ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23722

SARAH LOREDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO (hereinafter “LOREDO”), through undersigned counsel, sues 

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

by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

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

attorneys’ fees.

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

3. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 

citizens of different states and/or citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. 

4. Suit is filed in federal court because of the federal forum selection clause in the 

passenger contract ticket issued by CARNIVAL.

5. LOREDO is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of Mississippi.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 1 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 2 of 21

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

United Kingdom.

7. CARNIVAL is a foreign corporation who is authorized to conduct and who does 

conduct business in the state of Florida, who at all times material hereto was and is doing business 

in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and who maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place 

of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

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

Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida:

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

b. Had an office or agency; and/or

c. Engaged in substantial activity; and/or

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

48.181 or 48.193.

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

been waived, or do not apply.

DEFINITIONS AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

stairs, and the surrounding area involved in LOREDO’s incident, and all material and effects pertaining 

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

thereof, the area and stairs’ design and/or visual condition, nosings, handrails, and/or any other applied, 

adhesive, and/or other material.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 2 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 21

12. LOREDO’S incident occurred on or about September 8, 2022, while she was a fare 

paying passenger on CARNIVAL’S vessel, the Ecstasy.

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

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

14. On or about September 8, 2022, between approximately 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.,

due to a delay in the cabins being ready for the passengers, LOREDO was attempting to descend 

the staircase from deck 9 to deck 8, which were unreasonably crowded with approximately 20 or more 

passengers attempting to descend simultaneously.

15. However, when LOREDO started stepping down these stairs, a male passenger nudged 

into her. She was at the top of these stairs when this person nudged into her, and she stumbled forward. 

Then she fell and rolled to the bottom of the stairs.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 3 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 21

16. As a result, LOREDO sustained severe injuries that include, but are not limited to, a 

severely injured back, a concussion, possible traumatic brain injuries, and other serious injuries.

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

not limited to the following:

a. The stairsteps Plaintiff fell on were unreasonably narrow; and

b. The stairsteps Plaintiff fell on were unreasonably angled; and

c. The stairsteps Plaintiff fell on had unreasonably loose nosings; and

d. The stairsteps Plaintiff fell on were unreasonably slippery; and

e. The stairsteps Plaintiff fell on were uneven and not uniform in dimensions (including 

width, height, depth, angles, and otherwise), which unreasonably hindered Plaintiff’s 

body’s ability to step safely down the subject stairsteps; and

f. The stairsteps Plaintiff fell on lacked adequate visual cues to help passengers see each 

step (such as yellow or other conspicuous tape/signs/stickers/coloring/other cues); and

g. The handrail such that it was not able to be grasped in a manner that could have 

prevented LOREDO’s fall, and it was otherwise inadequate to prevent or mitigate 

Plaintiff’s incident; and

h. The fact that Defendant did not have crew members and/or reasonably trained 

crewmembers adequately supervising the subject area at the time; and

i. The unreasonable overcrowding on the subject stairs, as there were approximately 20

or more persons trying to use the subject stairs at the same time, far too many 

passengers for stairs of this size. CARNIVAL failed to have crewmembers stationed 

in the subject area to control the crowd and/or any crewmembers it did station failed 

to adequately control this crowd and allow for a safe number of passengers to descend 

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 4 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 21

the stairs during appropriate intervals of time; and

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

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

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

conditions alternatively. 

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

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

a. There was a sign on the subject steps that said “watch your step, but a reasonable 

person would not have been able to see this sign while stepping down the steps from 

the top.

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

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

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

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

subject stairs and area before providing them for public use. These design defects 

include, but are not limited to, the dangers outlined in paragraph 17(a-g, j) of this 

complaint.

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

similar stairs on other ships in CARNIVAL’S fleet to make them less dangerous.

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

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

recommendations against the deficiencies discussed in paragraph 17(a-g, j) of this 

Complaint, and CARNIVAL should have known of these 

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 5 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 21

standards/recommendations/other guidelines because whether such 

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

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

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

should have done.

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

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

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

the subject area prior to LOREDO’s incident.

f. Previous passengers suffered prior slip and fall incidents while descending the same 

or similar stairs on ships in CARNIVAL’S fleet (Carnival Cruise Line, Princess 

Cruises, Holland America Line, Seabourn, P&O Cruises, Costa Cruises, AIDA 

Cruises, and Cunard), including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff in Williford v. 

Carnival Corp., No. 17-21992-CIV, 2019 WL 6250824, at *3–4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 

2019) (collecting other prior incidents involving stairs on the Carnival Dream, Magic, 

and their other ships), Hawks v. Carnival Corporation, Case 1:18-cv-23210-MGC, 

Donaldson v. Carnival Corporation, Case 1:20-cv-23258-RNS; and Parrish v. 

Carnival, Case 1:16-cv-22070-FAM, Torrents v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-24760-CIV, 

2022 WL 3154511, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2022), Peare v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-

25285-CIV, 2022 WL 426575, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022), Britt v. Carnival Corp., 

580 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1212 (S.D. Fla. 2021), Sterling v. Carnival Corp. & PLC, No. 

1:21-CV-20198-KMM, 2021 WL 5997001, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2021), Morgan 

v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:20-CV-23857, 2021 WL 3129634, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 6 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 21

2021), Johnson v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-CV-23167, 2021 WL 1379209, at *5 (S.D. 

Fla. Apr. 12, 2021), Middleton v. Carnival Corp., No. 17-23158-CIV, 2019 WL 

656412, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-

23158-CIV, 2019 WL 2254702 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2019), Amy v. Carnival Corp., 360 

F. Supp. 3d 1345, 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2018), rev'd and remanded, 961 F.3d 1303 (11th 

Cir. 2020), Peck v. Carnival Corp., No. 16-20214-CIV, 2017 WL 7726728, at *7 

(S.D. Fla. July 13, 2017), Holderbaum v. Carnival Corp., No. 13-24216-CIV, 2015 

WL 5006071, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2015).

g. Moreover, Defendant knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions for 

other reasons that will be revealed through discovery.

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

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

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

LOREDO’S incident and/or injuries.

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

in the exercise of reasonable care.

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

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

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

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

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

the hazards, but failed to do so.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 7 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 21

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

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

subject stairs, including, but not limited to, tightening and/or reducing the slip resistance of the 

nosing of the stairs. This failure to maintain is only an example, and CARNIVAL failed to maintain 

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

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

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

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

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

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

CARNIVAL and/or the ship, as salaried crewmembers. 

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

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

employees, and/or agents.

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

crewmembers, employees, and/or agents.

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

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

and/or agency agreement and/or relationship.

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 8 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 21

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

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

CARNIVAL.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT

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

and 30-34, as if set forthherein.

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

safety of its passengers.

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

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

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

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

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

with CARNIVAL breached the duty of reasonable care owed to LOREDO and were negligent by 

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

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

discussed paragraph 17 of the instant Complaint were present at the time of LOREDO’S incident.

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

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

paragraph 19 of the instant Complaint.

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

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

vicinity were reasonably safe.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 9 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 10 of 21

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

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear-and-tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

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

LOREDO’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 10 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 21

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

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

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

safety of its passengers.

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

care by adequately maintaining the subject area and the vicinity.

49. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, staff

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

with CARNIVAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to LOREDO and were negligent by

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

creating and/or dangerous conditions discussed paragraph 17(a-g, j) of the instant Complaint 

were present at the time of LOREDO’S incident.

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

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

paragraph 19 of the instant complaint.

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately maintain the subject area and the vicinity.

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

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear-and-tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 11 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 12 of 21

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

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

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

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

costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

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

LOREDO’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REMEDY

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

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

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

safety of its passengers.

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

care by adequately remedying the subject area and the vicinity.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 12 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 13 of 21

60. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, staff 

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

with CARNIVAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to LOREDO and were negligent by 

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

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

present at the time of LOREDO’S incident.

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

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

paragraph 19 of the instant Complaint.

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately remedy the subject area.

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

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear-and-tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

costs.

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 13 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 21

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

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

LOREDO’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITION

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

and 30-34, as if set forth herein.

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

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including LOREDO.

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

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

LOREDO.

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

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter.

72. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its vessel, crew, agents, employees, staff 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 14 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 15 of 21

failing to warn LOREDO of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17(a-e, g-j) of the 

instant Complaint.

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 19 of this Complaint.

74. These dangerous conditions were also created by CARNIVAL.

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

passengers needed to be warned of, and/or CARNIVAL failed to warn LOREDO despite knowing 

of the dangers.

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

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

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

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

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

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear-and-tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

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

80. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused LOREDO great bodily harm in that the 

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

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

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

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

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

costs.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 15 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 16 of 21

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

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

in the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

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

LOREDO’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT V

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

AREA AND THE VICINITY

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

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

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

particular a duty to LOREDO, not to permit dangerous conditions to be in places where they could 

harm passengers, such as those discussed in paragraph 17(a-g, j) in the instant Complaint, as well 

as to design and install reasonable safeguards.

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

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

vessel on which LOREDO was injured into the channels of trade, and/or CARNIVAL approved of 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 16 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 17 of 21

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

approved of the Ecstasy, including providing specifications to the shipbuilder in the original build 

process, and/or during its refurbishments, and as such owed a duty to its passengers, and in 

particular a duty to LOREDO, to design, install and/or approve of the subject area and the vicinity 

without any defects.

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

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

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

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

other guidelines.

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

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

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

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

process.

91. CARNIVAL has the right to enter the ship and inspect it during construction to ensure 

that it is being constructed in accordance with the design specifications and has a right to insist on 

changes when safety concerns are identified.

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

possession of the ship.

93. However, CARNIVAL permitted the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 

17(a-g, j) of the instant complaint to be present in the subject area and the vicinity without 

correcting these design deficiencies and did not design and install reasonable safeguards.

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 17 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 18 of 21

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 19 of this Complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear-and-tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

costs.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 18 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 21

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

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

LOREDO’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just or appropriate.

COUNT VI

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

AND/OR AGENTS, BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY

104. LOREDO hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-24, 

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

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

safety of its passengers.

106. The crewmember responsible for controlling the crowd in the subject area was an 

agent of CARNIVAL for the following reasons:

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

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

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

CARNIVAL; and/or

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

employment or agency; and/or

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 19 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 20 of 21

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

CARNIVAL’S behalf, and they accepted the undertaking.

107. CARNIVAL is vicariously liable for the acts of its staff, employee, and/or agent who

was responsible for controlling the crowd in the subject area.

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

subject to numerous maritime conditions such as the ship’s movement, additional wear-and-tear 

due to maritime conditions not necessarily present on land, waves, and other conditions unique to 

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

109. This negligence proximately caused LOREDO great bodily harm in that, but for this 

negligence, LOREDO’S injuries would not have occurred.

110. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, LOREDO has suffered severe bodily 

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

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

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

costs.

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

112. LOREDO has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 20 of 21
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 21

LOREDO’S vacation, cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of 

independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, for all court costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just or appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, SARAH LOREDO, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: November 14, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthias M. Hayashi 

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 905161

aronfeld@Aronfeld.com 

Matthias M. Hayashi

Florida Bar No.: 115973

mhayashi@aronfeld.com

Abby H. Ivey, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1002774

aivey@aronfeld.com

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

One Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

P: (305) 441.0440

F: (305) 441.0198

Attorneys for LOREDO

Case 1:22-cv-23722-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/14/2022 Page 21 of 21