L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

ANN MARIE MYRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff sues CARNIVAL CORPORATION and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. The Plaintiff, ANN MARIE MYRICK, is a citizen of Texas. 

2. Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION (hereinafter “CARNIVAL”), is a corporation 

incorporated under the laws of Panama with its principle place of business and worldwide 

headquarters in Miami, Florida.

3. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. As such, this matter falls under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. In the alternative, if diversity jurisdiction does not apply, then this matter falls 

under this Court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, personally or through an agent:

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

county or had an office or agency in this state and/or county; 

b. Was engaged in substantial activity within this state;

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state; 

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 1 of 9
- 2 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes §§ 48.081, 48.181 or 

48.193; 

e. The acts of Defendant set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in this 

county and/or state;

f. Defendant was engaged in the business of providing to the public and to the Plaintiff 

in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard the vessel, the Carnival Valor.

5. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.

6. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the General Maritime Law of 

the United States.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

7. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or 

controlled the subject vessel, the Carnival Valor.

8. At all times material hereto, Defendant had exclusive custody and control of the Carnival 

Valor.

9. On or about September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff was a paying passenger aboard the Carnival

Valor, which at all times material was in navigable waters.

10. On or about September 21, 2019, the Plaintiff was severely injured when she slipped and 

fell on a wet, slippery and/or hazardous flooring condition near a burger condiment stand on the 

Lido Deck of the Carnival Valor (hereinafter referred to as the “subject area”).

11. The wet, slippery and/or hazardous condition was not open and obvious and the Plaintiff 

had no way of knowing the existence of the hazardous condition. There was nothing the Plaintiff 

could have done to have prevented her incident.

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 2 of 9
- 3 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

COUNT I – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST DEFENDANT

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

(1) through eleven (11) as though alleged originally herein.

12. At all times material hereto, it was the non-delegable duty of Defendant to provide Plaintiff 

with reasonable care under the circumstances. 

13. At all times material hereto, it was the non-delegable duty of Defendant to warn passengers 

(like Plaintiff) of dangers that were known, or reasonably should have been known, to Defendant 

in places where passengers (like Plaintiff) are invited to or may reasonably be expected to visit.

14. On or about September 21, 2019, Plaintiff was on the Lido Deck aboard the Carnival Valor, 

which is a place that Plaintiff was invited to by Defendant and a place Defendant reasonably 

expected Plaintiff to be in during the cruise.

15. On or about September 21, 2019, Defendant and/or its agents, servants and/or employees 

breached its duty to warn the Plaintiff through the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to warn of the unreasonably slippery substance and/or hazardous flooring 

condition of the subject area; and/or

b. Failure to warn of the risks and/or dangers associated with the unreasonably slippery 

substance and/or hazardous flooring condition of the subject area; and/or

c. Failure to warn that there would not be proper and sufficient assistance for passengers 

walking in the subject area aboard the vessel; and/or

d. Failure to warn that there would not be handrails or other assistance so that passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, had a reasonably safe area to walk; and/or

e. Failure to warn of other accidents previously occurring on same area and/or type of 

flooring condition under substantially similar circumstances; and/or

f. Failure to warn of the hazard(s) posed to passengers, including the Plaintiff, due to 

improper and/or inadequate maintenance and/or inspection of the area where 

passengers were required to walk aboard the vessel; and/or

g. Failure to warn that the walkway surface becomes unreasonably hazardous when wet 

and/or not properly secured; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

h. Failure to verbally warn and/or place warning signs on or around the unreasonably 

slippery substance and/or hazardous flooring condition in the subject area; and/or

i. Failure to block off or place a caution sign so as to warn passengers including Plaintiff 

of the unreasonably slippery substance and/or hazardous flooring condition in the 

subject area; and/or

j. Failure to warn passengers, including the Plaintiff, of the dangerous condition.

16. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiff being injured 

because Plaintiff would not have used the subject area had Defendant and/or its agents, servants

and/or employees adequately warned and/or communicated the foregoing to the Plaintiff.

17. At all times material hereto, the subject area was not properly or adequately maintained so 

as to warn passengers, including the Plaintiff, of the unreasonably slippery substance and/or 

unreasonably slippery flooring surface, thereby creating a dangerous and/or hazardous condition.

18. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of the foregoing dangerous conditions 

causing Plaintiff’s incident and failed to warn Plaintiff about them, or the conditions existed for a 

sufficient length of time so that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care under the 

circumstances, should have learned of them and warned about them. This knowledge was or 

should have been acquired through Defendant’s maintenance, inspection and/or supervision of the 

subject area and/or through prior incidents involving passengers injured due to the unsafe flooring 

conditions including, but not limited to, unreasonably slippery substances and/or hazardous 

flooring surface areas without proper or sufficient handrails or other assistance, while aboard 

Defendant’s vessels and/or other vessels reported within the cruise industry. 

19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured about 

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

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

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

wages and Plaintiff’s working ability has been impaired. The injuries are permanent or continuing 

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

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

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

resulting from her incident are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer these 

losses and impairments into the future.

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

law against Defendant and demands trial by jury. 

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE AGAINST DEFENDANT

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

(1) through eleven (11) as though alleged originally herein.

20. At all times material hereto, it was the non-delegable duty of Defendant to provide Plaintiff 

with reasonable care under the circumstances. 

21. At all times material hereto, it was the non-delegable duty of Defendant to maintain its 

subject walkways, platforms, and decks in a reasonably safe condition so that passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, had a reasonably safe means of walking aboard the vessel.

22. On or about September 21, 2019, Defendant and/or its agents, servants and/or employees 

breached its duty through the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to establish the subject area in a clean and dry manner so that passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, were reasonably safe aboard the vessel;

b. Failure to maintain the subject area in clean and dry manner so that passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, were reasonably safe aboard the vessel;

c. Failure to maintain a reasonably safe walking area so that passengers, including the 

Plaintiff, had were reasonably safe aboard the vessel;

d. Failure to adequately and regularly inspect the subject area for unsafe flooring 

conditions and/or surfaces so that passengers, including the Plaintiff, were reasonably 

safe aboard the vessel; and/or

e. Failure to adequately and regularly monitor the subject area to maintain it free of 

hazardous conditions so that passengers, including the Plaintiff, were reasonably safe 

aboard the vessel;

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 5 of 9
- 6 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

23. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiff being severely 

injured because Plaintiff’s incident would not have occurred but for Defendant’s failure to 

adequately inspect and/or maintain the subject area.

24. At all times material hereto, the subject area was not properly or adequately maintained or 

inspected so that passengers, including the Plaintiff, could walk aboard the vessel in a reasonably 

safe manner, thereby creating a dangerous and/or hazardous condition.

25. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of the foregoing dangerous conditions 

causing Plaintiff’s incident and failed to inspect and/or maintain the subject area, or the conditions 

existed for a sufficient length of time so that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care under 

the circumstances, should have learned of them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired 

through Defendant’s set up, maintenance, inspection and/or supervision of the subject area and/or 

through prior incidents involving passengers injured due to the unsafe flooring conditions 

including, but not limited to, unreasonably slippery substance and/or hazardous flooring surface 

area without proper or sufficient handrails or other assistance, while walking on Defendant’s 

vessels or other vessels reported within the cruise industry. 

26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured about 

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

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

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

wages and Plaintiff’s working ability has been impaired. The injuries are permanent or continuing 

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

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

resulting from her incident are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer these 

losses and impairments into the future.

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

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

law against Defendant and demands trial by jury. 

COUNT III – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT

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

(1) through eleven (11) as though alleged originally herein.

27. At all times material hereto, it was the non-delegable duty of Defendant to provide Plaintiff 

with reasonable care under the circumstances. 

28. At all times material, Defendant through its crew, agents, employees, 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 care owed to the Plaintiff and were negligent in one or more 

of the following ways:

a. Failure to provide passengers, including Plaintiff, with a reasonably safe area to walk 

aboard the vessel;

b. Failure to properly train, supervise and/or monitor crewmembers so that subject area 

aboard the vessel was reasonably safe;

c. Failure to provide proper and/or sufficient handrails or other assistance so that 

passengers, including Plaintiff, had a reasonably safe area to walk aboard the vessel;

d. Failure to provide proper and/or sufficient instructions to passengers so that passengers, 

including Plaintiff, had a reasonably safe area to walk aboard the vessel;

e. Failure to provide proper and/or sufficient warnings to passengers so that passengers, 

including Plaintiff, had a reasonably safe area to walk aboard the vessel;

f. Failure to place a caution/warning sign in the subject area so that passengers, including 

Plaintiff, had a reasonably safe area to walk aboard the vessel;

g. Failure to provide adequate floor matting so that the subject area aboard the vessel was 

reasonably safe for passengers like Plaintiff;

h. Failure to select and/or utilize reasonably safe flooring material, floor mats, slip 

resistant materials and/or non-skid strips so that the subject area aboard the vessel was 

reasonably safe for passengers like Plaintiff; 

i. Failure to establish and implement safeguard so that so that the subject area aboard the 

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 7 of 9
- 8 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

vessel was reasonably safe for passengers like Plaintiff;

j. Failure to adopt policies and procedures so that the subject area aboard the vessel was 

reasonably safe for passengers like Plaintiff;

k. Failure to implement a mode of operations which was reasonable and safe and would 

prevent dangerous conditions such as the one in this case; 

l. Failure to adequately and regularly monitor the subject area to maintain it free of 

unreasonably slippery surfaces and/or substances and/or hazardous conditions where 

passengers are expected to walk aboard the vessel;

m. Failure to ascertain the cause of prior similar accidents happening on any of the 

Defendant’s vessels fleet wide so as to take adequate measures to prevent their 

reoccurrence, and more particularly Plaintiff’s accident;

n. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures to ensure that 

the subject area is adequately and regularly inspected, monitored, cleaned and 

maintained free of unreasonably slippery conditions and/or hazards where passengers 

like Plaintiff are expected to walk aboard the vessel; 

o. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures to ensure that 

verbal warnings or warnings signs are placed on or around the subject area where 

passengers like Plaintiff are expected to walk aboard the vessel and/or that such areas 

are blocked off;

p. Failure to test and/or adequately evaluate flooring surface in light of the anticipated 

weather conditions and traffic given the anticipated purpose of the subject area;

q. Failure to provide additional floor mats, slip resistant materials and/or non-skid strips 

in light of the anticipated weather conditions, sea conditions, and traffic given the 

anticipated purpose of the subject area; 

r. Failure to use adequate and reasonable additional and/or safety mechanisms in light of 

the anticipated roll, sway, and/or high winds and waves while passengers like Plaintiff 

are aboard the vessel; and/or

s. Failure to select and/or utilize reasonably safe safety mechanism to avoid surface 

inconsistencies and/or hazardous conditions in the subject area in light of the 

anticipated foot traffic given the purpose of the subject area.

29. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of the foregoing dangerous conditions 

causing Plaintiff’s incident or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that 

Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of 

them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through Defendant’s set up, maintenance, 

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 8 of 9
- 9 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

inspection and/or supervision of the subject area and/or through prior incidents involving 

passengers injured due to the unsafe conditions including, but not limited to, unreasonably slippery 

substances and/or unreasonably slippery flooring surfaces, thereby creating a hazardous condition, 

while on Defendant’s vessels and/or other vessels reported within the cruise industry.

30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured about 

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

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

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

wages and Plaintiff’s working ability has been impaired. The injuries are permanent or continuing 

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

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

resulting from her incident are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer these 

losses and impairments into the future.

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

law against Defendant and demands trial by jury. 

Dated: August 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

LIPCON, MARGULIES,

ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 S. Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204

By: /s/ Stefanie A. Black

JASON R. MARGULIES

Florida Bar No. 57916

jmargulies@lipcon.com

STEFANIE A. BLACK

Florida Bar No. 111903

sblack@lipcon.com

Case 1:20-cv-23385-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 9 of 9