ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 1 of 24 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24059 

TANYA ALLEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN (hereinafter “ALLEN”), through undersigned counsel, sues 

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

by jury, stating as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. ALLEN 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. ALLEN is sui juris and is a resident and citizen of the state of North Carolina. 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 1 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 2 of 24 

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

United Kingdom. 

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

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

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

of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

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

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

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

b. Had an office or agency; and/or 

c. Engaged in substantial activity; and/or

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

48.181 or 48.193. 

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

been waived, or do not apply.

DEFINITIONS AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

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

11. ALLEN’S incident occurred on or about October 27, 2022, while she was a fare 

paying passenger on CARNIVAL’S vessel, the Sunshine. 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 2 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 3 of 24

13. On or about October 27, 2022, between approximately 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.,

ALLEN was at CARNIVAL’s private island, Half Moon Cay, where she participated in a CARNIVAL 

sponsored game of tug of war (hereinafter, the “game.”). As ALLEN played, an unidentified 

intoxicated male passenger in front of her suddenly fell backwards and forcibly made contact with 

ALLEN’s head and body, thereby causing her to fall down and hit her head.

14. This unidentified male passenger had – prior to the subject incident – also participated in 

a ship sponsored “musical towels” game previous to the tug of war game, and was unreasonably rowdy, 

failed to follow the game’s instructions/rules, and smelled of alcohol while participating in the musical 

towels game. The cruise director, a man who went by the name “TJ,” previously noticed that this male 

passenger was unreasonably rowdy in that he was failing to follow the games instructions/rules, and 

smelled of alcohol in both the musical towels game and the tug of war game, and also observed this 

male passenger standing too close to ALLEN since the start of the tug of war game approximately five 

minutes until the time this passenger fell into ALLEN, but the cruise director failed to intervene to stop 

this passenger from continuing to participate in the ship-sponsored games.

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

concussion and/or other traumatic brain injuries.

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

not limited to the following:

a. There were an unreasonable amount of participants on each side of the tug of war rope, 

approximately sixteen or more participants on each side, which caused the rope to be 

pulled with an unreasonably great force, increasing the danger of collisions between 

participants.

b. The tug of war rope was unreasonably thin and small such that the participant who 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 3 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 4 of 24

collided with ALLEN was unable to grip the rope adequately.

c. CARNIVAL failed to enforce the safety rules of the subject game, which required that 

participants keep reasonable distance between each other for each other’s safety.

d. CARNIVAL’s unreasonably failure to separate the male passenger from ALLEN

during the tug of war game despite the fact that it knew or should have known of the 

rowdy behavior, failure to follow the game’s instructions/rules, and intoxication of this

participant, since the cruise director observed this behavior approximately thirty

minutes before the incident since the start of the musical towels game, but failed to 

separate this dangerous participant from the games.

e. The subject sand in the area of the subject game was being played was unreasonably 

hard, which reduced the traction of both the male participant’s and ALLEN’s feet, 

thereby causing ALLEN’s incident.

f. CARNIVAL should have required the participants to wear proper footwear with a high 

degree of traction during the subject game but failed to do so.

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

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

injuries, each of these conditions caused ALLEN’s incident, and ALLEN is alleging that CARNIVAL

was negligent as to each of these conditions in the alternative.1

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: 

1 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 of the 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-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 4 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 5 of 24 

a. After ALLEN’s incident the ship’s doctor said he would waive the medical charges 

on the ship because he knew from experience there was severe danger of injury to 

passengers while playing the subject tug of war game, and the ship’s doctor also said 

that this game should not be played. 

b. As soon as the tug of war game started approximately five minutes before her incident, 

ALLEN observed participants of the tug of war game falling over, such that 

CARNIVAL had ample time to be aware that this game was unreasonably dangerous 

to its passengers but failed to stop the game or otherwise intervene in it for its 

passengers’ safety. 

c. Instead, the cruise director only said over the loudspeaker to “be careful” due to the 

dangerousness of the game, such that CARNIVAL was aware of the danger, but only 

provided an inadequate warning to mitigate it.

d. The cruise director was in the subject area at the time of the incident, and he was in 

the immediate vicinity of the incident, such that ALLEN reasonably infers that he was

or should have been aware of the dangerous and/or risk-creating conditions ALLEN 

was encountering, and separated the unreasonably intoxicated, and rowdy passenger 

from ALLEN. 

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

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

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

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

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

include, but are not limited to, the dangers outlined in paragraph 16 of this complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 5 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 6 of 24 

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

similar sand on other areas in CARNIVAL’S control to make them less dangerous. 

g. 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 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. 

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

inspecting the subject area involved in ALLEN’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 ALLEN’s incident. 

i. Previous passengers suffered incidents involving ship-sponsored games and/or 

intoxicated passengers/participants at Half Moon Cay, including, but not limited to

Simpson v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-25253-CIV, 2021 WL 6428172, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 

Dec. 30, 2021) (incident on Half Moon Cay), Manukian v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:15-

CV-21437-UU, 2015 WL 9660017, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2015) (incident on Half 

Moon Cay), Moseley v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:20-CV-20419-KMM, 2020 WL 

9209743, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2020) (incident on Half Moon Cay), Cosmo v. 

Carnival Corp., 272 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (incident involving a Carnival 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 6 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 7 of 24

sponsored game), McDonald v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., No. 97-2101-CIVLENARD, 1999 WL 1338095, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 1999) (incident involving a 

Carnival sponsored game), Tesoriero v. Carnival Corp., No. 16-21769-CIV, 2017 WL 

8895347, at *20 (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) (incident involving a Carnival sponsored game), Gould v. 

Carnival Corp., No. 19-CV-20289, 2021 WL 4189588, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 

2021), aff'd, No. 21-13308, 2022 WL 5240409 (11th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022) (incident 

involving CARNIVAL’s over-service of alcohol to intoxicated passenger who injured 

another plaintiff), DW by & through CW v. Carnival Corp., No. 17-20115-CIV, 2018 

WL 7822329, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2018) (incident involving CARNIVAL’s overservice of alcohol to intoxicated passenger who injured another plaintiff), Bounds v. 

Carnival Corp., No. 14-22197-CIV, 2015 WL 12712057, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 

2015) (incident involving CARNIVAL’s over-service of alcohol to intoxicated 

passenger who injured another plaintiff).

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

for other reasons that will be revealed through discovery.

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

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

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

ALLEN’S incident and/or injuries.

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

in the exercise of reasonable care.

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 7 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 8 of 24

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

23. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to ALLEN.

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

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

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

the hazards, but failed to do so.

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

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

subject sand, including, but not limited to, applying anti-rust materials/measures to it, such that it 

became unreasonably rusty, with jagged sharp edges, which caused ALLEN’s incident for the 

reasons previously discussed. This failure to maintain is only an example, and CARNIVAL failed 

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

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

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

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

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

29. The crewmembers of the Sunshine 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.

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 8 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 9 of 24 

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 ALLEN 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. ALLEN detrimentally relied on these representations as ALLEN would not have 

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

CARNIVAL. 

COUNT I

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSPECT 

34. ALLEN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 to 33, 

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 subject area and the vicinity to make sure the subject area and 

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

37. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its 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 ALLEN 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 9 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 10 of 24 

discussed paragraph 16 of the instant Complaint were present at the time of ALLEN’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 19 of the instant Complaint. 

39. 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.

40. 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.”

41. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused ALLEN great bodily harm in that, but 

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

42. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, ALLEN 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 ALLEN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

44. ALLEN suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in the 

future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 10 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 11 of 24

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

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

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of ALLEN’S vacation, 

cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of independence, lost wages, 

lost earning capacity, 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

45. ALLEN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 to 33, 

as if set forth herein.

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

safety of its passengers.

47. 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.

48. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its 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 ALLEN and were negligent by failing 

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

and/or dangerous conditions discussed paragraph 16 of the instant Complaint were present at the 

time of ALLEN’S incident.

49. 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.

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 11 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 12 of 24

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

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 negligence proximately caused ALLEN great bodily harm in that, but

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

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

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

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

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of ALLEN’S vacation, 

cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of independence, lost wages, 

lost earning capacity, 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-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 12 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 13 of 24 

COUNT III

NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REMEDY

56. ALLEN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 to 33, 

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 subject area and the vicinity.

59. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its 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 ALLEN 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 16 of the instant Complaint were present at 

the time of ALLEN’S incident. 

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 19 of the instant Complaint. 

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

CARNIVAL’S failure to adequately remedy the subject area.

62. 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.”

63. CARNIVAL’S negligence proximately caused ALLEN great bodily harm in that, but 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 13 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 14 of 24 

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

64. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, ALLEN 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 ALLEN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

66. ALLEN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such losses 

in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of ALLEN’S vacation, 

cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of independence, lost wages, 

lost earning capacity, 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

67. ALLEN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 to 33, 

as if set forth herein. 

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

circumstances for the safety of its passengers, including ALLEN. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 14 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 15 of 24 

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

ALLEN. 

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

which passengers may reasonably be expected to encounter. 

71. At all times material, CARNIVAL, through its 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 ALLEN and was negligent by failing 

to warn ALLEN of the dangerous conditions discussed in paragraph 16(a-d and f) of the instant 

Complaint.

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

for the reasons discussed above. 

73. These dangerous conditions were also created by CARNIVAL. 

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

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

of the dangers. 

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

76. These conditions were neither open nor obvious to ALLEN. 

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

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

78. 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-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 15 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 16 of 24 

79. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused ALLEN great bodily harm in that the 

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

80. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, ALLEN 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 ALLEN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

82. ALLEN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of ALLEN’S vacation, 

cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of independence, lost wages, 

lost earning capacity, 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

83. ALLEN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 to 33, 

as if set forth herein. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 16 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 17 of 24 

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

harm passengers, such as those discussed in paragraph 16 in the instant Complaint, as well as to 

design and install reasonable safeguards. 

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

subject area by generating design specifications for the builder to follow, and to put the area in

which ALLEN was injured into the channels of trade, and/or CARNIVAL approved of the subject 

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

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

approved of the Sunshine, 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 ALLEN, to design, install and/or approve of the subject area and the vicinity 

without any defects.

87. 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 ALLEN’S 

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

other guidelines. 

88. CARNIVAL provides design elements for locations on its islands to the builders 

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

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

reject the design plans and drawings of the subject area, including the subject sand, during the new 

build process. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 17 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 18 of 24 

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

changes when safety concerns are identified.

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

possession of the ship.

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

16 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. 

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

for the reasons discussed above.

94. The design flaws that made the subject area and the vicinity involved in ALLEN’S

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98. 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.”

99. CARNIVAL’S breach proximately caused ALLEN great bodily harm in that the 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 18 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 19 of 24 

100. As a result of CARNIVAL’S negligence, ALLEN 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 ALLEN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

102. ALLEN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of ALLEN’S vacation, 

cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of independence, lost wages, 

lost earning capacity, 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 AGAINST CARNIVAL FOR THE ACTS OF ITS CREWMEMBERS 

BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY

(OVER-SERVICE OF ALCOHOL)

103. ALLEN hereby adopts and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1-18, 

as if set forth herein. 

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

safety of its passengers. 

105. This duty includes, but is not limited to, the responsibility of a marine carrier of 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 19 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 20 of 24

passengers under applicable U.S. maritime common law to supervise and/or assist passengers on

its vessels and its islands who CARNIVAL knew, or should have known, are engaging, or are

likely to engage, in behavior potentially dangerous to themselves or others on its vessels and its 

islands.

106. A primary reason why U.S. maritime common law places these duties upon marine 

carriers of passengers, rather than leaving it up to the passengers to supervise themselves in what 

(at least to the passengers) are the unfamiliar surroundings of a cruise ship and private islands, is 

to prevent marine accidents and causalities from occurring on vessels and private islands. Such 

incidents, unlike shoreside accidents, have the potential and likelihood to disrupt international 

commerce by diverting vessels from their itineraries for the purpose of obtaining advanced medical 

treatment and/or to conduct rescue operations and/or to call other vessels and/or shoreside agencies 

like the U.S. Coast Guard to come to render assistance.

107. CARNIVAL deliberately makes alcohol available to passengers and crew on its

vessels and its islands, despite knowing that alcohol is banned for safety reasons on vessels 

operated by the U.S. Government and military and aboard U.S. flagged merchant ships.

108. The sale of alcohol, in fact, represents one of the top sources of on-board revenue to 

CARNIVAL, grossing over millions per year, upon information and belief.

109. To maximize this revenue, CARNIVAL deliberately designs its vessels and its islands

such as the subject area to ensure that there are alcohol serving stations in every nook and cranny 

of them.

110. Neither CARNIVAL nor the law of the relevant flag nation(s) impose a “legal limit” 

or any other legal consequences for alcohol consumption or intoxication on CARNIVAL’S ships

and private islands. Neither does CARNIVAL employ any systematic method to keep track of how 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 20 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 21 of 24

much alcohol a particular passenger has consumed over time, other than perhaps looking for visual 

signs of intoxication, which of course means that the individual is already drunk.

111. CARNIVAL, quite to the contrary, deliberately does as much as possible to 

encourage and facilitate alcohol consumption on its vessels and its islands.

112. CARNIVAL fully understands and expects that alcohol consumption by passengers 

will result in the diminution of their inhibitions and good judgment, which CARNIVAL, upon 

information and belief, expects will foster the general party atmosphere that CARNIVAL desires, 

and promotes on its vessels and its islands, so as to enhance some of its other revenue producing 

activities such as gambling and the purchase of more alcohol.

113. CARNIVAL thus knew that the presence of intoxicated passengers on its vessels and 

its islands, including in the subject area and the vicinity, was common.

114. As a result of CARNIVAL’S scienter as described above, and as described in 

paragraph 16 of this complaint, CARNIVAL had notice of the risk of the subject incident, which 

was foreseeable.

115. CARNIVAL’S above-described knowledge and information was not possessed by 

ALLEN, at all relevant times.

116. The male passenger who collided with ALLEN drank numerous alcoholic beverages 

in the hours leading up to her incident.

117. It is foreseeable to CARNIVAL that allowing drunk passengers to roam about the 

ship increases the probability of the dangers and risks associated with drunken behavior including 

uninvited physical contact perpetrated by intoxicated passengers on other unsuspecting 

passengers.

118. As a result of consuming an unreasonable amount of alcoholic beverages, the male 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 21 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 22 of 24

passenger who collided with ALLEN became intoxicated within hours prior to her incident, and 

the male passenger who collided with ALLEN’s state of intoxication was and/or should have been 

readily observable to any reasonable person, including CARNIVAL’s crewmembers.

119. Alternatively, if the male passenger who collided with ALLEN did not become 

intoxicated, the male passenger who collided with ALLEN became impaired and/or his ability to 

perceive his surroundings were otherwise adversely affected, and this impaired/diminished 

condition was and/or should have been readily observable to any reasonable person, including 

CARNIVAL’s crewmembers.

120. The male passenger who collided with ALLEN was continuously served alcohol by 

CARNIVAL’s crewmembers numerous times, well past the point where a person would become 

visually intoxicated.

121. CARNIVAL is vicariously liable for the acts of its crewmembers who continued to

serve the male passenger who collided with ALLEN alcoholic beverages past the point where he 

became visually intoxicated.

122. CARNIVAL knew, or should have known, that the risk and actual occurrences of 

violent incidents were magnified and/or influenced by factors such as the design and installation 

of the subject area and the vicinity, the unfamiliarity of passengers with its cruise ships, the 

passenger’s lack of knowledge of the prior, severe incidents and/or injuries which CARNIVAL 

knew to be associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, the presence and consumption 

of alcohol on vessels and private islands which reduced passengers’ judgment, and the general 

party atmosphere fostered on the vessel and islands owned by CARNIVAL, which deliberately 

markets all you can drink beverage packages.

123. The crewmembers who breached their duty of reasonable care by over-serving 

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 22 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com

Page 23 of 24

alcohol to the male passenger who collided with ALLEN 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.

124. The crewmembers’ breach was the cause in-fact of ALLEN’S great bodily harm in 

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

125. The crewmembers’ breach proximately caused ALLEN great bodily harm in that the 

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

126. As a result of the crewmembers’ negligence, ALLEN 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 ALLEN’S

vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

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

128. ALLEN has suffered these losses in the past and will continue to suffer such loses in 

the future.

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 23 of 24
ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

Aronfeld.com 

Page 24 of 24 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TANYA ALLEN, demands judgment against Defendant, 

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

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

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

medical care and treatment, nursing care and treatment, loss of the value of ALLEN’S vacation, 

cruise, transportation costs, loss of important bodily functions, loss of independence, lost wages, 

lost earning capacity, 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, TANYAALLEN, demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: December 14, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Spencer 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 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

P: (305) 441.0440 

F: (305) 441.0198 

Attorneys for ALLEN

Case 1:22-cv-24059-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 24 of 24