ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 23 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23992 

CALVIN JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY1

Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON (hereinafter “JACKSON”), through undersigned counsel, 

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

trial by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. JACKSON 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. 

1

 When this complaint refers to a numbered paragraph, such as “paragraph 16” for example, unless 

otherwise stated, it is referring to the corresponding numbered paragraph of this complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 2 of 23 

5. JACKSON is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of New York. 

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 that is authorized to conduct and that does 

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

in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and that 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.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. The photograph below depicts the platform in the subject area where JACKSON’s 

incident occurred.

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 23

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 3 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 23

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

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

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

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

13. JACKSON’S incident occurred on or about September 25, 2022, while he was a fare 

paying passenger on CARNIVAL’S vessel, the Elation.

14. On or about September 25, 2022, between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM, JACKSON and 

his traveling companions went to the ship’s water park, WaterWorks. As JACKSON attempted to 

go down one of the park’s water slides, JACKSON was told by a crewmember to take off his shoes. 

JACKSON did as he was instructed and proceeded to go down the slide. When JACKSON reached 

the bottom of the slide, he exited the slide, stood on a platform that was unreasonably slippery, 

attempted to step off the platform, lost his balance due to the slipperiness of the platform, and 

slipped and fell when his other foot made contact with the unreasonably slippery surface adjacent 

to the platform (the platform and the surface below will hereinafter collectively be referred to as 

the subject “surfaces”). 

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

a torn patella tendon on his left knee, and other serious injuries which require surger(ies).

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

not limited to the following:

a. The surfaces JACKSON slipped on lacked adequate slip resistant material, 

which caused the subject surfaces to become unreasonably slippery, and which 

caused JACKSON to slip and fall.

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 4 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 23

b. The platform was unreasonably small and rigid, such that JACKSON did not 

have a reasonable amount of space to catch himself as he was losing his 

balance on the platform, thereby causing him to fall.

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

JACKSON could grab in the subject area during his fall, which caused 

JACKSON’s injuries to be more severe, since if he was able to grab onto 

something reasonable during his fall, he would have been able to mitigate his 

injuries, as his fall would not have been as severe, and his injuries would 

therefore not have been as severe.

d. Other dangerous conditions which will be revealed during discovery.

e. There was a crewmember at the top of the slide before JACKSON got on it, 

and there was a crewmember at the bottom area. However, neither of these 

crewmembers warned JACKSON of the above dangerous conditions thereof, 

assisted him, or offered to assist him in exiting the slide.

17. Each of these dangerous conditions was a sufficient cause of JACKSON’s incident and 

injuries, each of these conditions caused JACKSON’s incident and injuries, and JACKSON is alleging 

that CARNIVAL was negligent as to each of these conditions in the alternative.2

18. 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. Approximately minutes prior to JACKSON’s fall, JACKSON’s friend saw a young 

2 A sufficient cause means a cause that, acting alone, is sufficient to cause an effect. 

(https://www.verywellhealth.com/understanding-causality-necessary-and-sufficient-3133021). In 

this case, this means that each dangerous conditions JACKSON has alleged alone was a cause of 

his incident such that the only way CARNIVAL could have prevented JACKSON’s incident was 

to have adequately warned of or remedied each of these conditions.

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 5 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 23

girl slip and fall on the same surfaces JACKSON’s incident occurred on, and there 

were crewmembers in the subject area that were close enough to see this fall, but these 

crewmembers did nothing to warn of, cover, remove, block off, or otherwise remedy 

the subject surfaces that JACKSON slipped on prior to his fall.

b. There was a warning sign in the WaterWorks area that stated that passengers should 

watch their step because the subject area and surfaces were slippery. However, this 

warning was not in a location where JACKSON or any reasonable person could 

reasonably see or appreciate it prior to JACKSON’s fall.

c. Furthermore, JACKSON observed two CARNIVAL crewmembersin the subject area 

at the time of the incident, and these crewmembers were in the immediate vicinity, 

such that JACKSON 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 discussed in paragraph 16, and should 

have warned of and/or removed these conditions.

d. CARNIVAL participated in the installation and/or design of the subject surfaces, or 

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

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

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

the subject surfaces before providing them for public use. These design defects 

include, but are not limited to, the dangers outlined in paragraph 16(a-d).

e. 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 16, and CARNIVAL

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 6 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 23

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.

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

inspecting the subject area involved in JACKSON’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 JACKSON’S incident.

g. Previous passengers in prior cases suffered prior incidents involving similar incidents 

on CARNIVAL’S ships, but not limited to, Offenberg v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:19-

CV-23334-KMM, 2021 WL 4990909, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2021) (“Plaintiff cites 

to Carnival's Waterworks/Waterslides Safety Manning Requirements policy that 

provides a list of waterslide attendants’ duties, including that attendants “[e]nsure that 

all riders exit the pool immediately upon splashdown,” and that they “[b]e prepared 

to enter [the] splash pool to assist customer[s] out of [the] pool.’”), Walsh v. Carnival 

Corp., No. 20-CV-21454-UU, 2021 WL 2195528, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2021) 

(“accident was caused by having to step over the blue perimeter retainer wall.”), and 

Easterwood v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-CV-22932, 2021 WL 1152398, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 

Mar. 26, 2021) (“he was at the waterworks area on Deck 11 with his eight-year-old 

son and niece.”).

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

for other reasons that will be revealed through discovery.

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 7 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 23

19. At all times relevant, the subject surfaces were unreasonably dangerous, risk-creating, 

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

20. The subject surfaces and the vicinity lacked adequate safety features to prevent or 

minimize JACKSON’S incident and/or injuries.

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

in the exercise of reasonable care.

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

23. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to reasonable passengers, including 

JACKSON, and CARNIVAL failed to adequately warn JACKSON of the dangers. CARNIVAL failed 

to provide reasonable warnings such as, for example, a warning cone in the subject area to warn 

JACKSON that the specific locations of his fall were unreasonably slippery. The dangerous conditions 

that CARNIVAL needed to warn JACKSON of are those discussed in paragraph 16(a-d).

24. At all times relevant, CARNIVAL failed to adequately inspect the conditions discussed in 

paragraph 16(a-d), as well as the subject surfaces and the vicinity, for dangers. For example, 

CARNIVAL was required, by its own policies and procedures, to inspect the subject surfaces in certain 

intervals of time (such as, for example, every fifteen minutes), to ensure that it was not unreasonably 

slippery. However, CARNIVALfailed to inspect these surfaces during the intervals its own policies and 

procedures required, thereby causing it to be unable to address the unreasonable slipperiness of these

surfaces prior to JACKSON’s incident.

25. At all times relevant, CARNIVAL had the ability to remedy the dangerous conditions, but 

failed to do so. For example, CARNIVAL could have covered, removed, or blocked off the location of 

the subject surfaces that were unreasonably slippery but failed to do so. The dangerous conditions that 

CARNIVAL needed to remedy are those discussed in paragraph 16.

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 8 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 23

26. At all times relevant, CARNIVAL failed to maintain the conditions discussed in paragraph 

16(a-d) in a reasonably safe condition. For example, CARNIVAL failed to perform regular upkeep 

on the subject surfaces, including, but not limited to, by failing to apply and to regularly apply 

anti-slip/slip resistant material to these surfaces.

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

of the subject surfaces and the vicinity involved in JACKSON’S incident.

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

installation of the subject surfaces and the vicinity involved in JACKSON’S incident.

29. The crewmembers of the Elation were in regular full-time employment of 

CARNIVAL and/or the ship, as salaried crewmembers. 

30. 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.

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

crewmembers, employees, and/or agents.

32. 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.

33. The crewmembers were represented to JACKSON 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. JACKSON detrimentally relied on these representations as JACKSON would not have 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 9 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 10 of 23 

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

CARNIVAL. 

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT 

34. JACKSON hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-22 

and 24-25 as if set forthherein.

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

safety of its passengers. 

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

care by adequately inspecting the conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d), as well as the subject 

surfaces and the vicinity, for dangers.

37. 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 JACKSON and were negligent by 

failing to adequately inspect the conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d), as well as the subject 

surfaces and the vicinity, for dangers, such that the unreasonably risk creating and/or dangerous 

conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d) were present at the time of JACKSON’S incident.

38. 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 18. 

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

failure to adequately inspect the conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d), as well as the subject 

surfaces and the vicinity. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 10 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 23

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

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 breach proximately caused JACKSON great bodily harm in that the 

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

43. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, JACKSON 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 JACKSON’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that JACKSON will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of his 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 

important bodily functions, loss of independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,

for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court 

deems just or appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 11 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 12 of 23 

COUNT II

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN 

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

22 and 25-26 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 conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d). 

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 JACKSON and were negligent 

by failing to adequately maintain the conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d), such that the 

unreasonably risk creating and/or dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d) were present 

at the time of JACKSON’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 18. 

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately maintain the conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d). 

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

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

53. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 12 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 13 of 23 

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

54. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused JACKSON great bodily harm in that the 

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

55. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, JACKSON 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 JACKSON’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

57. JACKSON has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such losses

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that JACKSON will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of his 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 

important bodily functions, loss of independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,

for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court 

deems just or appropriate. 

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REMEDY 

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

22 and 25 as if set forth herein. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 13 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 23

safety of its passengers.

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

care by adequately remedying the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16.

61. 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 JACKSON and were negligent 

by failing to adequately remedy the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16.

62. 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 18.

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately remedy the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16.

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

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

65. 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.”

66. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused JACKSON great bodily harm in that the 

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

67. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, JACKSON 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 14 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 15 of 23 

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

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

69. JACKSON has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such losses 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that JACKSON will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of his 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 

important bodily functions, loss of independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,

for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court 

deems just or appropriate. 

COUNT IV 

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITION

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

23 as if set forth herein. 

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

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including JACKSON. 

72. 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 

JACKSON. 

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

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter. 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 15 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 16 of 23

74. 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 JACKSON and was negligent by 

failing to warn JACKSON of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d).

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 18.

76. These dangerous conditions were also created by CARNIVAL.

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

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

of the dangers.

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

79. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to JACKSON. 

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

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

81. 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.”

82. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused JACKSON great bodily harm in that the 

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

83. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, JACKSON 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 16 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 17 of 23 

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

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

85. JACKSON has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that JACKSON will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of his 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 

important bodily functions, loss of independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,

for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment 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 

SURFACES AND THE VICINITY

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

22, 25, and 27-28, as if set forth herein. 

87. CARNIVAL negligently designed, as well as negligently approved of the design, of 

the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d). 

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

particular a duty to JACKSON, not to permit dangerous conditionsto be in places where they could 

harm passengers, such as those discussed in paragraph 16(a-d), as well as to design and install 

reasonable safeguards. 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 17 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 18 of 23

89. 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 JACKSON was injured into the channels of trade, and/or CARNIVAL approved 

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

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

approved of the Elation, 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 JACKSON, to design, install and/or approve of the conditions discussed in 

paragraph 16(a-d) without the deficiencies discussed in paragraph 16(a-d).

91. 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 surfaces and the vicinity involved in

JACKSON’S incident, which was also in violation of the applicable industry 

standards/recommendations and/or other guidelines.

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

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

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

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

process.

94. 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.

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

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 18 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 23

possession of the ship.

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

16(a-d)to be present in the subject area and the vicinity without correcting these design deficiencies

and did not design and install reasonable safeguards.

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 18.

98. The design flaws that made the subject surfaces and the vicinity involved in

JACKSON’S incident unreasonably dangerous were the direct and proximate cause of 

JACKSON’S injuries.

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

surfaces and the vicinity involved in JACKSON’S incident, which it knew or should have known 

of.

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

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

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

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

102. 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.”

103. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused JACKSON great bodily harm in that the 

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

104. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, JACKSON has suffered severe bodily 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 19 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 20 of 23 

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 JACKSON’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

106. JACKSON has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that JACKSON will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of his 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 

important bodily functions, loss of independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, 

for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment 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

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

22, 25, and 29-33, as if set forth herein. 

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

safety of its passengers. 

19. The crewmembers who were in the immediate vicinity of the incident and should 

have warned and/or assisted JACKSON in exiting the slide safely were agents of CARNIVAL for 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 20 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 23

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 this staff, employees, and/or agents would act on 

CARNIVAL’S behalf, and they accepted the undertaking.

20. CARNIVAL is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of these staff, employees, 

and/or agents in failing to warn him of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16 and/or 

failing to adequately assist him in exiting the slide safely.

21. CARNIVAL’S breach was the cause in-fact of JACKSON’S great bodily harm in 

that, but for CARNIVAL’S breach JACKSON’S injuries would not have occurred.

22. 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.”

23. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused JACKSON great bodily harm in that the 

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

24. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, JACKSON 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 21 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 22 of 23 

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

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

26. JACKSON has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that JACKSON will suffer and incur in the future, as a result of his 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 

important bodily functions, loss of independence, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, 

for all court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and for any and all other relief which this Court 

deems just or appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, CALVIN JACKSON, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: December 8, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer M. Aronfeld 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 22 of 23
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 23 of 23

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

P: (305) 441.0440

F: (305) 441.0198

Attorneys for JACKSON

Case 1:22-cv-23992-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 23 of 23