ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 21 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23377 

MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN (hereinafter “FRIEDMAN”), through undersigned 

counsel, sues Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, (hereinafter “ROYAL”), and demands 

trial by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. FRIEDMAN seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and 

attorneys’ fees.

2. This Court has admiralty and maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. 

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 ROYAL. 

5. FRIEDMAN is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of New Jersey. 

6. ROYAL is a citizen of the state of Florida and the nation of Liberia. 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 1 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 2 of 21 

7. ROYAL is a foreign corporation that is authorized to conduct and that does conduct 

business in the state of Florida, that at all times material hereto was and is doing business in MiamiDade County, Florida, and that maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of business 

in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

8. ROYAL, at all times material hereto, personally and/or through an agent, in MiamiDade County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida:

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

b. Had an office or agency; and/or 

c. Engaged in substantial activity; 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.

DEFINITIONS AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

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

that caused FRIEDMAN to slip, the water on the subject surfaces, the cart, the surrounding area, and

all material and effects pertaining thereto, including any anti-slip/skid material that was applied or that 

should have been applied, and/or other parts thereof, drains that were or should have been in the area 

to reduce the amount of liquid in the area, any sources of liquid in the subject area and/or the sources 

of the liquid involved in FRIEDMAN’s incident, the area and surfaces’ design and/or visual condition, 

and/or any other applied, adhesive, and/or other material.

11. At all times material hereto, ROYAL owned, leased, chartered, operated, maintained, 

managed, and/or controlled the subject cruise ship, the Oasis of the Seas. 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 2 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 21

12. At all times material hereto, ROYAL owned, leased, chartered, operated, maintained, 

managed, and/or controlled the subject area involved in FRIEDMAN’S incident.

13. FRIEDMAN’S incident occurred on or about August 20, 2022, while he was a fare 

paying passenger on ROYAL’S vessel, the Oasis of the Seas.

14. On or about August 20, 2022, between approximately 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,

FRIEDMAN was walking on the pool deck (deck 15) on the teak/brown colored walking path near 

the rock formation shown in the exemplar photograph above. A male crewmember was pushing a

cart next to FRIEDMAN as he was walking. Suddenly and unexpectedly, this crewmember turned 

the cart into FRIEDMAN, causing him to lose stable footing and to step from the walking path

onto the grated surface next to the rock formation and then onto the light-colored surface in the 

photograph above. Both the grated surface and the light-colored surface (collectively “subject 

surfaces”) were wet and unreasonably slippery. Furthermore, the grated surface unreasonably 

declined towards the light-colored surface, which made the grated surface an even greater slipping 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 3 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 21

hazard. When FRIEDMAN’s foot made contact with the grated surface, his footing became even 

more unstable, causing him to step onto the light-colored surface with severely diminished balance, 

and to slip, roll his ankle, and fall.

15. As a result, he sustained severe injuries that include, but are not limited to, ankle 

fractures, ruptured tendons, and other serious injuries which require surger(ies).

16. Approximately fifteen (15) minutes after his incident, FRIEDMAN went to guest 

services to repot his incident. The line was very long, and a female crewmember came up to him 

while he was in line to see if she could resolve his issues. FRIEDMAN reported his incident to 

her. However, this female crewmember did not direct him to the ship’s medical center. Had this 

female crewmember directed FRIEDMAN to the ship’s medical center, he would have gone there 

to treat his injuries.

17. At all relevant times, the dangerous and/or risk creating conditions include, but are 

not limited to the following:

a. The crewmember who unreasonably pushed the subject cart into FRIEDMAN.

b. The water on the subject surfaces, which caused the subject surfacesto become 

unreasonably slippery, and which caused FRIEDMAN to slip and fall.

c. The unreasonable slipperiness of the subject surfaces, which also lacked 

adequate slip resistant materials, both when wet and when not wet.

d. The unreasonable decline of the subject grated surface.

e. The unreasonable lack of space in the section with the teak/brown surface, for 

reasons that including, but not limited to, the unreasonably protruding lounge 

chairs in this area, which did not provide sufficient space for carts such as the 

subject cart to safely navigate through.

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 4 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 21

f. There were no reasonable safety measures such as reasonable places 

FRIEDMAN could grab in the subject area during his fall.

g. There was either non-existent drainage for the subject surfaces or any such 

drainage was not reasonably draining liquid from the subject area at the time 

of FRIEDMAN’s incident.

h. Other dangerous conditions that will be revealed through discovery.

18. Each of these dangerous conditions alone was sufficient to cause FRIEDMAN’S incident 

and injuries, and FRIEDMAN is alleging that ROYAL was negligent as to each of these conditions in 

the alternative. 

19. ROYAL either knew or should have known of these risk-creating and/or dangerous 

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. The ROYAL crewmember pushing the subject cart in the subject area at the time of 

the incident was in the immediate vicinity such that this crewmember was or should 

have been aware of the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions in the area and 

warned of and/or removed these conditions. Instead, this crewmember pushed the 

subject cart into FRIEDMAN, thereby causing his incident.

b. ROYAL participated in the installation and/or design of the subject area, or 

alternatively, ROYAL accepted the area with its design defects present after having 

been given an opportunity to inspect the ship and materials on it, including the subject 

surface, such that ROYAL should have known of the design defects of the subject 

surface and area before providing them for public use. These design defects include, 

but are not limited to, the dangers outlined in paragraph 17 of this complaint.

c. There are relevant safety standards/recommendations/other guidelines regarding the 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 5 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 21

safety of the subject area, including, but not limited to, prohibitions and/or 

recommendations against the deficiencies discussed in paragraph 17 of this 

Complaint, and ROYAL should have known of these 

standards/recommendations/other guidelines because whether such 

standards/recommendations/other guidelines are legally required for ROYAL to 

comply with or not, a fact-finder is entitled to determine, if it so choses, that these

standards/recommendations/other guidelines show what a reasonable cruise line

should have done.

d. ROYAL also knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions through 

inspecting the subject area involved in FRIEDMAN’S incident, and if it did not know 

of these dangerous conditions, this was because ROYAL failed to adequately inspect 

the subject area prior to FRIEDMAN’S incident.

e. Previous passengers in prior cases suffered prior slip and fall incidents involving 

similar surfaces on the same ship and other ships in ROYAL’S fleet (including Royal 

Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises, and Silversea Cruises), including, but not 

limited to Schleife v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 19-22776, 2021 WL 

1723673, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2021) (“On September 30, 2018, around 3pm, 

Plaintiff was walking to his cabin when he slipped and fell on the pool deck. The deck 

surface was wet, and unreasonably slippery.”), and Prokopenko v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises Ltd., No. 10-20068-CIV, 2010 WL 1524546, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2010) 

(“The principle factual allegation in the complaint is that the plaintiff ‘“was caused to 

fall on water on the deck of the ship at or near the swimming pool, causing her serious 

injury.’”).

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 6 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 21

f. Moreover, ROYAL knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions for 

other reasons that will be revealed through discovery.

20. At all times relevant, the subject area was unreasonably dangerous, risk-creating, 

defective, improperly designed, improperly installed, and/or otherwise unsafe.

21. The subject area and the vicinity lacked adequate safety features to prevent or minimize 

FRIEDMAN’S incident and/or injuries.

22. These hazardous conditions were known, or should have been known, to ROYAL in the 

exercise of reasonable care.

23. These hazardous conditions existed for a period of time before the incident.

24. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to FRIEDMAN.

25. At all times relevant, ROYAL failed to adequately inspect the subject area and the 

vicinity for dangers, and ROYAL failed to adequately warn FRIEDMAN of the dangers.

26. At all times relevant, ROYAL had the ability to cure the deficiencies and to eliminate the

hazards, but failed to do so.

27. At all times relevant, ROYAL failed to maintain the subject area and the vicinity in a 

reasonably safe condition.

28. At all times relevant, ROYAL participated in the design and/or approved the design of

the subject area and the vicinity involved in FRIEDMAN’S incident.

29. At all times relevant, ROYAL participated in the installation and/or approved the 

installation of the subject area and the vicinity involved in FRIEDMAN’S incident.

30. The crewmembers of the Oasis of the Seas were in regular full-time employment of 

ROYAL and/or the ship, as salaried crewmembers. 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 7 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 8 of 21 

31. ROYAL’s crewmembers, employees, and/or agents were subject to the ship’s 

discipline and master’s orders, and ROYAL had the right to hire and fire its crewmembers, 

employees, and/or agents. 

32. ROYAL is directly responsible and liable for their actions and the actions of its

crewmembers, employees, and/or agents. 

33. The crewmembers, including the medical staff, were employees and/or actual agents 

and/or apparent agents of ROYAL, and acted within the course and scope of their employment 

and/or agency agreement and/or relationship.

34. The crewmembers were represented to FRIEDMAN and the ship’s passengers as

employees of ROYAL through signs, documents, and/or uniforms. The crewmembers were also

paid a salary and/or hourly wage by ROYAL. ROYAL knew that the crewmembers represented 

themselves to be employees of ROYAL and allowed them to represent themselves as such. 

FRIEDMAN detrimentally relied on these representations as FRIEDMAN would not have 

proceeded on the subject cruise had he believed the crewmembers were not employees of ROYAL. 

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT 

35. FRIEDMAN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forthherein.

36. ROYAL owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

safety of its passengers. 

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

care by adequately inspecting the subject area and the vicinity to make sure the subject area and 

the vicinity were reasonably safe for the use and enjoyment of its passengers. 

38. At all times material, ROYAL, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, staff 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 8 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 21

and/or representatives, who were acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency 

with ROYAL breached the duty of reasonable care owed to FRIEDMAN and were negligent by 

failing to adequately inspect the subject area and the vicinity to make sure the subject area and the 

vicinity were reasonably safe, such that the unreasonably risk creating and/or dangerous conditions 

discussed paragraph 17 of the instant Complaint were present at the time of FRIEDMAN’S

incident.

39. ROYAL either knew or should have known of these risk-creating and/or dangerous 

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, the reasons discussed in paragraph 

19 of the Complaint.

40. These risk-creating and/or dangerous conditions were caused by ROYAL’S failure to 

adequately inspect the subject area and the vicinity to make sure the subject area and the vicinity 

were reasonably safe.

41. 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.”

42. ROYAL’S negligence proximately caused FRIEDMAN great bodily harm in that, but 

for ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred.

43. As a result of ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN has suffered severe bodily injuries 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of 

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of FRIEDMAN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 9 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 10 of 21 

44. The losses are permanent and/or continuing in nature. 

45. FRIEDMAN suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands judgment against

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as 

for damages and costs that FRIEDMAN will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of 

FRIEDMAN’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of important 

bodily functions, loss of independence, 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 this Court deems just 

or appropriate. 

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN 

46. FRIEDMAN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

47. ROYAL owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

safety of its passengers. 

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

care by adequately maintaining the subject area and the vicinity.

49. At all times material, ROYAL, 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 ROYAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to FRIEDMAN and were negligent by

failing to adequately maintain the subject area and the vicinity, such that the unreasonably risk 

creating and/or dangerous conditions discussed paragraph 17 of the instant Complaint were present 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 10 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 21

at the time of FRIEDMAN’S incident.

50. ROYAL either knew or should have known of these risk-creating and/or dangerous

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, the reasons discussed in paragraph 

19 of the instant complaint.

51. Moreover, these risk-creating and/or dangerous conditions were caused by ROYAL’S

failure to adequately maintain the subject area and the vicinity.

52. 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.”

53. ROYAL’S negligence proximately caused FRIEDMAN great bodily harm in that, but

for ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred.

54. As a result of ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN has suffered severe bodily injuries 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of 

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of FRIEDMAN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

55. The losses are permanent and/or continuing in nature.

56. FRIEDMAN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such 

losses in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands judgment against

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as 

for damages and costs that FRIEDMAN will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 11 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 12 of 21 

FRIEDMAN’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of important 

bodily functions, loss of independence, 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 this Court deems just 

or appropriate. 

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REMEDY 

57. FRIEDMAN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

58. ROYAL owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

safety of its passengers. 

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

care by adequately remedying the subject area and the vicinity.

60. At all times material, ROYAL, 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 ROYAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to FRIEDMAN and were negligent by 

failing to adequately remedy the subject area and the vicinity, such that the unreasonably risk 

creating and/or dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17 of the instant Complaint were 

present at the time of FRIEDMAN’S incident.

61. ROYAL either knew or should have known of these risk-creating and/or dangerous 

conditions, due to reasons that include, but are not limited to, the reasons discussed in paragraph 

19 of the instant Complaint.

62. Moreover, these risk-creating and/or dangerous conditions were caused ROYAL’S 

failure to adequately remedy the subject area.

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 12 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 13 of 21 

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.”

64. ROYAL’S negligence proximately caused FRIEDMAN great bodily harm in that, but 

for ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred. 

65. As a result of ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN has suffered severe bodily injuries 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of 

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of FRIEDMAN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

66. The losses are permanent and/or continuing in nature.

67. FRIEDMAN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such 

losses in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands judgment against

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as 

for damages and costs that FRIEDMAN will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of 

FRIEDMAN’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of important 

bodily functions, loss of independence, 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 this Court deems just 

or appropriate. 

COUNT IV 

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITION

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 13 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 21

68. FRIEDMAN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein.

69. At all times relevant, ROYAL owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including FRIEDMAN.

70. Such duty includes, but is not limited to, the duty that ROYAL owes to warn 

passengers of any dangers that it knew or should have known were not open and obvious to 

FRIEDMAN.

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

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

72. At all times material, ROYAL, 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 ROYAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to FRIEDMAN and was negligent by 

failing to warn FRIEDMAN of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17 of the instant 

Complaint.

73. Furthermore, ROYAL knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions for 

the reasons discussed in paragraph 19 of this Complaint.

74. These dangerous conditions were also created by ROYAL.

75. ROYAL failed to adequately ensure there were no dangerous conditions that 

passengers needed to be warned of, and/or ROYAL failed to warn FRIEDMAN despite knowing 

of the dangers.

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

77. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to FRIEDMAN. 

78. ROYAL’S breach was the cause in-fact of FRIEDMAN’S great bodily harm in that, 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 14 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 15 of 21

but for ROYAL’S breach FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred.

79. 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.”

80. ROYAL’S breach proximately caused FRIEDMAN great bodily harm in that the 

incident that occurred was a foreseeable result of ROYAL’S breach.

81. As a result of ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN has suffered severe bodily injuries 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of 

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of FRIEDMAN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

82. The losses are permanent and/or continuing in nature.

83. FRIEDMAN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such 

loses in the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for damages 

and costs that FRIEDMAN will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of FRIEDMAN’s bodily 

injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, 

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, 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 this Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT V

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 15 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 16 of 21 

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

AREA AND THE VICINITY

84. FRIEDMAN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

85. At all times material hereto, ROYAL owed a duty to its passengers, and in particular 

a duty to FRIEDMAN, not to permit dangerous conditions to be in places where they could harm 

passengers, such as those discussed in paragraph 17 in the instant Complaint, as well as to design 

and install reasonable safeguards. 

86. At all times material hereto, ROYAL participated in the design process of the subject 

vessel by generating design specifications for the shipbuilder to follow, and to put the vessel on 

which FRIEDMAN was injured into the channels of trade, and/or ROYAL approved of the subject 

vessel’s design, including the design of the subject area and the vicinity.

87. At all times material hereto, ROYAL manufactured, designed, installed, and/or 

approved of the Oasis of the Seas, 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 a duty to FRIEDMAN, to design, install and/or approve of the subject area and 

the vicinity without any defects.

88. At all times material hereto, ROYAL through its agents and/or employees who were 

acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency with ROYAL, designed, 

installed, and/or approved of the subject area and the vicinity involved in FRIEDMAN’S incident, 

which was also in violation of the applicable industry standards/recommendations and/or other 

guidelines.

89. ROYAL 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 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 16 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 17 of 21

90. ROYAL maintains the contractual right to participate, review, modify, and/or reject 

the design plans and drawings of the vessels, including the Oasis of the Seas, during the new build 

process.

91. ROYAL 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.

92. ROYAL has the right to inspect and reject design elements before taking possession 

of the ship.

93. However, ROYAL permitted the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17 of 

the instant complaint to be present in the subject area and the vicinity without correcting these 

design deficiencies and did not design and install reasonable safeguards.

94. Furthermore, ROYAL knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions for 

the reasons discussed in paragraph 19 of this Complaint.

95. The design flaws that made the subject area and the vicinity involved in

FRIEDMAN’S incident unreasonably dangerous were the direct and proximate cause of 

FRIEDMAN’S injuries.

96. ROYAL is liable for the design flaws of the vessel, including of the subject area and 

the vicinity involved in FRIEDMAN’S incident, which it knew or should have known of.

97. ROYAL failed to correct and/or remedy the defective conditions, despite the fact that 

ROYAL knew or should have known of the danger(s).

98. ROYAL’S breach was the cause in-fact of FRIEDMAN’S great bodily harm in that, 

but for ROYAL’S breach FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred.

99. Furthermore, the subject area and the vicinity were also on a cruise ship in the water 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 17 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 18 of 21 

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.”

100. ROYAL’S breach proximately caused FRIEDMAN great bodily harm in that the 

incident that occurred was a foreseeable result of ROYAL’S breach. 

101. As a result of ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN has suffered severe bodily injuries 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of 

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of FRIEDMAN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

102. The losses are permanent and/or continuing in nature. 

103. FRIEDMAN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such 

loses in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands judgment against 

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as 

for damages and costs that FRIEDMAN will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of 

FRIEDMAN’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of important 

bodily functions, loss of independence, 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 this Court deems just 

or appropriate. 

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENCE FOR THE ACTS OF ROYAL’S CREW, STAFF, EMPLOYEES, 

AND/OR AGENTS, BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 18 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 21

104. FRIEDMAN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein.

105. ROYAL owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the 

safety of its passengers.

106. The crewmembers who were working in and/or who were and/or should have been 

responsible for inspecting, maintaining, cleaning, and/or securing the subject area, including 

specifically the crewmember who pushed the subject cart into FRIEDMAN, were agents of 

ROYAL for the following reasons:

a. They were the staff and/or employees of ROYAL, or were ROYAL’S agents, 

apparent agents, and/or servants; and/or 

b. These staff, employees, and/or agents were subject to the right of control by

ROYAL; and/or

c. These staff, employees, and/or agents were acting within the scope of their 

employment or agency; and/or

d. ROYAL acknowledged that these staff, employees, and/or agents would act on

ROYAL’S behalf, and they accepted the undertaking.

107. ROYAL is vicariously liable for the acts of its staff, employees, and/or agents, as 

discussed in paragraph 17 of the instant complaint.

108. ROYAL’S breach was the cause in-fact of FRIEDMAN’S great bodily harm in that, 

but for ROYAL’S breach FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred.

109. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 19 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 20 of 21 

maritime travel, and as such were “clearly linked to nautical adventure.”

110. This negligence proximately caused FRIEDMAN great bodily harm in that, but for 

this negligence, FRIEDMAN’S injuries would not have occurred. 

111. As a result of ROYAL’S negligence, FRIEDMAN has suffered severe bodily injuries 

resulting in pain and suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of 

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of FRIEDMAN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

112. The losses are permanent and/or continuing in nature. 

113. FRIEDMAN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such 

loses in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands judgment against 

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as 

for damages and costs that FRIEDMAN will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of 

FRIEDMAN’s bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental 

anguish, hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of important 

bodily functions, loss of independence, 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 this Court deems just 

or appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: October 17, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 20 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 21 of 21 

/s/ Matthias M. Hayashi 

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 905161

aronfeld@Aronfeld.com 

Matthias M. Hayashi

Florida Bar No.: 115973

mhayashi@aronfeld.com

Abby H. Ivey, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1002774 

aivey@aronfeld.com

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

One Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

P: (305) 441.0440 

F: (305) 441.0198 

Attorneys for FRIEDMAN 

Case 1:22-cv-23377-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2022 Page 21 of 21