[PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 04 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 18 90 -DLG AIDA ESTHER CHAPARRO, In di vi du al ly, CEFERINO PEREZ, In di vi du al ly, AMILKAR PEREZ CHAPARR O, In di vi du al ly, CEFERINO PEREZ AND AIDA ESTHE R CHAPARR O, as th e Per so na l re pr es en ta ti ve s o f th e Est at e o f Liz Mar ie Pere z Ch ap arro , Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, d.b .a. Carn iv al Cru is e Lin es , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 5, 2 01 2) Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 1 of 10Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: App el la nt s C efer in o P erez an d Ai daEsthe r Ch ap arro , in di vi du al ly andas th e p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve s o f th e es ta te of the ir d au gh te r, Liz M ari e Per ez Ch ap arro (“ Liz M ari e”), an d Am il ka r Pere z Ch ap arro (co ll ect iv el y “ App el la nt s” ) ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l o f th ei r co m pl ai ntag ai ns t App el le e, Carn iv al Co rp or at io n (“ Carn iv al ”), fo r ne gl ig en ce an d n eg li ge nt in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t d is m is sa l was
warrant edbe cau se th e co m pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns were co nc lu so ry an d i ns uf

fic ie nt ly factua l. We dis ag ree a ndrev ers e th e jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l. I. Liz M ari e an d Ap pe ll an ts (he r pa ren ts an d b ro th er) t oo k ava cat io n abo arda Carn iv al cru is e sh ip , th e M/V VICTORY . App el la nt s al le ge th atanun id en ti fie d Carn iv al em

pl oyee en co ur ag edLiz M ari e’s fathe r an d b ro th er t o v is itCo ki Beac h
an d C or al W or ldup on di se m ba rk in g t he sh ip inSt. Th om as , Virg in Isl an ds . On Ju ly 12, 2 01 0, Ap pe ll an ts lef t the sh ip an d t rav el edto Co ki Beac h i nd ep en de nt ly of th e sh ip ’s sp on so redex cu rs io ns inSt. Th om as . On th ei r way ba ckto th e sh ip fro m Co ki Beac h, Ap pe ll an ts an d Li z Ma rie rod e anop en -ai r bu s p as t a f un eral
se rv ic e o f a g an g m em

be r who rece nt ly die d i n agang -rel at edsh oo ti ng ne ar Co ki

2 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 2 of 10Bea ch . Cars of f un eral att en de es were p ark edalo ng th e n arro w roa d, b lo ck in g t he bu s’s p as sa ge . Whi le stuc k i n t raff ic , gan g- rel at ed , ret al ia to ry vi ol en ce er

up te d a t th e fu ne ral , sh ot s wer e fi red , andLiz M ari e was ki ll edon th e b us as a n i nn oc en t pa ss erb y . App el la nt s s ue d C arn iv al inth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a, cl ai min g t ha t Carn iv al ne gl ig en tl y

fai le d t o warn t he m

ab ou t the cri m e p ro bl em , rep orte d g an grel at edvi ol en ce, an d p ot en ti al forpubl ic sh oo ti ng s i n S t. Th om as ge ne ral ly, an d Co ki Beac h s pe ci fic al ly. They furthe r al le ge d tha t Ca rn iv al ’s neg li ge ntfai lu re t o warnres ul te d i n C arn iv al ’s neg li ge ntin fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss . The d is tri ct co urt g ran te d C arn iv al ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ), gi vi ng App el la nt s l eav e to am en d t he ir c om pl ai nt . App el la nt s ch os e n ot to am en d the ir c om

pl ai nt , rathe r, th ey

ti m el y ap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er di sm is si ng th ei r cas e. II .

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o di sm is s fo r fai lure t o s ta te a cl ai m , acce pt in g t he co m pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns as t ru e an d c on st ru in g t he m

inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff.” Ci no tt o v . Delta Air Lin es Inc
. , 67 4 F .3d12 85 , 12 91 (11 thCir . 20 12 ). II I.
3 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 3 of 10The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t d is m is sa l u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) was

ap pr op ria te be cau se m an y of t he co m

pl ai nt ’s key all eg at io ns were co nc lu so ry rathe r th anfactua l, an d t hu s, the pl ead in g fa il edto sat is fy th e requi rem en ts of Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7 (2 00 9) . App el la nt s co nt en d t ha t th e co m pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns are m or e th anad equa te to su rv iv e a m ot io n t o d is m is s. Carn iv al , rathe r th andi sc us si ng th e su ffi ci en cy of t he pl ead in g, ar gu es th at App el la nt s’ cas e is ba se d upo n ahe ig ht en eddu ty of care th atex ceed s the
reas on ab le ord in ary care st an da rdreco gn iz edby con tro ll in g m ari ti m e la w. Befo re di sc us si ng th e p le ad in g s ta nd ardun de r Iq ba l , we firs t ad dr es s the m or e fund am en ta l i ss ue rai se d b y Carn iv al

— i.e. , whet he r Carni va l h as a du ty to warn pa ss en ge rs of kno wn d an ge rs at p orts of c al l. A. The dut

y to wa rn InCo un t I o f th ei r co m

pl ai nt , App el la nt s al le ge th atCarn iv al ne gl ig en tl y fai le d t o warn t he m

of g en eral an d s pe ci fic da ng ers of c rime in St . Tho m as an d Co ki Beac h. “ Inan al yzi ng a m ari ti m e to rt c as e, we rel y on ge ne ral pri nc ip le s o f
ne gl ig en ce l aw.” Dai

gl e v. Poi nt

La ndin g, In c. , 61 6 F .2d82 5, 8 27 (5t h C ir. 19 80 ). To p le adne gl ig en ce, a p la in ti ff m us t al le ge th at(1) th e d efen da ntha d a 1

In Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc) , the Eleventh 1 Circuit adopted as binding prec edent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rende red prior to October 1, 1981. 4

Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 4 of 10du ty to p ro te ctth e p la in ti ff fro m a pa rti cu la r in

jury; (2) th e d efen dantbre ach ed th atdu ty; (3) th e b reac h a ctua ll y an d p ro xi m at el y

cau se d t he pl ai nt iff’s in

jury; and (4 ) th e p la in ti ff s uf

fere d a ctua l h arm . Zi vo

ji no vi ch v. Barne r , 52 5 F .3d10 59 , 10 67 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (pe r curiam) (ci ti ng ClayElec . Coo p., In c. v. Jo hn so n , 87 3 S o. 2 d 11 82 , 11 85 (Fl a. 20 03 )). Co nc ern in g t he du ty elem en t i n am ari ti m e co nt ex t the Supr em e Co urt h el d i nKermar ec v. Co mpagn ie Gene ra le Tra ns at la nt iq ue , 35 8 U.S. 62 5, 6 30 , 79 S. Ct. 4 06 , 40 9 (1 95 9) th at“ a sh ip own er o wes th e dut y of
ex erci si ng re as on ab le ca re to ward s tho se lawf ul ly abo ardth e v es se l wh o a re n ot
m em be rs of t he crew.” (e m

ph as is ad de d) . W e h av e li ke wis e sa idth at , th e b en ch m arkag ai ns t wh ic h ash ip own er’s b eh av io r m us t b e m eas ur edis ordi na ryrea so na bl e ca re un de r the cir cu mstan ces , a st an dardwhi chrequi res , as apre requi si te to im po si ng li ab il ity , th at th e carrie r ha ve ha d a ctua l o r co ns tru ct iv e n ot ic e o f th e ri sk -cre at in g co nd it io n, atlea stwher e . . . the m en ace i s o ne co m m on ly en co un te redon lan d a ndno t cl earl y li nk edto naut ic al adve ntur e. Kee fe v. Bah ama Cr uise Lin e, In c ., 86 7 F .2d13 18 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, a Fl or id a in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urt h as sai d t ha t a cru is e li ne owes it s p as se ng ers a du ty to warn o f kn own da ng ers be y on d t he po in t of de ba rk at io n i n p la ces wher e p as se ng ers are i nv it edor r eas on ab ly exp ect edto vi si t. Ca rl is le v. Ulys ses Li ne Ltd., S.A. ,47 5 S o. 2 d 2 48 , 25 1 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App
.
5 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 5 of 1019 85 ). In s pi te of C arn iv al ’s ob jecti on th at Ca rl is le is anim pr op er ex pa ns io n o f a sh ip own er’s l iabi li ty to p as se ng ers , th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a h as oft en ackno wled ge d a ndap pl ie d t he st an da rdart ic ul at edin Ca rl is le
. Se e, e.g . , Ko en s v. Roy al Ca ri bb ea n C

ru is es , Ltd
. , 77 4 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 21 5, 1 21 9– 12 20 (S.D. Fla
. 20 11 ); McLa re n v . Cel eb ri tyCr uises, In c. , No. 1 1– 23 92 4– CIV, 2 01 2 WL 17 92 63 2, at*8 –9 (S.D. Fla . May 16 , 20 12 ); Gen tr y v. Ca rn iv al

Co rp . , No. 11 –2 15 80 –C IV, 20 11 W L 47 37 06 2, at*3 (S.D. Fla . Oct. 5 , 20 11 ). It i s tru e th at fed eral co urts are n otbo un d b y a Fl or id a st at e co urt’s ad mira lt y de ci si on , se e E. Rive r S.S. Co rp . v. Tra ns ame ri ca Dela va l, In c. , 47 6 U.S. 8 58 , 86 4, 1 06 S. Ct. 22 95 , 22 99 (19 86 ), bu t the rul e in Ca rl is le is co ns on an t wi th th e fed eral m ari ti m e st an da rdof “ or di na ry

reas on ab le care un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces ,” se e Kee fe , 86 7 F.2 d a t 1 32 2. Carn iv al als o arg ue s tha t d is m is sa l was ap pr op ria te be cau se Liz M ari e’s sh oo ti ng de ath was un fo res eeab le , andth atth ere i s n o dut y to warnof a n un fo res eeab le da ng er. Se e Dai gl e , 61 6 F .2dat 8 27 (st at in g t ha t a f ai lu re t o warn do es no t co ns ti tu te a br each inth e dut y of c are “ un le ss th e res ul ta ntha rm is
reas on ab ly fores eeab le ”). App el la nt s h av e al le ge d, h owe ve r, th atCarn iv al was aware of g an g- rel at edvi ol en ce an d c rime, inc lu di ng publ ic sh oo ti ng s, i n S t. Tho m as ge ne ral ly andne ar Co ki Beac h s pe ci fic al ly. At the pl ead in g s ta ge of 6 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 6 of 10li ti ga ti on , we askon ly if pl ai nt iff s h av e ad equa te ly stat eda cl ai m forwhi chrel ie f
canbe gra nt ed . Carn iv al ’s arg um en t o n fo res eeab il it y is m or e ap pr op ria te aft er di sc ov ery atth e su m

m ary jud gm en t s ta ge or a t tria l. 2. Th e su ff ic ie nc y o f the pl ea di ng Hav in g e st ab li sh edth e sc op e o f Carni va l’s duty , we nex t ad dr es s the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs on th e su ffi ci en cy of Ap pe ll an ts ’ co m

pl ai nt . Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a)( 2) requi res th ata co m pl ai ntpro vi de “ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Ru le 8’s p le ad in g s ta nd ard

“ do es no t re qu ire ‘ de ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s,’ bu t i t d em an ds m or e th anan un ad orne d, the -d efen da nt -unl awfu ll y -h arm ed -m e acc us at io n.” Iqb al , 55 6 U.S. at 67 8, 1 29 S. Ct. at19 49 (ci ti ng Bell Atl . Cor p. v. Tw omb ly , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5, 1 27 S. Ct . 19 55 , 19 64 (20 07 )). A complai ntth atpro vi de s “ labe ls an d c on cl us io ns ” o r

“ a fo rm ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n” is no t ad equa te to su rv iv e a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 . Rath er, “ [t]o s urvi ve . . . a co m pl ai ntm us t co nt ai n s uf

fic ie ntfactua l
m at te r, acce pt edas t ru e, to ‘ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .’ ” Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. at67 8, 1 29 S. Ct. at19 49 (qu ot in g Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at57 0, 1 27 S. Ct . at 1 97 4) . A facia ll y pl au si bl e cl ai m

m us t al le ge fact s tha t ar e m or e th an m erel y po ss ib le
. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. at67 8, 1 29 S. Ct. at19 49 . Factua l al le ga ti on s 7 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 7 of 10th atare “ ‘m erel y co ns is te ntwith’ a de fen da nt ’s li ab il it y ” fal l s ho rt o f be in g faci al ly plaus ib le
. Id
. at 6 78 , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 (qu ot in g Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 7, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 66 ). The p laus ib il it y st an da rd“ cal ls foren ou gh factto rai se a reas on ab le expe ct at io n t ha t d is co ve ry wil l re ve al ev id en ce” o f th e d efen da nt ’s li ab il it y . Two mbl

y , 55 0 U.S. at55 6, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 . Butif a ll eg at io ns are in de edm or e co nc lu so ry

th anfactua l, the n t he co urt d oe s n otha ve to ass um e th ei r tru th
. Se e Ma man i v. Ber za in , 65 4 F .3d11 48 , 11 53 –5 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1)
. App el la nt s’ com

pl ai ntall eg es th e fo ll owi ng : a C arn iv al em pl oyee en co ur ag edApp el la nt s t o v is itCo ki Beac h i n S t. Th om as ; Ca rn iv al was fa m il ia r with C ok i Be ach be cau se itso ldex cu rs io ns th ere; Carn iv al ge ne ral ly kne w of ga ng vi ol en ce an d p ub li c sh oo ti ng s i n S t. Th om as ; Ca rn iv al kn ew of Co ki Beac h’s rep ut at io n fo r drug sal es , th eft , andga ng vi ol en ce; Carn iv al kn ew orsh ou ldha ve kn own of the ga ng m em

be r’s sh oo ti ng an d fu ne ral tak in g p la ce n ear C ok i Be ach ; Carn iv al fai le d t o warn Ap pe ll an ts of a ny of th es e d an ge rs ; Ca rn iv al kn ew or sh ou ldha ve kn own of the se da ng ers be cau se Carn iv al m on it or s cr im e init s p orts of cal l; Carn iv al ’s neg li ge nc e in en co ur ag in g i ts pa ss en ge rs to vi si t Co ki Beac h
an d i n fa il in g t o warn d is em ba rk in g p as se ng ers of g en eral an d s pe ci fic in ci de nt s o f cri m e in St. Th om as an d C ok i Be ach cau se d Li z Ma rie ’s dea th ; an d Ap pe ll an ts ha ve su ffer edva rio us da m ag es , in cl ud in g t he lo ss of Li z Ma rie ’s li fe. Thi s 8 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 8 of 10ne gl ig en t fa il ur e-t o- warncla im is m or e th ana m ere r eci ta ti on of t he ele m en ts of th e cau se of a ct io n. Th e fac ts all eg edinth e co m pl ai ntare p laus ib le an d ra is e a reas on ab le expe ct at io n t ha t d is co ve ry co ul d s up pl y

ad di ti on al pro of

of C arn iv al ’s li ab il it y . Se e Two mbl

y , 55 0 U.S. at55 6, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 . W e co ns eque nt ly
co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredindi sm is si ng App el la nt s’ neg li ge nc e cl ai m un de r Iq ba l
. The di stric t co urt al so di sm is se d C ou ntII, th e cl ai m forne gl ig en t i nf

li ct io n of em ot io na l d is tre ss , bec au se th atcla im requi res anad equa te ly ple d u nd erl y in g cl ai m of n eg li ge nc e. Becaus e App el la nt s p le d n eg li ge nc e su ffi ci en tl y , we co nc lu de th atth ey

li ke wis e st at eda va li d c la im forne gl ig en t i nf

li ct io n o f
em ot io na l d is tre ss . Suc h acla im requi res “ m en ta l o r em ot io na l h arm (su chas fri gh t o r an xi ety ) th atis cau se d b y th e n eg li ge nc e o f an othe r an d t ha t i s n ot di rect ly bro ug htab ou t b y a ph y si cal in

jury, bu t tha t m ay

m an ife stit se lf i n p hysic al sym pt om s.” Co ns ol . Rai l Co rp . v. Got ts ha ll , 51 2 U.S. 5 32 , 54 4, 1 14 S. Ct. 2 39 6, 24 05 (19 94 ) (d is cu ss in g t ort cl ai m s b ro ug htun de r th e Fed eral Em pl oyers’ Liab il it y Act) . Comm on law s ta nd ard s v ary in whatso rt o f ha rm th e p la in ti ff m

us t su ffer(anactua l “ph y si cal im pa ct ,” pr es en ce i n the “ zo ne of d an ge r,” o r st atus as a m ere b y st an de r), b utfed eral m ari ti m e la w has ad op te d Got ts ha ll ’s app li cat io n o f th e “ zo ne of d an ge r” t es t wh ic h a ll ows reco ve ry if apl ai nt iff

is “pl acedin 9 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 9 of 10imm ed ia te ris k o f ph y si cal ha rm by [defe nd an t’s n eg li ge nt ] co nduc t.” St ac y v. Red er ie t Ot to Dan ie ls en , A.S. , 60 9 F .3d10 33 , 10 35 (9t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; W il li ams v. Ca rn iv al Cr uise Lin es , Inc
. , 90 7 F . Sup p. 4 03 , 40 6 (S .D. Fla. 1 99 5) . The
co m pl ai ntall eg es th atApp el la nt s wer e tr ap pe d i n t he bu s dur in g t he sh oo ti ng ne ar Co ki Beac h, tha t the y

fear edforth ei r li ve s, tha t the y witne ss edLiz M ari e’s sh oo ti ng an d d eath, an d t ha t the y ha ve co ns eque nt ly exp eri en cedva rio us ph y si cal
m an ife st at io ns of t he ir e m ot io na l d is tre ss . Thu s, we h ol d t ha t Ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m fo r ne gl ig en t i nf

li ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss als o was di sm is se d e rro ne ou sl y .

IV. App el la nt s’ com

pl ai ntsu ffi ci en tl y

st at es cla im s fo r whi chrel ie f canbe gr an te d. Th eref

or e, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l an d
rem an d thi s ca se forfurth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED an d REMANDED.

10 Case: 11-14047 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 10 of 10