- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.

MARSHA LAFOUNTAIN, Individually and as Personal

Representative for the Estate of Thomas Lafountain, deceased, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

RICO SUN TOURS, INC. d/b/a RST, and

XYZ CORPORATION(S),

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff sues Defendants and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. The Plaintiff, MARSHA LAFOUNTAIN, is a citizen and resident of the State of 

Massachusetts. The Plaintiff brings this action in her individual capacity, as well as in her capacity 

as Personal Representative for the Estate of Thomas Lafountain, deceased (hereinafter the 

“Decedent”), who, when alive, was also a citizen and resident of the State of Massachusetts.

2. Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION (hereinafter “Carnival”), is a corporation 

incorporated under the laws of Panama having its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.

3. Defendant, RICO SUN TOURS, INC. d/b/a RST, upon information and belief, is a 

corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

4. Defendant(s), XYZ CORPORATION(S), is included to represent the owner(s) and/or 

operator(s) of the subject excursion, insofar as such entity has a different name than the name 

included herein (i.e., RICO SUN TOURS, INC. d/b/a RST). In the event discovery reveals 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 1 of 48
- 2 -

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

different and/or additional entities contributed to the ownership, operation, and/or management of 

the subject excursion, the legal names of the entities will be substituted for XYZ 

CORPORATION(S). Defendants, RICO SUN TOURS, INC. d/b/a RST and XYZ 

CORPORATION(S) are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Excursion Entities” in a 

manner so as to retain each Defendant’s separate and individual liability in the event said 

Defendants are severed.

5. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In the alternative, if diversity jurisdiction does not apply, then this matter 

falls under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the General Maritime Law 

of the United States and state law, where there is no conflict with General Maritime Law.

7. Defendants, at all times material hereto, personally or through an agent:

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

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

b. Were engaged in substantial business activity within this state;

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state; 

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, Sections 48.081, 

48.181 or 48.193; 

e. The acts of Defendants set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in this 

county and/or state.

f. Defendants were engaged in the business of providing to the public and to the 

Plaintiff in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard their vessel.

8. Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this state.

The Excursion Entities’ activities in Florida satisfy a finding

of specific jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a).

9. At all times material hereto, the activities of Carnival and the Excursion Entities in 

Florida satisfy the specific jurisdiction provision of Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a), by acts that 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 2 of 48
- 3 -

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

include, but are not limited to, (a) reaching out to Florida-based cruise lines, insurers, cruise 

industry associates, and/or premium financing companies for purposes of operating, conducting, 

engaging in, and/or carrying on a business and/or business venture in this state; (b) contractually 

agreeing to indemnify Florida-based cruise lines (entities mostly located in Miami and Fort

Lauderdale) for any harm resulting to cruise passengers, thereby insuring a “person, property, or 

risk located within this state.”; and/or (c) establishing a joint business venture with Carnival, which 

joint venture was based in Miami, Florida, U.S.A., to own, manage, fund, sponsor, advertise, 

market and/or operate the subject excursion. 

The Excursion Entities’ contract with Carnival meets all requirements to

satisfy a finding of specific jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(9).

10. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities entered into a contract with Carnival 

concerning the subject excursion, which (a) contains a choice-of-law clause designating Florida 

law as the governing law; (b) contains a provision whereby the Excursion Entities agree to submit 

to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Florida; (c) involves consideration of not less than 

$250,000 or relate to an obligation arising out of a transaction involving in the aggregate not less 

than $250,000; (d) does not violate the U.S. Constitution; and (e) has at least one party of the 

contract that is a resident of Florida or incorporated under the laws of Florida. Therefore, the 

contract between Carnival and the Excursion Entities meets all requirements to satisfy a finding of 

specific jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(9).

The Excursion Entities’ continuous and systematic general business contacts with

Florida satisfy a finding of general jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(2).

11. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities have engaged in substantial and not 

isolated activity within this state, including, but not limited to: (a) reaching out to cruise lines in 

Florida and establishing long-term partnerships with them; (b) deriving a substantial portion of 

their revenues from their business with Florida-based cruise lines; (c) periodically traveling to 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 3 of 48
- 4 -

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

Miami to meet with cruise line executives for purposes of maintaining the business relationships 

and/or obtaining new business; (d) procuring insurance through companies in Florida; 

(e) maintaining Florida entities as “Agents of Record” for insurance purposes; (f) agreeing to 

insure and indemnify entities in Florida; (g) signing premium financing agreements with Florida 

entities in order to obtain a loan to pay for liability insurance premiums; (h) buying parts and/or 

supplies from Florida-based suppliers to operate their excursions; (i) signing powers of attorney 

and/or appointing attorneys-in-fact in Florida to carry out their Florida operations; (j) participating 

in cruise industry trade shows in Miami (e.g., Sea trade); and/or (k) maintaining active membership 

in Florida Caribbean Cruise Association, based in Florida.

12. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities have been in the business of 

providing excursions to cruise line passengers in Mexico through Florida-based cruise lines, 

including Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity and/or NCL. In entering into contracts with these 

Florida-based cruise lines, the Excursion Entities agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in 

Florida. Additionally, by being under contract with the Florida-based cruise lines, the Excursion 

Entities receive the benefit of the cruise lines’ advertising and promotional efforts.

13. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities’ arrangement with the Florida-based 

cruise lines and the circumstances of this case are markedly different than those at issue in Daimler 

AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Herein, unlike Daimler, the Plaintiff is suing a Floridabased cruise line (Carnival) for injuries sustained while participating in an excursion operated by 

agents of the cruise line (the Excursion Entities) -- agents set up almost exclusively to do business 

with cruise lines (a majority of which are based in Florida). Further unlike Daimler, Carnival is 

“at home” in this jurisdiction because Carnival maintains its principal place of business in Florida. 

Thus, under Daimler, the Excursion Entities are also deemed “at home” in this jurisdiction by their 

direct and indirect contacts with Florida (through the Florida-based cruise lines). 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 4 of 48
- 5 -

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

The Excursion Entities’ activities in Florida satisfy

a finding of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k).

14. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities are also subject to jurisdiction 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because (a) the instant maritime tort claims 

arise under federal law; (b) the Excursion Entities are not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s 

courts of general jurisdiction; and (c) exercising jurisdiction over the Excursion Entities is 

consistent with the United States Constitution and laws based on the Excursion Entities’ minimum 

contacts with the United States as a whole such that the maintenance of this lawsuit does not offend 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. These minimum contacts are set forth in the 

above allegations, and include, but are not limited to, the Excursion Entities’ location and operation 

in the United States, as well as marketing, promoting, and selling tickets for its excursions in the 

United States directly and/or through cruise lines as their agents located all over the United States.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

15. At all times material hereto, Carnival owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or 

controlled the vessel, Carnival Mardi Gras.

16. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and/or operated the subject 

excursion, which was offered, arranged for, sponsored, recommended, marketed, sold, co-operated 

and/or managed by Carnival.

17. On or about October 12, 2021, Plaintiff and the Decedent were paying passengers

aboard the Carnival Mardi Gras, which Carnival operated in navigable waters. 

Promotional Material and Statements Concerning 

Shore Excursions Generally and the Subject Excursion Specifically

18. First, after booking the subject cruise, Carnival sent Plaintiff and the Decedent 

promotional material, which provided information and descriptions of shore excursions, including 

the subject excursion.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 5 of 48
- 6 -

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

19. Second, Carnival also had promotional materials at its shore excursion desk aboard the 

cruise ship and/or other areas of the ship with information and descriptions of shore excursions, 

including the subject excursion. Tickets for shore excursions, including the subject excursion, 

were also available for sale on Carnival’s shore excursion desk aboard the cruise ship.

20. Third, Plaintiff and the Decedent visited the shore excursion desk aboard the Carnival 

Mardi Gras on or about October 10, 2021, and prior to deciding to participate in the subject 

excursion. At the shore excursion desk, Plaintiff and the Decedent asked a Carnival shore 

excursion agent about Carnival’s shore excursions, generally, and the subject excursion, 

specifically. 

21. On or about October 10, 2021 aboard the Carnival Mardi Gras, Carnival’s agent at the 

shore excursion desk represented to Plaintiff and the Decedent the following about the subject 

excursion: 

a. The excursion was “easy”

b. The excursion was “safe”

c. “This is just our beach trip excursion”

d. “We have people on scene to look out for you”

22. When Carnival’s shore excursion agent said “we” and “our” to Plaintiff and the 

Decedent, they understood “we” and “our” to mean only Carnival. Plaintiff and the Decedent 

interpreted “we” and “our” as such because Plaintiff and the Decedent specifically told Carnival’s 

shore excursion agent that they wanted to purchase a shore excursion that was operated by Carnival 

because they were concerned about shore excursions operated by unknown locals in Puerto Rica; 

and instead, wanted a shore excursion that was operated by a known U.S. company, like Carnival. 

In response to these expressed concerns from Plaintiff and the Decedent, Carnival’s shore 

excursion desk agent made the representations outlined in the above paragraph. As such, Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 6 of 48
- 7 -

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

and the Decedent relied on Carnival’s agent at the shore excursion desk when the agent represented 

to them that the subject shore excursion was offered and operated by Carnival, including the 

specific representations outlined above.

23. Further, the information and/or material Carnival made available and/or distributed to 

the Plaintiff and the Decedent represented that the excursions, including the subject excursion, 

were operated and/or overseen by Carnival and/or they were safe. For example:

a. Carnival’s website publicly described the shore excursions in proprietary language, 

including, but not limited to, “our excursions.” Similarly, page 2 of Carnival’s 

shore excursion brochure also used proprietary language referring to shore 

excursion as “our excursions” and directing passengers to “our experts at the Shore 

Excursion Desk by the main lobby.” 

b. Carnival represented in its website that it “take[s] care of all the details and wait[s] 

for all Carnival excursions to return before departing.”

c. Carnival’s website stated that Carnival “hand selected the best local providers at 

every port of call,” and Carnival recommended that passengers not engage in 

excursions, tours or activities that were not sold through Carnival. Additionally, 

page 2 of Carnival’s shore excursion brochure stated that Carnival “constantly 

upgrades the shore excursion packages offered in each port of call in order to make 

sure the best possible selections are made available.”

d. Carnival represented in its promotional material (including its website) that its 

excursion providers are “reliable [and] reputable,” that all shore excursions were 

“guided,” and that Carnival selects its excursion providers because they have the 

“best reputation” in their respective ports.

e. Carnival’s website stated that passengers should book the excursions sold through 

Carnival because the providers are “required to carry insurance,” without providing 

any details as to the adequacy or limits of such insurance. 

24. For example, the photographs below depict the promotional material and information 

referenced herein, which were made available on Carnival’s website:

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 7 of 48
- 8 -

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

Carnival’s Shore Excursions Homepage

(https://www.carnival.com/shore-excursions)

Carnival’s Shore Excursion FAQs 

(https://help.carnival.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2866/~/shore-excursion-faqs)

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 8 of 48
- 9 -

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

25. Among Carnival’s promotional material concerning shore excursions, including the 

subject excursion, Carnival’s website contained reviews for each excursion, which were posted by 

passengers. Notably, however, Carnival controls the information passengers disseminate about 

the excursions. For instance, as included in the above photograph, Carnival’s website directs 

passengers to refrain from mentioning competitors, prices, and promotions, and to avoid writing 

about customer service issues related to the excursion. Carnival also alters and/or deletes 

passengers’ reviews that contain complaints and/or information concerning safety concerns and/or 

prior incidents that have occurred while participating in the excursion. As a result, when 

passengers (like the Plaintiff and the Decedent) read the reviews on Carnival’s website, they are 

under the impression that the excursion is safe because the vast majority (if not all) of the reviews 

Carnival chooses to leave on the website are positive, without any complaints about customer 

service, negative experiences and/or prior incidents.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 9 of 48
- 10 -

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

26. Further, Carnival’s promotional material and information did not contain adequate 

warnings and/or reviews from other passengers about customer service, negative experiences 

and/or prior incidents. 

27. With regard to the subject excursion specifically, Carnival’s promotional material and 

information did not require or recommend any particular level of experience to participate in the 

excursion. In fact, Carnival’s promotional material and shore excursion agent represented that the 

activity level for the subject excursion was “easy”. However, and in reality, the subject excursion 

was not easy because excursion participants were invited to swim in the ocean water as part of the 

excursion, and in doing so, the excursion participants encountered dangerous current.

28. At all times material hereto, Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities knew or should 

have known about the dangerous current before the incident. Specifically, the subject excursion 

occurred during hurricane season (i.e., October 2021) and when it was known that the beaches 

near San Juan (i.e., where the subject excursion took place), experience strong currents that had 

previously killed and/or threatened the lives of swimmers. In fact, the beaches in close proximity 

to San Juan, Puerto Rico, where the subject excursion took place, were well known to experience 

dangerous rip currents in the months before and after the subject excursion: 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 10 of 48
- 11 -

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

https://theamericanonews.com/floricua/2022/02/22/officials-demand-lifeguards-and-warningsigns-at-beaches-after-drowning-deaths-in-puerto-rico/

29. Further to that point, in the months leading up to the subject incident, strong public 

concern was voiced over news media outlets concerning the dangerousness of the subject beach,

and demands were publicly made for the Puerto Rican government to provide lifeguards for the 

subject beach to prevent swimmers’ injuries and/or deaths. See id. 

30. Carnival and the Excursion Entities knew and/or should have known that the beach it 

would take Plaintiff and the Decedent for the subject excursion would present dangerously strong 

current because, prior to the subject incident and pursuant to Carnival’s own policies and 

procedures, managerial employees of Carnival’s shoreside headquarters, the Captain of the vessel, 

the shore excursion providers and other managerial shipboard employees (i.e. Director of Shore 

Excursions) would set up telephonic meetings and/or exchange emails before a Carnival cruise 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 11 of 48
- 12 -

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

vessel calls at any specific port. One purpose of the pre-port stop meeting and/or information 

exchange is to discuss hazardous and/or dangerous conditions that threaten the vessel and/or 

passengers during the port stop and/or shore excursions. Had Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities properly conducted this meeting before the subject incident, Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities would have learned of and/or discussed this potential rip current hazard in the area of the 

subject beach. Therefore, Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities knew or should have known that 

the current in the subject area would be dangerous at the time of the subject excursion. This 

meeting also would have given Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities an opportunity to cancel the 

subject excursion, given the strength of the current at the time of the subject excursion. In fact, as 

alleged in paragraph 38 below, the Excursion Entities had actual knowledge of the strong rip 

current in the ocean and beach area of the subject excursion on the day of the subject excursion 

(October 12, 2021). As such, the Excursion Entities did or should have warned Carnival of same 

so that Carnival could have made the decision to cancel the subject excursion, modify it and/or 

provide appropriate warnings to Plaintiff and the Decedent, so that they could make an informed 

decision as to whether or not to participate in the excursion. 

31. While the above information was unknown to Plaintiff and the Decedent, the Plaintiff

and the Decedent reviewed the foregoing promotional information and/or material from Carnival, 

including Carnival’s website and brochures, concerning excursions generally and the subject 

excursion. Specifically, on or about September 18, 2021, Plaintiff reviewed Carnival’s website 

prior to boarding the vessel. Then, shortly after boarding the vessel on or about October 10, 2021, 

Plaintiff and the Decedent reviewed Carnival’s brochures and promotional material available at 

the shore excursion desk aboard the vessel, talked to Carnival’s shore excursion desk agent, and 

then, based upon the representations outlined above, purchased the subject excursion and decided 

to participate in the subject excursion on October 10, 2021 and while aboard the vessel.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 12 of 48
- 13 -

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

32. The information and/or material Carnival made available and/or distributed to 

passengers concerning shore excursions, including the Plaintiff and the Decedent concerning the 

subject excursion, was based on the description and/or information provided to Carnival by the 

Excursion Entities and/or by Carnival’s inspections and/or approval of the subject excursion and/or 

of the Excursion Entities. Accordingly, Defendants undertook a duty to accurately advise 

passengers, including the Plaintiff, concerning the subject excursion in order to obtain a profit for 

Defendants, and Defendants were required to execute that duty utilizing reasonable care under the 

circumstances.

Subject Incident

33. Relying on the safety and reputability of Carnival as well as Carnival’s representations 

regarding its shore excursions, including the subject excursion, Plaintiff and the Decedent 

purchased tickets for the subject excursion directly from Carnival and decided to participate in the 

subject excursion while aboard the cruise vessel after speaking with Carnival’s shore excursion 

agent on October 10, 2021. The Plaintiff and the Decedent obtained all of the information 

regarding the subject excursion from Carnival and made all of the reservation arrangements for 

the subject excursion exclusively with Carnival. In turn, Carnival received a portion of Plaintiff

and the Decedent’s ticket price for the subject excursion.

34. The Plaintiff and the Decedent reviewed Carnival’s information and/or material 

concerning the subject excursion and relied upon Carnival’s representations exclusively and to 

Plaintiff and the Decedent’s detriment in deciding to purchase the subject excursion from Carnival 

and to participate in same during the cruise aboard the Carnival Mardi Gras.

35. Based upon Carnival’s information and/or material concerning the subject excursion, 

Plaintiff and the Decedent reasonably understood that Carnival conducted regular inspections of 

the facilities, vessel(s), operations and operators of the subject excursion to ensure that they were 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 13 of 48
- 14 -

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

reasonably safe, and Plaintiff and the Decedent relied upon such understanding to Plaintiff and the 

Decedent’s detriment in deciding to purchase the subject excursion from Carnival and to 

participate in same during Plaintiff’s cruise aboard the Carnival Mardi Gras.

36. On or about October 12, 2021, as part of the cruise aboard the Carnival Mardi Gras, 

Plaintiff and the Decedent participated in the subject excursion in Puerto Rico. This excursion was 

arranged for, sponsored, recommended, operated, marketed and/or sold by Carnival as part of the 

cruise aboard the Carnival Mardi gras vessel. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the Decedent at the 

time, the excursion was operated by the Excursion Entities.

37. The subject excursion consisted of a beach trip and lunch in which shore excursion 

participants were given the opportunity to swim in the ocean water near San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

38. When Plaintiff and the Decedent got to the beach, the Excursion Entities employees 

told them, “Don’t swim past the reef because the current is dangerously strong there.” There were 

no lifeguards on the beach. There were only two Excursion Entity employees on the scene for 

approximately 50 shore excursion participants. The Excursion Entities did not provide shore 

excursion participants, including Plaintiff or the Decedent, life vests. 

39. Within thirty (30) minutes of swimming in the ocean water, and not past the reef, 

Plaintiff and the Decedent were swept into a dangerous rip current. The rip current overpowered 

the Plaintiff and Decedent, and both the Plaintiff and the Decedent ingested water and struggled 

to survive in the dangerous rip current. Ultimately the Decedent ingested too much water and 

drowned. Within twenty (20) minutes thereafter, Plaintiff and the Decedent were rescued to the 

shore by other shore excursion participants.

40. The Excursion Entities failed to have or timely enact an emergency response plan. For 

example, no one on scene from the Excursion Entities knew how to provide CPR, there was no 

AED on scene, and it took over one hour following the Decedent’s rescue to shore for an 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 14 of 48
- 15 -

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

ambulance to appear on scene. By the time the ambulance appeared on scene, the Decedent had 

died. 

41. This tragedy occurred for reasons that include, but are not limited to: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival and/or the 

Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests provided by Carnival and/or 

the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely absent emergency response plan 

promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities. 

42. As a result of the incident described above, and as a direct result of the negligence of 

Carnival and the Excursion Entities, the Decedent died, and Plaintiff suffered severe mental 

distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, emotional flashbacks and depression, with physical 

manifestations, which include, but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain and uncomfortable 

discharge, poor sleep, and lack of appetite.

43. The Plaintiff suffered this emotional distress with accompanying physical 

manifestations due to her direct experience swimming in the dangerous ocean water that was 

fraught with strong currents in which she struggled to swim, as well as personally witnessing the 

Decedent’s slow and agonizing death caused by drowning and Defendants’ poor rescue response.

Carnival’s Notice of the Dangerous Excursion and/or Incompetent Providers

44. The subject excursion was not competently operated by properly trained and/or 

supervised persons, and/or it was unreasonably hazardous for reasons that include, but are not 

limited to: i) the strong rip current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided 

by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely absent 

emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities. 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 15 of 48
- 16 -

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

45. The incompetence and/or hazardous conditions of the excursion should have been 

discovered by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities before the incident had Carnival and/or the 

Excursion Entities properly evaluated the weather and sea conditions of the subject excursion 

and/or conducted an adequate inspection of the subject excursion operation to ensure it was 

reasonably safe before repeatedly recommending the excursion to its passengers, including 

Plaintiff, to the exclusion of other excursions not offered by Carnival.

46. For example, prior to the subject incident and pursuant to Carnival’s own policies and 

procedures, managerial employees of Carnival’s shoreside headquarters, the Captain of the vessel, 

the shore excursion providers and other managerial shipboard employees (i.e. Director of Shore 

Excursions) meet before a Carnival cruise vessel calls at any specific port. One purpose of the 

meeting is to discuss hazardous and/or dangerous conditions that threaten the vessel and/or 

passengers during the port stop and/or shore excursions. Had Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities properly conducted this meeting before the subject incident, Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities would have learned of and/or discussed this potential rip current hazard in the area of the 

subject beach. Therefore, Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities knew or should have known that 

the current in the subject area would be dangerous at the time of the subject excursion. This 

meeting also would have given Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities an opportunity to cancel the 

subject excursion, given the strength of the current at the time of the subject excursion. 

47. Similarly, prior to the subject incident, it was the Excursion Entities’ practice to 

monitor weather and sea conditions to determine the safety of shore excursion participants, and to 

report any potential hazards to Carnival before the excursion takes place. Had the Excursion 

Entities, which are based in Puerto Rico, reasonably monitored the weather and sea conditions in 

Puerto Rico before the subject incident, they too would have appreciated the severity of the current 

and/or lack of lifeguards at the beach, of which Carnival and the Excursion Entities should have 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 16 of 48
- 17 -

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

reasonably anticipated would cause adverse weather and current conditions and unreasonable 

danger for shore excursion participants at the scene and on the day of the subject incident. 

48. In addition, before the subject incident, Carnival was or should have been on notice 

that the subject excursion was dangerous and/or not suitable for passengers due to other passengers 

being similarly injured as a result of the same or similar dangerous conditions alleged herein on 

similar excursion(s) provided by Carnival, its local shore excursion operators and/or operated by 

the Excursion Entities, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Nichols v. Carnival Corp., 1:19-CV-20836-UU, 2019 WL 11556754, at *1 (S.D. 

Fla. June 21, 2019) (action stemming from the decedent’s drowning during shore

excursion offered and provided by Carnival; raising similar allegations here that the 

excursion entity sponsored by Carnival did not provide adequate look-outs); 

b. Pucci v. Carnival Corp., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (husband and son 

of cruise ship passenger brought action against Carnival arising from passenger’s 

drowning while on shore excursion; raising similar allegations here that the 

excursion entity sponsored by Carnival did not provide adequate instructions); 

c. Smith v. Carnival Corp., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (plaintiff

brought wrongful death and related claims against Carnival and shore excursion

company for the drowning of the decedent during an excursion in the Cayman 

Islands; raising similar allegations here that the excursion entity sponsored by 

Carnival did not provide adequate instructions); 

d. Joseph v. Carnival Corp., 2011 WL 3022555 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (plaintiff claiming 

negligence against Carnival for providing and sponsoring a shore excursion in 

which the shore excursion operator did not provide reasonably safe instructions or 

look-out); 

e. Monaghan v. Carnival Corp., 07-20492-CIV, 2007 WL 9709736, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 

June 12, 2007) (alleging negligence against Carnival for the wrongful death of the 

passenger who died allegedly participating in an excursion advertised and operated 

by Carnival; raising similar allegations here that the excursion entity sponsored by 

Carnival did not provide adequate instructions, gear or lookout);

f. Noguera, et al. v. Rico Sun Tours, Inc., et al,, Case No. 16-cv-02128-MEL (D.P.R. 

2016) (plaintiffs filed suit for injuries sustained from an excursion arranged by the 

same excursion entity involved herein, Rico Sun Tours, Inc.).

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 17 of 48
- 18 -

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

49. Further, before Plaintiff’s incident, Carnival was or should have been on notice that the 

excursion was not reasonably safe for passengers. This notice was or should have been acquired 

through Carnival’s initial approval process and/or its yearly inspections of the subject excursion.

50. Specifically, before offering excursions to passengers, the excursions and/or the 

excursion operators are subject to Carnival’s approval pursuant to policies and procedures 

promulgated by Carnival. This is a duty undertaken by Carnival, in part, so that it may make the 

aforementioned representations concerning the subject excursion to its passengers in an effort to 

generate a profit for Carnival. Accordingly, Carnival is required to execute this duty with 

reasonable care under the circumstances. 

51. During the excursion approval process, Carnival is supposed to verify whether the 

operator is qualified and competent to operate the subject excursion and provide the excursion.

This investigation includes Carnival understanding the layout and natural conditions in the area 

where the subject excursion is to take place; actually identifying the equipment offered by the 

Excursion Entities (ie. life vests) – or lack thereof; and identifying the Excursion Entities 

employees on scene for the subject excursion. Had Carnival done this inspection properly, and for 

example, Carnival would have learned that the rip current in the area where the Excursion Entities 

took Carnival’s passengers was dangerously strong; the Excursion Entities did not provide life 

vests to shore excursion participants; the ratio of Excursion Entities employees compared to 

passenger participants, for look-out purposes, was inadequate (i.e. a 1:25 ratio); and there were no 

lifeguards on the beach. 

52. The excursion operators also provide Carnival details pertaining to the excursion, 

including, but not limited to, the location, a description, restrictions, and/or participation levels for 

the excursion; and in turn, Carnival independently investigates and verifies the excursion and 

natural conditions. Had Carnival reasonably investigated, it would have learned that the shore 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 18 of 48
- 19 -

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

excursion location naturally encounters strong currents, especially during the summer hurricane 

season. 

53. Part of the approval process also entails Carnival’s representatives personally 

inspecting and participating in the excursion being proposed, including the vessel and operations, 

under similar conditions to which the passenger participants are to be exposed. Had Carnival 

inspected the excursion during the summer-to-October hurricane season, Carnival would have 

learned of the naturally strong current in the area of the subject excursion during the summer and 

October months; the lack of life vests used during the subject excursion; the lack of lifeguards on 

scene at the beach; and the dangerously inadequate employee to passenger ration (1:25) that did 

not provide sufficient look out for shore excursion participants. 

54. Accordingly, taking the subject excursion under the same or similar circumstances as 

the subject incident did or should have revealed that the subject excursion was dangerous and/or 

not suitable for passengers due to: i) the strong rip current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs 

and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) 

the lack of life vests provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or 

completely absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities.

55. Moreover, once an excursion is approved and accepted by Carnival, Carnival sends 

excursion operators standards, policies, and/or procedures that the operators must adhere to while 

Carnival is offering their excursions to its passengers. Additionally, the excursion operators are 

subject to yearly inspections and/or approval by Carnival, wherein Carnival is supposed to conduct 

site inspections of the excursion as well as the vessel and/or operations of the excursion. The 

yearly inspections and/or approval process also requires excursion operators to submit yearly 

“bids” and/or reports to Carnival, wherein the operators disclose the details of incidents that 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 19 of 48
- 20 -

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

occurred during the excursion involving cruise line passengers (among other information). Thus, 

before Plaintiff and the Decedent’s incident, Carnival was or should have been on notice that cruise 

ship passengers were injured participating in these types of excursions. Further, Carnival’s yearly 

inspections and/or approval process, including taking the subject excursion under the same or 

similar circumstances as the subject incident, did or should have revealed that the subject excursion 

was dangerous and/or not suitable for passengers due to: i) the strong rip current at the beach; ii) 

the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities for the 

subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and 

iv) the poor or completely absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the 

Excursion Entities.

56. Lastly, prior to offering the subject excursion to Plaintiff, Carnival did not know the 

identity or competency of the shore excursion personnel the Excursion Entities employed for the 

subject excursion on the day of the subject incident. As such, Carnival failed to reasonably 

investigate the shore excursion provider, despite Carnival’s representation that it “hand select[s] 

the best local providers at every port of call”. See Perry v. HAL Antillen NV, 2013 WL 2099499 

(W.D. Wash 2013) (denying summary judgment on a negligent selection claim because the cruise 

line did not know of the subcontractor who the excursion operator employed to transport shore 

excursion participants; despite the cruise line’s representation that it had “take[n] steps to identify 

and contract with reputable tour operators”). 

COUNT I – MISLEADING ADVERTISING IN VIOLATION OF 

FLORIDA STATUTE § 817.41 AGAINST DEFENDANTS

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

57. On or about on or about October 12, 2021, Plaintiff and the Decedent reviewed 

Carnival’s website prior to boarding the vessel, including the information set forth in paragraphs 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 20 of 48
- 21 -

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

18-27 above. Then, shortly after boarding the vessel on or about October 10, 2021, Plaintiff and 

the Decedent visited the shore excursion desk aboard the vessel and reviewed Carnival’s shore 

excursion brochure, including page 2 of the brochure, which contained the information set forth in 

paragraph 23 above.

58. At all times material hereto, Carnival’s promotional material, including its website 

and/or brochure referenced above, which Plaintiff reviewed, contained the statements and 

descriptions set forth in paragraphs 18-27 above.

59. At all times material hereto, Carnival’s oral representations and Carnival’s promotional 

material, including its website and/or brochure referenced above, which Plaintiff reviewed,

contained misrepresentations of material facts, including:

a. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff and the Decedent that the subject excursion 

was “safe”; when in reality, the excursion was not “safe” because: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival 

and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely 

absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities;

b. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff and the Decedent that “this is just our beach 

trip excursion”; when in reality, Carnival did not operate the subject excursion and/or 

did not have any Carnival employees “on scene”;

c. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff that if they purchased the subject excursion 

from Carnival, “we have people on scene to look out for you”; when in reality, Carnival 

did not have people “look out for” Plaintiff and the Decedent because: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival 

and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely 

absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities;

d. Misrepresenting that the activity level for the subject excursion was easy; when in 

reality, the subject excursion was not easy because all shore excursion participants at 

the actual excursion on the date of the subject incident who accepted Carnival and/or 

the Excursion Entities invitation to swim in the beach water encountered dangerous 

current; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 21 of 48
- 22 -

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

e. Misrepresenting the Carnival’s excursions are “guided,” as alleged in paragraph 23(d),

when the tour guides did not actually provide sufficient supervision and/or assistance, 

as alleged in paragraphs 36-43; and/or

f. Misrepresenting that the excursion providers are safe, reliable and/or reputable, as 

alleged in paragraph 23(d), when in actuality, the subject excursion was not reasonable 

safe, for reasons alleged in paragraphs 36-43, and/or passengers’ comments, 

complaints or information concerning safety concerns and/or prior incidents are 

censored, altered and/or deleted on publicly available website(s) operated and/or 

controlled by Carnival; and/or

g. Representing and/or implying that excursion providers would be subject to personal 

jurisdiction in the United States and/or subject to United States and/or Florida law by 

contractually requiring all Carnival passengers (including the Plaintiff) to file suit in a 

specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the subject cruise 

(including incidents that occur while participating in shore excursions), pursuant to its 

ticket contract, and/or advertising that its excursion providers are insured, as alleged in 

paragraph 30(e), when in actuality, excursion entities (including the Excursion Entities) 

challenge this Court’s personal jurisdiction.

60. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 817.41(4), Carnival as well as the Excursion Entities are 

responsible for the foregoing false and/or misleading advertisements because Defendants were 

named in and/or obtained the benefits of the statements and/or advertisements which Carnival 

distributed from its headquarters in Miami, Florida, U.S.A.

61. At all times material hereto, the foregoing statements Carnival made and/or 

disseminated were known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or 

might have been ascertained, to be false and/or misleading. This knowledge was or should have 

been acquired through: (a) Carnival’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the 

excursion, including, but not limited to, having Carnival’s representative(s) take the excursion 

under the same or similar circumstances as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 

and 44-56; (b) Carnival’s yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, 

including, but not limited to, conducting site inspections under the same or similar circumstances 

as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; and/or (c) prior incidents 

involving Carnival passengers who drowned while participating in ocean water excursions.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 22 of 48
- 23 -

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

62. At all times material hereto, the statements were so made or disseminated with the 

intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of inducing passengers (including Plaintiff and the 

Decedent) to rely on the statements and act by purchasing tickets for shore excursions (including 

the subject excursion), as evident in the photographs included in paragraphs 22 and 31-35.

63. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff and the Decedent justifiably relied on the 

representations made by Carnival when Plaintiff and the Decedent purchased tickets for the subject 

excursion and participated in the subject excursion. The Plaintiff and the Decedent’s reliance on 

Carnival’s representations was justified considering that Plaintiff and the Decedent were residents

of Massachusetts, and Carnival was in the business of offering shore excursions to thousands of 

passengers daily from which it earned tens of millions of dollars a year (or more). As a result, 

Carnival was in a much stronger position to identify the potential dangers and/or inequities that 

passengers (like Plaintiff) will encounter when participating in excursions and/or when involved 

in incident(s) and/or dispute(s) with excursion providers. The Plaintiff and the Decedent therefore 

justifiably relied on Carnival to accurately advise Plaintiff concerning the excursion providers 

and/or the subject excursion as alleged in paragraphs 22 and 31-35. The Plaintiff and the 

Decedent’s reliance on Carnival’s representations was also justified because Carnival made all 

arrangements for the subject excursion; Carnival marketed the subject excursion using its company 

logo; Carnival recommended its passengers to not engage in excursions, tours and/or activities that 

are not sold through Carnival; and/or Plaintiff’s exclusive contacts concerning the subject 

excursion was with Carnival and/or Carnival’s onboard excursion desk until the point that Plaintiff 

and the Decedent actually participated in the subject excursion. Further, had Carnival not made 

the foregoing representations, the Plaintiff and the Decedent would have made a different decision, 

such as not participating in the subject excursion if it was not actually operated by Carnival.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 23 of 48
- 24 -

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

64. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST CARNIVAL

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

65. On or about on or about October 12, 2021, Plaintiff and the Decedent reviewed 

Carnival’s website prior to boarding the vessel, including the information set forth in paragraphs 

18-27 above. Then, shortly after boarding the vessel on or about October 10, 2021, Plaintiff and 

the Decedent visited the shore excursion desk aboard the vessel and reviewed Carnival’s shore 

excursion brochure, including page 2 of the brochure, which contained the information set forth in 

paragraph 23 above.

66. At all times material hereto, Carnival’s promotional material, including its website 

and/or brochure referenced above, which Plaintiff reviewed, contained the statements and 

descriptions set forth in paragraphs 18-27 above.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 24 of 48
- 25 -

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

67. At all times material hereto, Carnival’s oral representations and Carnival’s promotional 

material, including its website and/or brochure referenced above, which Plaintiff reviewed,

contained misrepresentations of material facts, including:

a. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff and the Decedent that the subject excursion 

was “safe”; when in reality, the excursion was not “safe” because: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival 

and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely 

absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities;

b. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff and the Decedent that “this is just our beach 

trip excursion”; when in reality, Carnival did not operate the subject excursion and/or 

did not have any Carnival employees “on scene”;

c. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff that if they purchased the subject excursion 

from Carnival, “we have people on scene to look out for you”; when in reality, Carnival 

did not have people “look out for” Plaintiff and the Decedent because: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival 

and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely 

absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities;

d. Misrepresenting that the activity level for the subject excursion was easy; when in 

reality, the subject excursion was not easy because all shore excursion participants at 

the actual excursion on the date of the subject incident who accepted Carnival and/or 

the Excursion Entities invitation to swim in the beach water encountered dangerous 

current; and/or

e. Misrepresenting the Carnival’s excursions are “guided,” as alleged in paragraph 23(d),

when the tour guides did not actually provide sufficient supervision and/or assistance, 

as alleged in paragraphs 36-43; and/or

f. Misrepresenting that the excursion providers are safe, reliable and/or reputable, as 

alleged in paragraph 23(d), when in actuality, the subject excursion was not reasonable 

safe, for reasons alleged in paragraphs 36-43, and/or passengers’ comments, 

complaints or information concerning safety concerns and/or prior incidents are 

censored, altered and/or deleted on publicly available website(s) operated and/or 

controlled by Carnival; and/or

g. Representing and/or implying that excursion providers would be subject to personal 

jurisdiction in the United States and/or subject to United States and/or Florida law by 

contractually requiring all Carnival passengers (including the Plaintiff) to file suit in a 

specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the subject cruise 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 25 of 48
- 26 -

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

(including incidents that occur while participating in shore excursions), pursuant to its 

ticket contract, and/or advertising that its excursion providers are insured, as alleged in 

paragraph 30(e), when in actuality, excursion entities (including the Excursion Entities) 

challenge this Court’s personal jurisdiction.

68. At all times material hereto, the foregoing statements Carnival made and/or 

disseminated were known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or 

might have been ascertained, to be false and/or misleading. This knowledge was or should have 

been acquired through: (a) Carnival’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the 

excursion, including, but not limited to, having Carnival’s representative(s) take the excursion 

under the same or similar circumstances as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 

and 44-56; (b) Carnival’s yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, 

including, but not limited to, conducting site inspections under the same or similar circumstances 

as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; and/or (c) prior incidents 

involving Carnival passengers who drowned while participating in ocean water excursions, as 

alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56.

69. At all times material hereto, the statements were so made or disseminated with the 

intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of inducing passengers (including Plaintiff and the 

Decedent) to rely on the statements and act by purchasing tickets for shore excursions (including 

the subject excursion), as evident in the photographs included in paragraphs 22 and 31-35.

70. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff and the Decedent justifiably relied on the 

representations made by Carnival when Plaintiff and the Decedent purchased tickets for the subject 

excursion and participated in the subject excursion. The Plaintiff and the Decedent’s reliance on 

Carnival’s representations was justified considering that Plaintiff and the Decedent were residents

of Massachusetts, and Carnival was in the business of offering shore excursions to thousands of 

passengers daily from which it earned tens of millions of dollars a year (or more). As a result, 

Carnival was in a much stronger position to identify the potential dangers and/or inequities that 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 26 of 48
- 27 -

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

passengers (like Plaintiff) will encounter when participating in excursions and/or when involved 

in incident(s) and/or dispute(s) with excursion providers. The Plaintiff and the Decedent therefore 

justifiably relied on Carnival to accurately advise Plaintiff concerning the excursion providers 

and/or the subject excursion as alleged in paragraphs 22 and 31-35. The Plaintiff and the 

Decedent’s reliance on Carnival’s representations was also justified because Carnival made all 

arrangements for the subject excursion; Carnival marketed the subject excursion using its company 

logo; Carnival recommended its passengers to not engage in excursions, tours and/or activities that 

are not sold through Carnival; and/or Plaintiff’s exclusive contacts concerning the subject 

excursion was with Carnival and/or Carnival’s onboard excursion desk until the point that Plaintiff 

and the Decedent actually participated in the subject excursion. Further, had Carnival not made 

the foregoing representations, the Plaintiff and the Decedent would have made a different decision, 

such as not participating in the subject excursion if it was not actually operated by Carnival.

71. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 27 of 48
- 28 -

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

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT SELECTION AND/OR RETENTION AGAINST CARNIVAL

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

72. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Carnival to provide Plaintiff and the 

Decedent with reasonable care under the circumstances.

73. At all times material hereto, Carnival had a duty to select and/or hire competent and/or 

fit excursion operators.

74. At all times material hereto, as part of its duty to select and/or hire competent and/or 

fit excursion operators, it was incumbent on Carnival to diligently inquire into the Excursion 

Entities’ identity, competency and fitness, including that of their employees and/or subcontractors. 

75. On or about October 12, 2021, Carnival and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers 

and/or employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiff and the Decedent with reasonable care 

under the circumstances by selecting and/or retaining the Excursion Entities, which were

incompetent and/or unfit based on the following:

a. The failure of the Excursion Entities to provide a reasonably safe excursion; and/or 

b. The failure to identify the “boots on the ground shore excursion operators, their 

qualifications and/or competencies; 

c. The failure of the Excursion Entities to recognize the strong current at the beach; 

d. The failure of the Excursion Entities to provide look-outs and/or lifeguards for the 

subject excursion; 

e. The failure of the Excursion Entities to provide life vests; 

f. The failure of the Excursion Entities to provide a safe amount of employees in 

connection with the number of shore excursion participants;

g. The failure of the Excursion Entities to have properly trained and supervised 

persons operating the subject excursion and/or assisting passengers during the 

excursion; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 28 of 48
- 29 -

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

h. The failure of the Excursion Entities to adequately inspect the beach cove used for 

the subject excursion so as to identify its natural hazards.

76. At all times material hereto, Carnival knew of the foregoing conditions causing the 

subject incident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time 

so that Carnival, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned 

of them and corrected them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through: (a) 

Carnival’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but 

not limited to, having Carnival’s representative(s) take the excursion under the same or similar 

circumstances as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; (b) Carnival’s 

yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but not limited to, 

conducting site inspections under the same or similar circumstances as the subject incident, as 

alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; and/or (c) prior incidents involving Carnival passengers 

who drowned while participating in ocean water excursions, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 

44-56.

77. As a direct and proximate result of the Excursion Entities’ incompetence and/or 

unfitness, Thomas Lafountain died, and Plaintiff was injured and suffered severe mental distress 

while participating in the subject shore excursion due to conditions that include, but were not 

limited to: i) the strong rip current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided 

by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely absent 

emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities. These factors 

caused and/or contributed to the Thomas Lafountain’s death and the living Plaintiff’s emotional 

injuries, and therefore, the subject incident would not have occurred but for Carnival and/or the

Excursion Entities’ incompetence and/or unfitness.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 29 of 48
- 30 -

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

78. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST CARNIVAL

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

79. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Carnival to provide Plaintiff and the 

Decedent with reasonable care under the circumstances.

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

Plaintiff and the Decedent) of dangers that were known, or reasonably should have been known, 

to Carnival in places where passengers (like Plaintiff and the Decedent) are invited to or may 

reasonably be expected to visit beyond the point of disembarkation.

81. On or about October 12, 2021, the Plaintiff and the Decedent were participating in the 

subject excursion, which Carnival invited and reasonably expected Plaintiff and the Decedent to 

participate in since Carnival sold them tickets for the excursion.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 30 of 48
- 31 -

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

82. On or about October 12, 2021, Carnival and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers 

and/or employees breached its duty to warn the Plaintiff and the Decedent through the following 

acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) of 

the dangers associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

b. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) of 

the strong current at the beach cove; 

c. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) 

that the Excursion Entities would not provide look-outs and/or lifeguards for the 

subject excursion; 

d. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) 

that the Excursion Entities would not provide life vests; 

e. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that Carnival does not adequately inspect the scene used 

for the subject excursion, despite the subject excursion being promoted as “hand 

selected” by Carnival; and/or

f. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that Carnival does not verify that the subject excursion 

and/or the equipment used for the excursion is/are reasonably safe and/or inspected, 

despite the subject excursion being promoted as “hand selected” by Carnival; 

and/or

g. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that the Excursion Entities are not adhering to highest 

safety standards in the industry, as evident by the hazard and/or incompetence 

involved with the subject excursion; and/or

h. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that the Excursion Entities are not subject to jurisdiction 

in the United States, especially when Carnival contractually requires its passengers 

(including the Plaintiff) to file suit in a specific jurisdiction in the United States for 

all claims arising from the subject cruise (including incidents that occur while 

participating in shore excursions); and/or

i. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that the Excursion Entities carry independent insurance 

from the cruise line that has lower limits and more limited coverage than Carnival’s 

insurance.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 31 of 48
- 32 -

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

83. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to Thomas Lafountain’s 

death and the living Plaintiff injuries because Plaintiff and the Decedent would not have purchased 

tickets for and/or participated in the subject excursion had Carnival and/or its agents, servants, 

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

Decedent.

84. At all times material hereto, Carnival knew of the foregoing conditions causing the 

subject incident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time 

so that Carnival, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned 

of them and corrected them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through: (a) 

Carnival’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but 

not limited to, having Carnival’s representative(s) take the excursion under the same or similar 

circumstances as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; (b) Carnival’s 

yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but not limited to, 

conducting site inspections under the same or similar circumstances as the subject incident, as 

alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; and/or (c) prior incidents involving Carnival passengers 

who drowned while participating in ocean water excursions, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 

44-56.

85. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 32 of 48
- 33 -

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

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT V – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CARNIVAL

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

86. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of Carnival to provide Plaintiff and the 

Decedent with reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances.

87. On or about October 12, 2021, Carnival and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers 

and/or employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiff and the Decedent with reasonable or 

ordinary care under the circumstances, based on the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to cancel the subject excursion in light of the strong rip current at the subject 

beach; 

b. Failure to provide a reasonably safe excursion; and/or 

c. Failure to recognize the strong current at the beach cove; 

d. Failure to provide look-outs and/or lifeguards for the subject excursion; 

e. Failure to provide life vests for the subject excursion; 

a. Promoting the subject excursion as “hand selected” by Carnival, thereby implying 

the excursion’s vessel(s) and/or operations were reasonably safe under the 

circumstances, when in fact they were not; and/or

b. Censoring, altering and/or deleting comments on publicly available website(s) 

operated and/or controlled by Carnival so as to censor, alter and/or delete 

complaints or information concerning safety concerns and prior incidents similar 

to the subject incident, thereby implying that the subject excursion, the Excursion 

Entities and/or their operations were reasonably safe under the circumstances, when 

in fact they were not; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 33 of 48
- 34 -

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

c. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor excursion providers so as to ensure 

that the subject excursion was reasonably safe for passengers; and/or

d. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate standards, policies, and/or 

procedures for the Excursion Entities to require tour guides to adequately and/or 

regularly inspect, monitor and/or clean the excursion vessel’s flooring surface to 

maintain it in a clean and dry condition as passengers boarded and/or walked around 

the vessel after swimming and/or visiting the beach; and/or

e. Failure to regularly and/or adequately identify the highest safety standards in the 

industry for the activities offered in the subject excursion, and verify that the 

Excursion Entities are adhering to such standards; and/or

f. Failure to regularly and/or adequately review the safety record of the Excursion 

Entities before recommending the subject excursion to passengers and the Plaintiff.

88. All or some of the above acts and/or omissions by Carnival and/or its agents, servants, 

and/or employees, caused and/or contributed to Thomas Lafountain’s death and the living 

Plaintiffs’ injuries while participating in the subject excursion.

89. At all times material hereto, Carnival knew of the foregoing conditions causing the 

subject incident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time 

so that Carnival, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned 

of them and corrected them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through: (a) 

Carnival’s initial approval process of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but 

not limited to, having Carnival’s representative(s) take the excursion under the same or similar 

circumstances as the subject incident, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; (b) Carnival’s 

yearly inspections of the Excursion Entities and/or the excursion, including, but not limited to, 

conducting site inspections under the same or similar circumstances as the subject incident, as 

alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 44-56; and/or (c) prior incidents involving Carnival passengers 

who drowned while participating in ocean water excursions, as alleged in paragraphs 28-30 and 

44-56.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 34 of 48
- 35 -

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

90. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT VI – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

91. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and/or operated the subject 

excursion.

92. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of the Excursion Entities to provide Plaintiff 

and the Decedent with reasonable care under the circumstances.

93. On or about October 12, 2021, the Excursion Entities and/or their agents, servants, 

and/or employees breached their duty to provide Plaintiff and the Decedent with reasonable care 

under the circumstances, based on the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to cancel the subject excursion in light of the strong rip current at the subject 

beach; 

b. Failure to provide a reasonably safe excursion; and/or 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 35 of 48
- 36 -

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

c. Failure to recognize the strong current at the beach cove; 

d. Failure to provide look-outs and/or lifeguards for the subject excursion; 

e. Failure to provide life vests for the subject excursion;

f. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor excursion provider employees and/or 

the scene of the subject excursion so as to ensure that the subject excursion was 

reasonably safe for passengers; and/or

g. Failure to regularly and/or adequately identify the highest safety standards in the 

industry for the activities offered in the subject excursion, and verify that the 

Excursion Entities are adhering to such standards; and/or

h. Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the subject 

excursion; and/or

i. Having a shore excursion that was not competently operated.

94. All or some of the above acts and/or omissions by the Excursion Entities and/or their

agents, servants, and/or employees, caused and/or contributed to Thomas Lafountain’s death and 

the living Plaintiff’s injuries while participating in the subject excursion.

95. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the law 

and demand trial by jury.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 36 of 48
- 37 -

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

COUNT VII – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO 

WARN AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

96. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of the Excursion Entities to provide Plaintiff

with reasonable care under the circumstances.

97. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of the Excursion Entities to warn passengers 

(like Plaintiff and the Decedent) of dangers that were known, or reasonably should have been 

known, to the Excursion Entities in places where passengers (like Plaintiff and the Decedent) are 

invited to or may reasonably be expected to visit beyond the point of disembarkation.

98. On or about October 12, 2021, the Plaintiff and the Decedent were participating in the 

subject excursion, which the Excursion Entities invited and reasonably expected Plaintiff and the 

Decedent to participate in since Carnival contracted with the Excursion Entities to operate the 

excursion and sold Plaintiff and the Decedent the ticket for the excursion to take place on October 

12, 2021.

99. On or about October 12, 2021, the Excursion Entities and/or its agents, servants, joint 

venturers and/or employees breached its duty to warn the Plaintiff and the Decedent through the 

following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) of 

the dangers associated with participating in the subject excursion; and/or

b. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) of 

the strong current at the beach cove; 

c. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) 

that the Excursion Entities would not provide look-outs and/or lifeguards for the 

subject excursion; 

d. Failure to adequately warn passengers (including the Plaintiff and the Decedent) 

that the Excursion Entities would not provide life vests; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 37 of 48
- 38 -

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

e. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that Carnival does not verify that the subject excursion 

and/or the equipment used for the excursion is/are reasonably safe and/or inspected, 

despite the subject excursion being promoted as “hand selected” by Carnival; 

and/or

f. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that the Excursion Entities carry independent insurance 

from the cruise line that has lower limits and more limited coverage than Carnival’s 

insurance.

g. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff and the Decedent) that the Excursion Entities are not subject to jurisdiction 

in the United States, especially when Carnival contractually requires its passengers 

(including the Plaintiff) to file suit in a specific jurisdiction in the United States for 

all claims arising from the subject cruise (including incidents that occur while 

participating in shore excursions); and/or

h. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the 

Plaintiff) the limits of the Excursion Entities’ insurance.

100. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to Thomas Lafountain’s

death and the living Plaintiff’s injuries while participating in the subject excursion because 

Plaintiff and the Decedent would not have purchased tickets for and/or participated in the subject 

excursion had the Excursion Entities and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees adequately 

warned and/or communicated the foregoing to them.

101. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 38 of 48
- 39 -

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

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT VIII – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS

BASED ON APPARENT AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

102. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the apparent agent(s) of 

Carnival.

103. At all times material hereto, Carnival is estopped to deny that the Excursion Entities 

were their agent(s) or employee(s).

104. At all times material hereto, Carnival made manifestations which caused the 

Plaintiff to believe that the Excursion Entities had authority to act for the benefit of Carnival. These 

manifestations included:

a. Carnival allowed its name to be utilized in connection with the advertising of the 

Excursion Entities; and/or

b. Carnival made all arrangements for the subject excursion without effectively 

disclosing to the Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity 

(and/or entities); and/or 

c. Carnival marketed the subject excursion using its company logo on its website 

and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship without effectively disclosing to the 

Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); 

and/or

d. Carnival maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby it offered, sold, 

provided information to, and answered questions of passengers, including Plaintiff,

about the subject excursion without effectively disclosing to the Plaintiff that the 

subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or

e. Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the subject excursion, the 

Plaintiff’ exclusive contacts concerning the subject excursion were with Carnival; 

and/or

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 39 of 48
- 40 -

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

f. Carnival recommended to Plaintiff to not engage in excursions, tours or activities 

that are not sold through Carnival as Carnival has no familiarity with other tours or 

their operations; and/or

g. The fee for the excursion was charged to the Plaintiff, and collected from the 

Plaintiff, exclusively by Carnival; and/or 

h. Plaintiff received the receipt for the purchase of the subject excursion exclusively 

from Carnival.

105. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the above, to her detriment, so as to believe that the 

Excursion Entities were the employee(s) and/or agent(s) of Carnival in choosing the subject 

excursion.

106. It was reasonable to believe that the Excursion Entities were Carnival’s 

employee(s) and/or agent(s) because the Plaintiff booked, paid for and made all necessary 

arrangements for the subject excursion with Carnival. Carnival’s actions caused Plaintiff to believe 

that the Excursion Entities had authority to act on Carnival’s behalf. At no time did the Excursion 

Entities represent to the ship’s passengers or the Plaintiff in particular in a meaningful way that 

the Excursion Entities were not agents or employees of Carnival.

107. Plaintiff’ reasonable reliance was detrimental because Plaintiff would not have 

booked, paid for and/or participated in the subject excursion or incur any injuries had the Plaintiff 

known that the subject excursion was not operated by Carnival, as alleged in paragraphs 22-43.

108. The foregoing acts of negligence of Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities were a 

direct and proximate cause of Thomas Lafountain’s death and the living Plaintiff’s injuries.

109. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 40 of 48
- 41 -

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

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT IX – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS BASED ON 

JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN CARNIVAL AND THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

110. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities engaged in a joint

venture to provide excursions to passengers aboard Carnival’s ship(s).

111. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities entered into an 

agreement where Carnival would sell the subject excursion to its passengers and the Excursion 

Entities would operate the subject excursion.

112. As its part of the joint venture, Carnival arranged for, sponsored, recommended, 

marketed, operated, marketed, sold and/or collected money for the subject excursion, and the 

money was then shared between Carnival and the Excursion Entities. As its part of the joint 

venture, the Excursion Entities provided labor and/or operated the subject excursion.

113. Carnival, on behalf of the joint venture, charged a fee to passengers who utilized 

the excursions. The fee paid by the passengers, including the Plaintiff, was split between Carnival 

and the Excursion Entities, such that Carnival and the Excursion Entities shared a profit of the 

money made from the shore excursion.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 41 of 48
- 42 -

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

114. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities had joint and/or 

shared control over aspects of the joint venture. The Excursion Entities had control over the dayto-day workings of the excursions. Carnival also had control over the day-to-day workings of the 

excursions in that they required the Excursion Entities to exercise reasonable care in the operation 

of the subject excursion. Carnival had control over the arrangements, marketing and sales of the 

excursion. 

115. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities shared a common 

purpose: to operate the subject excursion for a profit.

116. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities had a joint 

proprietary and/or ownership interest in the subject excursion. Carnival had an interest in 

arranging, sponsoring, recommending, advertising, operating, and selling the subject excursion as 

well as collecting money for such excursion, and the Excursion Entities had a proprietary interest 

in the time and labor expended in operating the subject excursion.

117. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities shared and/or had 

the right to share in the profits of the subject excursion, as Carnival retained a portion of the ticket 

sales for the subject excursion after the tickets were sold, and Carnival paid the Excursion Entities 

the remaining portion of the ticket sales for the subject excursion.

118. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities shared and/or had 

a duty to share any losses that may have been sustained with the subject excursion, including, for 

instance, when Carnival issued a refund to passengers for the Excursion Entities’ excursion(s), 

including, but not limited to, the subject excursion.

119. Carnival and the Excursion Entities are jointly and severally responsible for each 

other’s negligence as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture.

120. At all times material hereto, Carnival and the Excursion Entities therefore:

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 42 of 48
- 43 -

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

a. Had an intention to create a joint venture;

b. Had a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter of the venture;

c. Had mutual control and/or joint control over the subject matter of the venture with 

respect to the provision of excursions to passengers aboard the ship;

d. Had a right to share in the profits of the joint venture; and

e. Would share losses which may have been sustained.

121. As joint venturers, Carnival and the Excursion Entities are liable for each other’s 

negligence. As a result, Carnival is liable for the negligent conduct of the Excursion Entities.

122. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT X – THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

123. Carnival and the Excursion Entities entered into a contract to provide the subject 

excursion for passengers aboard Carnival’s ship(s).

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 43 of 48
- 44 -

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

124.Carnival and the Excursion Entities intended that the contract primarily and directly 

benefit Carnival’s passengers, including the Plaintiff and the Decedent.

125.The intent of Carnival and the Excursion Entities for the contract to benefit Carnival 

passengers, including the Plaintiff and the Decedent, was expressed by Carnival and the Excursion 

Entities. 

126.The intent of Carnival and the Excursion Entities for the contract to benefit Carnival 

passengers, including the Plaintiff and the Decedent, was demonstrated by the provisions of the 

contract. These provisions include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) the purpose of the 

agreement explicitly stating that it is for the Excursion Entities to provide shore excursions to 

guests on Carnival’s vessels; (b) prohibiting dangerous activities from forming any part of shore 

excursions; (c) Carnival having the right to charge its passengers the price that Carnival determines 

in its sole discretion; (d) Carnival having the sole discretion to provide its passengers a full or 

partial reimbursement of the excursion ticket if a passenger is dissatisfied; (e) Carnival requiring 

that the Excursion Entities exercise reasonable care for the passengers’ safety at all times; (f) 

Carnival requiring that the Excursion Entities satisfy and continue to satisfy the highest standards 

of quality in the industry; and/or (g) Carnival requiring that the Excursion Entities maintain 

insurance for any and all injuries to passengers.

127.This contract was breached by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities (and/or their 

agents, servants, joint venturers and/or employees) by failing to offer a reasonably safe excursion

that satisfied the highest standards of quality in the industry (as required under the contract), based 

on the hazards involved with the subject excursion, including, but not limited to: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival and/or the 

Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests provided by Carnival and/or 

the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely absent emergency response plan 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 44 of 48
- 45 -

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

promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities. Thomas Lafountain would not have died 

and the living Plaintiff would not have been injured but for Defendants failing to offer a reasonably 

safe excursion that satisfied the highest standards of quality in the industry (as required under the 

contract).

128. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s 

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT XI – BREACH OF NON-DELEGABLE DUTY AGAINST CARNIVAL

The Plaintiff re-alleges, adopts, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through fifty-six (56) as though alleged originally herein.

129. Carnival contractually offered to provide Plaintiff the subject shore excursion. In 

connection with Carnival’s offer, Carnival’s shore excursion agent made oral representations 

concerning the shore excursion, as outlined at paragraph 21 and paragraphs 18-35. The Plaintiff

accepted that contractual offer in reliance upon Carnival’s advertisements and oral representations, 

and provided consideration to Carnival by purchasing the excursion from Carnival.

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 45 of 48
- 46 -

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

130. By making representations, promoting, vouching for, contracting for and profiting from 

the excursion ticket contract, Carnival owed Plaintiff the non-delegable contractual duty to provide 

them with a reasonably safe excursion. See, e.g., Bailey v. Carnival Corp., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1302 

(S.D. Fla. 2019); see also Witover v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

131. Carnival breached its non-delegable contractual and/or tort duty to provide a reasonably 

safe excursion by committing one or more of the following acts:

a. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff and the Decedent that the subject excursion 

was “safe”; when in reality, the excursion was not “safe” because: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival 

and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely 

absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities;

b. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff and the Decedent that “this is just our beach 

trip excursion”; when in reality, Carnival did not operate the subject excursion and/or 

did not have any Carnival employees “on scene”;

c. Carnival’s oral representations to Plaintiff that if they purchased the subject excursion 

from Carnival, “we have people on scene to look out for you”; when in reality, Carnival 

did not have people “look out for” Plaintiff and the Decedent because: i) the strong rip 

current at the beach; ii) the lack of look-outs and/or lifeguards provided by Carnival 

and/or the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; iii) the lack of life vests 

provided by Carnival and/or the Excursion Entities; and iv) the poor or completely 

absent emergency response plan promulgated by Carnival and/or the Excursion 

Entities;

d. Misrepresenting that the activity level for the subject excursion was easy; when in 

reality, the subject excursion was not easy because all shore excursion participants at 

the actual excursion on the date of the subject incident who accepted Carnival and/or 

the Excursion Entities invitation to swim in the beach water encountered dangerous 

current; and/or

e. Misrepresenting the Carnival’s excursions are “guided,” as alleged in paragraph 23(d),

when the tour guides did not actually provide sufficient supervision and/or assistance, 

as alleged in paragraphs 36-43; and/or

f. Misrepresenting that the excursion providers are safe, reliable and/or reputable, as 

alleged in paragraph 23(d), when in actuality, the subject excursion was not reasonable 

safe, for reasons alleged in paragraphs 36-43, and/or passengers’ comments, 

complaints or information concerning safety concerns and/or prior incidents are 

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 46 of 48
- 47 -

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

censored, altered and/or deleted on publicly available website(s) operated and/or 

controlled by Carnival;

g. Failing to select and adequately verify that the Excursion Entities and the subject 

excursion were safe, reliable and reputable, as evident by how unreasonably dangerous 

the subject excursion was; and/or

h. Failing to offer a reasonably safe excursion, as evident by how unreasonably dangerous 

the subject excursion was; and/or

i. Failure to recognize the strong current at the beach cove; 

j. Failure to provide look-outs and/or lifeguards for the subject excursion; 

k. Failure to provide life vests for the subject; and/or 

132. As a direct result of the foregoing dangerous conditions to which Plaintiff and the 

Decedent were exposed:

a. Thomas Lafountain died; and as a result, his beneficiaries incurred, as a result of 

his death, medical and/or body transportation expenses, funeral expenses, lost 

Thomas Lafountain’s financial contributions, lost Thomas Lafountain’s household 

support; and lost, among other available category of damages, Thomas 

Lafountain’s love, guidance and support; 

b. Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, 

emotional flashbacks and depression; with physical manifestations, which include, 

but are not limited to, gastrointestinal pain, poor sleep, and lack of appetite. The 

Plaintiff also incurred medical expenses for psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s

earning capacity has been impaired; and the adult Plaintiff lost wages she would 

have otherwise earned. These injuries and damages are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

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

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

law and demand trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jason R. Margulies

JASON R. MARGULIES (FBN 57916)

jmargulies@lipcon.com

JACQUELINE GARCELL (FBN 104358)

jgarcell@lipcon.com

L. ALEX PEREZ (FBN 125452)

aperez@lipcon.com

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 47 of 48
- 48 -

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

LIPCON, MARGULIES 

& WINKLEMAN, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22956-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2022 Page 48 of 48