ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 31 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:20-cv-23552

JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MSC CRUISES, S.A., 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA (“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 as

the causes of action asserted are maritime torts. 

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.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 2 of 31

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 

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

business in Broward County Florida.

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

Switzerland.

8. 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 in this

state 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, §§ 48.081, 

48.181 or 48.193.

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

have been waived, or do not apply.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Hereinafter, the phrase, “subject area,” shall include, but not be limited to, the bathroom, 

the floor, and all material pertaining thereto, including any handrails that were or should have been 

present, drains that were or should have been in the area to reduce the amount of liquid in the area, the 

faucets, pipes, soap containers/dispensers, cleaning materials, and/or any other sources of liquid in the 

area, slip resistant materials that were or should have been applied, the lighting in the area, the floor’s 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 2 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 31

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

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

12. On or about November 23, 2019, Plaintiff was a lawfully fare paying passenger aboard 

Defendant’s cruise ship vessel, the MSC Meraviglia.

13. As Plaintiff was exiting a stall in the women’s restroom next to the elevators at the 

Casino deck of the MSC Meraviglia in a normal and proper manner, as she walked towards the 

wash basin, Plaintiff lost her footing, slipped, and fell on an extremely slippery surface that was 

wet and/or soapy. The faucets, pipes, soap containers/dispensers, cleaning materials, and/or any other 

sources of liquid in the area were also leaking, and were a possible source of the liquid. Plaintiff 

noticed that a janitorial door was open outside the hallway near the door leading to the restroom. 

Furthermore, the floor’s design and/or visual condition, as well as the lighting in the subject area,

was such that Plaintiff was not able to see that there was liquid on the floor prior to her fall. 

Furthermore, there were no adequate handrails for Plaintiff to grab to help prevent and/or mitigate 

her fall. 

14. The dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions of the subject area were known or 

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

restroom and were familiar with the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions thereof, the lengthy 

period of time the conditions existed, Plaintiff was advised after her incident that there was a leak 

in the subject area approximately 15 minutes or more prior to her incident, the amount of water 

present in the area (so much so that Plaintiff’s clothes became soaked after Plaintiff fell), the fact 

that the janitorial door was open when Plaintiff fell and that Defendant’s janitor(s) and/or other 

staff had been in the subject area within a short period of time prior to Plaintiff’s incident, prior 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 3 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 31

slipped and fell on the same and/or similar surfaces on Defendant’s premises, leaking faucets, 

pipes, soap containers/dispensers, cleaning materials, and/or any other sources of liquid in the area, 

and/or involving other similar circumstances, and/or other reasons. As a result of the incident, 

Plaintiff suffered traumatic injuries that included, but are not limited to, severe fractures to her

wrist that requires surgery.

15. Furthermore, when Plaintiff presented to the ship’s medical center, the ship’s medical 

staff saw her, but failed to properly immobilize her wrists/injuries despite the obviousness of her 

fractures, thereby causing her further pain, suffering, injuries, aggravations, and/or other damages.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

16. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 10 

through 15 as if set forthherein.

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

for the safety of its passengers.

18. 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.

19. 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

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

passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

21. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 4 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 31

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 

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

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

if the subject area’s floor became unreasonably slippery.

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

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

sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

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

retaining all crewmembers.

25. 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, warning passengers of risk 

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

was safe.

26. Defendant negligently knew or should have known that the ship’s crewmembers were 

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

27. 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, and/or otherwise making sure 

the area where Plaintiff fell was safe, including failing to adequately evaluate its crewmembers’ 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 5 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 31

performance during their tenure with it, 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.

28. 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 is 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 

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 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, discharging, or reassignment.

29. Defendant owed Plaintiff and its passengers a duty of care, when hiring crewmembersto 

hire and retain only competent crewmembers.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 6 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 31

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

crewmembers.

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

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

conditions, and/or 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.

32. 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.

33. 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, and loss of ability to earn money, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 7 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 31

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

36. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 10 

through 15 as if set forthherein.

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

for the safety of its passengers.

38. 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.

39. 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

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

passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

41. 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.

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

if the subject area’s floor became unreasonably slippery.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 8 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 31

43. 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.

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

and/or training its crewmembers.

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

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

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

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

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.

48. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 9 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 10 of 31

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 is 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 

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 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, discharging, or reassignment.

49. 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, 

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

sure the area where Plaintiff fell was safe.

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

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

conditions, and/or 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.

51. 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.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 10 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 31

52. 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, 

and loss of ability to earn money, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, 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 III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS

55. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 10 

through 15 as if set forth herein.

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

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including Plaintiff.

57. 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 of that were not open and obvious 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 11 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 12 of 31

to Plaintiff.

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

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

59. 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.

60. These dangerous conditions were also created by Defendant.

61. Defendant either failed to adequately inspect the area 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.

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

conditions, due to reasons that include, but is 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.

63. 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-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 12 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 13 of 31

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

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

66. 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.

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

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

68. 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, 

and loss of future earning capacity, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money in the 

future, 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 postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which the Court deems just or appropriate.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 13 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 31

COUNT IV

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

AREA AND THE VICINITY

71. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 10 

through 15 as if set forth herein.

72. 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.

73. 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.

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

approved of the MSC Meraviglia, including providing specifications to the shipbuilder in the 

original 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.

75. 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.

76. Upon information and belief, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 14 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 15 of 31

77. 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 MSC

Meraviglia, during the new build process.

78. 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.

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

elements before taking possession of the ship.

80. 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.

81. 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 

vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident.

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

conditions, due to reasons that include, but is 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.

83. 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-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 15 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 16 of 31

84. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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.

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

that it knew or should have known their danger.

88. 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, 

and loss of future earning capacity, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money, loss of 

the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs, in the future, loss of important 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 16 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 17 of 31

bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment 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

91. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 10 

through 15 as if set forth herein.

92. Defendant at all relevant times, owed Plaintiff a non-delegable duty to exercise the 

reasonable care required for the safety of a fare-paying passenger.

93. Alternatively, Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

circumstances for the safety of its passengers.

94. 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 

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

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

apparent agents, and/or servants.

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

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

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

and they accepted the undertaking.

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 17 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 18 of 31

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.

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

negligence, Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.

102. 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, 

and loss of future earning capacity, and loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money, 

loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs, in the future, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 18 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 31

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT, CLEAN, MAINTAIN, AND/OR OTHERWISE 

REPAIR/REMEDY PREMISES

105. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 10 

through 15 as if set forthherein.

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

safety of its passengers.

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

care by inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, and repairing/remedying its ship and all parts thereof, 

so that it is in a reasonably safe condition for the use and enjoyment of its passengers, including, 

but not limited to, by inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, and repairing/remedying the subject area

and the vicinity.

108. 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 inspect, clean, maintain, and to remedy/repair the subject area and the vicinity involved 

in Plaintiff’s incident such that the unreasonably risk creating and/or dangerous conditions existed, 

and/or the subject area and the vicinity did not function properly.

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

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

area and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident.

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

area and the vicinity involved in Plaintiff’s incident was either due to its failure to adequately 

inspect, them prior to Plaintiff’s incident to ensure that they were in a reasonably safe condition, 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 19 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 20 of 31

or due to its failure to adequately clean, maintain and/or repair/remedy them despite its knowledge 

of the dangerous conditions, which posed a risk to its passengers.

111. 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.

112. 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.”

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

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

114. 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, 

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

costs.

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

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

the future.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 20 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 31

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money in the 

future, 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 postjudgment 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

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

10 through 15 as though alleged originally herein.

117. 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.

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

assistance as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances.

119. 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.

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

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 21 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 22 of 31

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

121. 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.

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

used by the ship’s medical personnel and passengers.

123. 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.

124. 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.

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

126. 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.

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

and/or indemnification rights.

128. 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.

129. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 22 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 23 of 31

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

in treating injuries such as the one Plaintiff suffered.

130. 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.

131. 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.

132. 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 properly immobilize Plaintiff’s wrist/injuries;

b. Failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with proper and/or 

adequate medical care and attention;

c. Failing to timely and properly diagnose Plaintiff’s medical

condition;

d. Failing to attend to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries;

e. Failing to provide reasonable medical care;

f. Failing to properly treat and care for Plaintiff;

g. Failing to properly examine Plaintiff’s injuries;

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 23 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 24 of 31

h. By failing to take proper measures to secure adequate 

treatment for Plaintiff, including unreasonably delaying 

taking measures to secure such adequate treatment; and/or

i. Failing to give Plaintiff proper discharge instructions or 

provide Plaintiff her medical records or imaging.

133. 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 

employment and/or agency.

134. 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.

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

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

below the standard of care.

136. 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.

137. 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.

138. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 24 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 25 of 31

body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, 

disfigurement, pain and suffering, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, 

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

handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent 

or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In 

addition, Plaintiff lost the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money 

in the future, 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, preand post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which the Court deems just or 

appropriate.

COUNT VIII

APPARENT AGENCY FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

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

10 through 15 as though alleged originally herein.

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

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 25 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 26 of 31

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;

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

do so by Defendant.

140. At no time did Defendant represent to 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.

141. 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.

142. 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.

143. 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.

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

apparent employees, and/or apparent servants.

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

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

with reasonable care under the circumstances.

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

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 26 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 27 of 31

through the acts of its apparent agents asfollows:

a. Failing to properly immobilize Plaintiff’s wrist/injuries;

b. Failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with proper and/or 

adequate medical care and attention;

c. Failing to timely and properly diagnose Plaintiff’s medical

condition;

d. Failing to attend to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries;

e. Failing to provide reasonable medical care;

f. Failing to properly treat and care for Plaintiff;

g. Failing to properly examine Plaintiff’s injuries;

h. By failing to take proper measures to secure adequate 

treatment for Plaintiff, including unreasonably delaying 

taking measures to secure such adequate treatment; and/or

i. Failing to give Plaintiff proper discharge instructions or 

provide Plaintiff her medical records or imaging.

147. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s 

body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, 

disfigurement, pain and suffering, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, 

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

handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent 

or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In 

addition, Plaintiff lost the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 27 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 28 of 31 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money 

in the future, 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, preand post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which the Court deems just or 

appropriate. 

COUNT IX 

ASSUMPTION OF DUTY NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

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

10 through 15 as though alleged originally herein.

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

circumstances for the safety of its passengers.

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

assistance as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances.

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

physicians and/or other crew members.

151. As such, Defendant voluntarily assumed a duty for the value of Plaintiff to use

reasonable care in the provision of medical services to Plaintiff. 

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

diagnose, and/or treat Plaintiff’s injuries.

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 28 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 29 of 31 

153. 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. 

154. 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.

155. 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. 

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

breached its duties as follows: 

a. Failing to properly immobilize Plaintiff’s wrist/injuries;

b. Failing to promptly provide Plaintiff with proper and/or

adequate medical care and attention;

c. Failing to timely and properly diagnose Plaintiff’s medical

condition;

d. Failing to attend to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries;

e. Failing to provide reasonable medical care;

f. Failing to properly treat and care for Plaintiff;

g. Failing to properly examine Plaintiff’s injuries;

h. By failing to take proper measures to secure adequate

treatment for Plaintiff, including unreasonably delaying

taking measures to secure such adequate treatment; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 29 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 30 of 31 

i. Failing to give Plaintiff proper discharge instructions or

provide Plaintiff her medical records or imaging.

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

Defendant fell below the standard of care.

158. 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. 

159. 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.

160. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s

body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, 

disfigurement, pain and suffering, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, 

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

handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent 

or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In 

addition, Plaintiff lost the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, 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, loss of ability to earn money 

in the future, loss of the value of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, and transportation costs, loss of 

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 30 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 31 of 31 

important bodily functions, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; for all court costs, preand post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which the Court deems just or 

appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JANET LORENZO-GARCIA, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: August 26, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer M. Aronfeld 

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, 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 Plaintiff

/s/ Gabriel Sanchez, Esq. 

Gabriel Sanchez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 369810 

gabriel@thesanchezlawgroup.com

The Sanchez Law Group 

7245 SW 87th Ave, Ste 400 

Miami, Florida 33173 

P: (305) 595-4661 

F: (305) 595-7669 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-23552-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 31 of 31