ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 32 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23493 

GEMMA BADING, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING (hereinafter “BADING”), through undersigned counsel, sues 

Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, (hereinafter “CARNIVAL”), and demands trial 

by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. BADING 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 CARNIVAL. 

5. BADING is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of Texas. 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 1 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 2 of 32 

6. CARNIVAL is a citizen of the state of Florida and the nations of Panama and the 

United Kingdom. 

7. CARNIVAL 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 Miami-Dade County, Florida, and who maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place 

of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

8. CARNIVAL, at all times material hereto, personally and/or through an agent, in 

Miami-Dade 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 shower, 

drain, and the surrounding area involved in BADING’s incident, and all material and effects pertaining 

thereto, including any material that was applied or that should have been applied, and/or other parts 

thereof, the area and drain’s design and/or visual condition, and/or any other applied, adhesive, and/or 

other material. 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 2 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 32

12. BADING’S incident occurred on or about July 3, 2022, while she was a fare paying 

passenger on CARNIVAL’S vessel, the Vista.

13. At all times material hereto, CARNIVAL owned, leased, chartered, operated, 

maintained, managed, and/or controlled the subject cruise ship, the Vista.

14. On or about July 3, 2022, between approximately 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., BADING

was taking a shower in her cabin, number 9221, in a normal and proper manner. There was murky 

water clogging in the shower. As BADING attempted to step out of the shower, her toe made contact 

with the unreasonably sharp, rusty, and elevated metal drain, and this severely cut her big toe. Upon 

closer inspection after the incident, the drain appeared to have been bent by a CARNIVAL 

crewmember to be more elevated than usual, presumably to allow more water to drain.

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

severely cut toe, nerve damage, and other serious injuries.

16. After BADING was taken to the ship’s medical center by wheelchair between 

approximately ten to thirty minutes after her incident, the ship’s doctor failed to diagnose her 

injuries, including her nerve damage to her toe. Furthermore, BADING asked the ship doctor for a 

tetanus shot, stitches, and sterile pads, but she refused to give them to her. Furthermore, the ship’s 

doctor provided unreasonably weak and/or otherwise deficient antibiotics. Instead, the ship doctor 

applied steristrips and glue to the incision without cleaning her toe or applying any numbing medicine 

and told her to get off the ship to get it treated, which was not proper. Moreover, BADING was not 

prescribed pain medicine for her trip home, such that she was in great pain for a longer amount of 

time than she otherwise would have been.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 3 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 32

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

not limited to the following:

a. The subject drain was unreasonably sharp, which caused BADING’s toe to be 

cut when her foot made contact with it.

b. The subject drain was unreasonably raised/elevated, which caused BADING’s 

toe to be cut more severely than it would have been had the drain been closer 

to flush with the floor, since her toe would have only been scratched, if injured 

at all, if the drain was closer to flush with the floor.

c. The subject drain was unreasonably rusty, which caused BADING’s toe to be 

cut more severely than it would have been had the drain been less rusty, since 

the drain was not supposed to be as sharp as it was, but was made unreasonably 

sharp for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the unreasonable rustiness 

of the drain, which created jagged edges that cut BADING’s toe.

d. There was no plastic and/or otherwise less sharp covering for the drain and/or 

material used for the composition of the drain itself, and had such less sharp 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 4 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 32

covering/material been used, BADING’s toe would not have been cut as 

severe, if at all, due to the reduced sharpness.

e. The subject drain, as well as the surrounding area, was obscured by the murky 

water that was clogging the shower, and lacked adequate visual cues (such as 

proper visual elements/coloring) to help passengers appreciate the danger of 

the subject drain. Had such visual cues been present, BADING would have 

appreciated the danger of the drain and avoided stepping near the drain, 

thereby preventing her incident.

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

18. Each of these dangerous conditions alone was sufficient to and did cause BADING’S

incident and injuries, and BADING is alleging that CARNIVAL was negligent as to each of these 

conditions alternatively. 

19. CARNIVAL 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. Upon closer inspection after the incident, the drain appeared to have been bent by a 

CARNIVAL crewmember to be more elevated than usual prior to BADING’s incident,

since it was bent at an unnatural angle, presumably to allow more water to drain due to 

the clogging, such that this crewmember knew of the unreasonable elevation of the 

subject drain prior to BADING’s incident, and should have known of the unreasonable 

rustiness of the subject drain, and therefore also its unreasonable sharpness, as well.

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

alternatively, CARNIVAL accepted the area with its design defects present after 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 5 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 6 of 32 

subject drain, such that CARNIVAL should have known of the design defects of the 

subject drain 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. Both prior to and after the subject incident, CARNIVAL installed and/or refitted 

similar drains on other ships in CARNIVAL’S fleet to make them less slippery.

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

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 CARNIVAL should have known of these 

standards/recommendations/other guidelines because whether such 

standards/recommendations/other guidelines are legally required for CARNIVAL 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. 

e. CARNIVAL also knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions through 

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

these dangerous conditions, this was because CARNIVAL failed to adequately inspect 

the subject area prior to BADING’s incident. 

f. Previous passengers suffered incidents involving similar drains, including, but not 

limited to Offenberg v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:19-CV-23334-KMM, 2021 WL 

4990899, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2021) (“[I]ncident involving a passenger who 

injured her foot on the drain cover[.]”), and Prince-Bowers v. Carnival Corp., No. 18-

22526-CIV, 2018 WL 6426409, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2018) (“[T]h[e] [incident]

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 6 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 32

was a result of the drain being ‘backed-up[.]’”), 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article194984359.html.

g. Moreover, CARNIVAL 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 

BADING’S incident and/or injuries.

22. These hazardous conditions were known, or should have been known, to CARNIVAL 

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 BADING.

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

vicinity for dangers, and CARNIVAL failed to adequately warn BADING of the dangers.

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

the hazards, but failed to do so.

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

a reasonably safe condition. For example, CARNIVAL failed to perform regular upkeep on the 

subject drain, including, but not limited to, applying anti-rust materials/measures to it, such that it 

became unreasonably rusty, with jagged sharp edges, which caused BADING’s incident for the 

reasons previously discussed. This failure to maintain is only an example, and CARNIVAL failed 

to maintain the subject area and the vicinity in other ways as well.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 7 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 8 of 32 

28. At all timesrelevant, CARNIVAL participated in the design and/or approved the design 

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

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

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

30. The crewmembers of the Vista were in regular full-time employment of CARNIVAL 

and/or the ship, as salaried crewmembers. 

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

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

employees, and/or agents. 

32. CARNIVAL 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 CARNIVAL, and acted within the course and scope of their employment 

and/or agency agreement and/or relationship.

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

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

also paid a salary and/or hourly wage by CARNIVAL. CARNIVAL knew that the crewmembers

represented themselves to be employees of CARNIVAL and allowed them to represent themselves

as such. BADING detrimentally relied on these representations as BADING would not have 

proceeded on the subject cruise had BADING believed the crewmembers were not employees of 

CARNIVAL. 

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT 

35. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-26 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 8 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 9 of 32 

and 30-34, as if set forthherein.

36. CARNIVAL 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, CARNIVAL, 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 CARNIVAL breached the duty of reasonable care owed to BADING 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 BADING’S incident.

39. CARNIVAL 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.

40. These risk-creating and/or dangerous conditions were caused by CARNIVAL’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. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that, 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 9 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 10 of 32 

but for CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING’S injuries would not have occurred. 

43. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

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

future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 II

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN 

46. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-24, 

26-27, and 30-34, as if set forth herein. 

47. CARNIVAL 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 10 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 11 of 32 

care by adequately maintaining the subject area and the vicinity.

49. At all times material, CARNIVAL, 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 CARNIVAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to BADING 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 at the time of BADING’S incident.

50. CARNIVAL 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

CARNIVAL’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. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that, 

but for CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING’s injuries would not have occurred. 

54. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 11 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 12 of 32 

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

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

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REMEDY 

57. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-24, 

26, and 30-34, as if set forth herein. 

58. CARNIVAL 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, CARNIVAL, 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 CARNIVAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to BADING 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 12 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 13 of 32

present at the time of BADING’S incident.

61. CARNIVAL 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 

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately remedy the subject area.

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. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that, 

but for CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING’s injuries would not have occurred.

65. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 13 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 14 of 32 

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 IV 

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITION

68. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-24 

and 30-34, as if set forth herein. 

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

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including BADING. 

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

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

BADING. 

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, CARNIVAL, 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 CARNIVAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to BADING and was negligent by 

failing to warn BADING of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17(a-d and f) of the 

instant Complaint.

73. Furthermore, CARNIVAL 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 CARNIVAL. 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 14 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 15 of 32

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

passengers needed to be warned of, and/or CARNIVAL failed to warn BADING 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 BADING. 

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

but for CARNIVAL’S breach BADING’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. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that the 

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

81. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

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

in the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 15 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 16 of 32 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 

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

AREA AND THE VICINITY

84. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-24, 

26, and 28-34, as if set forth herein. 

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

particular a duty to BADING, 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, CARNIVAL 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 BADING was injured into the channels of trade, and/or CARNIVAL approved of 

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

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

approved of the Vista, 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 BADING, to design, install and/or approve of the subject area and the vicinity 

without any defects.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 16 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 17 of 32 

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

were acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency with CARNIVAL, 

designed, installed, and/or approved of the subject area and the vicinity involved in BADING’S

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

other guidelines. 

89. CARNIVAL provides design elements of the vessels to the ship builder and/or 

approves of design elements which include the subject area and the vicinity.

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

reject the design plans and drawings of the vessels, including the Vista, during the new build 

process. 

91. CARNIVAL 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. CARNIVAL has the right to inspect and reject design elements before taking 

possession of the ship. 

93. However, CARNIVAL 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, CARNIVAL 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 BADING’S 

incident unreasonably dangerous were the direct and proximate cause of BADING’S injuries.

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

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 17 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 18 of 32

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

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

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

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

but for CARNIVAL’S breach BADING’s injuries would not have occurred.

99. 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.”

100. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that the 

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

101. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 18 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 19 of 32 

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 VI

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

AND/OR AGENTS, BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY 

104. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-34, 

as if set forth herein. 

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

safety of its passengers. 

106. The crewmembers who were and/or should have been responsible for inspecting, 

maintaining, cleaning, and/or securing the subject area, including specifically the crewmember 

who unreasonably raised/elevated the subject drain, were agents of CARNIVAL for the 

following reasons: 

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

agents, apparent agents, and/or servants; and/or 

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

CARNIVAL; and/or 

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

employment or agency; and/or 

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

CARNIVAL’S behalf, and they accepted the undertaking. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 19 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 20 of 32 

discussed in paragraph 17 of the instant complaint.

108. CARNIVAL is vicariously liable for the acts of its staff, employees, and/or agents, 

for failing to inspect and remedy the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17 of the 

instant complaint.

109. CARNIVAL is also vicariously liable for the acts of its staff, employees, and/or 

agents, for negligently maintaining and designing/approving of the dangerous conditions discussed 

in paragraphs 17 of the instant complaint. 

110. CARNIVAL is also vicariously liable for the acts of its staff, employees, and/or 

agents, for negligently failing to warn of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraphs 17(ad and f) of the instant complaint. 

111. 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.”

112. This negligence proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that, but for this 

negligence, BADING’S injuries would not have occurred. 

113. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

115. BADING has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 20 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 21 of 32 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 VII

VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST CARNIVAL FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE 

SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

116. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 16 and 30-34, as if set forth herein. 

117. CARNIVAL, 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 CARNIVAL, subject to its direction 

and control, who were engaged in the activity of discharging CARNIVAL’S obligation to make 

such medical aid and assistance available to its passengers as would an ordinarily prudent person 

under the circumstances.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 21 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 22 of 32

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

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

121. CARNIVAL 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. CARNIVAL created, owned, directly provided, and operated, the medical center to 

be used by the ship’s medical personnel and passengers.

123. CARNIVAL 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. CARNIVAL 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. CARNIVAL’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 CARNIVAL.

127. CARNIVAL provided the ship’s medical personnel and regular crew certain forms 

of liability insurance and/or indemnification rights.

128. At all times material hereto, CARNIVAL, 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. The ship’s doctor failed to diagnose BADING’s injuries, including her 

nerve damage to her toe.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 22 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 23 of 32

b. Furthermore, BADING asked the ship doctor for a tetanus shot, stitches, and 

sterile pads, but she refused to give them to her.

c. Furthermore, the ship’s doctor provided unreasonably weak and/or otherwise 

deficient antibiotics.

d. The ship doctor applied steristrips and glue to the incision without cleaning 

her toe or applying any numbing medicine and told her to get off the ship to 

get it treated, which was not proper. 

e. Moreover, BADING was not prescribed pain medicine for her trip home, 

such that she was in great pain for a longer amount of time than she 

otherwise would have been.

f. CARNIVAL failed to promptly provide BADING with proper medical 

and/or first aid care and attention.

g. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly attend to BADING, to her

injuries, and to her pain.

h. CARNIVAL failed to provide reasonable medical and/or first aidcare.

i. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly treat and care for BADING.

j. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly examine BADING’S injuries.

k. CARNIVAL failed to take proper measures to secure proper treatment for

BADING, including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such 

proper treatment.

l. CARNIVAL failed to properly bring and/or arrange for BADING to be 

brought to a reasonable hospital/emergency room within a reasonable

amount of time.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 23 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 24 of 32 

m. CARNIVAL failed to give BADING proper discharge instructions. 

129. The standards of reasonable medical care under the circumstances required that 

CARNIVAL avoid the failures enumerated in the paragraph above. 

130. Pain is a frequently experienced, yet oftentimes overlooked factor in wound care and 

wound healing. It is undeniable that pain affects wound care practice, and unresolved pain 

negatively impacts both wound healing and a patient's quality of life.

131. 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 their 

employment and/or agency.

132. CARNIVAL is therefore vicariously liable for all injuries and damages sustained by 

BADING as a result of the negligence of the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and 

nurses), and the ship’s crew. 

133. At all times material hereto, the aforementioned acts and/or omissions on the part of

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

below the standard of care. 

134. The negligence of CARNIVAL’S ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and 

nurses), and the ship’s crew, proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that, but for 

CARNIVAL’s negligence, BADING’S injuries would not have occurred and/or said injuries would 

have been substantially lessened.

135. CARNIVAL, through its employees and agents, including 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.

136. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 24 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 25 of 32 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

138. BADING has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 VIII

APPARENT AGENCY

FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

139. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 16 and 31-34, as if set forth herein. 

140. At all times material hereto, the ship’s medical staff and regular crew represented to

BADING and to the ship’s passengers as employees and/or agents and/or servants of CARNIVAL, 

in that:

a. The medical staff wore a ship’s uniform; 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 25 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 26 of 32

b. The medical staff ate with the ship’s crew;

c. The medical staff was under the commands of the ship’s officers;

d. The medical staff worked in the ship’s medical department;

e. The medical staff was paid a salary by CARNIVAL;

f. The medical staff worked aboard the vessel;

g. The medical staff spoke to BADING as though they had authority to do so by

CARNIVAL.

141. In addition, CARNIVAL further represented to BADING that the vessel’s medical 

staff and regular crew were agents and/or employees of CARNIVAL through its marketing 

materials and through other official statements that described the infirmary in proprietary 

language, including language such as the “Carnival Vista’s Medical Center/our infirmary/our 

medical center,” and through encouraging BADING to make use of “its” infirmary/medical center 

if BADING was in need of medical attention.

142. Furthermore, at no time did CARNIVAL represent to BADING in particular, or the 

ship’s passengers in general, in a meaningful way that the vessel’s medical staff and regular crew 

were not agents or employees of CARNIVAL.

143. At all material times, BADING reasonably relied on the representations to

BADING’S detriment that the medical staff and regular crew were employees, and/or agents, 

and/or servants of CARNIVAL.

144. It was reasonable to believe that the medical staff and regular crew were 

CARNIVAL’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 CARNIVAL.

145. This reasonable reliance was detrimental because it delayed BADING from receiving 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 26 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 27 of 32

proper medical treatment and/or BADING would not have gone on the subject cruise with 

CARNIVAL had BADING known that the medical staff and regular crew on the ship were not 

CARNIVAL’S agents.

146. CARNIVAL is estopped to deny that the medical staff and regular crew were its 

apparent agents, and/or apparent employees, and/or apparent servants.

147. CARNIVAL had a duty to provide BADING with reasonable care under the 

circumstances and through the acts of its apparent agents breached its duty to provide BADING

with reasonable care under the circumstances.

148. BADING’S injuries were aggravated due to the fault and/or negligence of 

CARNIVAL through the acts of its apparent agents as follows:

a. The ship’s doctor failed to diagnose BADING’s injuries, including her 

nerve damage to her toe.

b. Furthermore, BADING asked the ship doctor for a tetanus shot, stitches, and 

sterile pads, but she refused to give them to her.

c. Furthermore, the ship’s doctor provided unreasonably weak and/or otherwise 

deficient antibiotics.

d. The ship doctor applied steristrips and glue to the incision without cleaning 

her toe or applying any numbing medicine and told her to get off the ship to 

get it treated, which was not proper. 

e. Moreover, BADING was not prescribed pain medicine for her trip home, 

such that she was in great pain for a longer amount of time than she 

otherwise would have been.

f. CARNIVAL failed to promptly provide BADING with proper medical 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 27 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 28 of 32 

and/or first aid care and attention. 

g. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly attend to BADING, to her 

injuries, and to her pain. 

h. CARNIVAL failed to provide reasonable medical and/or first aidcare. 

i. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly treat and care for BADING. 

j. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly examine BADING’S injuries. 

k. CARNIVAL failed to take proper measures to secure proper treatment for

BADING, including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such 

proper treatment. 

l. CARNIVAL failed to properly bring and/or arrange for BADING to be 

brought to a reasonable hospital/emergency room within a reasonable 

amount of time. 

m. CARNIVAL failed to give BADING proper discharge instructions. 

149. The standards of reasonable medical care under the circumstances required that 

CARNIVAL avoid the failures enumerated in the paragraph above. 

150. Pain is a frequently experienced, yet oftentimes overlooked factor in wound care and 

wound healing. It is undeniable that pain affects wound care practice, and unresolved pain 

negatively impacts both wound healing and a patient's quality of life.

151. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 28 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 29 of 32 

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

153. BADING has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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 IX

ASSUMPTION OF DUTY FOR THE

NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

154. BADING hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 16 and 30-34 as if set forth herein. 

155. CARNIVAL owed BADING the duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

circumstances for the safety of its passengers.

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

as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances. 

157. CARNIVAL elected to discharge this duty by having BADING seen by its own ship’s 

physicians and/or other crew members. 

158. As such, CARNIVAL voluntarily assumed a duty for the benefit of BADING to use 

reasonable care in the provision of medical services to BADING. 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 29 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 30 of 32

159. At all times material hereto, CARNIVAL, 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. The ship’s doctor failed to diagnose BADING’s injuries, including her 

nerve damage to her toe.

b. Furthermore, BADING asked the ship doctor for a tetanus shot, stitches, and 

sterile pads, but she refused to give them to her.

c. Furthermore, the ship’s doctor provided unreasonably weak and/or otherwise 

deficient antibiotics.

d. The ship doctor applied steristrips and glue to the incision without cleaning 

her toe or applying any numbing medicine and told her to get off the ship to 

get it treated, which was not proper. 

e. Moreover, BADING was not prescribed pain medicine for her trip home, 

such that she was in great pain for a longer amount of time than she 

otherwise would have been.

f. CARNIVAL failed to promptly provide BADING with proper medical 

and/or first aid care and attention.

g. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly attend to BADING, to her

injuries, and to her pain.

h. CARNIVAL failed to provide reasonable medical and/or first aidcare.

i. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly treat and care for BADING.

j. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly examine BADING’S injuries.

k. CARNIVAL failed to take proper measures to secure proper treatment for

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 30 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 31 of 32 

BADING, including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such 

proper treatment. 

l. CARNIVAL failed to properly bring and/or arrange for BADING to be 

brought to a reasonable hospital/emergency room within a reasonable 

amount of time. 

m. CARNIVAL failed to give BADING proper discharge instructions. 

160. The standards of reasonable medical care under the circumstances required that 

CARNIVAL avoid the failures enumerated in the paragraph above. 

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

CARNIVAL fell below the standard of care.

162. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused BADING great bodily harm in that, 

but for CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING’S injuries would not have occurred, would have been 

substantially lessened, and/or would not have been aggravated. 

163. CARNIVAL, through its employees and agents, to wit, the ship’s medical staff and 

regular crew, knew, or should have known, that the medical and first aid procedures they employed 

violated reasonable standards of medical care.

164. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, BADING has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and 

nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of BADING’S vacation, cruise, and transportation 

costs.

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

166. BADING has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 31 of 32
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 32 of 32 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands judgment against Defendant, 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, for damages suffered and costs incurred, as well as for 

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

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

hospitalization, medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of 

BADING’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, 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. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, GEMMA BADING, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: October 26, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

/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 BADING

Case 1:22-cv-23493-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 32 of 32