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

earning capacity, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

71. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

72. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 13 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 33

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, loss of ability to earn money, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENT DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT 

AREA AND THE VICINITY

73. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 11 

through 16 as if set forth herein.

74. At all times material hereto, Defendant owed a duty to its passengers, and in particular 

to Plaintiff, not to permit hazards to be in places where they could harm passengers, such as the 

area of the incident, as well as to design and install reasonable safeguards.

75. At all times material hereto, Defendant participated in the design process of the 

subject vessel by generating design specifications for the shipbuilder to follow, and put the vessel 

on which Plaintiff was injured into the channels of trade, and/or Defendant approved of the subject 

vessel’s design, including the design of the subject area and the vicinity.

76. At all times material hereto, Defendant manufactured, designed, installed, and/or 

approved of the MSC Seaside, including providing specifications to the shipbuilder in the original 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 14 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 15 of 33

build process, and/or during its refurbishments, and as such owed a duty to its passengers, and in 

particular to Plaintiff, to design, install and/or approve of the subject area and the vicinity without 

any defects.

77. At all times material hereto, Defendant through its agents and/or employees who were 

acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency with Defendant, designed, 

installed, and/or approved of the subject area and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident, 

which was also in violation of the applicable industry standards/recommendations/and/or other 

guidelines.

78. Defendant provides design elements of the vessels to the ship builder and/or approves 

of design elements which include the subject area and the vicinity.

79. Defendant maintains the contractual right to participate, review, modify, and/or reject 

the design plans and drawings of the vessels, including the MSC Seaside, during the new build 

process.

80. Defendant has the right to enter the ship and inspect it during construction to ensure 

that it is being constructed in accordance with the design specifications and has a right to insist on 

changes when safety concerns are identified.

81. Defendant has the right to inspect and reject design elements before taking possession 

of the ship.

82. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew or had reason to know the subject area

and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident were unreasonably dangerous.

83. Defendant should have known of these dangerous conditions through inspecting the 

subject area and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident, and if it did not know of these 

dangerous conditions, this was because it failed to adequately inspect the subject area and the 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 15 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 16 of 33

vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident.

84. In addition, Defendant either knew or should have known of these dangerous 

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, prior substantially similar incidents, 

complaints of incidents, complaints of these conditions, the length of time that these conditions 

existed, because these conditions violated relevant safety standards, and/or for other reasons that 

will be revealed during discovery.

85. Furthermore, the subject area and the vicinity were also on a cruise ship in the water

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear and tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

maritime travel, and as such were “clearly linked to nautical adventure.”

86. However, Defendant permitted dangerous deficiencies to be present in the subject

area and the vicinity without correcting these design deficiencies, and did not design and install 

reasonable safeguards.

87. The design flaws that made the subject area and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s 

incident unreasonably dangerous were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

88. Defendant is liable for the design flaws of the vessel, including of the subject area

and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident, which it knew or should have known of.

89. Defendant failed to correct and/or remedy the defective conditions despite the fact 

that it knew or should have known their danger.

90. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 16 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 17 of 33

earning capacity, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

91. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

92. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, loss of ability to earn money, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR THE ACTS OF ITS CREWMEMBERS 

BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY

93. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 11 

through 17 as if set forth herein.

94. Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

safety of its passengers.

95. To the extent Defendant contests its responsibility for the conduct of its crew 

members, including the crew member(s) that failed to adequately inspect, clean, and/or maintain 

the subject area and the vicinity, warn passengers of the risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, 

and/or do other activities to help make sure the subject area and the vicinity were safe, Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 17 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 18 of 33

alleges that these individuals were agents of Defendant, for the following reasons:

96. The crewmembers were the employees of Defendant, or were Defendant’s agents, 

apparent agents, and/or servants.

97. The crewmembers were subject to the right of control by Defendant.

98. The crewmembers were acting within the scope of their employment or agency.

99. Defendant acknowledged that the crew and officers would act on Defendant’s behalf, 

and they accepted the undertaking.

100. Defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of its crewmembers.

101. Defendant is vicariously liable for its crew members’ negligent acts of failing to 

inspect, clean, and/or maintain, the subject area and the vicinity, failing to warn passengers of the 

risk creating and/or dangerous conditions, and/or failing to do other activities to help make sure 

the subject area and the vicinity were safe.

102. This negligence proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that, but for this 

negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.

103. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

earning capacity, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

104. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

105. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 18 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 33

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, loss of ability to earn money, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT, CLEAN, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, REMEDY, 

AND/OR TAKE OTHER REASONABLE MEASURES FOR THE SAFETY OF 

PLAINTIFF

106. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 11 

through 16 as if set forthherein.

107. Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

safety of its passengers.

108. This duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to provide its passengers reasonable 

care by adequately inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, repairing, and/or remedying the subject area

and the vicinity, and/or making other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe for 

the use and enjoyment of its passengers.

109. At all times material, Defendant, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, staff 

and/or representatives, who were acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency 

with Defendant, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to Plaintiff and were negligent by 

failing to adequately inspect, clean, maintain, repair, and/or remedy the subject area and the 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 19 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 20 of 33

vicinity, and/or to make other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, such that 

the unreasonably risk creating and/or dangerous conditions existed, and/or the subject area and the 

vicinity did not function properly.

110. These risk creating and/or dangerous conditions were caused by design defects and/or

by Defendant’s failure to adequately inspect, clean, maintain, repair, and/or remedy the subject 

area and the vicinity, and/or make other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

111. Defendant’s failure to adequately clean, maintain, repair, and/or remedy the subject 

area and the vicinity, and/or to make other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was 

safe, was either due to its failure to adequately inspect the subject area and the vicinity prior to 

Plaintiff’s incident to ensure they were in a reasonably safe condition, or due to its failure to 

adequately clean, maintain, repair, and/or remedy the subject area and the vicinity, and/or to make 

other efforts to make sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, despite its knowledge of the 

dangerous conditions, which posed a risk to its passengers.

112. In addition, Defendant either knew or should have known of these dangerous 

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, prior substantially similar incidents, 

complaints of incidents, complaints of these conditions, the length of time that these conditions 

existed, Defendant’s participation in the instillation and/or design of the subject area and the 

vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident, Defendant’s acceptance of the ship with these design 

defects, and/or because these conditions violated relevant safety standards.

113. Furthermore, the subject area and the vicinity were also on a cruise ship in the water 

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear and tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

maritime travel, and as such were “clearly linked to nautical adventure.”

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 20 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 33

114. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that, but 

for Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.

115. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

116. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

117. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, and lost earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VII 

VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT

FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

118. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as though originally alleged herein 

the allegations of paragraphs 12 through 17 and further alleges:

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 21 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 22 of 33

119. Defendant, through the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), and 

the ship’s crew, owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the safety of 

its passengers.

120. Such duties include, but are not limited to, providing such medical care and 

assistance as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances.

121. At all times material, the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), 

and the ship’s crew, were full time employees and agents of Defendant, subject to its direction 

and control, who were engaged in the activity of discharging Defendant’s obligation to make such 

medical aid and assistance available to its passengers as would an ordinarily prudent person under 

the circumstances.

122. Defendant is estopped to deny that the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians 

and nurses), and the ship’s crew, were its agents and/or employees and/or servants.

123. Defendant directly paid the ship’s medical personnel and regular crew a salary (i.e., 

payment by time) for their work in the ship’s hospital and in treating passengers.

124. Defendant created, owned, directly provided, and operated, the medical center to be 

used by the ship’s medical personnel and passengers.

125. Defendant pays to stock the medical center with all supplies, medical machinery, 

various medicines, and equipment to be used therein, regularly stocking and restocking same.

126. Defendant collected all medical revenues directly from passengers and generated a 

profit on the sale of medical services, supplies, and equipment made by the ship’s medical 

personnel to the passengers of the vessel.

127. Defendant’s marketing materials described the infirmary in proprietary language.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 22 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 23 of 33

128. The ship’s medical personnel were members of the ship’s crew; they were subject to 

the ship’s discipline; they were required to wear the ship’s uniforms; they (and, in particular, the 

ship’s physicians) were members of the ship’s officer’s compliment, and at all times they were 

subject to termination, or other discipline, by Defendant.

129. Defendant provided the ship’s medical personnel certain forms of liability insurance 

and/or indemnification rights.

130. Defendant, through the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), 

and the ship’s crew, breached its duties, and was negligent by failing to adequately examine, 

diagnose, and/or treat Plaintiff’s injuries.

131. Furthermore, Defendant, through the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians 

and nurses), and the ship’s crew, breached its duties, and was negligent because the physicians 

and/or other crew members that were responsible for treating Plaintiff lacked adequate experience 

in treating the injuries Plaintiff suffered.

132. Defendant, through the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), 

and the ship’s crew, also breached its duties and was negligent by failing to adequately supply 

and equip its medical center to be able to adequately examine, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff’s 

injuries.

133. Moreover, Defendant, through the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and 

nurses), and the ship’s crew, breached its duties, and was negligent by failing to take proper 

measures to ensure that Plaintiff was able to obtain the medical treatment Plaintiff needed in a 

reasonable amount of time, and as a result, Plaintiff suffered additional injuries and/or Plaintiff’s 

injuries were aggravated and made worse.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 23 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 24 of 33

134. Additionally, at all times material hereto, Defendant, through the ship’s medical staff 

(including its physicians and nurses), and the ship’s crew, was careless, negligent, and breached 

its duties as follows:

a. Failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with proper and/or adequate medical 

care and attention;

b. Failing to adequately wrap Plaintiff’s injuries;

c. Failing to adequately remedy the inadequate wrapping of Plaintiff’s 

injuries;

d. Failing to adequately address Plaintiff’s wrapping becoming wet;

e. Failing to timely and properly diagnose and/or assess Plaintiff’s medical

condition;

f. Failing to timely give Plaintiff adequate pain medicine;

g. Failing to properly administer and/or continue to administer medicine 

and/or treatment for blood clots;

h. Failing to attend to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries;

i. Failing to provide reasonable medical care;

j. Failing to properly treat and care for the Plaintiff;

k. Failing to properly examine the Plaintiff’s injuries;

l. Failing to timely provide an adequate wheelchair;

m. Failing to timely provide an adequate a handicap room;

n. Failing to take proper measures to secure adequate treatment for Plaintiff, 

including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such adequate 

treatment; and/or

o. Failing to give Plaintiff proper discharge instructions.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 24 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 25 of 33

135. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, employers are vicariously liable for the 

negligent acts or omissions by their employees and/or other agents within the course of their 

employment and/or agency.

136. Defendant is therefore vicariously liable for all injuries and damages sustained by 

Plaintiff as a result of the negligence of the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and 

nurses), and the ship’s crew.

137. At all times material hereto, the aforementioned acts or omissions on the part of the 

Defendant’s ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), and the ship’s crew, fell 

below the standard of care.

138. The negligence of Defendant’s ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and 

nurses), and the ship’s crew, proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that, but for 

Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred and/or said injuries would 

have been substantially lessened.

139. Defendant, through its employees and agents, to wit, the ship’s medical staff, knew 

or should have known that the medical procedures they employed violated and/or did not meet 

reasonable standards of medical care.

140. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

141. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

142. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 25 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 26 of 33

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, and lost earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VIII

APPARENT AGENCY AS TO DEFENDANT 

FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

143. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as though originally alleged herein 

the allegations of paragraphs 12 through 17 and further alleges:

144. At all times material hereto, the ship’s medical staff were represented to the Plaintiff 

and the ship’s passengers as employees and/or agents and/or servants of Defendant, in that:

a. The medical staff wore a ship’s uniform;

b. The medical staff ate with the ship’s crew;

c. The medical staff was under the commands of the ship’s officers;

d. The medical staff worked in the ship’s medical department;

e. The medical staff was paid a salary by Defendant;

f. The medical staff worked aboard the vessel;

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 26 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 27 of 33

g. The medical staff spoke to the Plaintiff as though they had authority 

to do so by Defendant.

145. In addition, Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that the vessel’s medical staff 

were agents and/or employees of Defendant through its marketing materials and through other 

official statements that described the infirmary in proprietary language, including language such 

as “MSC’s/the MSC Seaside’s/our infirmary/medical center,” and through encouraging Plaintiff 

to make use of “its” infirmary/medical center if Plaintiff was in need of medical attention.

146. Furthermore, at no time did Defendant represent to the Plaintiff in particular, or the 

ship’s passengers in general, in a meaningful way that the vessel’s medical staff were not agents 

or employees of Defendant.

147. At all material times, Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representations to Plaintiff’s 

detriment that the medical staff were employees, and/or agents, and/or servants of Defendant.

148. It was reasonable to believe that the medical staff were Defendant’s agents because 

they wore a ship’s uniform. In addition, at all times material, the medical staff spoke and acted 

as though they were authorized to do so by Defendant.

149. This reasonable reliance was detrimental because it delayed Plaintiff from receiving 

proper medical treatment and/or Plaintiff would not have gone on the subject cruise with 

Defendant had Plaintiff known that the medical staff on the ship were not Defendant’s agents.

150. Defendant is estopped to deny that the medical staff were its apparent agents, and/or 

apparent employees, and/or apparent servants.

151. Defendant had a duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the 

circumstances and through the acts of its apparent agents breached its duty to provide Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 27 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 28 of 33

with reasonable care under the circumstances.

152. Plaintiff’s injuries were accelerated due to the fault and/or negligence of Defendant

through the acts of its apparent agents asfollows:

a. Failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with proper and/or adequate medical 

care and attention;

b. Failing to adequately wrap Plaintiff’s injuries;

c. Failing to adequately remedy the inadequate wrapping of Plaintiff’s 

injuries;

d. Failing to adequately address Plaintiff’s wrapping becoming wet;

e. Failing to timely and properly diagnose and/or assess Plaintiff’s medical

condition;

f. Failing to timely give Plaintiff adequate pain medicine;

g. Failing to properly administer and/or continue to administer medicine 

and/or treatment for blood clots;

h. Failing to attend to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries;

i. Failing to provide reasonable medical care;

j. Failing to properly treat and care for the Plaintiff;

k. Failing to properly examine the Plaintiff’s injuries;

l. Failing to timely provide an adequate wheelchair;

m. Failing to timely provide an adequate a handicap room;

n. Failing to take proper measures to secure adequate treatment for Plaintiff, 

including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such adequate 

treatment; and/or

o. Failing to give Plaintiff proper discharge instructions.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 28 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 29 of 33

153. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

154. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

155. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, and lost earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT IX

ASSUMPTION OF DUTY AS TO DEFENDANT FOR THE

NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

156. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as though originally alleged herein 

the allegations of paragraphs 12 through 17 and further alleges:

157. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 29 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 30 of 33

circumstances for the safety of its passengers.

158. Such duties include, but are not limited to, providing such medical care and 

assistance as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances.

159. Defendant elected to discharge this duty by having Plaintiff seen by its own ship’s 

physicians and/or other crew members.

160. As such, Defendant voluntarily assumed a duty for the benefit of Plaintiff to use 

reasonable care in the provision of medical services to the Plaintiff.

161. Defendant breached its duties, and was negligent by failing to adequately examine, 

diagnose, and/or treat Plaintiff’s injuries.

162. Furthermore, Defendant breached its duties, and was negligent because the 

physicians and/or other crew members that were responsible for treating Plaintiff lacked adequate 

experience in treating injuries such as the one Plaintiff suffered.

163. Defendant also breached its duties and was negligent by failing to adequately supply 

its medical center to be able to adequately examine, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff’s injuries.

164. Defendant breached its duties and was negligent by failing to take proper measures 

to ensure that Plaintiff was able to obtain the medical treatment Plaintiff needed in a reasonable 

amount of time, and as a result, Plaintiff suffered additional injuries and/or Plaintiff’s injuries 

were aggravated and made worse.

165. Additionally, at all times material hereto, Defendant was careless, negligent, and 

breached its duties as follows:

a. Failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with proper and/or adequate medical

care and attention;

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 30 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 31 of 33

b. Failing to adequately wrap Plaintiff’s injuries;

c. Failing to adequately remedy the inadequate wrapping of Plaintiff’s 

injuries;

d. Failing to adequately address Plaintiff’s wrapping becoming wet;

e. Failing to timely and properly diagnose and/or assess Plaintiff’s medical

condition;

f. Failing to timely give Plaintiff adequate pain medicine;

g. Failing to properly administer and/or continue to administer medicine 

and/or treatment for blood clots;

h. Failing to attend to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries;

i. Failing to provide reasonable medical care;

j. Failing to properly treat and care for the Plaintiff;

k. Failing to properly examine the Plaintiff’s injuries;

l. Failing to timely provide an adequate wheelchair;

m. Failing to timely provide an adequate a handicap room;

n. Failing to take proper measures to secure adequate treatment for Plaintiff, 

including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such adequate 

treatment; and/or

o. Failing to give Plaintiff proper discharge instructions.

166. At all times material hereto, the aforementioned acts or omissions on the part of 

Defendant fell below the standard of care.

167. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff great bodily harm in that, but for

Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred, would have been 

substantially lessened, and/or would not have been aggravated.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 31 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 32 of 33

168. Defendant, through its employees and agents, to wit, the ship’s medical staff, knew, or 

should have known, that the medical procedures they employed violated reasonable standards of 

medical care.

169. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily injury 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, lost wages, 

a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have otherwise been able to obtain, and loss of future 

earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

170. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature.

171. Plaintiff has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands Judgment against Defendant, 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs 

that Plaintiff will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of Plaintiff’s bodily injury, pain and 

suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical care and 

treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, a lost job opportunity that Plaintiff would have 

otherwise been able to obtain, and lost earning capacity, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, and transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other 

relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

(Space Intentionally Blank)

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 32 of 33
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 33 of 33

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ASHLEY HODSON, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: August 31, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthias M. Hayashi 

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 905161

aronfeld@Aronfeld.com 

Abby H. Ivey, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1002774

aivey@aronfeld.com

Matthias M. Hayashi

Florida Bar No.: 115973

mhayashi@aronfeld.com

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

One Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

P: (305) 441.0440

F: (305) 441.0198

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 33 of 33