UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 

JONETTA HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES,

a Panamanian Corporation,

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JONETTA HARRIS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, CARNIVAL 

CORPORATION (hereinafter “Defendant”), and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff, JONETTA HARRIS, is a citizen and resident of Lancaster, 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. Thematterin controversy exceeds, exclusive ofinterest and costs, the sumspecified 

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 thisstate;

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 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

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

Plaintiff in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard CARNIVAL 

HORIZON.

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.

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

and/or controlled CARNIVAL HORIZON.

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

CARNIVAL HORIZON.

9. On or about September 16, 2021, Plaintiff was a passenger aboard CARNIVAL 

HORIZON which was in navigable waters.

10. On or about September 16, 2021, as Plaintiff was walking out of the ship’s casino, 

she slipped and fell hard. Immediately after her fall, Plaintiff observed and realized that the 

carpeted floor was wet and that the liquid was soiled from having been on the floor long enough 

that others walked over it. Furthermore, the wetness was excessively and unreasonably slippery 

from th build-up of cleaning solution. Prior to her fall this wetness and excessive slipperiness was 

neither apparent nor obvious to her. Previously, other passengers on Defendant’s ships have been 

injured under similar circumstances as a result of Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care. 

Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 2020); Bridges v. 

Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018).

11. As a consequence, Plaintiff sustained injury to her pelvis and right hip.

12. Plaintiff had to return to her cabin in a wheelchair which an employee of 

Defendant brought to the casino. Once in her cabin, the pain worsened and Plaintiff called 

Defendant’s Medical Department. Defendant’s medical staff responded to her cabin and she was 

transported down to Defendant’s Medical Department where she was admitted and had to remain 

Case 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

overnight.

13. As a further consequence, once the ship was back in Miami, Plaintiff had to be 

transported to the hospital in an ambulance and, again, was admitted for treatment. Plaintiff has 

also necessitated 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 (FAILURE TO INSPECT/MAINTAIN)

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 underthe 

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). 

This duty of reasonable care mandates that Defendant not maintain its ship – in this case, the floor 

of the casino, in a dangerous condition, and also requires Defendant to warn passengers of 

dangerous conditions of which it knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know. 

Carroll v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 17-13602 (11th Cir. April 15, 2020).

16. On or about September 16, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or 

servants breached its/their duty to maintain the subject casino floor in a reasonably safe condition 

by allowing the presence of an unreasonably slippery floor from a spill, by improper cleaning, or 

by a combination of the two.

17. On or about September 16, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants in failing to exercise 

reasonable care asfollows:

a. Failure to inspect, maintain, andmonitorthe floor in an area known to Defendant 

for frequent spills to ensure it was dry and reasonably safe for use by passengers, 

including Plaintiff, rendering the floor unsafe for Plaintiff; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

b. Failure to take reasonable precautions to keep the floor where Plaintiff fell 

free of liquid which rendered the stairwell unsafe for Plaintiff.

18. Immediately after her fall, Plaintiff observed and realized that the carpeted floor 

was wet and that the liquid was soiled from having been on the floor long enough that others 

walked over it. Furthermore, the wetness was excessively and unreasonably slippery from th 

build-up of cleaning solution. This could have only occurred as a result of a spill(s) which would 

have become known to Defendant had it conducted reasonable inspection, maintenance, and 

monitoring of the area especially as it had a number of crewmembers nearby.

19. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident.

20. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions 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 them. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 

2020); Bridges v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018).

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

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case 

No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 2020); Bridges v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). Despite this, Defendant failed to take steps as a result of prior 

similar incidents to reduce and/or prevent the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff.

22. 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; 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries; and has suffered 

physical handicap. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

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

COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO PROPERLY CLEAN)

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

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

23. At all times material, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care underthe 

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). 

This duty of reasonable care mandates that Defendant not maintain a its ship – in this case, the 

floor of the casino, in a dangerous condition, and also requires Defendant to warn passengers of 

dangerous conditions of which it knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know. 

Carroll v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 17-13602 (11th Cir. April 15, 2020).

24. On or about September 16, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or 

servants breached its/their duty to maintain the subject casino floor in a reasonably safe condition 

by allowing the presence of an unreasonably slippery floor created by a spill, by improper cleaning, 

or by a combination of the two.

25. On or about September 16, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants in failing to exercise 

reasonable care asfollows:

a. Negligently cleaning, shampooing, and/or vacuuming the casino floor 

rendering the floor unsafe for passengers, including Plaintiff; and/or

b. Failure to properly train and supervise its crewmembers in the proper and safe

cleaning of the carpeted casino floor.

26. Immediately after her fall, in addition to observing and realizing that the carpeted 

floor was wet and that the liquid was soiled from having been on the floor long enough that others 

walked over it, Plaintiff observed that the wetness was excessively and unreasonably slippery from 

Case 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 5 of 8
6

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

the build-up of shampoo/cleaning solution. 

27. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident.

28. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions 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 them. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 

2020); Bridges v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018).

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

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case 

No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 2020); Bridges v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018). Despite this, Defendant failed to take steps as a result of prior 

similar incidents to reduce and/or prevent the type of accident suffered by Plaintiff.

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 previously existing conditions; 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries; and has suffered 

physical handicap. 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 III – FAILURE TO WARN

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

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

31. At all times material, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care underthe 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 6 of 8
7

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

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). Although part of reasonable care, this duty to 

warn is separate and apart from the duty not maintain a its ship in a dangerous condition. Carroll 

v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 17-13602 (11th Cir. April 15, 2020).

32. On or about September 16, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or 

servants breached its/their duty to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition which was not apparent 

to her but of which Defendant either knew because its crewmembers were in the immediate area 

or of which, in the exercise of reasonable care, Defendant should have known because of prior 

similar incidents. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 2020);

Bridges v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018).

33. On or about September 16, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants asfollows:

a. Failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous non-obvious condition by means of a 

warning sign or otherwise cordoning off the wet and unreasonably slippery 

casino floor in an area Defendant knew to be wet because of the presence of its 

crewmembers or, which in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have 

known to be wet; and/or

b. Failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous non-obvious condition by means of a 

warning sign or otherwise cordoning off the wet and unreasonably slippery 

casino floor in an area Defendant knew was slippery as a consequence of 

cleaning and the application of cleaning solutions by Defendant.

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

warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions.

35. 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. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola (S.D.Fla. 2020); Bridges

Case 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 7 of 8
8

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Harris v. Carnival

v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla. 2018).

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

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

obligation to warn Plaintiff. Small v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 20-Civ-21420-Scola

(S.D.Fla. 2020); Bridges v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 18-Civ-25262-Gayles (S.D.Fla.

2018). Despite this, Defendant failed to take steps as a result of prior similar incidents to warn its 

passenger, including Plaintiff, of this condition.

37. 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; 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries; and has suffered 

physical handicap. 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: July 25, 2022

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 1:22-cv-22317-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 8 of 8