ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 11 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22783

KATHRYN BIRREN, 

AND MANDY BIRREN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,

A LIBERIAN CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs, KATHRYN BIRREN AND MANDY BIRREN (“Plaintiffs”), through 

undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. (“Defendant”), and 

demands trial by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and

attorney’s fees.

2. 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. Further, this Court has admiralty and maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1333 as 

the causes of action asserted are maritime torts.

3. Suit is filed in Federal Court because of the federal forum selection clause in the

Passenger Contract Ticket issued by the Defendant. 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 1 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 2 of 11

4. Plaintiff, KATHRYN BIRREN, is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of 

Florida.

5. Plaintiff, MANDY BIRREN, is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of 

Florida.

6. The claims asserted by KATHRYN BIRREN and MANDY BIRREN arise out of the 

same common nucleus of operative fact.

7. 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 

in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and who maintains its corporate headquarters and principal 

place of business in Miami-Dade County Florida.

8. Defendant is a citizen of the State ofFlorida.

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

County and in the District in which this Complaint is filed:

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

county; and/or

b. Had an office or agency in this state and/or county; and/or

c. Engaged in substantial activity within this state; and/or

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

48.181 or 48.193.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed, 

and/or controlled the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident.

11. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed, 

and/or controlled the cruise ship, the RCCL Harmony of the Seas.

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 2 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 11

12. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed, 

and/or controlled the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity.

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

been waived, or do not apply.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. The incident occurred on or about September 7, 2019 while Plaintiffs were lawfully 

paying passengers on Defendant’s cruise ship vessel, the RCCL Harmony of the Seas.

15. When Plaintiffs were walking out of the elevator on deck 6, the elevator doors 

abruptly closed unusually soon and at an unusually fast speed, striking Kathryn Birren’s arm. As 

a result, Kathryn Birren collided with her daughter, Mandy Birren. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered 

severe injuries that include, but are not limited to, bulging and herniated disks, nerve damage, 

and other injuries to their arm(s), neck(s), and/or back(s), which require surgery.

16. However, when Kathryn Birren presented to the medical center, she was not 

adequately treated, her injuries were not adequately diagnosed, and no adequate x-rays were 

taken.

17. At all times relevant, the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity, were unreasonably 

dangerous, risk-creating, defective, outdated, improperly designed, improperly installed, and/or 

otherwise unsafe.

18. The subject elevator, area, and the vicinity lacked adequate safety features to prevent 

Plaintiffs’ incident.

19. These hazardous conditions were known, or should have been known, to Defendant in 

the exercise of reasonable care.

20. These hazardous conditions existed for a period of time before the incident.

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 3 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 11

21. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to Plaintiffs.

22. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to adequately inspect the area of Plaintiffs’

incident for dangers, and Defendant failed to adequately warn Plaintiffs of the dangers.

23. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to eliminate thehazards.

24. At all times relevant, Defendant failed to maintain the elevator, area, and the vicinity

in a reasonably safe condition.

25. At all times relevant, Defendant participated in the design and/or approved the design

of the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident.

26. At all times relevant, Defendant participated in the installation and/or approved the

installation of the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident.

COUNT I –

NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 26

as is set forth herein.

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

the safety of its passengers.

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

reasonable care to inspect for and resolve dangerous, risk-creating, and hazardous conditions that 

passengers, including the Plaintiffs, will likely encounter.

29. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty to maintain the subject elevator,

area, and the vicinity in a reasonably safe condition.

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

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

31. At all times material, the Defendant, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 4 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 11

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

agency with the Defendant, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to the Plaintiffs and were 

negligent in one or more of the following ways:

a. Failing to inspect, keep, and maintain the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity in a 

reasonably safe condition;

b. Failing to install proper and reasonable safeguards to prevent passengers and people

from being injured when using the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity;

c. Failing to take proper precautions for the safety of passengers and people using the 

subject elevator, area, and the vicinity;

d. Failing to warn Plaintiffs of the risk-creating conditions of the subject elevator, area, 

and the vicinity;

e. Participating in and/or approving the design and/or installation of the dangerous 

and/or defective elevator, area, and the vicinity;

f. Failing to warn of known dangerous design and/or other defects of the subject

elevator, area, and the vicinity;

g. Failing to adequately inspect and maintain the subject elevator, area, and the 

vicinity;

h. Failing to have adequate policies and procedures in place for inspection and 

maintenance of the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity;

i. Creating a risk-creating condition and/or failing to remedy a risk-creating condition 

which was known by the Defendant and which in the exercise of reasonable care 

should have been known by the Defendant;

j. Failing to employ sufficient crewmembers and/or adequately trained crewmembers to 

properly inspect and maintain the area where Plaintiffs’ incident occurred, and 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 5 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 11

Defendant knew or should have known that this area was inadequately staffed;

k. Failing to provide elevators that were safe for passengers such as Plaintiffs, 

including failing to provide elevators that were reasonably safely designed and/or 

elevators that were allowed to become unsafe;

l. Failing to comply with applicable standards, statutes, or regulations the violation 

of which is negligence per se and/or evidence of negligence;

m. Through causing the subject elevator doors to close when they should not have 

closed, and/or failing to prevent the same from occurring, as well as failing to 

warn of the same;

n. Through utilizing an elevator that had doors that closed with an excessive 

amount of force, that closed without adequate time for passengers to get on and 

off the subject elevator, and at an excessive speed, as well as failing to warn of 

the same:

o. Through utilizing elevators that did not adequately detect the presence of 

passengers in the doorway when its doors closed, as well as failing to warn of the 

same;

p. Failing to otherwise maintain the area and the premises in a safe and reasonable 

manner; and/or

q. Through other acts or omissions constituting a breach of the duty to use 

reasonable care which will be revealed through discovery.

32. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs great bodily harm in that, but 

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

33. Defendant either (a) had actual knowledge of the risk-creating conditions; (b) had 

constructive knowledge of the risk-creating conditions; (c) would have had knowledge of the riskCase 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 6 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 11

creating conditions had the Defendant implemented proper methods of inspection; and/or (d) 

created the risk-creating conditions.

34. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs have 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, and loss of future earning capacity.

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

36. Plaintiffs have suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such 

loses in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, KATHRYN BIRREN and MANDY BIRREN, demand 

Judgment against Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., for damages suffered and 

costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs that Plaintiffs will suffer and incur in the future, as a 

result of Plaintiffs’ bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, loss of 

future earning capacity, 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 –

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR THE NEGLIGENT 

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF THE SUBJECT ELEVATOR, AREA, AND THE 

VICINITY

Plaintiffs hereby adopts and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 

26 as is set forth herein.

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

particular to Plaintiffs, not to permit hazards to be in places where they could harm passengers, 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 7 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 11

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

38. 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 the Plaintiffs were injured into the channels of trade.

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

utilized the RCCL Harmony of the Seas, including providing specifications to the shipbuilder in 

the original build process, or during its refurbishments, and as such owed a duty to its 

passengers, and in particular to the Plaintiffs, to design and install the vessel’s elevator, area, and 

the vicinity without any defects.

40. 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, installed 

and designed the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident, which 

was also in violation of the applicable industry standards. 

41. Upon information and belief, Defendant provides design elements of the vessels to 

the ship builder which includes the vessel’s elevator, area, and the vicinity.

42. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains the contractual right to 

participate, review, modify, and/or reject the design plans and drawings of the vessels, including 

the RCCL Harmony of the Seas, during the new build process.

43. Upon information and belief, 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.

44. Upon information and belief, Defendant has the right to inspect and reject design 

elements before taking possession of the ship.

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

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 8 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 11

elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident, were unreasonably and inherently 

dangerous.

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

subject elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident, and if it did not know of 

these dangerous conditions, this was because it failed to adequately inspect the subject elevator, 

area, and the vicinity involved in Plaintiffs’ incident.

47. 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, including, but not limited to, reasons that will be revealed during discovery.

48. However, Defendant permitted dangerous deficiencies to be present in the area of 

the incident without correcting these design deficiencies, and did not design and install 

reasonable safeguards.

49. The design flaws that made the subject elevator, area, and the vicinity involved in 

Plaintiffs’ incident inherently and unreasonably dangerous was the direct and proximate cause of 

Plaintiffs’ injuries.

50. Defendant is strictly liable for the design flaws of the vessel, including of the 

subject elevator, area, and the vicinity in Plaintiffs’ incident, which it knew or should have known 

of.

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

that they knew or should have known their danger.

52. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered severe bodily injury 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 9 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 10 of 11

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

wages, and loss of future earning capacity.

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

54. Plaintiffs have suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, KATHRYN BIRREN and MANDY BIRREN, demand 

Judgment against Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., for damages suffered and 

costs incurred, as well as for damages and costs that Plaintiffs will suffer and incur in the future, as a 

result of Plaintiffs’ bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, loss of 

future earning capacity, 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-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 10 of 11
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

www.Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 11

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, KATHRYN BIRREN AND MANDY BIRREN, demand trial by jury on all issues 

so triable.

Dated: July 7, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer M. Aronfeld

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 905161 

aronfeld@Aronfeld.com

Abby Hernández Ivey, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1002774

aivey@aronfeld.com

Matthias M. Hayashi, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 115973 

mhayashi@aronfeld.com

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

1 Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

P: (305) 441.0440

F: (305) 441.0198

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 11 of 11