UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. :

JOSEPH ROSENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., a Bermuda Company,

ONE SPA WORLD LLC, a Florida Company,

STEINER TRANSOCEAN LIMITED, a Bahamas Company,

STEINER MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, a Florida Company,

and MANDARA SPA (CRUISE II), LLC, a Delaware Company;

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOSEPH ROSENBERG (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sues Defendants, NCL 

(BAHAMAS) LTD, (hereinafter “NCL”), and ONE SPA WORLD LLC; STEINER 

TRANSOCEAN LIMITED; STEINER MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC; and MANDARA SPA 

(CRUISE II), LLC (hereinafter “ONE SPA Defendants”) (all collectively hereinafter “Defendants”), 

and alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff, JOSEPH ROSENBERG, is a citizen and resident of New York, New York.

2. Defendant, NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD, is a foreign entity incorporated with its 

principal place of business in Miami, Florida at 7665 Corporate Center Drive, Miami, Florida 33126.

3. Defendant, ONE SPA WORLD LLC, is a Florida company with its principal place 

of business at 770 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200, Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

4. Defendant, STEINER TRANSOCEAN LIMITED, is a foreign entity with its 

principal place of business at 770 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200, Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

5. Defendant, STEINER MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, is a Florida company with 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 1 of 13
2

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

its principal place of business at 770 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200, Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

6. Defendant, MANDARA SPA (CRUISE II), LLC, is a Delaware company with its 

principal place of business at 770 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200, Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

7. Thematterin controversy exceeds, exclusive ofinterest and costs, the sumspecified by 

28 USC §1332 and involves complete diversity of citizenship under 28 USC §1332.

8. At all times material hereto, Defendant NCL, personally or through an agent:

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

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

b. Was engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within thisstate;

c. Purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities within Florida 

by purposefully directing its activities in and toward the state, thus obtaining the 

benefits and protections of the state’s laws;

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Fla. Stat. §§48.081, 48.181, or

48.193;

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

this county and/or state;

f. Operated vessels in the waters of this state;

g. Defendant was engaged in the business of providing to the public and Plaintiff in

particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard NORWEGIAN 

GETAWAY.

9. Defendant NCL is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant NCL owned, operated, managed, maintained, 

and/or controlled NORWEGIAN GETAWAY.

11. At all times material hereto, Defendant NCL had custody and control of 

NORWEGIAN GETAWAY.

12. At all times material hereto, ONE SPA Defendants, personally or through an agent:

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

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

b. Was engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within thisstate;

c. Purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities within Florida 

by purposefully directing its activities in and toward the state, thus obtaining the 

benefits and protections of the state’s laws;

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Fla.Stat. §§48.081, 48.181, or 48.193;

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

this county and/or state;

f. Operated vessels in the waters of this state;

g. Defendant was engaged in the business of providing to the public and Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 2 of 13
3

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

in particular, for compensation, spa/sauna services aboard NORWEGIAN 

GETAWAY.

13. Defendants ONE SPA are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.

14. At all times material hereto, Defendants NCL and ONE SPA had joint custody and

control of the spa, sauna facilities, and spa/sauna employees aboard NORWEGIAN GETAWAY.

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

of the United States.

16. On or about November 25, 2021, Plaintiff was a passenger aboard NORWEGIAN 

GETAWAY which was in navigable waters.

17. On or about November 25, 2021, Plaintiff was on Deck 15 in the Spa in the sauna. 

Plaintiff, over the course of his eight two (82) years has been in numerous saunas his entire life. To

raise the temperature in the sauna Plaintiff, as typical in saunas, grabbed a ladle and placed it in a 

bucket of water which was next to the hot stones / coals in the sauna – again as is typical of a sauna 

and was going to carefully spread the water on the hot rocks / coals to again raise the temperature in 

the sauna.

18. As Plaintiff began to distribute the water on the hot stones/coals a jet of hot steam 

came directly out of the bed of stones/coals and struck the Plaintiff directly on his right arm, hand, 

and wrist causing him to become startled. Plaintiff, as a direct result of the extremely hot jet of 

steam, stumbled backward in the sauna to brace himself and injured his right arm/wrist.

19. Plaintiff, who is very familiar with saunas, had carefully poured the water on the 

sauna’s stones/rocks/coals in a slow and careful manner. The “jet” of steam was not the “usual” 

steam that occurs when the temperature in a sauna is rising but was direct jet of steam that struck 

him directly on the arm and came flying out of the sauna when the water was placed upon it. This 

was atypical for the functions of a working sauna. 

20. Consequentially, Plaintiff sustained injury injuries to his right arm / hand / and wrist 

which consisted of second degree burns to his right hand, arm, and face, and a broken finger on the 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 3 of 13
4

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

right hand as well as a sprain of the right hand. 

21. Plaintiff reported his injuries immediately and his hand was placed in a soft cast. 

Eventually, the Plaintiff was seen at the ship’s infirmary no less than seventeen (17) times over the 

course of the cruise for the changing of the dressing on his right hand where the burns were.

22. Further, Plaintiff also was seen ashore in Greece on November 28, 2021, where his 

hand, incorrectly, was placed in a hard cast – eventually upon his return to the ship the physicians 

on the NORWEGIAN GETAWAY placed it back in a “soft” cast.

23. The next day – November 26, 2021- the sauna was closed and an “out of order” sign 

was placed on the door. The sauna clearly was malfunctioning. 

24. As a further consequence, once the ship was back in Miami, Plaintiff returned home 

to his native New York where he is receiving further medical including further physical therapy, 

medicinal therapy, a wrist splint, injections, radiographs, and was diagnosed with a tendon tear in 

his right wrist / forearm. 

25. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed, or,

alternatively, have been waived.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO INSPECT/MAINTAIN/ SERVICE) AS TO NCL

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one

(1) through twenty-five (25) as though fully alleged herein.

26. At all times material, Defendant NCL owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under

the circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406 

(1959); Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990); Keefe v. Bahama 

Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989), on remand, 715 F.Supp. 1069 (M.D.Fla. 1989). 

This duty of reasonable care mandates that Defendant not maintain its ship – in this case, the sauna, 

in a dangerous condition.

27. On or about November 25, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 4 of 13
5

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

servants breached its/their duty to maintain the subject sauna in a reasonably safe condition by failing 

to inspect the subject sauna on a routine basis, and/or by failing to repair the subject sauna, and/or 

by failing to routinely maintain the subject sauna, or a combination of the three (3) above.

28. On or about November 25, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants in failing to exercise 

reasonable care asfollows:

a. Failure to inspect, maintain, monitor, and repair the subject sauna so that it functioned 

properly and was reasonably safe for use by passengers, including Plaintiff; and/or

b. Failure to take reasonable precautions to keep the sauna where Plaintiff was 

injured in a safe and reasonably functioning manner which rendered the sauna

unsafe for Plaintiff.

29. Immediately after this incident, Plaintiff knew, from his experience in life and using 

saunas, that there was a malfunction with the particular sauna as “jets” of hot steam are not supposed 

to shoot out directly at an individual. This could have only occurred as a result of a malfunction

which would have become known to Defendant had it conducted reasonable inspection, 

maintenance, and monitoring and/ or repairs of the sauna.

30. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident.

31. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

accident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that 

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

and corrected them. 

32. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant occurred with sufficient 

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant. Despite this, Defendant failed to take 

steps as a result of prior similar incidents to reduce and/or prevent the accident suffered by Plaintiff.

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

about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain both past and future, mental anguish, 

loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of previously existing conditions; 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 5 of 13
6

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past and future; and 

has suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the losses and impairments in the future. Further, Plaintiff lost the value of his cruise.

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

COUNT II – FAILURE TO WARN AS TO NCL

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one

(1) through twenty-five (25) as though fully alleged herein.

34. At all times material, Defendant NCL owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under

the circumstances, which includes a duty to warn of hidden dangerous conditions known or, in the 

exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant. Poole v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 14-20237-

Cooke/Torres (S.D.Fla. Apr. 8, 2015); Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 633 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.Fla. 

1986), aff’d, 808 F.2d 60 (11

th Cir. 1986). Although part of reasonable care, this duty to warn is 

separate and apart from the duty to maintain its ship in a reasonable condition. Carroll v. Carnival 

Corp., Case No. 17-13602 (11th Cir. April 15, 2020).

35. On or about November 25, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and 

servants breached its/their duty to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition which was not apparent to 

him but of which Defendant either knew because its crewmembers were tasked to 

maintain/inspect/service and repair the subject sauna, or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should 

have known because of prior similar incidents/complaints and/or instances of the sauna not working 

properly.

36. On or about November 25, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants asfollows:

a. Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous, non-obvious condition by 

means of a warning sign or otherwise closing the sauna for use by guests as a 

consequence of a condition of which Defendant knew or, in the exercise of 

reasonable care, should have known as Defendant was responsible for 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 6 of 13
7

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

inspecting/maintaining/servicing and repairing the sauna.

37. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident, but did not 

warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions.

38. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

accident, but did not warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions, or the conditions existed for 

a sufficient length of time so that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care under the 

circumstances, should have learned of them and warned Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous condition. 

39. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant occurred with sufficient 

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant, such that Defendant was under an 

obligation to warn Plaintiff. Despite this, Defendant failed to take steps as a result of prior similar 

incidents to warn its passenger, including Plaintiff, of this condition.

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

about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain both past and future, mental anguish, 

loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of previously existing conditions; 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past and future; and 

has suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the losses and impairments in the future. Further, Plaintiff lost the value of his cruise.

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

COUNT III – VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST NCL

(BASED UPON APPARENT AGENCY)

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through twenty-five (25) as though fully alleged herein.

41. At all times material hereto, Defendant owned, operated, controlled, and/or 

maintained the spa/sauna facility aboard NORWEGIAN GETAWAY, and was responsible for 

selecting, purchasing, and maintaining the spa/sauna equipment contained therein and for selecting 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 7 of 13
8

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

and hiring ONE SPA Defendants to provide personnel to work in the spa/sauna facility. Defendant 

held out to passengers, including Plaintiff, the spa/sauna facility as its own.

42. That at all times material, Defendant held out the spa/sauna staff as being its 

employees who work in its spa/sauna facility on the vessel. That Defendant promotes its spa/sauna

facilities and represents them as being staffed by its employees through its web site, internet 

advertising, and on the vessel. Although the spa/sauna employees are recruited by ONE SPA 

Defendants, they are treated by Defendant as members of the ship’s crew and held out to passengers, 

including Plaintiff, as members of Defendant’s crew.

43. That Defendant promotes the idea that the spa/sauna staff who work in its spa/sauna

facility are employed by Defendant as part of a marketing tool to induce passengers, such as Plaintiff, 

to buy cruises on its ships, particularly because many passengers, as part of their vacations, make use 

of spa/sauna facilities.

44. That Defendant manifested to Plaintiff that its spa/sauna facility staff were acting as 

its employees and/or apparent agents in various ways, including but not limited to the following: 

a. The spa/sauna staff worked at what Defendant describes in its advertising as its 

spa;

b. The spa/sauna facilities are constructed and owned by Defendant, which supplies 

the spa/sauna equipment; 

c. Passengers are billed directly by Defendant through the passengers’ on-board 

account;

d. Defendant sets the hours of operation of its spa/sauna and sets the work hours of 

its spa/sauna staff; 

e. That the spa/sauna staff are considered members of the crew of Defendant’s ship; 

and/or

f. That Defendant put the spa/sauna staff under the control of the ship’s superior 

officers, including the Master of the ship.

45. At no time did Defendant represent in any meaningful way to Plaintiff, or the ship’s 

passengers in general, that the spa/sauna facility was not owned/operated by Defendant or that the 

spa/sauna staff were not agents or employees of Defendant, and were instead allegedly independent 

contractors. 

46. Defendant is estopped from denying that the spa/sauna facility was not its own and 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 8 of 13
9

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

that the spa/sauna staff was its apparent agent and/or apparent employee and/or apparent servant. 

47. That at all times material hereto, Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the above described 

representations of the Defendant which gave rise to his reasonable belief that the spa/sauna facility 

was owned and operated by Defendant, which induced his reliance upon such appearance of agency 

and accordingly, Defendant is vicariously liable for negligence occurring in its spa/sauna facility and 

for the negligence of its apparent agents in providing services to Plaintiff and set forth in detail above 

and incorporated herein by reference under the principles of apparent agency set forth in Franza v. 

Royal Caribbean Cruise Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225 (11

th Cir. 2014). 

48. That Plaintiff at all times detrimentally relied upon the above described 

representations of Defendant by purchasing the subject cruise and making use of the sauna, 

reasonably believing that it was owned and operated by Defendant and that the spa/sauna staff were 

its employees.

49. That Defendant is vicariously liable under the principles of apparent agency for the 

acts and omissions of its apparent agents, servants, and employees, and breached its duty to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances owed to Plaintiff and was negligent and careless by 

committing the following acts and/or omissions including but not limited to in one or more of the 

following ways: 

a. Failure to exercise reasonable care for Plaintiff’s safety; and/or

b. Failure to provide Plaintiff with a reasonably safe spa/sauna facility, particularly 

the sauna itself; and/or

c. Failure to inspect, maintain, and/or monitor the operation of the sauna, the 

services offered in the sauna itself, and the agents/employees offering the sauna

services so as to ensure passengers, including Plaintiff, were provided with a 

sauna which was properly functioning and safe; and/or

d. Failure to adopt or promulgate policies and procedures for the safe operation of 

its saunas and its services; and/or

e. Negligently hiring and retaining incompetent staff to monitor and operate the 

sauna contrary to the applicable standard of care in the industry, resulting in harm 

to Defendant’s passengers, including Plaintiff; and/or

f. Failure to properly train its agents/employees in the operation and upkeep of the 

sauna; and/or

g. Failure to properly oversee and supervise its agents/employees in the operation 

and upkeep of the sauna; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 9 of 13
10

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

h. Failure to warn Plaintiff of the dangers of the sauna which Defendant, and/or its 

agents, employees, and/or servants caused; and/or

i. Failure to warn Plaintiff of the dangers of the sauna of which Defendant had actual 

knowledge of and was on notice of; and/or

j. Failure to have adequate risk management procedures in place designed to reduce

the occurrence of the type of accident Plaintiff suffered; and/or

k. Providing sauna services to Defendant’s passengers, including Plaintiff, while 

attempting to waive its own liability contrary to general maritime law and 46 USC 

§30509.

41. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, 

Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain both past and 

future, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of previously 

existing conditions; incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both 

past and future; and has suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

nature, and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. Further, Plaintiff lost the 

value of his cruise.

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO INSPECT/MAINTAIN/ SERVICE)

AS TO ONE SPA DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through twenty-five (25) as though fully alleged herein.

51. At all times material, Defendants ONE SPA owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care 

underthe circumstances. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 

406 (1959); Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355 (11

th Cir. 1990); Keefe v. Bahama 

Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 989), on remand, 715 F.Supp. 1069 (M.D.Fla.1989). This 

duty of reasonable care mandates that Defendant not maintain its sauna in a dangerous condition.

52. On or about November 25, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and 

servants breached its/their duty to maintain the subject sauna in a reasonably safe condition by failing 

to inspect the subject sauna on a routine basis, and/or by failing to repair the subject sauna, and/or 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 10 of 13
11

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

by failing to routinely maintain the subject sauna, or a combination of the three (3) above.

53. On or about November 25, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants in failing to exercise 

reasonable care asfollows:

a. Failure to inspect, maintain, monitor, and repair the subject sauna so that it functioned 

properly and was reasonably safe for use by passengers, including Plaintiff; and/or

b. Failure to take reasonable precautions to keep the sauna where Plaintiff was 

injured in a safe and reasonably functioning manner which rendered the sauna 

unsafe for Plaintiff.

54. Immediately after this incident, Plaintiff knew, from his experience in life and using 

saunas, that there was a malfunction with the particular sauna as “jets” of hot steam are not supposed 

to shoot out directly at an individual. This could have only occurred as a result of a malfunction 

which would have become known to Defendant had it conducted reasonable inspection, 

maintenance, and monitoring and/ or repairs of the sauna.

55. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident.

56. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

accident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that 

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

and corrected them.

57. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant occurred with sufficient regularity

so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant. Despite this, Defendant failed to take steps as a 

result of prior similar incidents to reduce and/or prevent the accident suffered by Plaintiff.

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

about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain both past and future, mental anguish, 

loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of previously existing conditions; 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past and future; and 

has suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 11 of 13
12

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

suffer the losses and impairments in the future. Further, Plaintiff lost the value of his cruise.

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

COUNT V – FAILURE TO WARN AS TO ONE SPA DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff realleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs one 

(1) through twenty-five (25) as though fully alleged herein.

59. At all times material, Defendants ONE SPA owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care 

under the circumstances, which includes a duty to warn of hidden dangerous conditions known or, 

in the exercise of reasonable care, knowable to Defendant. Poole v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 14-

20237-Cooke/Torres (S.D.Fla. Apr. 8, 2015); Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 633 F.Supp. 40 

(S.D.Fla. 1986), aff’d, 808 F.2d 60 (11

th Cir. 1986). Although part of reasonable care, this duty to 

warn is separate and apart from the duty to maintain its sauna in a reasonable condition. Carroll v. 

Carnival Corp., Case No. 17-13602 (11th Cir. April 15, 2020).

60. On or about November 25, 2021, Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and 

servants breached its/their duty to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition which was not apparent to 

him but of which Defendant either knew because its crewmembers were tasked to 

maintain/inspect/service and repair the subject sauna, or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should 

have known because of prior similar incidents/complaints and/or instances of the sauna not working 

properly.

61. On or about November 25, 2021, Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or 

negligence of Defendant, and/or its agents, employees, and/or servants asfollows:

a. Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous, non-obvious condition by 

means of a warning sign or otherwise closing the sauna for use by guests as a 

consequence of a condition of which Defendant knew or, in the exercise of 

reasonable care, should have known as Defendant was responsible for 

inspecting/maintaining/servicing and repairing the sauna.

62. Defendant created the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident but did not 

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 12 of 13
13

Rosenberg v. NCL et al.

warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions.

63. Alternatively, Defendant knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

accident, but did not warn Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous conditions, or the conditions existed for 

a sufficient length of time so that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care under the 

circumstances, should have learned of them and warned Plaintiff of the hidden dangerous condition. 

64. The conditions created and/or known to Defendant occurred with sufficient 

regularity so as to be reasonably foreseeable to Defendant, such that Defendant was under an 

obligation to warn Plaintiff. Despite this, Defendant failed to take steps as a result of prior similar 

incidents to warn its passenger, including Plaintiff, of this condition.

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

about Plaintiff’s body and extremities; suffered physical pain both past and future, mental anguish, 

loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, aggravation of previously existing conditions; 

incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries both past and future; and 

has suffered physical handicap. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature, and Plaintiff will 

suffer the losses and impairments in the future. Further, Plaintiff lost the value of his cruise.

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

against Defendant, interest as permitted by law, and demands a trial by Jury.

DATE: November 7, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10691 N. Kendall Drive – Suite 109 

Miami, Florida 33176

Telephone: (305) 567-0910

Facsimile: (786) 454-8905

By: /s/ Eduardo J. Hernandez

EDUARDO J. HERNANDEZ

Florida Bar No. 061451 

ehernandez@ejh-law.com

Case 1:22-cv-23642-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 13 of 13