UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.

MAGGIE LAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES,

a Panamanian Corporation,

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, MAGGIE LAU (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, CARNIVAL 

CORPORATION (hereinafter “Defendant”), and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff, MAGGIE LAU, is a citizen and resident of San Gabriel, California.

2. Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION, is a foreign entity incorporated in 

Panama with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida at 3655 Northwest 87th Avenue, 

Miami, Florida 33178.

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

by 28 USC §1332 and involves complete diversity of citizenship under 28 USC §1332. 

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 and not isolated activity within this state;

c. Purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities within Florida by 

purposefully directing its activities in and toward the state, thus obtaining the benefits 

and protections of the state’s laws;

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Fla.Stat. §§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. Operated vessels in the waters of this state;

Case 1:20-cv-23261-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 1 of 6
Lau v. Carnival Corporation

2

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

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

particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard CARNIVAL IMAGINATION.

5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter and Defendant is subject to 

personal jurisdiction before this Court. 

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

Law of the United States.

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

and/or controlled CARNIVAL IMAGINATION.

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

CARNIVAL IMAGINATION.

9. On or about September 27, 2019, Plaintiff was a passenger aboard CARNIVAL 

IMAGINATION which was in navigable waters.

10. On or about September 27, 2019, as Plaintiff walked on the Lido Deck (to the best 

of her knowledge) on her way to one of the water slides under the ship’s funnel, she was caused to 

slip and fall on an excessive and unreasonable accumulation of water and/or condensation on the 

deck which was not apparent or obvious to her and which made the deck unreasonably slippery.

11. It was not until after Plaintiff had fallen to the deck that she realized that she had 

slipped on an accumulation of excessive water and/or condensation. This excessive and 

unreasonable accumulation of water and/or condensation was as a result of Defendant’s 

carelessness and failure to exercise reasonable care. Moreover, in the exercise of reasonable care, 

Defendant should have known of this accumulation of water and/or condensation and warned 

passengers, including Plaintiff, of it. Despite this, Defendant had erected no warning signs or other 

like waring devices.

12. As a consequence, Plaintiff sustained injury to her right foot and necessitated 

medical care in the ship’s Medical Department.

Case 1:20-cv-23261-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 2 of 6
Lau v. Carnival Corporation

3

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

13. As a further consequence, Plaintiff required continued medical care following her

return home.

14. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed, or, 

alternatively, have been waived.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one

(1) through fourteen (14) as though fully alleged herein:

15. At all times material, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under the

circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406

(1959); Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990); Keefe v. Bahama 

Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989), on remand, 715 F.Supp. 1069 (M.D.Fla. 1989).

16. On or about September 27, 2019, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or 

servants breached its/their duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances

in allowing an excessive and unreasonable accumulation of water on the ship’s deck which was 

not apparent to Plaintiff and which caused Plaintiff to slip and injure herself as described above. 

17. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in providing Plaintiff a safe means to 

disembark the ship and was in breach of its’ legal duties to the Plaintiff as follows:

a. Failing to keep the area where Plaintiff traversed appropriately dry causing it to 

become unreasonably slippery; and/or

b. Failing to take reasonable precautions to keep the floor where Plaintiff fell free of 

liquid (believed to be water) and/or condensation which made the area unreasonably 

slippery; and/or

c. Failing to place a carpet or mat down on the area to provide a sufficiently skid 

resistant surface so that passengers such as Plaintiff would not slip when walking on 

it.; and/or

d. Failing to utilize sufficiently skid resistant flooring in an area which it knew or 

should have known was subject to becoming unreasonably slippery when wet.

18. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident or 

Case 1:20-cv-23261-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 3 of 6
Lau v. Carnival Corporation

4

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing condition causing Plaintiff’s accident and did not

correct 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 corrected it.

See Bridges v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles.

19. The condition created and/or known to Defendant occurred with sufficient 

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant. See Bridges v. Carnival Corp., Case 

No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles.

20. 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 previously existing conditions – all 

of which are both past and future; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s 

injuries- both past and future; suffered physical handicap; lost wages and Plaintiff’s working

ability and earning capacity has been impaired. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

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

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

COUNT II – FAILURE TO WARN

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through fourteen (14) as though fully alleged herein.

21. At all times material, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under the 

circumstances, which includes a duty to warn of hidden dangerous conditions known or, in the 

exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant. Poole v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 14-20237-

Cooke/Torres (S.D.Fla. Apr. 8, 2015); Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 633 F.Supp. 40 

(S.D.Fla. 1986), aff’d, 808 F.2d 60 (11th Cir. 1986).

22. The substance on the deck which caused Plaintiff’s fall - believed to be water and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-23261-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 4 of 6
Lau v. Carnival Corporation

5

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

condensation, was neither apparent nor obvious to Plaintiff.

23. Despite the fact that the excessive accumulation of water and/or condensation on 

the deck was known to Defendant or, in the exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant 

from past similar incidents, Defendant failed to provide any warning of this condition to Plaintiff.

24. On or about September 27, 2019, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or 

servants breached its/their duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances 

by failing to warn Plaintiff of a hidden and dangerous condition. Defendant failed to exercise 

reasonable care in failing to warn the Plaintiff of these hidden/dangerous conditions and was in 

breach of its’ legal duties to the Plaintiff as follows:

a. Failing to warn Plaintiff that the area of the deck where she slipped and fell was 

dangerous and slippery and/or;

b. Failing to warn Plaintiff that the flooring was not sufficiently skid resistant when 

wet and/or when covered in condensation so as to create an unreasonably dangerous 

condition; and/or

c. Failing to delineate the area as dangerous with cones, ropes, or warning signs. 

25. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident, but did not 

warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions. As a result of prior similar incidents and claims, 

Defendant was on notice of these hidden dangers and the concomitant obligation to warn Plaintiff. 

See Bridges v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles. 

26. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s

accident, but did not warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions, 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 Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous 

condition. As a result of prior similar incidents and claims, Defendant was on notice of these 

hidden dangers and the concomitant obligation to warn Plaintiff. See Bridges v. Carnival Corp., 

Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles.

27. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant occurred with sufficient 

Case 1:20-cv-23261-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 5 of 6
Lau v. Carnival Corporation

6

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant, such that Defendant was under an 

obligation to warn Plaintiff. See Bridges v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles.

28. 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 previously existing conditions – all 

of which are both past and future; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s 

injuries- both past and future; suffered physical handicap; lost wages and Plaintiff’s working

ability and earning capacity has been impaired. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

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

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

DATE: August 5, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10691 N. Kendall Drive - Suite 109

Miami, Florida 33176

Telephone: (305) 567-0910

Facsimile: (786) 454-8905

By: /s/ Eduardo J. Hernandez 

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ

Florida Bar No. 061451

ehernandez@ejh-law.com

Case 1:20-cv-23261-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 6 of 6