Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 

THERESA ZUB,

Plaintiff,

v.

MSC CRUISES, S.A.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, Plaintiff THERESA ZUB, sues Defendant M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A., a 

Swiss corporation, doing business as M.S.C. CRUISE LINES, and alleges:

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES

1. This is an action for damages in excess of seventy-five thousand ($75,000.00) 

dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.

2. Plaintiff THERESA ZUB is sui juris and a U.S. citizen and permanent 

resident.

3. Defendant M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A. (“M.S.C.”) is a Swiss corporation with its 

principal place of business in South Florida. At all material times Defendant M.S.C. 

CRUISES, S.A. has done business under the fictitious name “M.S.C. CRUISE LINE.” 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1333, based on admiralty jurisdiction. The causes of action asserted are maritime 

torts occurring on navigable waters and implicating traditional maritime activity, 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 1 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 2 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

specifically the operation of a passenger cruise vessel. The Plaintiff is entitled to a jury 

trial pursuant to Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So.3d 561, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

5. At all material times, Defendant has conducted ongoing substantial and not 

isolated business activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the Southern District of 

Florida, so that in personam jurisdiction over the Defendant exists in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

6. At all material times, the Defendant has engaged in the business of 

operating maritime cruise vessels for paying passengers, including the Plaintiff.

7. In the operative ticket contract, the Defendant requires fare paying 

passengers such as the Plaintiff to bring any lawsuit against the Defendant arising out of 

injuries or events occurring on the cruise voyage in this federal judicial district. 

Accordingly, venue is proper in this Court as dictated per Defendant’s unilateral contract 

of adhesion.

8. Venue is also proper in this district because the Defendant’s principal places 

of business are located within this district.

9. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action. 

The Plaintiff reported the accident to the ship's medical crew shortly after it occurred, 

and an incident report and written medical records were prepared onboard the ship. 

Furthermore, the Plaintiff gave the Defendant a timely written notice of claim as required 

by the ticket contract. 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 2 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 3 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

LIABILITY AND DAMAGE ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10. At all material times, the Defendant was engaged in the business of 

operating maritime cruise vessels for fare paying passengers and for this purpose 

operated, among other vessels, the M/V Seashore.

11. At all material times, the Defendant operated, managed, maintained and 

was in exclusive control of the M/V Seashore.

12. At all material times, including the injury date of March 24th, 2022, the 

Plaintiff was a fare paying passenger aboard the M/V Seashore and in that capacity was 

lawfully present aboard the vessel.

13. On or about March 24th, 2022, while aboard the M/V Seashore as a fare 

paying passenger, the Plaintiff was descending a staircase from Deck 20 to Deck 19

midship, as she attempted to return to her stateroom from the yacht club pool deck

around 9:30 a.m. As she descended, she lost her footing when she slipped and fell on an 

unreasonably slippery and dangerous step which she was unable to objectively perceive. 

14. As a result, Plaintiff fell back and onto her rear on to the staircase and 

sustained serious bodily injury including but not limited to a posterior malleolar fracture 

to the right ankle.

15. Her pain and suffering was needlessly prolonged by Defendant’s callous 

attitude and refusal to conduct radiographic studies on the fractured bone despite 

Plaintiff’s insistence.

16. At all material times, at the time and place referred to in the preceding 

paragraph, the Plaintiff traversed an area of the ship that was a high traffic area so that 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 3 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 4 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

the Defendant knew or should have known of the presence of the slippery stairs, but 

failed to undertake reasonable safety measures for passenger safety.

17. The slippery step in the area where the Plaintiff fell was static or had existed 

for a sufficient period of time before the Plaintiff's fall that the Defendant had actual or 

constructive knowledge of its presence and an opportunity to correct or warn of it. 

18. As an alternative to the allegations in the preceding paragraph, the 

Defendant at all material times had actual or constructive knowledge of the slippery step

in the area where the Plaintiff fell due to the regularly and frequently recurring nature of 

the hazard.

19. As a direct and proximate result of the fall described above, the Plaintiff 

was injured in and about her body and extremities, suffered pain there from, sustained 

mental anguish, disfigurement, disability and the inability to lead a normal life. 

Furthermore, she sustained loss of earnings and a loss of earning capacity in the past and 

future, and incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and health care expenses 

in the past and future as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or 

continuing in their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these 

damages in the future.

COUNT I - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

20. The Plaintiff adopts, realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations 

of Paragraphs 1 through 19 above and further alleges the following matters.

21. At all material times the Defendant owed the Plaintiff, as a fare paying 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 4 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 5 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

passenger on board its passenger vessel the M/V Seashore, a duty of reasonable care for 

her safety, including a duty to take reasonable care in maintaining its vessel so as to 

ameliorate, correct or avoid conditions creating a risk of harm for passengers.

22. At all material times, the M/V Seashore contained a condition creating a risk 

of harm to passengers to-wit: the slippery step(s) of the stairs in the Seashore’s Interior 

staircase from Deck 20 to Deck 19 of the Yacht Club pool deck as described in Paragraph 

13 above. This slippery step created a risk to individuals descending the steps, 

specifically the risk that they would lose their footing and fall as the Plaintiff did.

23. At all material times, the Defendant knew or should in the exercise of 

reasonable care have known the slippery step described in the preceding paragraph and 

Paragraph 13, due to the length of time the condition had existed, prior similar incidents, 

the recurring or static nature of the condition, the interior staircase’s location proximate 

to the yacht club pool and lack of elevators to Deck 20 from Deck 19, pedestrian traffic or 

other sources of knowledge, and therefore had actual or constructive notice of it.

24. Notwithstanding its actual or constructive notice of the risk creating 

condition on the slippery step, as described in the preceding two paragraphs, the 

Defendant failed at all material times to take adequate measures to inspect steps for risk 

creating conditions and to correct them once detected, and thus failed to exercise 

reasonable care in maintaining its vessel. The Defendant was thereby negligent.

25. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent maintenance 

of its vessel as described above, the Plaintiff fell as described in Paragraph 13 above and 

as a proximate result has sustained and will continue in the future to sustain the damages 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 5 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 6 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

alleged in Paragraph 19 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for 

compensatory damages and the costs of this action.

COUNT II – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

26. The Plaintiff adopts, realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations 

of Paragraphs 1 through 19 above and further alleges the following matters.

27. At all material times the Defendant owed the Plaintiff, as a fare paying 

passenger on board its passenger vessel the M/V Seashore, a duty of reasonable care for 

her safety, including a duty to take reasonable care operating the vessel so as to 

ameliorate, correct or avoid conditions creating a risk of harm for passengers.

28. At all material times, the M/V Seashore contained a condition creating a risk 

of harm to passengers to-wit: the slippery step(s) of the stairs in the Seashore’s Interior 

staircase from Deck 20 to Deck 19 of the Yacht Club pool deck as described in Paragraph 

13 above. This slippery step created a risk to individuals descending the steps, 

specifically the risk that they would lose their footing and fall as the Plaintiff did. 

29. At all material times, the Defendant knew or should in the exercise of 

reasonable care have known the slippery step described in the preceding paragraph and 

Paragraph 13, due to the length of time the condition had existed, prior similar incidents, 

the recurring or static nature of the condition, the interior staircase’s location proximate 

to the yacht club pool and lack of elevators to Deck 20 from Deck 19, pedestrian traffic or 

other sources of knowledge, and therefore had actual or constructive notice of it.

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 6 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 7 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

30. Notwithstanding its actual or constructive notice of the risk creating 

condition on the slippery step, as described in the preceding two paragraphs, the 

Defendant failed at all material times to take adequate measures to ensure the staircases 

had adequate slip resistance and to monitor the condition of the steps to avoid riskcreating conditions and to correct them once detected, and thus failed to exercise 

reasonable care in operating its vessel. The Defendant was thereby negligent.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent maintenance 

of its vessel as described above, the Plaintiff fell as described in Paragraph 13 above and 

as a proximate result has sustained and will continue in the future to sustain the damages 

alleged in Paragraph 19 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for 

compensatory damages and the costs of this action.

COUNT III - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

32. The Plaintiff adopts, realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations 

of Paragraphs 1 through 19 above and further alleges the following matters.

33. At all material times the Defendant owed the Plaintiff, as a fare paying 

passenger on board its passenger vessel the M/V Seashore, a duty of reasonable care for 

her safety, including a duty to take reasonable care in warning passengers including the 

Plaintiff adequately of onboard conditions creating a risk of harm to them.

34. At all material times, the M/V Seashore contained a condition creating a risk 

of harm to passengers to-wit: the slippery step(s) of the stairs in the Seashore’s Interior 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 7 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 8 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

staircase from Deck 20 to Deck 19 of the Yacht Club pool deck as described in Paragraph 

13 above. This slippery step created a risk to individuals descending the steps, 

specifically the risk that they would lose their footing and fall as the Plaintiff did. 

35. At all material times, the Defendant knew or should in the exercise of 

reasonable care have known the slippery step described in the preceding paragraph and 

Paragraph 13, due to the length of time the condition had existed, prior similar incidents, 

the recurring or static nature of the condition, the interior staircase’s location proximate 

to the yacht club pool and lack of elevators to Deck 20 from Deck 19, pedestrian traffic or 

other sources of knowledge, and therefore had actual or constructive notice of it.

36. Notwithstanding its actual or constructive notice of the risk creating 

condition on the slippery step, as described in the preceding two paragraphs, the 

Defendant failed at all material times to take adequate measures to warn passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, of the unreasonably slippery step described in and seen in 

Paragraph 13, including failures to provide adequate warning signage, caution cones, 

warning tape, ushers, or oral or written warnings or notices of the condition. The 

Defendant was thereby negligent.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent failure to 

warn described above, the Plaintiff lost her footing and fell as described in Paragraph 13

above and as a proximate result has sustained and will continue in the future to sustain 

the damages alleged in Paragraph 19 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for 

compensatory damages and the costs of this action.

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 8 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 9 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENT DESIGN

38. The Plaintiff adopts, realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations 

of Paragraphs 1 through 19 above and further alleges the following matters.

39. At all material times the Defendant owed the Plaintiff, as a fare paying 

passenger on board its passenger vessel the M/V Seashore, a duty of reasonable care for 

her safety, including a duty to take reasonable care in designing staircases and the 

flooring thereon so as to alert pedestrians to the steps presence as described in Paragraph 

13 above.

40. At all material times, the M/V Seashore contained a condition creating a risk 

of harm to passengers to-wit: the slippery step(s) of the stairs in the Seashore’s Interior 

staircase from Deck 20 to Deck 19 of the Yacht Club pool deck as described in Paragraph 

13 above. This slippery step created a risk to individuals descending the steps, 

specifically the risk that they would lose their footing and fall as the Plaintiff did. 

41. At all material times, M.S.C. actively participated in the design of the

subject vessel and the dry dock modifications and refurbishments that were conducted 

periodically since then.

42. M.S.C. had a contractual right to be involved in the design and construction 

of the vessel with the shipyard and the subsequent dry dock modifications and 

refurbishments thereafter. 

43. M.S.C. had an employee or agent present at the shipyard throughout the 

construction and during the subsequent dry dock modifications and refurbishments of 

the vessel to approve, inspect, modify, and supervise the design and construction of the

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 9 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.:

o 10 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

vessel at all material times.

44. At all material times the steps on the Defendant's vessels interior staircases 

fleet-wide or class-wide exposed pedestrians to the dangers described in Paragraph 13

above, due to the Defendant's participation in the design of the steps and flooring

thereon.

45. At all material times, the Defendant knew or should in the exercise of 

reasonable care have known the propensity of the step to become slippery as described 

in the preceding paragraph and Paragraph 13, due to the recurring or static nature of 

slippery conditions, marble or tile flooring, no nosing or anti-skid strips, applicable 

industry standards, or other sources of knowledge, and therefore had actual or 

constructive notice of this propensity.

46. Notwithstanding its actual or constructive notice of the propensity of its 

onboard steps to be slippery as described in Paragraph 13 above, the Defendant failed at 

all material times to modify the design of its onboard steps, flooring, or both so as to 

correct or ameliorate this risk creating condition and was thereby negligent.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent design of the 

staircase of the interior portion of the Yacht Club Pool deck descending from Deck 20 to 

Deck 19 of the M/V Seashore, the flooring thereon, or both, the slippery steps described in 

Paragraph 13 was an unreasonably dangerous condition that developed and continued 

to exist at the time of the Plaintiff's fall described in Paragraph 13.

48. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent design 

of the staircase of the interior portion of the Yacht Club Pool deck descending from Deck 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 10 of 11
ZUB V. M.S.C. CRUISES, S.A.

CASE NO.: 

o 11 o 

Delgado Trial Attorneys 

www.CruiseLawyerMiami.com

20 to Deck 19 of the M/V Seashore, the flooring thereon, or both, the Plaintiff lost her 

footing on the slippery step and fell as described in Paragraph 13 above, and thereby 

has sustained and will continue in the future to sustain the damages described in 

paragraph 19 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for 

compensatory damages and the costs of this action.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

Dated: October 10th, 2022 

 Miami, Florida

 Respectfully submitted,

BY: ________________________

RAUL G. DELGADO II, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 094004 

raul@cruiselawyermiami.com

filing@cruiselawyermiami.com 

DELGADO TRIAL ATTORNEYS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10631 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 130 

Miami, FL 33176 

Ph: (305) 596-7911 

Toll Free: 1(877) 372-0817 

BY: ________________________

RAUL G. DELGADO II, ESQ. 

Case 1:22-cv-23224-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 11 of 11