- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.

SALLY MELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP f/k/a

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,

Defendant.

 /

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff sues Defendant and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. The Plaintiff, SALLY MELLINGTON, is a citizen of the state of Kentucky. 

2. Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP f/k/a ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, 

LTD., (“RCCL”) is a foreign entity with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.

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

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

under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court.

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

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

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

b. Was engaged in substantial activity within this state;

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state; 

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 9
- 2 -

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

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statute §§ 48.081, 48.181 and/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. The cruise line ticket for the Plaintiff requires that suit be brought in this Court against 

the named Defendant in this action. 

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. Defendant RCCL, as a common carrier, was engaged in the business of providing to the public 

and to the Plaintiff in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard the vessel, Allure of the Seas.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

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

controlled the vessel, the Allure of the Seas (“the vessel”).

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant had exclusive custody and control of the vessel.

10. On or about September 27, 2021, Plaintiff was a paying passenger aboard the vessel, which 

was in navigable waters. 

11. On or about the daytime of September 27, 2021, the Plaintiff was walking from an inside 

area to an outside area, when she suddenly and without warning slammed into an unmarked clear 

glass panel just past the area she just exited. As a result of the impact with the clear, unmarked 

glass panel Plaintiff sustained personal injury.

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 9
- 3 -

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

COUNT I – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

The Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

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

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

reasonable care under the circumstances.

13. On or about the above date, Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees 

breached its duty to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances, through 

the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to provide and/or utilize a reasonably safe safety decal in light of the anticipated 

use of the panel; and/or

b. Failure to provide and/or utilize a reasonably safe walkway in light of the anticipated 

use of the area; and/or

c. Failure to provide and/or utilize a reasonably safe exit area in light of the anticipated 

use of the area; and/or

d. Failure to identify the dangerous and/or hazardous condition(s) which caused 

Plaintiff’s injury; and/or

e. Failure to use contrasting colors, patterns, or discernable markings on the clear panel

to adequately mark the hazard; and/or

f. Failure to utilize a reasonably safe wind blocking structure without unmarked and/or 

hidden dangersin light of the anticipated traffic and anticipated purpose of the area; and/or

g. Failure to properly mark the hazards in the area so as to adequately call passengers 

attention to them; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

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

h. Failure to correct hazardous conditions following prior incidents on the same or similar

clear panels; and/or

i. Failure to incorporate applicable standards, including the ASTM and/or the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), to glass panel in areas open to passengers like the Plaintiff; and/or 

j. Other acts or omissions constituting a breach of duty to use reasonable care under the 

circumstances which are revealed through discovery.

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

because Plaintiff would not have been injured but for the above acts and/or omissions. 

15. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

incident and did not correct them. Defendant’s knowledge of the foregoing condition(s) was 

specifically acquired through (a) its cleaning and/or inspection of the subject area prior to this 

incident, and/or (b) prior incidents causing personal injury to Defendant’s passengers in the same 

or substantially similar area. See generally Robert Zygarlowski v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.,

Case No. 11-cv-21340-JAG (S.D. Fla. 2011) (decal missing); Jones as Parent and Natural 

Guardian of B.A.J., a Minor v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No. 20-cv-21241-CMA (S.D. 

Fla. 2020) (hit head on glass window pane). Alternatively, the foregoing 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.

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

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

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

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

handicap, lost wages and the Plaintiff’s working ability has been impaired. The injuries are 

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

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

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

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

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

law against Defendant.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

The Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

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

17. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Defendant to provide Plaintiff with 

reasonable care under the circumstances.

18. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Defendant to warn passengers (like the 

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

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

19. On or about the above date, the Plaintiff was walking from an inside area to an outside area

aboard Defendant’s vessel, which is a place that Plaintiff was invited to by Defendant and a place 

Defendant reasonably expected Plaintiff to be in during the cruise.

20. On or about the above date, Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees 

breached its duty to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances, through 

the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of the dangers posed by the clear glass window; 

and/or

b. Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of the existence of the hazard when coming from an 

inside area, to an outside area; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 5 of 9
- 6 -

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

c. Failure to adequately warn passengers and Plaintiff of other accidents previously 

occurring; and/or

d. Failure to place warnings on the window in light of the anticipated hazard; and/or 

e. Failure to correct hazardous conditions following prior incidents without proper 

warnings on the same or similar clear panels; and/or

f. Failure to correct hazardous conditions following prior incidents without proper 

warnings/decals on known dangers; and/or

g. Failure to use appropriate visual cues to alert passengers of the subject window when 

exiting the inside area of the vessel; and/or

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

passengers like the Plaintiff are warned of the danger posed by the window.

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

injured because Plaintiff would not have been injured had Defendant and/or its agents, servants 

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

22. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

incident and did not correct them. Defendant’s knowledge of the foregoing condition(s) was specifically 

acquired through (a) its cleaning and/or inspection of the subject area prior to this incident, and/or (b) 

prior incidents causing personal injury to Defendant’s passengers in the same or substantially similar 

area. See generally Robert Zygarlowski v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-21340-

JAG (S.D. Fla. 2011) (decal missing); Jones as Parent and Natural Guardian of B.A.J., a Minor

v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No. 20-cv-21241-CMA (S.D. Fla. 2020) (hit head on glass 

window pane). Alternatively, the foregoing conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that 

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

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

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

corrected them.

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

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

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

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

handicap, lost wages and the Plaintiff’s working ability has been impaired. The injuries are 

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

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

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

law against Defendant.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

The Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

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

24. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Defendant to provide Plaintiff with 

reasonable care under the circumstances.

25. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Defendant to maintain the vessel, including 

the subject window, in a reasonably safe condition.

26. On or about the above date, Defendant and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees 

breached its duty to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances, through 

the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to maintain the subject area free of hazards; and/or

b. Failure to maintain the area free of hazards; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 7 of 9
- 8 -

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

c. Failure to maintain the subject window pane in a manner consistent with other windows 

in the area; and/or

d. Failure to adequately inspect the area where Plaintiff’s incident occurred for hazards; 

and/or

e. Failure to adequately, timely, and regularly inspect and maintain the clear glass panel

in a reasonably safe condition; and/or

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

the subject area is adequately and regularly inspected, monitored, and maintained free 

of hazards; and/or

g. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures to inspect and/or 

maintain the clear glass panel in a reasonably safe condition.

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

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

adequately inspect and/or maintain the subject area.

28. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

incident and did not correct them. Defendant’s knowledge of the foregoing condition(s) was specifically 

acquired through (a) its cleaning and/or inspection of the subject area prior to this incident, and/or (b) 

prior incidents causing personal injury to Defendant’s passengers in the same or substantially similar 

area. See generally Robert Zygarlowski v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-21340-

JAG (S.D. Fla. 2011) (decal missing); Jones as Parent and Natural Guardian of B.A.J., a Minor

v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No. 20-cv-21241-CMA (S.D. Fla. 2020) (hit head on glass 

window pane). Alternatively, the foregoing conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that 

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 8 of 9
- 9 -

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

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

corrected them.

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

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

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

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

handicap, lost wages and the Plaintiff’s working ability has been impaired. The injuries are 

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

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

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

law against Defendant.

Dated: September 20, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

LIPCON, MARGULIES

& WINKLEMAN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 S. Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204

By: /s/ Michael A. Winkleman

MICHAEL A. WINKLEMAN

Florida Bar No. 36719

mwinkleman@lipcon.com

MARC E. WEINER

Florida Bar No. 91699

mweiner@lipcon.com

Case 1:22-cv-22994-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 9 of 9