ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24120

DENEEN CORNIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY1

Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN (hereinafter “CORNIN”), through undersigned counsel, sues 

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

by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. CORNIN 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. CORNIN is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of Louisiana.

1 When this complaint refers to a numbered paragraph, such as “paragraph 14” for example, unless 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 1 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 2 of 22

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

and Panama.

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

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

11. CORNIN’S incident occurred on or about October 3, 2022, while she was a fare 

paying passenger on CARNIVAL’S vessel, the Glory.

12. On or about October 3, 2022, between approximately 11:45 AM and 12:45 PM, as 

CORNIN attempted to sit down on a bar stool on the lido deck in a normal and proper manner, the top 

of this bar stool fell off, causing her knee and leg to get stuck on the stool.

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 2 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 22

13. As a result, CORNIN sustained severe injuries that include, but are not limited to,

severe injuries to her knee, leg, possible nerve damage, and other serious injur(ies) which may 

require surgery.

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

not limited to the following:

a. The subject stool was unreasonably loose, which caused the top half to come 

loose when CORNIN attempted to sit on it, causing it to fall off, thereby 

causing her incident

b. The subject stool was not properly welded and/or not properly positioned, 

which caused the subject stool to come loose when CORNIN attempted to sit 

on it, causing it to fall off, thereby causing her incident.

c. The subject stool CORNIN sat on lacked adequate slip resistant material, 

which caused the top of the subject stool to slip off, and which caused 

CORNIN’S incident and injuries.

d. There was an unreasonable number of passengers, over ten, in the subject area, 

which was caused by CARNIVAL’S crewmembers’ failure to control the 

crowd of these passengers such that an acceptable number of passengers were 

in the subject area. This caused CORNIN’S incident and injuries because the 

crowd prevented her from seeing the that the subject stool was dangerous, and 

therefore caused her sit on it and to suffer her incident and injuries.

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 3 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 22

15. Each of these dangerous conditions was a sufficient cause of CORNIN’S incident and 

injuries, each of these conditions caused CORNIN’S incident and injuries, and CORNIN is alleging 

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

16. 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. CORNIN was in the subject area for approximately at least an hour before her 

incident, and was able to see the area during this whole time, but did not see anyone 

change the position of the stool or otherwise damage or alter it. Therefore, CORNIN 

reasonably infer that the stool was in a loose and dangerous condition at least 

approximately an hour prior to her incident, such that CARNIVAL had sufficient time 

to become aware of this danger and to take appropriate remedial measures, but failed 

to do so.

b. Approximately the day before CORNIN’S incident, CORNIN saw that there was 

another stool in the same area that had its top part off and yellow caution tape around 

it to prevent passengers from sitting on it, indicating that CARNIVAL knew that these 

stools were prone to having their top portions becoming loose and falling off, but 

CARNIVAL placed no such warnings or caution tape over the subject stool at the time 

of the incident. After CORNIN’S incident, CARNIVAL also placed the same yellow 

caution tape around the subject stool in the same manner as it did for this previous 

stool.

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 CORNIN has alleged alone was a cause of his 

incident such that the only way CARNIVAL could have prevented CORNIN’S incident was to 

have adequately warned of or remedied each of these conditions.

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 4 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 5 of 22

c. CARNIVAL has policies/procedures requiring its crewmembers to weld and/or to 

position the bar stools in a correct manner to prevent injuries resulting in personal injury, 

which shows that CARNIVAL knew or should have known that stools welded and/or 

positioned incorrectly like the subject stool was dangerous conditions.

d. Furthermore, CORNIN observed CARNIVAL crewmembers in the subject area at the 

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

CORNIN reasonably infers that these crew members regularly used, observed, and 

tended to the subject area, and therefore was or should have been aware of the 

dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions discussed in paragraph 14, and should have 

warned of and/or removed these conditions.

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

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

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

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

subject area before providing them for public use. These design defects include, but 

are not limited to, the dangers outlined in paragraph 14(a-c and e).

f. 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 14, 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 5 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 6 of 22

reasonable cruise line should have done.

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

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

h. Previous passengers in prior cases suffered incidents involving similar dangers on 

CARNIVAL’S ships (including CARNIVAL’s subsidiary brands, such as AIDA 

Cruises, Carnival Cruise Line, Costa Cruises, P&O Cruises, P&O Cruises Australia, 

Cunard Line, Princess Cruises, Holland America Line, and Seabourn), including, but 

not limited to Hickman v. Carnival Corp., No. 04-20044 CIV UUB, 2005 WL 

3675961, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2005) (“While there is no question that the presence 

of the actual bar stool might enhance the ability to support plaintiffs' theories of 

liability, a case can nonetheless be made. Furthermore, if we had the bar stool, we'd 

be arguing about the failure to preserve the base.”), Tesoriero v. Carnival Corp., No. 

16-21769-CIV, 2017 WL 8895347, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2017), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 16-CV-21769, 2018 WL 1894717 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 

2018), aff'd but criticized, 965 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Plaintiff claims that when 

she sat down on the chair, it suddenly collapsed, causing personal injuries, including 

an injury to her right arm. . . . other patrons had used the stools[.]), Altidor v. Carnival 

Corp., 550 F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“During the fall, ‘the top part [of 

the barstool] just flew off.’”), Schachter v. Cunard Line Ltd. Co., No. 09-23188-CV, 

2009 WL 10668975, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2009) (“Plaintiff claims that on or about 

October 8, 2007, he tripped and fell over a plastic step stool negligently left on the 

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 6 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 22

floor of the beauty salon and spa aboard Defendant's vessel, the Queen Mary II.”).

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

for other reasons that will be revealed through discovery.

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

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

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

CORNIN’S incident and/or injuries.

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

in the exercise of reasonable care.

20. These hazardous conditions existed for a sufficient period of time before the incident that 

CARNIVAL knew or should have been aware of them.

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

paragraph 14, as well as the subject area and the vicinity, for dangers. For example, CARNIVAL was 

required, by its own policies and procedures, to inspect the subject area in certain intervals of time (such 

as, for example, every fifteen minutes), to ensure that the subject stool was not unreasonably loose. 

However, CARNIVAL failed to inspect the subject area during the intervals its own policies and 

procedures required, thereby causing it to be unable to address the unreasonable looseness of the subject 

stool prior to CORNIN’S incident.

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

14(a-c and e) in a reasonably safe condition. For example, CARNIVAL failed to perform regular 

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

slip resistant material to the subject stool to prevent it from becoming unreasonably loose.

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 7 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 22

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

failed to do so. For example, CARNIVAL could have welded and/or positioned the subject stool in a 

manner where it would not have caused loose, but CARNIVALfailed to do so. The dangerous conditions 

that CARNIVAL needed to remedy are those discussed in paragraph 14.

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

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

provide reasonable warnings such as, for example, a warning sign in the subject area that was not in a 

location CORNIN could not see. The dangerous conditions that CARNIVAL needed to warn CORNIN

of are those discussed in paragraph 14.

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

of the subject area involved in CORNIN’S incident.

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

installation of the flooring involved in CORNIN’S incident.

27. The crewmembers of the Glory were in regular full-time employment of CARNIVAL

and/or the ship, as salaried crewmembers. 

28. 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.

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

crewmembers, employees, and/or agents.

30. 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 8 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 9 of 22

31. The crewmembers were represented to CORNIN 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. CORNIN detrimentally relied on these representations as CORNIN would not have 

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

CARNIVAL.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT

32. CORNIN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-21 as 

if set forthherein.

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

safety of its passengers.

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

care by adequately inspecting the conditions discussed in paragraph 14, as well as the subject area and 

the vicinity, for dangers.

35. 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 CORNIN and were negligent by 

failing to adequately inspect the conditions discussed in paragraph 14, as well as the subject area and 

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

discussed in paragraph 14 were present at the time of CORNIN’S incident.

36. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 9 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 10 of 22

paragraph 18.

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

failure to adequately inspect the conditions discussed in paragraph 14, as well as the subject area and 

the vicinity.

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

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

39. 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.”

40. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused CORNIN great bodily harm in that the 

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

41. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, CORNIN 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 CORNIN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

43. CORNIN suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in the 

future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 10 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 11 of 22

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 II

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

44. CORNIN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-20

and 22 as if set forth herein.

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

safety of its passengers.

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

care by adequately maintaining the conditions discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e).

47. 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 CORNIN and were negligent by

failing to adequately maintain the conditions discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e), such that the 

unreasonably risk creating and/or dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e) were 

present at the time of CORNIN’S incident.

48. 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.

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately maintain the conditions discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e).

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 11 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 12 of 22

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

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

51. 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.”

52. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused CORNIN great bodily harm in that the 

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

53. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, CORNIN 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 CORNIN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

55. CORNIN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such losses

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that CORNIN 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 12 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 13 of 22

or appropriate.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REMEDY

56. CORNIN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-20 

and 23 as if set forth herein.

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

safety of its passengers.

58. 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 14.

59. 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 CORNIN and were negligent by 

failing to adequately remedy the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14.

60. 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.

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately remedy the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14.

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

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

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.”

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 13 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 14 of 22

64. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused CORNIN great bodily harm in that the 

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

65. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, CORNIN 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 CORNIN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that CORNIN 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

68. CORNIN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-20 

and 24 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 CORNIN.

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 14 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 15 of 22

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 

CORNIN.

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 CORNIN and was negligent by 

failing to warn CORNIN of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14.

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 18.

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 CORNIN 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 CORNIN. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 15 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 16 of 22

80. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused CORNIN 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, CORNIN 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 CORNIN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

in the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that CORNIN 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 

AREAAND THE VICINITY

84. CORNIN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-20 

and 25-26 as if set forth herein.

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 16 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 17 of 22

the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e).

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

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

harm passengers, such as those discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e), as well as to design and install 

reasonable safeguards.

87. 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 CORNIN 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.

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

approved of the Glory, 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 CORNIN, to design, install and/or approve of the conditions discussed in 

paragraph 14(a-c and e) without the deficiencies discussed in paragraph 14(a-c and e).

89. 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 CORNIN’S

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

other guidelines.

90. 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.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 17 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 18 of 22

process.

92. 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.

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

possession of the ship.

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

14(a-c and e) to be present in the subject area and the vicinity without correcting these design 

deficiencies and did not design and install reasonable safeguards.

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

for the reasons discussed in paragraph 18.

96. The design flaws that made the subject area and the vicinity involved in CORNIN’S

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100. 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 18 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 19 of 22

101. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused CORNIN great bodily harm in that the 

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

102. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, CORNIN 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 CORNIN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

104. CORNIN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that CORNIN 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

105. CORNIN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-20 

and 27-31 as if set forth herein.

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 19 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 20 of 22

safety of its passengers.

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

have warned CORNIN of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14 and controlled the 

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

CARNIVAL’S behalf, and they accepted the undertaking.

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

and/or agents in failing to warn CORNIN of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 14

and failing to control the crowd.

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

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

21. 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.”

22. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused CORNIN great bodily harm in that the 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 20 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 22

23. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, CORNIN 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 CORNIN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

25. CORNIN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses 

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DENEEN CORNIN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

damages and costs that CORNIN 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, DENEEN CORNIN, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: December 20, 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

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 21 of 22
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 22 of 22

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 CORNIN

Case 1:22-cv-24120-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 22 of 22