ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 31 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22853 

CHARLOTTE SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH (hereinafter “SMITH”), through undersigned counsel, sues 

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

by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. SMITH 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. SMITH is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of Texas. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 1 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 2 of 31 

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 surface

that SMITH slipped on, the foreign substance on the subject surface, the surrounding area, and all 

material and effects pertaining thereto, including any anti-slip/skid material that was applied or that 

should have been applied, and/or other parts thereof, drains that were or should have been in the area 

to reduce the amount of liquid in the area, any sources of liquid in the subject area and/or the sources

of the liquid involved in SMITH’s incident, the area and surface’s design and/or visual condition, 

and/or any other applied, adhesive, and/or other material.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 2 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 31

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

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

13. SMITH’S incident occurred on or about July 8, 2022, while she was a fare paying 

passenger on CARNIVAL’S vessel, the Vista.

14. On or about July 8, 2022, between approximately 2:00-3:00 p.m., SMITH slipped and 

fell on a foreign liquid substance/water that was on the floor on deck 11 portside and hit her head. 

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

complete rupture of her right hamstring, a partial tear of her left hamstring, and head injuries, loss 

of consciousness, a possible traumatic brain injury, and other serious injuries which require 

surger(ies).

16. The ship’s medical crew unreasonably delayed in having SMITH brought to the 

medical center after her fall, and SMITH waited approximately forty-five minutes or longer for

the medical staff to arrive at the scene of her incident, and another approximately ten minutes or 

longer for the medical staff to bring her a wheelchair. Ultimately, SMITH was taken to the medical 

center by wheelchair at or about approximately 16:18 UTC-5:00. The ship’s doctor took x-rays, 

but failed to diagnose her injuries, including her head injuries. Moreover, SMITH was prescribed 

an insufficient amount of pain medicine for her trip home, such that CARNIVAL failed to control 

her pain, and she was in great pain for a longer amount of time.

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

not limited to the following:

a. The foreign substance on the subject surface, which caused the subject surface 

to become unreasonably slippery, and which caused SMITH to slip and fall.

b. The floor SMITH slipped on lacked adequate slip resistant material.

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 3 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 31

c. There were no reasonable safety measures such as reasonable places SMITH 

could grab in the subject area during her fall.

d. There was either non-existent drainage for the subject floor or any such 

drainage was not reasonably draining liquid from the subject area at the time 

of SMITH’s incident.

e. The unreasonable lack of policies and/or the unreasonable non-enforcement of 

such policies regarding the use of footwear that was more slip-resistant than 

SMITH’s footwear in the subject area.

f. There was no rug/carpet on the subject surface to prevent it from becoming 

slippery when wet.

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

18. Each of these dangerous conditions alone was sufficient to cause SMITH’S incident and 

injuries, and SMITH is alleging that CARNIVAL was negligent as to each of these conditions

separately and not cumulatively. 

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. SMITH observed a CARNIVAL crewmember in the subject area at the time of the 

incident, and this crewmember was in the immediate vicinity with a mop and 

immediately starting mopping after SMITH fell, such that SMITH reasonably infers 

that these crew members regularly used, observed, and tended to the subject area, and 

therefore were or should have been aware of the dangerous and/or risk-creating 

conditions thereof, and warned of and/or removed these conditions.

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 4 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 31

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 surface, such that CARNIVAL should have known of the design defects of the

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

include, but are not limited to, the dangers outlined in paragraph 17 of this complaint.

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

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

recommendations against the deficiencies discussed in paragraph 17 of this 

Complaint, and CARNIVAL should have known of these 

standards/recommendations/other guidelines because whether such 

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

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

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

should have done.

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

inspecting the subject area involved in SMITH’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 her incident.

e. Previous passengers in prior cases suffered prior slip and fall incidents involving 

similar surfaces on the same ship and other ships in CARNIVAL’S fleet (including 

Carnival Cruise Line, Princess Cruises, Holland America Line, Seabourn, P&O 

Cruises (Australia), Costa Cruises, AIDA Cruises, P&O Cruises (UK) and Cunard), 

including, but not limited to, Kroll v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-23017-JG, 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 5 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 31

Nembhard v. Carnival Corp., 1:19-cv-22954-FAM, Tittle v. Carnival Corporation, 

Case 1:21-cv-23647-KMW, and Hornsberger v. Carnival Corporation, Case 1:22-cv20204-DPG.

f. Moreover, CARNIVAL knew or should have known of these dangerous conditions 

for other reasons that will be revealed through discovery.

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

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

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

SMITH’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 SMITH.

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

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

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

the hazards, but failed to do so.

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

a reasonably safe condition.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 6 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 7 of 31 

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

and/or the ship, as salaried crewmembers. 

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

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

employees, and/or agents. 

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

crewmembers, employees, and/or agents. 

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

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

and/or agency agreement and/or relationship.

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

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

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

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

as such. SMITH detrimentally relied on these representations as SMITH would not have proceeded 

on the subject cruise had he believed the crewmembers were not employees of CARNIVAL. 

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT 

35. SMITH hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 7 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 31

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 SMITH 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 SMITH’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 Complaint.

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

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

vicinity were reasonably safe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 8 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 9 of 31 

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

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

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

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN 

46. SMITH hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 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 SMITH and were negligent by

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 9 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 10 of 31

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

at the time of SMITH’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 SMITH great bodily harm in that, but

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

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

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 10 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 11 of 31 

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

of SMITH’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. SMITH hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

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

safety of its passengers. 

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

care by adequately remedying the subject area and the vicinity.

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

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

with CARNIVAL, breached the duty of reasonable care owed to SMITH 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 SMITH’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 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 11 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 12 of 31

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 SMITH great bodily harm in that, but 

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

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

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

of SMITH’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.

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 12 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 13 of 31 

COUNT IV 

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITION

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

through 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 SMITH. 

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 

SMITH. 

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 SMITH and was negligent by 

failing to warn SMITH of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17 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 SMITH 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 SMITH. 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 13 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 31

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

but for CARNIVAL’S breach her 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 SMITH 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, SMITH has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 14 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 15 of 31 

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

through 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 SMITH, not to permit dangerous conditions to be in places where they could 

harm passengers, such as those discussed in paragraph 17 in the instant Complaint, as well as to 

design and install reasonable safeguards. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

particular a duty to SMITH, 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 SMITH’S

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 15 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 16 of 31

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

other guidelines.

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

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

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

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

process.

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

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

changes when safety concerns are identified.

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

possession of the ship.

93. However, CARNIVAL permitted the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 17

of the instant complaint to be present in the subject area and the vicinity without correcting these 

design deficiencies and did not design and install reasonable safeguards.

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 19 of this Complaint.

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

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

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

and the vicinity involved in SMITH’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).

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 16 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 17 of 31

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

but for CARNIVAL’S breach her 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 SMITH 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, SMITH has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 17 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 18 of 31 

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

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

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

safety of its passengers. 

106. The crewmembers who were working in and/or who were and/or should have been 

responsible for inspecting, maintaining, cleaning, and/or securing the subject area, including 

specifically the crewmember who immediately started mopping right after SMITH fell, were 

agents of CARNIVAL for the following reasons: 

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

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

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

CARNIVAL; and/or 

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

employment or agency; and/or 

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

CARNIVAL’S behalf, and they accepted the undertaking. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 18 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 31

discussed in paragraph 17 of the instant complaint.

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

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

109. 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.”

110. This negligence proximately caused SMITH great bodily harm in that, but for this 

negligence, SMITH’S injuries would not have occurred.

111. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, SMITH has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

113. SMITH has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 19 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 20 of 31 

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

COUNT VII

VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST CARNIVAL FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE 

SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

114. SMITH hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

115. CARNIVAL, through the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), 

and the ship’s crew, owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances for the safety 

of its passengers. 

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

as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances. 

117. At all times material, the ship’s medical staff (including its physicians and nurses), 

and the ship’s crew, were full-time employees and agents of CARNIVAL, subject to its direction 

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

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

under the circumstances.

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

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

119. CARNIVAL directly paid the ship’s medical personnel and regular crew a salary (i.e., 

payment by time) for their work in the ship’s hospital and in treating passengers. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 20 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 31

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

121. CARNIVAL pays to stock the medical center with all supplies, medical machinery, 

various medicines, and equipment to be used therein, regularly stocking and restocking same.

122. CARNIVAL collected all medical revenues directly from passengers and generated 

a profit on the sale of medical services, supplies, and equipment made by the ship’s medical 

personnel to the passengers of the vessel.

123. CARNIVAL’S marketing materials described the medical center in proprietary 

language.

124. The ship’s medical personnel were members of the ship’s crew; they were subject to 

the ship’s discipline; they were required to wear the ship’s uniforms; they (and, in particular, the 

ship’s physicians) were members of the ship’s officer’s compliment, and at all times they were 

subject to termination, or other discipline, by CARNIVAL.

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

of liability insurance and/or indemnification rights.

126. At all times material hereto, CARNIVAL, through the ship’s medical staff (including 

its physicians and nurses), and the ship’s crew, was careless, negligent, and breached its duties as

follows: 

a. The ship’s medical center unreasonably delayed in having SMITH brought 

to the medical center, as SMITH had to wait approximately forty-five 

minutes for the medical staff to arrive at the scene of her incident, and 

another ten minutes for the medical staff to bring a wheelchair for her. 

b. After SMITH was taken to the medical center by wheelchair at or about 

approximately 16:18 UTC-5:00, the ship’s doctor had x-rays taken of her, 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 21 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 22 of 31

but failed to diagnose her injuries, and said nothing was broken.

c. Moreover, SMITH was prescribed an insufficient amount of pain medicine 

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

time.

d. CARNIVAL failed to promptly provide SMITH with proper medical and/or 

first aid care and attention.

e. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly attend to SMITH, to her injuries,

and to her pain.

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

g. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly treat and care for SMITH.

h. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly examine SMITH’S injuries.

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

SMITH, including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such 

proper treatment.

j. CARNIVAL failed to properly bring and/or arrange for SMITH to be 

brought to a reasonable hospital/emergency room within a reasonable 

amount of time.

k. CARNIVAL failed to give SMITH proper discharge instructions.

l. CARNIVAL failed to give SMITH adequate pain medicine.

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

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

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

128. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, employers are vicariously liable for the 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 22 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 23 of 31

negligent acts or omissions by their employees and/or other agents within the course of their 

employment and/or agency.

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

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

nurses), and the ship’s crew.

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

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

below the standard of care.

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

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

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

have been substantially lessened.

132. CARNIVAL, through its employees and agents, including the ship’s medical staff, 

knew or should have known that the medical procedures they employed violated and/or did not 

meet reasonable standards of medical care.

133. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, SMITH has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

135. SMITH has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 23 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 24 of 31 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

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

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

COUNT VIII

APPARENT AGENCY

FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

136. SMITH hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34, as if set forth herein. 

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

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

in that:

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

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

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

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

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

f. The medical staff worked aboard the vessel; 

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

138. In addition, CARNIVAL further represented to SMITH that the vessel’s medical staff 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 24 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 25 of 31

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

and through other official statements that described the medical center in proprietary language, 

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

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

was in need of medical attention.

139. Furthermore, at no time did CARNIVAL represent to SMITH in particular, or the 

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

were not agents or employees of CARNIVAL.

140. At all material times, SMITH reasonably relied on the representations to SMITH’S

detriment that the medical staff and regular crew were employees, and/or agents, and/or servants 

of CARNIVAL.

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

CARNIVAL’S agents because they wore a ship’s uniform. In addition, at all times material, the 

medical staff spoke and acted as though they were authorized to do so by CARNIVAL.

142. This reasonable reliance was detrimental because it delayed SMITH from receiving 

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

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

CARNIVAL’S agents.

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

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

144. CARNIVAL had a duty to provide SMITH with reasonable care under the 

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

reasonable care under the circumstances.

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 25 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 26 of 31

145. SMITH’S injuries were aggravated due to the fault and/or negligence of CARNIVAL

through the acts of its apparent agents as follows:

a. The ship’s medical center unreasonably delayed in having SMITH brought 

to the medical center, as SMITH had to wait approximately forty-five 

minutes for the medical staff to arrive at the scene of her incident, and 

another ten minutes for the medical staff to bring a wheelchair for her. 

b. After SMITH was taken to the medical center by wheelchair at or about 

approximately 16:18 UTC-5:00, the ship’s doctor had x-rays taken of her, 

but failed to diagnose her injuries, and said nothing was broken.

c. Moreover, SMITH was prescribed an insufficient amount of pain medicine 

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

time.

d. CARNIVAL failed to promptly provide SMITH with proper medical and/or 

first aid care and attention.

e. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly attend to SMITH, to her injuries, 

and to her pain.

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

g. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly treat and care for SMITH.

h. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly examine SMITH’S injuries.

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

SMITH, including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such 

proper treatment.

j. CARNIVAL failed to properly bring and/or arrange for SMITH to be 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 26 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 27 of 31

brought to a reasonable hospital/emergency room within a reasonable 

amount of time.

k. CARNIVAL failed to give SMITH proper discharge instructions.

l. CARNIVAL failed to give SMITH adequate pain medicine.

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

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

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

147. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, SMITH has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

149. SMITH has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

of SMITH’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.

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 27 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 28 of 31 

COUNT IX

ASSUMPTION OF DUTY FOR THE

NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP’S MEDICAL STAFF

150. SMITH hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 34 as if set forth herein. 

151. CARNIVAL owed SMITH the duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

circumstances for the safety of its passengers.

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

as would an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances. 

153. CARNIVAL elected to discharge this duty by having SMITH seen by its own ship’s 

physicians and/or other crew members. 

154. As such, CARNIVAL voluntarily assumed a duty for the benefit of SMITH to use 

reasonable care in the provision of medical services to SMITH. 

155. At all times material hereto, CARNIVAL, through the ship’s medical staff (including 

its physicians and nurses), and the ship’s crew, was careless, negligent, and breached its duties as 

follows: 

a. The ship’s medical center unreasonably delayed in having SMITH brought 

to the medical center, as SMITH had to wait approximately forty-five 

minutes for the medical staff to arrive at the scene of her incident, and 

another ten minutes for the medical staff to bring a wheelchair for her. 

b. After SMITH was taken to the medical center by wheelchair at or about 

approximately 16:18 UTC-5:00, the ship’s doctor had x-rays taken of her, 

but failed to diagnose her injuries, and said nothing was broken. 

c. Moreover, SMITH was prescribed an insufficient amount of pain medicine 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 28 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 29 of 31

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

time.

d. CARNIVAL failed to promptly provide SMITH with proper medical and/or 

first aid care and attention.

e. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly attend to SMITH, to her injuries, 

and to her pain.

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

g. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly treat and care for SMITH.

h. CARNIVAL failed to timely and properly examine SMITH’S injuries.

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

SMITH, including unreasonably delaying taking measures to secure such 

proper treatment.

j. CARNIVAL failed to properly bring and/or arrange for SMITH to be 

brought to a reasonable hospital/emergency room within a reasonable 

amount of time.

k. CARNIVAL failed to give SMITH proper discharge instructions.

l. CARNIVAL failed to give SMITH adequate pain medicine.

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

CARNIVAL fell below the standard of care.

157. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused SMITH great bodily harm in that, but 

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 29 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 30 of 31 

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

violated reasonable standards of medical care.

159. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, SMITH has suffered severe bodily injuries 

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

independence, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense 

of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and loss of the value of SMITH’S 

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

161. SMITH has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that SMITH will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of her bodily injury, 

pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, hospitalization, medical 

care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of the value 

of SMITH’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, CHARLOTTE SMITH, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 8, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthias M. Hayashi 

Spencer M. Aronfeld, Esq.

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 30 of 31
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 31 of 31

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 SMITH

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 31 of 31