1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

AT LAW AND IN ADMIRALTY

AUTUMN HAGLE,

Plaintiff

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.

a Liberian corporation;

BROWARD COUNTY; and

INTERCRUISES SHORESIDE 

& PORT SERVICES, INC.

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

The Plaintiff, AUTUMN HAGLE (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “HAGLE”), hereby sues 

Defendants, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. a Liberian corporation, BROWARD 

COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES SHORESIDE & PORT SERVICES INC. and files this Complaint 

for Damages and says:

THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for damages which exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs, 

and attorney’s fees.

2. THE PLAINTIFF. The Plaintiff, AUTUMN HAGLE, is sui juris and is a citizen 

and resident of Lawrenceville, Georgia.

3. THE DEFENDANT. The Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. a 

Liberian corporation (hereinafter “ROYAL CARIBBEAN” or “RCCL”) a citizen of the foreign 

nation of Panama, is incorporated outside of the state of Florida, but does business in the State of 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 65
2

Florida, and at all times material hereto was and is doing business in Miami Dade County, Florida. 

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN owned and/or operated the cruise ship on 

which the subject negligence occurred. 

4. THE DEFENDANT. The Defendant BROWARD COUNTY (hereinafter 

“BROWARD COUNTY”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is sui juris. The 

Defendant BROWARD COUNTY was and is a government entity doing business in Broward 

County, Florida. The Defendant BROWARD COUNTY owned, managed, and/or operated Port 

Everglades in Broward County, Florida. The Defendant BROWARD COUNTY owned, operated, 

managed, maintained and/or controlled the terminal for vessel RCCL Allure of the Seas in Port 

Everglades, Florida including the stairwell where the incident occurred. The Defendant 

BROWARD COUNTY, as the lessor of the vessel RCCL Allure of the Seas’ terminal, managed, 

maintained and/or controlled the agents and/or employees working at that terminal in Port 

Everglades, Florida

5. THE DEFENDANT. The Defendant INTERCRUISES SHORESIDE & PORT 

SERVICES INC (hereinafter “ INTERCRUISES”) is a foreign corporation with its principal place 

of business in Broward County, Florida and is sui juris. The Defendant INTERCRUISES 

SHORESIDE & PORT SERVICES INC was and is doing business in Broward County, Florida.

Defendant INTERCRUISES conducted ground handling services at the vessel RCCL Allure of the 

Seas’ terminal in Port Everglades, Florida. The Defendant INTERCRUISES, managed, maintained 

and/or controlled the agents and/or employees working at vessel RCCL Allure of the Seas’ terminal 

in Port Everglades, Florida. Defendant INTERCRUISES, managed, maintained and/or controlled 

the terminal for vessel RCCL Allure of the Seas’ in Port Everglades, Florida, including but not 

limited to the stairwell where the subject incident occurred.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 65
3

6. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES are 

collectively referred to as “Defendants”. 

7. FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Federal subject matter 

jurisdiction arises under and is by virtue of Diversity of Citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 

as this is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 

exclusive of interest and costs and is between citizens of different States and/or citizens of a State 

and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. This action also arises under and is by virtue of the 

admiralty or maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Further, this action is being filed 

in Federal Court in Miami Dade County, Florida, as required by the venue selection clause in the 

Passenger Contract Ticket issued by ROYAL CARIBBEAN.

8. VENUE AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION. The Defendants, at all times 

material hereto, itself or through an agent or representative, in the County and in the District in 

which this Complaint is filed:

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

county; and/or

(b) Had an office or agency in this state and/or county; and/or

(c) Engaged in substantial activity within this state; and/or

(d) Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, Sections 48.081, 48.181 

or 48.193.

9. All conditions precedent for filing and maintaining this action have been fulfilled, 

have been waived, or do not apply. Plaintiff provided all Defendants with notice of her claim for 

damages. Pursuant to Florida Statute §768.28, Plaintiff provided Defendant BROWARD 

COUNTY with notice of intent to sue.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 65
4

OTHER ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10. DATE OF THE INCIDENT. The incident occurred on December 23, 2021.

11. LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT. The incident occurred while the Plaintiff, a 

passenger on board the RCCL Allure of the Seas, was disembarking the ship at Port Everglades.

Specifically, AUTUMN HAGLE’s incident occurred in a stairwell at Port Everglades.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claims are governed by general maritime law.

12. STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. At all 

times material hereto, the Plaintiff was a passenger on the subject cruise ship described herein and 

accordingly was an invitee.

13. PORT EVERGLADES. The Defendant BROWARD COUNTY owned, operated, 

managed, maintained and/or controlled Port Everglades, Florida including the terminal for the 

RCCL Allure of the Seas in. ROYAL CARIBBEAN leased a terminal for the RCCL Allure of the 

Seas in Port Everglades, Florida. BROWARD COUNTY and INTERCRUISES entered into an 

Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement, INTERCRUISES would provide embarkation and 

debarkation staff to process passengers of the cruise lines including ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s 

passengers at Port Everglades, Florida. Pursuant to the Agreement, ROYAL CARIBBEAN would 

pay BROWARD COUNTY for the services provided by INTERCRUISES. In turn, BROWARD 

COUNTY would pay INTERCRUISES for the services it provided at Port Everglades, Florida.

14. ROYAL CARIBBEAN AND DISEMBARKATION. ROYAL CARIBBEAN as 

a common carrier has a non-delegable duty to furnish its passengers, including the Plaintiff, with a 

reasonably safe means of boarding and/or leaving the vessel. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 

339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on 

the part of a carrier to furnish its passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the 

vessel, that this obligation is non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 65
5

liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 

544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. 

Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 

(9th Cir. 1997). More specifically “a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards 

their passengers,” including the “duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board 

and disembark.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling 

v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003)

15. Because ROYAL CARIBBEAN has a non-delegable duty to provide a reasonably 

safe means of boarding and disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas, ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

knows it is extremely important to inspect, warn and make the process of embarking and 

disembarking the ship safe for pedestrian traffic. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also knows that its cruise 

passengers who board and disembark the cruise ship have different levels of physical fitness, 

stability, and experience with getting on and off cruise ships. For all of these reasons, during the 

boarding and disembarking process ROYAL CARIBBEAN must provide physical assistance, 

adequate lighting and/or warnings to indicate to passengers the dangerous conditions.

16. RCCL ALLURE OF THE SEAS AT PORT EVERGLADES. In December 2021, 

the RCCL Allure of the Seas’ home port was Port Everglades. BROWARD COUNTY owns and 

operates Port Everglades. ROYAL CARIBBEAN leased the RCCL Allure of the Seas’ terminal

from BROWARD COUNTY. INTERCRUISES was contracted to provide embarkation and 

debarkation staff to process ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s passengers including passengers 

disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. ROYAL CARIBBEAN as the lessee of the vessel 

Allure of the Seas’ terminal, managed, maintained and/or controlled the agents and/or employees 

working at that terminal in Port Everglades, Florida. The Defendant BROWARD COUNTY, as 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 65
6

the lessor of the vessel RCCL Allure of the Seas’ terminal, managed, maintained and/or controlled 

the agents and/or employees working at that terminal in Port Everglades, Florida. The Defendant 

INTERCRUISES, managed, maintained and/or controlled the agents and/or employees working 

at vessel RCCL Allure of the Seas’ terminal in Port Everglades, Florida.

17. While ROYAL CARIBBEAN has a non-delegable duty to provide a reasonably 

safe means of boarding and disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas, the cruise line utilized and 

relied on BROWARD COUNTY and INTERCRUISES to fulfill its duty to provide a reasonably 

safe means of boarding and disembarking its ships.

18. At the end of a cruise, the RCCL Allure of the Seas will return to its home port. 

Passengers on board the RCCL Allure of the Seas need to disembark the ship and passengers for 

the next cruise will need to board the ship. In between the cruise line has to clean the ship to get it 

ready for the next cruise. The cruise line refers to these days as turnaround days. There are strict

time constraints during these days. Any disruption will delay the ship from leaving the port as 

scheduled for the next cruise. The new passengers cannot board until the passengers from the 

completed cruise are completely off the ship. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also cannot clean the ship 

and the passenger cabins until the passengers from the completed cruise are out of their rooms. 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN gets the passengers from the completed cruise off the ship by a certain 

time. If ROYAL CARIBBEAN does not get the passengers from the completed cruise off the ship 

by the specified time, then ROYAL CARIBBEAN will not be able to clean the ship. Additionally, 

if ROYAL CARIBBEAN does not get the passengers from the completed cruise off the ship by 

the specified time, then the passengers for the next cruise will not be able to board. Not getting the 

passengers from the completed cruise off the ship by the specified time is a disruption that will 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 65
7

cause delays. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knows this. ROYAL CARIBBEAN has and will do 

everything it can to prevent delays on these turnaround days. 

19. THE DANGEROUS CONDITION. Following the subject cruise, the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas arrived at Port Everglades as scheduled on December 23, 2021. During the time 

allotted for disembarkation, Port Everglades was experiencing a power outage. BROWARD 

COUNTY and INTERCRUISES knew that Port Everglades was experiencing a power outage. The 

fact that Port Everglades was experiencing a power outage was communicated to ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN. The RCCL Allure of the Seas and ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew that Port 

Everglades was experiencing a power outage.

20. The Defendants knew that there would be areas in Port Everglades that passengers 

would have to access that would be pitch black. The Defendants knew or should have known the 

dangers of accessing areas of the Port without light. The Defendants also knew or should have 

known that because of the power outage in Port Everglades, escalators and elevators were not 

working. The Defendants knew that passengers disembarking the ship would have to descend 

stairways while holding their luggage in the darkness. Despite knowing all of that, ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN’s passengers on board the RCCL Allure of the Seas were forced to disembark the 

ship during the power outage.

21. THE INCIDENT. The Defendants decided that it would not delay disembarkation 

of the RCCL Allure of the Seas on December 23, 2021 despite the fact that there was no power and 

it was not safe for passengers. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and 

INTERCRUISES failed to provide any warnings or instructions to passengers as they disembarked 

the RCCL Allure of the Seas. Because there were no warnings, the Plaintiff had no knowledge 

about the dangerous condition. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 65
8

and INTERCRUISES failed to provide proper and adequate assistance to passengers disembarking 

the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

22. During the power outage, ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and 

INTERCRUISES’ employees guided passengers, including the Plaintiff from the RCCL Allure of 

the Seas as they walked down the gangway, into the terminal and into a stairwell. The stairwell 

was pitch black. There were no lights. Even though ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD 

COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew this was dangerous, they decided to proceed with 

disembarkation. Three employees, who were acting at the direction of and on behalf of ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES, lined up along the stairwell 

moving their phone lights up and down the stairs to “illuminate” the steps. This did not work. The 

steps were not illuminated. There was not sufficient lighting in the stairwell for passengers to 

safely descend the steps. Despite that, the employees, who were acting at the direction of and on 

behalf of ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES instructed the 

passengers, including the Plaintiff to walk down the stairway. The Plaintiff did as she was told and 

started walking down the stairway. The Plaintiff was being cautious and was watching where she 

was going. However, because there was not proper or sufficient lighting in the stairwell, the 

Plaintiff could not observe the steps as she descended them. Because the Defendants disembarked 

the Plaintiff from the ship during a power outage at Port Everglades, as the Plaintiff approached 

the bottom of the stairwell, she could not see the step and fell forward.

23. As a result of ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and 

INTERCRUISES’ negligence, the Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries including but 

not limited to avulsion fracture of the anterior process of the calcaneus of the right foot, avulsion 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 65
9

fracture of the dorsum talus and navicular of the right foot, and avulsion fracture involving the 

medial portion of the navicular bone abutting the os navicularis of the right foot.

24. NOTICE: THE POWER OUTAGE. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD 

COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew that Port Everglades was experiencing a power outage. 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew that there would be 

areas in Port Everglades that passengers would have to access that would be pitch black. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew or should have known the 

dangers of accessing areas of the port without light. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD 

COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES also knew or should have known that because of the power 

outage in Port Everglades, escalators and elevators were not working. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, 

BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew that passengers disembarking the ship would 

have to descend stairways while holding their luggage in the darkness.

25. NOTICE: PRIOR SIMILAR INCIDENTS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, 

BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition because of prior similar incidents. See Caron v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 910 F.3d 1359,

1370 (11th Cir. 2018) (accepting that that prior reports of similar incidents are sufficient to provide

a cruise ship operator with notice of a dangerous condition); Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 

655, 661–62 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating that although “evidence of similar accidents might be 

relevant to the defendant’s notice,” “conditions substantially similar to the occurrence in question 

must have caused the prior accident”). See Taiarol v. MSC Crociere S.A., 677 Fed. Appx. 599 (11th

Cir. 2017) (while Taiariol was not required to show that another passenger slipped on the same 

step while in the same theater of the same ship during the same trip, she at least had to produce 

evidence that another person, while aboard one of the defendant’s ships, slipped on the nosing of 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 65
10

one of the ship’s steps); See Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275, 1287 (11th Cir. 2015). 

(“The ‘substantial similarity’ doctrine does not require identical circumstances....”).

a. On May 26, 2020, ROYAL CARIBBEAN Passenger Pamela Taylor was 

injured when she tripped and fell while she was disembarking the RCCL Allure 

of the Seas at Port Everglades. Pamela Taylor v. Royal Caribbean Ltd., Case 

No.: 1:20-cv-22161.

b. On November 14, 2016, ROYAL CARIBBEAN Passenger Barbara Freed was 

injured when she tripped and fell while she was disembarking the RCCL 

Independence of the Seas at Port Everglades. Barbara Freed v. Royal 

Caribbean Ltd. & Broward County, Case No.: 1:17-cv-23105.

c. On August 2, 2015, ROYAL CARIBBEAN Passenger Nilda Grisoni was 

injured while she was embarking the RCCL Independence of the Seas at Port 

Everglades. Nilda Grisoni v. Royal Caribbean Ltd.; Broward County & 

Intercruises Shoreside & Port Services Inc., Case No.: 1:16-cv-23285

d. On February 1, 2019, Celebrity Cruise Passenger Linda Gershen was injured 

while she was disembarking the Celebrity Silhouette at Port Everglades. Linda 

Gershen v. Celebrity Cruises & Broward County, Case No.: 1:20-cv-20428. 

Royal Caribbean is the owner and operator of Celebrity Cruises. 

26. NOTICE: CREW MEMBERS IN THE VICINITY. Additionally, ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about 

the dangerous condition because ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and 

INTERCRUISES crew members and employees who were acting at the direction of and on behalf 

of ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES were in the area and 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 65
11

could have easily observed the dangerous condition. Plott v. NCL Am., LLC, 786 Fed. Appx. 199,

203 (11th Cir. 2019) citing Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327, 330 (Ga.

1980) ("In some cases the proprietor may be held to have constructive knowledge if the plaintiff

shows that an employee of the proprietor was in the immediate area of the dangerous condition

and could have easily seen the substance and removed the hazard." (quotation marks omitted));

Aponte v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Ltd., 739 F. App’x 531, 536 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[The] 

facts place the crew member in the immediate vicinity of a puddle of soap that was one-and-a-half 

feet in diameter. Drawing all reasonable inferences in [plaintiff’s] favor, a factfinder could 

conclude that the crew member knew or should have known about the puddle of soap at his feet 

and either removed the hazard or warned [plaintiff] of it.”). Haiser v. MSC Cruises (USA) Inc.,

2019 WL 4693200, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2019) (denying summary judgment in part where a 

“reasonable factfinder could conclude that crewmembers knew or should have known about the 

presence of water on floor since they were in the immediate vicinity and based on the amount of 

time the water was there.”); Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 826 So.2d 256, 261 (Fla.

2002) ("The fact that there were three employees in the vicinity of where the fall occurred is

sufficient to create a jury question as to whether [Defendant] exercised reasonable care under the

circumstances to maintain its premises in a safe condition.")

27. NOTICE: POLICY AND PROCEDURES. Additionally, ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about 

the dangerous condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel.

28. NOTICE: VIOLATION OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS. Additionally, ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN, BROWARD COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 11 of 65
12

the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate 

safe boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, ROYAL CARIBBEAN, BROWARD 

COUNTY, and INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous condition from 

relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

[T]he law in the Eleventh Circuit, as established by the former Fifth Circuit, is that advisory 

guidelines and recommendations, while not conclusive, are admissible as bearing on the standard 

of care in determining negligence.” Cook v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 11–20723–CIV, 

2012 WL 1792628, at *3 (S.D.Fla. May 15, 2012) (citing Muncie Aviation Corp. v. Party Doll 

Fleet, Inc., 519 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir.1975); Frazier v. Continental Oil Co., 568 F.2d 378 (5th 

Cir.1978)). Such guidelines are also probative of RCCL’s and Dolphin Encounters’ constructive 

knowledge of the allegedly hazardous condition. See Cook, 2012 WL 1792628, at *3; Donlon v. 

Gluck Grp., LLC, No. 09–5379 (JEI/KMW), 2011 WL 6020574, at *6 (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2011); See 

Holderbaum v. Carnival Corp., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (S.D. Fla. February 19, 2015) (the court held 

that based on the IMO recommendation and the record evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude 

that the handrail was too large, hazardous, and that Defendant knew it was too large and hazardous) 

Muncie Aviation Corp., 519 F.2d at 1181 (holding that to the extent the defendant's pilot failed to 

consult advisory materials issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, or failed to follow their 

recommendations, “the jury could permissibly infer that he failed to meet the appropriate standard 

of due care”); Frazier, 568 F.2d at 381–82 (holding that the district court erroneously excluded 

testimony concerning violations of industry standards to establish the defendant's negligence); see 

also Donlon, 2011 WL 6020574, at *6 (denying summary judgment motion filed by houseboat 

manufacturer in lawsuit filed by person who fell down the stairs of a houseboat, holding that nonbinding standards promulgated by the American Society for Testing and Materials were admissible 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 12 of 65
13

because a jury could use the evidence to conclude that the stairs “were defectively designed” and 

because the standards put defendant “on constructive notice of the potential danger of the stairs”).

COUNT I

BREACH OF NON-DELEGABLE DUTIES:

FAILURE TO PROVIDE

A REASONABLY SAFE MEANS OF 

DISEMBARKING THE VESSEL

AGAINST 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN

29. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

30. This is an action against ROYAL CARIBBEAN for breaching of its non-delegable 

duty to provide a safe means of disembarking the vessel.

31. DUTIES OWED BY RCCL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN as a common carrier has a 

non-delegable duty to furnish its passengers, including the Plaintiff, with a reasonably safe means of 

boarding and/or leaving the vessel. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 

2003) (“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the part of a carrier to 

furnish its passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the vessel, that this 

obligation is non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.”); Carlisle 

v. Ulysses Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F. 2d 752 (5th 

Cir. 1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. Carnival, 870 So. 

2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1997). 

More specifically “a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards their 

passengers,” including the “duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board and 

disembark.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. 

Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003).

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 13 of 65
14

32. This duty, to provide a reasonably safe means of boarding and/or leaving the vessel, 

is non-delegable and “even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival 

Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 

1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). ROYAL CARIBBEAN is directly negligent for failing to provide a 

safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

33. RCCL BREACHED ITS DUTIES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its nondelegable duty to furnish its passengers, including the Plaintiff, with a reasonably safe means of 

disembarking the vessel. ROYAL CARIBBEAN forced passengers, including the Plaintiff, to 

disembark the ship while there was a power outage at Port Everglades. ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

subjected its passengers, including the Plaintiff, to these unsafe and dangerous conditions while 

disembarking the vessel. There were no ROYAL CARIBBEAN crew members or employees 

providing proper assistance to passengers disembarking the the RCCL Allure of the Seas. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN failed to ensure that its passengers had a reasonably safe means of disembarking 

the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

34. PROXIMATE CAUSE. As a direct result of ROYAL CARIBBEAN’S failure to 

provide a reasonably safe means of disembarking the vessel, ROYAL CARIBBEAN proximately 

caused harmed to HAGLE. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is directly liable for its failure to comply with 

its non-delegable duty to provide the Plaintiff a reasonably safe means of disembarking the vessel. 

As a direct result of ROYAL CARIBBEAN’S failure to provide a reasonably safe means of 

disembarking the vessel, HAGLE suffered the injuries. These injuries are permanent and 

significantly affect the life and abilities of HAGLE.

35. DAMAGES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 14 of 65
15

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT OPERATION

AGAINST 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN

36. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

37. This is an action against ROYAL CARIBBEAN for its negligent operation of its 

disembarkation process on December 23, 2021.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 15 of 65
16

38. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its shipboard crew members and/or its agents. See Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Ltd., 

772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2014).

39. DUTIES OWED BY RCCL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including HAGLE. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). ROYAL CARIBBEAN also owes a “duty 

to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 

1991 WL 329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). ROYAL CARIBBEAN is directly negligent for operating the 

disembarkation process in an unsafe manner on December 23, 2021.

40. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to 

provide safe ingress and egress to and from the ship. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 

F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the 

part of a carrier to furnish its passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the 

vessel, that this obligation is non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier 

liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 

544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. 

Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 

(9th Cir. 1997). More specifically “a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards 

their passengers,” including the “duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board 

and disembark.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling

v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). This duty is non-delegable and 

“even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 16 of 65
17

WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 

2003).

41. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. 

The circumstances are as follows. Disembarking the cruise ship can be dangerous. This is an 

ongoing, continuous problem of which ROYAL CARIBBEAN is well-aware. For these reasons, 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s duty of care includes operating its disembarkation process in a safe 

manner.

42. ROYAL CARIBBEAN had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

43. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

44. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents. ROYAL CARIBBEAN documents incidents in 

various ways which may include prior shipboard safety meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs 

or databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints made to guest services throughout its fleet; 

safety testing and/or inspections testing.

45. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition because ROYAL CARIBBEAN crew members and employees who were 

acting at the direction of and on behalf of ROYAL CARIBBEAN were in the area and could have 

easily observed the dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 17 of 65
18

46. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures dictate safe boarding and disembarkation 

of a vessel.

47. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

48. RCCL BREACHED ITS DUTIES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duties by 

failing to operate of its disembarkation process from the RCCL Allure of the Seas in a safe manner 

on December 23, 2021. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duties as follows:

a. Failing to implement a method of operation which was reasonable and safe and 

would prevent dangerous conditions such as the one in this case;

b. Failing to take reasonable care for the safety of passengers;

c. Failing to provide safe walkways and stairways for passengers to disembark the 

ship;

d. Failing to provide adequate lighting for passengers to disembark the ship;

e. Failing to maintain the subject area in good and safe condition;

f. Failing to appropriately inspect the premises

g. Failing to promulgate safety rules regarding disembarkation;

h. Failing to implement safety rules regarding disembarkation; 

i. Failing to train its crewmembers, employees, and agents about safety rules 

regarding disembarkation;

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 18 of 65
19

j. Failing to enforce safety rules regarding disembarkation;

k. Allowing an ongoing, recurring, continuous and/or repetitive problem to occur 

or to remain on the premises which would cause incidents or injuries; and

l. Failing to comply with applicable standards, statutes, and/or regulations the 

violation of which is negligence per se and/or evidence of negligence.

49. PROXIMATE CAUSE. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s failure to operate its 

debarkation process in a safe manner on December 23, 2021 proximately and directly caused the 

Plaintiff’s injuries. Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN operated its debarkation process in a safe manner 

on December 23, 2021, the Plaintiff would have never been injured. 

50. DAMAGES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 19 of 65
20

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

AGAINST

ROYAL CARIBBEAN

51. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

52. This is an action against ROYAL CARIBBEAN for its negligent failing to warn 

passengers, including HAGLE, of its hazards, risks or dangers.

53. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its shipboard crew members and/or its agents. See Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Ltd., 

772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2014).

54. DUTIES OWED BY RCCL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including HAGLE. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). ROYAL CARIBBEAN also owes a “duty 

to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 

1991 WL 329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Additionally, the Defendant’s “duty is to warn of dangers known 

to the carrier in places where the passenger is invited to or may reasonably be expected to visit.” See 

Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). ROYAL CARIBBEAN is 

directly negligent for failing to warn its passengers of the dangerous condition.

55. ROYAL CARIBBEAN as a common carrier has a non-delegable duty to furnish its 

passengers, including the Plaintiff, with a reasonably safe means of boarding and/or leaving the vessel. 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 20 of 65
21

See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Courts sitting in admiralty 

have long recognized an obligation on the part of a carrier to furnish its passengers with a reasonably 

safe means of boarding and leaving the vessel, that this obligation is non-delegable, and that even the 

slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 

3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 

2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. 

Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1997). More specifically “a high degree of care is 

demanded of common carriers towards their passengers,” including the “duty to maintain 

reasonable, safe means for passengers to board and disembark.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 

2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 

(11th Cir. 2003).

56. ROYAL CARIBBEAN, as a common carrier, has a reasonable duty to its passengers 

to warn of dangers known to ROYAL CARIBBEAN where ROYAL CARIBBEAN invites or 

reasonably expect passengers to go. As part of that, ROYAL CARIBBEAN has a duty to warn 

passengers about the dangers of disembarking the cruise ship.

57. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. 

The circumstances are as follows. Disembarking the cruise ship can be dangerous. This is an 

ongoing, continuous problem of which ROYAL CARIBBEAN is well-aware. For these reasons, 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s duty of care includes warning passengers about dangerous conditions 

including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. 

58. ROYAL CARIBBEAN had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 21 of 65
22

59. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

60. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents. ROYAL CARIBBEAN documents incidents in 

various ways which may include prior shipboard safety meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs 

or databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints made to guest services throughout its fleet; 

safety testing and/or inspections testing.

61. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition because ROYAL CARIBBEAN crew members and employees who were 

acting at the direction of and on behalf of ROYAL CARIBBEAN were in the area and could have 

easily observed the dangerous condition.

62. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures dictate safe boarding and disembarkation 

of a vessel.

63. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

64. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is aware that it owes a duty as a common carrier to its 

passengers to warn of dangers known to ROYAL CARIBBEAN where ROYAL CARIBBEAN

invites or reasonably expect passengers to go. ROYAL CARIBBEAN distributes crew member 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 22 of 65
23

training materials; safety warning messages including those made through verbal announcement, 

newsletters and safety videos. ROYAL CARIBBEAN train its crew members to warn passengers 

of hazardous or dangerous conditions verbally, with warning signs, and/or marking the area to 

prevent passengers from injuring themselves on the hazardous or dangerous condition. Despite 

that, ROYAL CARIBBEAN failed to warn the Plaintiff about the dangerous condition.

65. RCCL BREACHED ITS DUTIES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duties 

by failing to properly, adequately, and/or reasonably warn HAGLE about dangerous conditions 

including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN breached its duties to the Plaintiff by its actions and conduct. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN failed to warn its passengers including the Plaintiff about the power outage and the 

dangerous of using the stairwell with inadequate lighting. ROYAL CARIBBEAN through its crew 

members and/or agent failed to reasonably and regularly place signs, stickers, lights, and other 

visual or written notices. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s crew members failed to reasonably and 

regularly make audible announcements about the dangerous condition. ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

also failed to comply with comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations 

which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof 

of negligence or proof of the absence of negligence. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s violation of 

applicable and mandatory safety regulations and standards constitutes negligence per se.

66. PROXIMATE CAUSE. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s failure to properly and 

adequately warn HAGLE about dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where 

HAGLE was injured on December 23 2021, proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Had 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN properly warned HAGLE of the dangerous conditions, HAGLE would 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 23 of 65
24

have been aware of the dangerous conditions. HAGLE therefore would have never been injured 

on December 23, 2021.

67. DAMAGES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 24 of 65
25

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENT TRAINING

AGAINST 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN

68. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

69. This is an action against ROYAL CARIBBEAN for its negligent training of its 

shipboard crew members and/or its agents. 

70. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its shipboard crew members and/or its agents. See Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Ltd., 

772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2014).

71. DUTIES OWED BY RCCL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including HAGLE. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). RCCL also owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1991 WL 

329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). ROYAL CARIBBEAN is directly negligent for failing to train its 

shipboard crew members and/or its agents.

72. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to 

provide safe ingress and egress to and from the ship. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 

F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the 

part of a carrier to furnish its passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the 

vessel, that this obligation is non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier 

liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 

544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. 

Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 25 of 65
26

(9th Cir. 1997). More specifically “a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards 

their passengers,” including the “duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board 

and disembark.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling 

v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). This duty is non-delegable and 

“even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 

WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 

2003).

73. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to train 

its crewmembers and/or its agents to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of 

the Seas. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known of the importance of training its crew 

members and/or its agents to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. 

However, despite knowing how and the reason why ROYAL CARIBBEAN should train its 

crewmembers and/or its agents how to provide passengers a safe means of disembarking the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas, ROYAL CARIBBEAN failed to do so.

74. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to 

train its crewmembers and/or its agents to warn of dangers known to ROYAL CARIBBEAN where 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN invites or reasonably expect passengers to go, including the dangerous 

condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or 

should have known of the importance of training its crewmembers and/or its agents to warn 

passengers about dangerous conditions. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knows or should have known that 

passenger may not know how dangerous disembarking the cruise ship can be. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN knew or should have known of the importance of training its crew members and/or 

its agents to warn passengers of dangerous conditions verbally, and with warning signs. ROYAL 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 26 of 65
27

CARIBBEAN also distributes crew member training materials; safety warning messages including 

those made through verbal announcement, newsletters and safety videos. However, despite 

knowing how and the reason why ROYAL CARIBBEAN should train its crewmembers and/or its 

agents to warn passengers about dangerous conditions, ROYAL CARIBBEAN failed to do so.

75. ROYAL CARIBBEAN had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

76. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

77. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents. ROYAL CARIBBEAN documents incidents in 

various ways which may include prior shipboard safety meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs 

or databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints made to guest services throughout its fleet; 

safety testing and/or inspections testing.

78. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition because ROYAL CARIBBEAN crew members and employees who were 

acting at the direction of and on behalf of ROYAL CARIBBEAN were in the area and could have 

easily observed the dangerous condition.

79. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures dictate safe boarding and disembarkation 

of a vessel.

80. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 27 of 65
28

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

81. Additionally, when a Plaintiff makes a maritime negligence claim against a 

shipowner based on an employee’s negligence under a theory of vicarious liability, the Plaintiff 

need not establish that the shipowner had actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition. 

Yusko v. NCL, 4 F.4th 1164 (11th Cir. 2021).

82. RCCL BREACHED ITS DUTIES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duty of 

care owed to HAGLE and was negligent by failing to reasonably train its crew members and/or its 

agents. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duties by failing to train its crew members and/or its 

agent on how to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN breached its duties by failing to train its crew members and/or its agents to warn of 

dangers known to ROYAL CARIBBEAN where ROYAL CARIBBEAN invites or reasonably 

expect passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on 

December 23, 2021. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also failed to comply with comply with applicable 

industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the 

burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence of negligence. 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s violation of applicable and mandatory safety regulations and standards 

constitutes negligence per se.

83. PROXIMATE CAUSE. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s failure to properly and 

adequately train its crew members and/or its agents proximately caused HAGLE’s injuries. Had 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN properly trained its crew members and/or its agents, HAGLE would not 

have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN properly trained its crew 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 28 of 65
29

members and/or its agents on how to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allures of 

the Seas, HAGLE would not have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN properly trained its crew members and/or its agents to warn passengers about the 

dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 

23, 2021, the crewmember and/or its agents would have warned HAGLE and she would have been 

aware of the dangerous condition.

84. DAMAGES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 29 of 65
30

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

AGAINST 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN

85. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

86. This is an action against ROYAL CARIBBEAN for its negligent supervision of its 

shipboard crew members and/or its agents. 

87. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its shipboard crew members and/or its agents. See Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Ltd., 

772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2014).

88. DUTIES OWED BY RCCL. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers,” including HAGLE. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 2004 WL 1621209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). RCCL also owes a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1991 WL 

329584 (S.D. Fla. 1991). ROYAL CARIBBEAN is directly negligent for failing to supervise its 

shipboard crew members and/or its agents.

89. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to 

provide safe ingress and egress to and from the ship. See Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 

F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Courts sitting in admiralty have long recognized an obligation on the 

part of a carrier to furnish its passengers with a reasonably safe means of boarding and leaving the 

vessel, that this obligation is non-delegable, and that even the slightest negligence renders a carrier 

liable.”); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Limited, 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 30 of 65
31

544 F. 2d 752 (5th Cir. 1977); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte 84 F. 2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936); Samuelov v. 

Carnival, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and Chan v. Society Expeditions, 123 F. 3d 1287 

(9th Cir. 1997). More specifically “a high degree of care is demanded of common carriers towards 

their passengers,” including the “duty to maintain reasonable, safe means for passengers to board 

and disembark.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling 

v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). This duty is non-delegable and 

“even the slightest negligence renders a carrier liable.” McLean v. Carnival Corporation, 2013 

WL 1024257 (S.D. Fla.), citing Vierling v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1309, 1319 (11th Cir. 

2003).

90. ROYAL CARIBBEAN owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to 

supervise its crewmembers and/or its agents to ensure they are providing a safe means of 

disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known 

of the importance of supervising its crew members and/or its agents to ensure they are providing

a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. However, despite knowing how and 

the reason why ROYAL CARIBBEAN should supervise its crewmembers and/or its agents to 

ensure they are providing passengers a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas, 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN failed to do so.

91. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also owes a duty as a common carrier to its passengers to 

supervise its crewmembers and/or its agents to ensure they are warning of dangers known to 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN where ROYAL CARIBBEAN invites or reasonably expect passengers to 

go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN knew or should have known of the importance of supervising its crewmembers 

and/or its agents to ensure they are warning passengers about dangerous conditions. ROYAL 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 31 of 65
32

CARIBBEAN knows or should have known that passenger may not know how dangerous 

disembarking the cruise ship can be. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known of the 

importance of supervising its crewmembers and/or its agents to ensure they are warning passengers 

of dangerous conditions verbally, and with warning signs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also distributes 

crew member training materials; safety warning messages including those made through verbal 

announcement, newsletters and safety videos. However, despite knowing how and the reason why 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN should supervise its crewmembers and/or its agents to ensure they are 

warning passengers about dangerous conditions, ROYAL CARIBBEAN failed to do so.

92. ROYAL CARIBBEAN had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

93. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

94. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents. ROYAL CARIBBEAN documents incidents in 

various ways which may include prior shipboard safety meetings; work orders; prior repairs; logs 

or databases of prior similar incidents; prior complaints made to guest services throughout its fleet; 

safety testing and/or inspections testing.

95. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition because ROYAL CARIBBEAN crew members and employees who were 

acting at the direction of and on behalf of ROYAL CARIBBEAN were in the area and could have 

easily observed the dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 32 of 65
33

96. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures dictate safe boarding and disembarkation 

of a vessel.

97. Additionally, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

98. Additionally, when a Plaintiff makes a maritime negligence claim against a 

shipowner based on an employee’s negligence under a theory of vicarious liability, the Plaintiff 

need not establish that the shipowner had actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition. 

Yusko v. NCL, 4 F.4th 1164 (11th Cir. 2021).

99. RCCL BREACHED ITS DUTIES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duty of 

care owed to HAGLE and was negligent by failing to reasonably supervise its crew members 

and/or its agents. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duties by failing to supervise its crew 

members and/or its agent to ensure they were providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas. ROYAL CARIBBEAN breached its duties by failing to supervise its crew 

members and/or its agents to ensure they were warning about the dangers known to ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN where ROYAL CARIBBEAN invites or reasonably expect passengers to go, 

including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN also failed to comply with comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, 

and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the

Defendant in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence of negligence. ROYAL 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 33 of 65
34

CARIBBEAN’s violation of applicable and mandatory safety regulations and standards constitutes 

negligence per se.

100. PROXIMATE CAUSE. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s failure to properly and 

adequately supervise its crew members and/or its agents proximately caused HAGLE’s injuries. 

Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN properly supervised its crew members and/or its agents, HAGLE 

would not have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN properly

supervised its crew members and/or its agents to ensure they were providing a safe means of

disembarking the RCCL Allures of the Seas, HAGLE would not have been injured on December 

23, 2021. Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN properly supervised its crew members and/or its agents to 

ensure they were warning passengers about the dangerous conditions including the dangerous 

condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021, the crewmember and/or its agents 

would have warned HAGLE and she would have been aware of the dangerous condition.

101. DAMAGES. ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against ROYAL CARIBBEAN 

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 34 of 65
35

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT OPERATION

AGAINST 

BROWARD COUNTY

102. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

103. This is an action against BROWARD COUNTY for its negligent operation of its 

disembarkation process on December 23, 2021.

104. BROWARD COUNTY is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its employees and/or its agents.

105. DUTIES OWED BY BROWARD COUNTY. BROWARD COUNTY owes a 

reasonable duty under the circumstances. BROWARD COUNTY has a duty to provide a safe means 

of embarking and disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida 

including the RCCL Allure of the Seas. 

106. BROWARD COUNTY had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 35 of 65
36

107. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because BROWARD COUNTY knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

108. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents.

109. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily 

observed the dangerous condition.

110. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel.

111. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

112. BROWARD COUNTY BREACHED ITS DUTIES. BROWARD COUNTY 

breached its duties by failing to operate of its disembarkation process from the RCCL Allure of the 

Seas in a safe manner on December 23, 2021. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duties as follows:

a. Failing to implement a method of operation which was reasonable and safe and 

would prevent dangerous conditions such as the one in this case;

b. Failing to take reasonable care for the safety of passengers;

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 36 of 65
37

c. Failing to provide safe walkways and stairways for passengers to disembark the 

ship;

d. Failing to provide adequate lighting for passengers to disembark the ship;

e. Failing to maintain the subject area in good and safe condition;

f. Failing to appropriately inspect the premises

g. Failing to promulgate safety rules regarding disembarkation;

h. Failing to implement safety rules regarding disembarkation; 

i. Failing to train its crewmembers, employees, and agents about safety rules 

regarding disembarkation;

j. Failing to enforce safety rules regarding disembarkation;

k. Allowing an ongoing, recurring, continuous and/or repetitive problem to occur

or to remain on the premises which would cause incidents or injuries; and

l. Failing to comply with applicable standards, statutes, and/or regulations the 

violation of which is negligence per se and/or evidence of negligence.

113. PROXIMATE CAUSE. BROWARD COUNTY’s failure to operate its 

debarkation process in a safe manner on December 23, 2021 proximately and directly caused the 

Plaintiff’s injuries. Had BROWARD COUNTY operated its debarkation process in a safe manner 

on December 23, 2021, the Plaintiff would have never been injured. 

114. DAMAGES. BROWARD COUNTY’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 37 of 65
38

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against BROWARD COUNTY 

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

AGAINST 

BROWARD COUNTY

115. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

116. This is an action against BROWARD COUNTY for its negligent failing to warn 

passengers, including HAGLE, of its hazards, risks or dangers.

117. BROWARD COUNTY is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its employees and/or its agents.

118. DUTIES OWED BY BROWARD COUNTY. BROWARD COUNTY owes a 

reasonable duty under the circumstances. BROWARD COUNTY has a duty to warn of dangers 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 38 of 65
39

known to the Defendant in places where a passenger is invited to may reasonably be expected to visit. 

BROWARD COUNTY also has a duty to provide a safe means of embarking and disembarking 

vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida including the RCCL Allure of the 

Seas. As part of that, BROWARD COUNTY has a duty to warn passengers like the Plaintiff about 

the dangers of disembarking the cruise ship including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was 

injured on December 23, 2021.

119. BROWARD COUNTY had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

120. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because BROWARD COUNTY knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

121. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents.

122. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily 

observed the dangerous condition.

123. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel.

124. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 39 of 65
40

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

125. BROWARD COUNTY BREACHED ITS DUTIES. BROWARD COUNTY 

breached its duties by failing to properly, adequately, and/or reasonably warn HAGLE about 

dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 

23, 2021. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duties to the Plaintiff by its actions and conduct. 

BROWARD failed to warn its passengers including the Plaintiff about the power outage and the 

dangerous of using the stairwell with inadequate lighting. BROWARD COUNTY through its 

employees and/or agent failed to reasonably and regularly place signs, stickers, lights, and other 

visual or written notices. BROWARD COUNTY failed to reasonably and regularly make audible 

announcements about the dangerous condition. BROWARD COUNTY also failed to comply with 

comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the 

Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence or 

proof of the absence of negligence.

126. PROXIMATE CAUSE. BROWARD COUNTY’s failure to properly and 

adequately warn HAGLE about dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where 

HAGLE was injured on December 23 2021, proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Had 

BROWARD COUNTY properly warned HAGLE of the dangerous conditions, HAGLE would 

have been aware of the dangerous conditions. HAGLE therefore would have never been injured 

on December 23, 2021.

127. DAMAGES. BROWARD COUNTY’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 40 of 65
41

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against BROWARD COUNTY

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VIII

NEGLIGENT RETENTION

AGAINST 

BROWARD COUNTY

128. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

129. This is an action against BROWARD COUNTY for its negligent retention of 

INTERCRUISES. 

130. DUTIES OWED BY BROWARD COUNTY. BROWARD COUNTY owes a 

reasonable duty under the circumstances. BROWARD COUNTY has a duty to provide a safe means 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 41 of 65
42

of embarking and disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida 

including the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

131. BROWARD COUNTY owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to

retain safe and competent staff who will be embarking and disembarking cruise ship passengers 

including the Plaintiff. Disembarking from a cruise ship can be dangerous. Thus, in retaining 

INTERCRUISES, BROWARD COUNTY was required to exercise reasonable care to avoid 

retaining an unfit or incompetent entity who would be providing the embarking and disembarking 

staff for the cruise ships at Port Everglades, Florida. 

132. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known that INTERCRUISES was not 

fit to disembark passengers from cruise ships. 

133. BROWARD COUNTY had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice.

134. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known from prior similar incidents in 

which cruise ship passengers were injured during embarking or disembarking a cruise ship that 

INTERCRUISES was unfit. 

135. BROWARD COUNTY BREACHED ITS DUTIES. BROWARD COUNTY 

breached its duty by continuing to retain INTERCRUISES after it knew or should have known 

that INTERCRUISES was unfit and did not provide cruise ship passengers a reasonably safe 

means of embarking and disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, 

Florida. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duty of care by ignoring, failing to correct, and/or 

otherwise not acting on and/or preventing its cruise passengers, like the Plaintiff from an unsafe 

means of disembarkation from the cruise ship. 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 42 of 65
43

136. PROXIMATE CAUSE. BROWARD COUNTY’S negligent retention of 

INTERCRUISES proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Because BROWARD COUNTY 

failed to retain an entity who could provide cruise ship passengers with a safe means of 

disembarkation from the cruise ship, the Plaintiff was injured on December 23, 2021. Had 

BROWARD COUNTY properly retained an entity who could provide passengers like the Plaintiff 

with a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas, the Plaintiff would have never 

been injured on December 23, 2021. 

137. DAMAGES. BROWARD COUNTY’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against BROWARD COUNTY

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 43 of 65
44

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT IX

NEGLIGENT TRAINING

AGAINST 

BROWARD COUNTY

138. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

139. This is an action against BROWARD COUNTY for its negligent training of its 

employees and/or its agents.

140. BROWARD COUNTY is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its employees and/or its agents.

141. DUTIES OWED BY BROWARD COUNTY. BROWARD COUNTY owes a 

reasonable duty under the circumstances. BROWARD COUNTY has a duty to provide a safe means 

of embarking and disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida 

including the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

142. BROWARD COUNTY owes a duty to train its employees and/or its agents how to 

provide a safe means of disembarking cruise ships. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have 

known of the importance of training its employees and/or its agents how to provide a safe means 

of disembarking cruise ships. However, despite knowing how and the reason why BROWARD 

COUNTY should train its employees and/or its agents how to provide passengers a safe means of 

disembarking cruise ships including the RCCL Allure of the Seas, BROWARD COUNTY failed 

to do so.

143. BROWARD COUNTY also owes a duty to train its employees and/or its agents to 

warn of dangers known to BROWARD COUNTY where BROWARD COUNTY invites or 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 44 of 65
45

reasonably expect passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured 

on December 23, 2021. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known of the importance of 

training its employees and/or its agents to warn passengers about dangerous conditions. 

BROWARD COUNTY knows or should have known that passengers may not know how dangerous 

disembarking the cruise ship can be. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known of the 

importance of training its employees and/or its agents to warn passengers of dangerous conditions 

verbally, and with warning signs. However, despite knowing how and the reason why BROWARD 

COUNTY should train its employees and/or its agents to warn passengers about dangerous 

conditions, BROWARD COUNTY failed to do so.

144. BROWARD COUNTY had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

145. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because BROWARD COUNTY knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

146. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents.

147. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily 

observed the dangerous condition.

148. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 45 of 65
46

149. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

150. BROWARD COUNTY BREACHED ITS DUTIES. BROWARD COUNTY

breached its duty of care owed to HAGLE and was negligent by failing to reasonably train its 

employees and/or its agents. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duties by failing to train its 

employees and/or its agent on how to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of 

the Seas. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duties by failing to train its employees and/or its 

agents to warn of dangers known to BROWARD COUNTY where BROWARD COUNTY invites 

or reasonably expect passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was 

injured on December 23, 2021. BROWARD COUNTY also failed to comply with comply with 

applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule

and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence

of negligence.

151. PROXIMATE CAUSE. BROWARD COUNTY’s failure to properly and 

adequately train its employees and/or its agents proximately caused HAGLE’s injuries. Had 

BROWARD COUNTY properly trained its employees and/or its agents, HAGLE would not have 

been injured on December 23, 2021. Had BROWARD COUNTY properly trained its employees 

and/or its agents on how to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allures of the Seas, 

HAGLE would not have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had BROWARD COUNTY properly 

trained its employees and/or its agents to warn passengers about the dangerous conditions including 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 46 of 65
47

the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021, the employees and/or 

its agents would have warned HAGLE and she would have been aware of the dangerous condition.

152. DAMAGES. BROWARD COUNTY’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against BROWARD COUNTY

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 47 of 65
48

COUNT X

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

AGAINST 

BROWARD COUNTY

153. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

154. This is an action against BROWARD COUNTY for its negligent supervision of its 

employees and/or its agents.

155. BROWARD COUNTY is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts 

of its employees and/or its agents.

156. DUTIES OWED BY BROWARD COUNTY. BROWARD COUNTY owes a 

reasonable duty under the circumstances. BROWARD COUNTY has a duty to provide a safe means 

of embarking and disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida 

including the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

157. BROWARD COUNTY owes a duty to supervise its employees and/or its agents to 

ensure they are providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. BROWARD 

COUNTY knew or should have known of the importance of supervising its employees and/or its 

agents to ensure they are providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. 

However, despite knowing how and the reason why BROWARD COUNTY should supervise its 

employees and/or its agents to ensure they are providing passengers a safe means of disembarking 

the RCCL Allure of the Seas, BROWARD COUNTY failed to do so.

158. BROWARD COUNTY also owes a duty to supervise its employees and/or its 

agents to ensure they are warning of dangers known to BROWARD COUNTY where BROWARD 

COUNTY invites or reasonably expect passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where 

HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 48 of 65
49

of the importance of supervising its employees and/or its agents to ensure they are warning 

passengers about dangerous conditions. BROWARD COUNTY knows or should have known that 

passengers may not know how dangerous disembarking the cruise ship can be. BROWARD 

COUNTY knew or should have known of the importance of supervising its employees and/or its 

agents to ensure they are warning passengers of dangerous conditions verbally, and with warning 

signs. However, despite knowing how and the reason why BROWARD COUNTY should 

supervise its employees and/or its agents to ensure they are warning passengers about dangerous 

conditions, BROWARD COUNTY failed to do so.

159. BROWARD COUNTY had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

160. BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because BROWARD COUNTY knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on 

December 23, 2021.

161. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from prior similar incidents.

162. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily 

observed the dangerous condition.

163. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel.

164. Additionally, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 49 of 65
50

boarding and disembarkation of a vessel. Further, BROWARD COUNTY knew or should have 

known about the dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes 

which dictate adequate lighting for stairwells.

165. BROWARD COUNTY BREACHED ITS DUTIES. BROWARD COUNTY

breached its duty of care owed to HAGLE and was negligent by failing to reasonably supervise its 

employees and/or its agents. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duties by failing to supervise its 

employees and/or its agent to ensure they were providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas. BROWARD COUNTY breached its duties by failing to supervise its employees

and/or its agents to ensure they were warning about the dangers known to BROWARD COUNTY

where BROWARD COUNTY invites or reasonably expect passengers to go, including the 

dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. BROWARD COUNTY

also failed to comply with comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations 

which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof 

of negligence or proof of the absence of negligence.

166. PROXIMATE CAUSE. BROWARD COUNTY’s failure to properly and 

adequately supervise its employees and/or its agents proximately caused HAGLE’s injuries. Had 

BROWARD COUNTY properly supervised its employees and/or its agents, HAGLE would not 

have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had BROWARD COUNTY properly supervised its 

employees and/or its agents to ensure they were providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL 

Allures of the Seas, HAGLE would not have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had BROWARD 

COUNTY properly supervised its employees and/or its agents to ensure they were warning 

passengers about the dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 50 of 65
51

injured on December 23, 2021, the crewmember and/or its agents would have warned HAGLE and 

she would have been aware of the dangerous condition.

167. DAMAGES. BROWARD COUNTY’s negligence proximately caused permanent 

injuries and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include 

but are not limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses 

in the past and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost 

income in the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and 

damages also include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, 

disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has 

suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against BROWARD COUNTY

for damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 51 of 65
52

COUNT XI

NEGLIGENT OPERATION

AGAINST 

INTERCRUISES

168. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

169. This is an action against INTERCRUISES for its negligent operation of its 

disembarkation process on December 23, 2021.

170. INTERCRUISES is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts of its 

employees and/or its agents.

171. DUTIES OWED BY INTERCRUISES. INTERCRUISES owes a reasonable duty 

under the circumstances. INTERCRUISES has a duty to provide a safe means of embarking and 

disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida including the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas. 

172. INTERCRUISES had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

173. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because INTERCRUISES knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on December

23, 2021.

174. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from prior similar incidents.

175. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily observed the 

dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 52 of 65
53

176. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and disembarkation of a 

vessel.

177. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel. Further, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate 

adequate lighting for stairwells.

178. INTERCRUISES BREACHED ITS DUTIES. INTERCRUISES breached its 

duties by failing to operate of its disembarkation process from the RCCL Allure of the Seas in a safe 

manner on December 23, 2021. INTERCRUISES breached its duties as follows:

a. Failing to implement a method of operation which was reasonable and safe and 

would prevent dangerous conditions such as the one in this case;

b. Failing to take reasonable care for the safety of passengers;

c. Failing to provide safe walkways and stairways for passengers to disembark the 

ship;

d. Failing to provide adequate lighting for passengers to disembark the ship;

e. Failing to maintain the subject area in good and safe condition;

f. Failing to appropriately inspect the premises

g. Failing to promulgate safety rules regarding disembarkation;

h. Failing to implement safety rules regarding disembarkation; 

i. Failing to train its crewmembers, employees, and agents about safety rules 

regarding disembarkation;

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 53 of 65
54

j. Failing to enforce safety rules regarding disembarkation;

k. Allowing an ongoing, recurring, continuous and/or repetitive problem to occur 

or to remain on the premises which would cause incidents or injuries; and

l. Failing to comply with applicable standards, statutes, and/or regulations the 

violation of which is negligence per se and/or evidence of negligence.

179. PROXIMATE CAUSE. INTERCRUISES’s failure to operate its debarkation 

process in a safe manner on December 23, 2021 proximately and directly caused the Plaintiff’s 

injuries. Had INTERCRUISES operated its debarkation process in a safe manner on December 23, 

2021, the Plaintiff would have never been injured. 

180. DAMAGES. INTERCRUISES’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries 

and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not 

limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past 

and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in 

the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also 

include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical 

impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has suffered these losses 

in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against INTERCRUISES for 

damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 54 of 65
55

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT XII

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN

AGAINST 

INTERCRUISES

181. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

182. This is an action against INTERCRUISES for its negligent failing to warn 

passengers, including HAGLE, of its hazards, risks or dangers.

183. INTERCRUISES is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts of its 

employees and/or its agents.

184. DUTIES OWED BY INTERCRUISES. INTERCRUISES owes a reasonable duty 

under the circumstances. INTERCRUISES has a duty to warn of dangers known to the Defendant in 

places where a passenger is invited to may reasonably be expected to visit. INTERCRUISES also has 

a duty to provide a safe means of embarking and disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals 

at Port Everglades, Florida including the RCCL Allure of the Seas. As part of that, INTERCRUISES

has a duty to warn passengers like the Plaintiff about the dangers of disembarking the cruise ship 

including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021.

185. INTERCRUISES had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 55 of 65
56

186. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because INTERCRUISES knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on December 

23, 2021.

187. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from prior similar incidents.

188. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily observed the 

dangerous condition.

189. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and disembarkation of a 

vessel.

190. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel. Further, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate 

adequate lighting for stairwells.

191. INTERCRUISES BREACHED ITS DUTIES. INTERCRUISES breached its 

duties by failing to properly, adequately, and/or reasonably warn HAGLE about dangerous 

conditions including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. 

INTERCRUISES breached its duties to the Plaintiff by its actions and conduct. INTERCRUISES

failed to warn its passengers including the Plaintiff about the power outage and the dangerous of 

using the stairwell with inadequate lighting. INTERCRUISES through its employees and/or agent 

failed to reasonably and regularly place signs, stickers, lights, and other visual or written notices. 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 56 of 65
57

INTERCRUISES failed to reasonably and regularly make audible announcements about the 

dangerous condition. INTERCRUISES also failed to comply with comply with applicable industry

standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden

of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence of negligence.

192. PROXIMATE CAUSE. INTERCRUISES’s failure to properly and adequately 

warn HAGLE about dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was 

injured on December 23 2021, proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Had INTERCRUISES

properly warned HAGLE of the dangerous conditions, HAGLE would have been aware of the 

dangerous conditions. HAGLE therefore would have never been injured on December 23, 2021.

193. DAMAGES. INTERCRUISES’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries 

and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not 

limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past 

and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in 

the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also 

include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical 

impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has suffered these losses 

in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against INTERCRUISES for 

damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 57 of 65
58

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT XIII

NEGLIGENT TRAINING

AGAINST 

INTERCRUISES

194. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

195. This is an action against INTERCRUISES for its negligent training of its employees 

and/or its agents.

196. INTERCRUISES is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts of its 

employees and/or its agents.

197. DUTIES OWED BY INTERCRUISES. INTERCRUISES owes a reasonable duty 

under the circumstances. INTERCRUISES has a duty to provide a safe means of embarking and 

disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida including the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas.

198. INTERCRUISES owes a duty to train its employees and/or its agents how to 

provide a safe means of disembarking cruise ships. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known 

of the importance of training its employees and/or its agents how to provide a safe means of 

disembarking cruise ships. However, despite knowing how and the reason why INTERCRUISES 

should train its employees and/or its agents how to provide passengers a safe means of 

disembarking cruise ships including the RCCL Allure of the Seas, INTERCRUISES failed to do 

so.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 58 of 65
59

199. INTERCRUISES also owes a duty to train its employees and/or its agents to warn 

of dangers known to INTERCRUISES where INTERCRUISES invites or reasonably expect 

passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 

2021. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known of the importance of training its employees 

and/or its agents to warn passengers about dangerous conditions. INTERCRUISES knows or 

should have known that passengers may not know how dangerous disembarking the cruise ship can 

be. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known of the importance of training its employees 

and/or its agents to warn passengers of dangerous conditions verbally, and with warning signs. 

However, despite knowing how and the reason why INTERCRUISES should train its employees 

and/or its agents to warn passengers about dangerous conditions, INTERCRUISES failed to do so.

200. INTERCRUISES had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

201. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because INTERCRUISES knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on December 

23, 2021.

202. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from prior similar incidents.

203. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily observed the 

dangerous condition.

204. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and disembarkation of a 

vessel.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 59 of 65
60

205. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel. Further, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the 

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate 

adequate lighting for stairwells.

206. INTERCRUISES BREACHED ITS DUTIES. INTERCRUISES breached its 

duty of care owed to HAGLE and was negligent by failing to reasonably train its employees and/or 

its agents. INTERCRUISES breached its duties by failing to train its employees and/or its agent 

on how to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. INTERCRUISES

breached its duties by failing to train its employees and/or its agents to warn of dangers known to 

INTERCRUISES where INTERCRUISES invites or reasonably expect passengers to go, 

including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021. 

INTERCRUISES also failed to comply with comply with applicable industry standards, statutes, 

and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule and shifts the burden of proof to the

Defendant in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence of negligence.

207. PROXIMATE CAUSE. INTERCRUISES’s failure to properly and adequately 

train its employees and/or its agents proximately caused HAGLE’s injuries. Had INTERCRUISES 

properly trained its employees and/or its agents, HAGLE would not have been injured on 

December 23, 2021. Had INTERCRUISES properly trained its employees and/or its agents on 

how to provide a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allures of the Seas, HAGLE would not 

have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had INTERCRUISES properly trained its employees 

and/or its agents to warn passengers about the dangerous conditions including the dangerous 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 60 of 65
61

condition where HAGLE was injured on December 23, 2021, the employees and/or its agents would 

have warned HAGLE and she would have been aware of the dangerous condition.

208. DAMAGES. INTERCRUISES’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries 

and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not 

limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past 

and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in 

the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also 

include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical 

impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has suffered these losses 

in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against INTERCRUISES for 

damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 61 of 65
62

COUNT XIV

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

AGAINST 

INTERCRUISES

209. The Plaintiff, HAGLE, hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1 through 28, above.

210. This is an action against INTERCRUISES for its negligent supervision of its 

employees and/or its agents.

211. INTERCRUISES is vicariously liable and responsible for the negligent acts of its 

employees and/or its agents.

212. DUTIES OWED BY INTERCRUISES. INTERCRUISES owes a reasonable duty 

under the circumstances. INTERCRUISES has a duty to provide a safe means of embarking and 

disembarking vessels using its ports and terminals at Port Everglades, Florida including the RCCL 

Allure of the Seas.

213. INTERCRUISES owes a duty to supervise its employees and/or its agents to ensure 

they are providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. INTERCRUISES

knew or should have known of the importance of supervising its employees and/or its agents to 

ensure they are providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas. However, 

despite knowing how and the reason why INTERCRUISES should supervise its employees and/or 

its agents to ensure they are providing passengers a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure 

of the Seas, INTERCRUISES failed to do so.

214. INTERCRUISES also owes a duty to supervise its employees and/or its agents to 

ensure they are warning of dangers known to INTERCRUISES where INTERCRUISES invites or 

reasonably expect passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured 

on December 23, 2021. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known of the importance of 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 62 of 65
63

supervising its employees and/or its agents to ensure they are warning passengers about dangerous 

conditions. INTERCRUISES knows or should have known that passengers may not know how 

dangerous disembarking the cruise ship can be. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known of 

the importance of supervising its employees and/or its agents to ensure they are warning 

passengers of dangerous conditions verbally, and with warning signs. However, despite knowing 

how and the reason why INTERCRUISES should supervise its employees and/or its agents to 

ensure they are warning passengers about dangerous conditions, INTERCRUISES failed to do so.

215. INTERCRUISES had actual notice of the dangerous condition; and/or had 

constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

216. INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous condition 

because INTERCRUISES knew that there was a power outage at Port Everglades on December 

23, 2021.

217. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from prior similar incidents.

218. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from its employees or agents who were in the area and could have easily observed the 

dangerous condition.

219. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from their policies and procedures which dictate safe boarding and disembarkation of a 

vessel.

220. Additionally, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the dangerous 

condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate safe boarding and 

disembarkation of a vessel. Further, INTERCRUISES knew or should have known about the 

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 63 of 65
64

dangerous condition from relevant industry standards, regulations, and codes which dictate 

adequate lighting for stairwells.

221. INTERCRUISES BREACHED ITS DUTIES: INTERCRUISES breached its 

duty of care owed to HAGLE and was negligent by failing to reasonably supervise its employees 

and/or its agents. INTERCRUISES breached its duties by failing to supervise its employees and/or 

its agent to ensure they were providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allure of the Seas.

INTERCRUISES breached its duties by failing to supervise its employees and/or its agents to 

ensure they were warning about the dangers known to INTERCRUISES where INTERCRUISES 

invites or reasonably expect passengers to go, including the dangerous condition where HAGLE 

was injured on December 23, 2021. INTERCRUISES also failed to comply with comply with 

applicable industry standards, statutes, and/or regulations which invokes the Pennsylvania Rule

and shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant in the proof of negligence or proof of the absence

of negligence.

222. PROXIMATE CAUSE. INTERCRUISES’s failure to properly and adequately 

supervise its employees and/or its agents proximately caused HAGLE’s injuries. Had 

INTERCRUISES properly supervised its employees and/or its agents, HAGLE would not have 

been injured on December 23, 2021. Had INTERCRUISES properly supervised its employees 

and/or its agents to ensure they were providing a safe means of disembarking the RCCL Allures 

of the Seas, HAGLE would not have been injured on December 23, 2021. Had INTERCRUISES

properly supervised its employees and/or its agents to ensure they were warning passengers about 

the dangerous conditions including the dangerous condition where HAGLE was injured on 

December 23, 2021, the crewmember and/or its agents would have warned HAGLE and she would 

have been aware of the dangerous condition.

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 64 of 65
65

223. DAMAGES. INTERCRUISES’s negligence proximately caused permanent injuries 

and damages to HAGLE in the past and in the future. Those injuries and damages include but are not 

limited to economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past 

and in the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in 

the past; and lost income and income earning capacity in the future. Those injuries and damages also 

include but are not limited to non-economic damages including pain, suffering, disability, physical 

impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life. The losses are either permanent or continuing. HAGLE has suffered these losses 

in the past and will continue to suffer them in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, HAGLE demands Judgment against INTERCRUISES for 

damages recoverable under the general maritime law and state law including but not limited to 

economic damages including medical, psychological, and other related expenses in the past and in 

the future; household and other related expenses in the past and in the future; lost income in the past; 

and lost income and income earning capacity in the future; non-economic damages in the past and in 

the future including pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, scarring, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; all court costs, all interest due 

under the applicable law including interest from the date of the subject incident under the General 

Maritime Law, and any and all other damages which the Court deems just or appropriate

By: s/ Lisa Goodman

JOHN H. HICKEY, ESQ. (FBN 305081)

 federalcourtfilings@hickeylawfirm.com 

LISA C. GOODMAN, ESQ. (FBN 118698)

lgoodman@hickeylawfirm.com

HICKEY LAW FIRM, P.A.

 1401 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 510

 Miami, Florida 33131-3504

 Telephone: (305) 371-8000

 Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23186-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 65 of 65