Quashen v. Carnival Corp.

576 F.Supp.3d 1275

Kirsten QUASHEN, Plaintiff,

v.CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Panamanian Corporation d/b/a Carnival Cruise Line, Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-22299-KMM

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed December 17, 2021

Deborah J. Gander, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff.

Christopher Edson Knight, Fowler White Burnett, Katina M. Hardee, Cameron Wayne Eubanks, Christopher Bond Smith, Victor Jose Pelaez, Fowler, White, Burnett, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Carnival Corporation's ("Carnival" or "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Mot.") (ECF No. 73). Plaintiff Kirsten Quashen ("Plaintiff") filed a response. ("Resp.") (ECF No. 91). Defendant filed a reply. ("Reply") (ECF No. 98). The Motion is now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND¹

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff was a passenger travelling onboard the Carnival Inspiration with her boyfriend, William Traxler ("Traxler"), and her friends, Stacey Moreland ("Moreland") and Matt Lockwood ("Lockwood"). Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 1; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 1.

At some point after 6:09 p.m., Plaintiff and Traxler went to Moreland and Lockwood's suite, Cabin U107, which included a balcony. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 5; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 5. The balcony door in Cabin U107 was affixed with a sign ("Warning Sign"), stating:

AIR CONDITIONED KEEP DOOR CLOSED

CAUTION

OPEN DOOR CAREFULLY AS STRONG WINDS MAY CAUSE DOOR TO CLOSE

Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 7 (citing Exhibit 4 to Deposition of Suzanne Vazquez ("Photo") (ECF No. 72-4) at 1). Plaintiff has disputed this based on the following: (1) the sign is posted only on the interior of the balcony door, but not the exterior, (2) the text below "air conditioned keep closed" is comparatively smaller, and (3) Carnival's expert conceded that the sign is not compliant with certain industry standards, including those established by the American National Standards Institute ("ANSI"). Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 7 (citing Photo at 1; Suzanne Vazquez Deposition Transcript ("Corp. Rep. Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 72-2) at 196).^{2 ,3} Having reviewed the record evidence cited by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the text warning passengers of strong winds is slightly smaller than the text regarding air-conditioning and finds it undisputed that the sign was only posted on the interior of the balcony door. See Photo at 1; Corp. Rep. Dep. Tr. at 196; see generally Def.’s Reply 56.1 (raising no dispute as to the interior facing sign).

Additionally, Defendant's expert, David J. Martyn ("Martyn"), agreed that the Warning Sign did not comply with ANSI standards because the word "CAUTION" was not in black text with a yellow background. David Martyn Deposition Transcript ("Martyn Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 80-1) at 189:12–191:12.⁴ It is undisputed ANSI standards require specific language and warning symbols in circumstances where a risk of bodily harm exists. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 43; Def's 56.1 Reply ¶ 43.⁵

The balcony door had a closing mechanism that consists of a hydraulic piston and a spring control (hereinafter, "Door Stopper"). Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 10; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 10.

As the ship was leaving the port, Plaintiff, Traxler, Moreland, and Lockwood all went out on the balcony of Cabin U107. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 6 (citing Plaintiff's Deposition Transcript ("Pl. Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 72-1) at 58:1–7).⁶ Traxler testified that he did not notice that there was anything wrong with the door at that time and that it closed normally. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 6 (citing William Traxler Deposition ("Traxler Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 72-3) at 55:6–15). Traxler also noted that there was no wind at that time. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 6 (citing Traxler Dep. Tr. at 55:14–15). Plaintiff testified that she recalled "seeing a sign about the air conditioning" on the door of the balcony before going out on the balcony for the first time, but did not recall reading the portion of the sign urging caution during conditions involving high winds. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 8 (citing Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 60:6–10); Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 8 ("Not Disputed."). The group then returned inside the cabin to watch television; Traxler testified that he did not notice anything wrong with the balcony door when reentering the cabin. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 8 (citing Traxler Dep. Tr. at 55:19–22); Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 8.

Later, Plaintiff decided to return to the balcony by herself to see whether there were any sea lions or seals next to the ship. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 11; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 11. Plaintiff testified that she "probably" closed the door behind her after stepping out onto the balcony and did not notice anything wrong with the door at that point. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 12 (citing Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 63:1–64:25). After remaining on the balcony for a couple of minutes, Plaintiff decided to return to the cabin. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 12 (citing Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 64:1–65:25). Plaintiff testified that the following occurred upon reentering the cabin:

I opened the door, I believe with my left hand, opened the door wide enough that I could step in front of it, then I held the door with my right hand behind me. I put my left hand on the doorjamb so I could step over the threshold. And when I -- my body was inside the room, I let go of the door with my right hand and it immediately slammed shut on my finger.

Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 65:8–14.⁷ Plaintiff testified that she did not have an opportunity to pull her hand away because the door closed so quickly after she let go of the door with her other hand. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 13 (citing Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 68:19–21).

As a result of the above-described incident, Plaintiff lost a portion of her left-index finger above the top joint of the finger. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 15; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 15.⁸ Plaintiff received medical treatment on the Inspiration and the medical team was not able to reattach the severed portion of Plaintiff's finger because the tissue had become devitalized. Def.’s 56.1 ¶¶ 18–28; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 18–28.⁹

Traxler, Moreland, and Lockwood all testified at their depositions that the wind was blowing when Plaintiff was reentering Cabin U107 for the second time. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 13 (citing Matt Lockwood Deposition Transcript ("Lockwood Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 83-5) at 31; Stacey Moreland Deposition Transcript ("Moreland Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 83-6) at 56, 93; Traxler Dep. Tr. at 57, 60–61). Although Defendant appears to dispute whether the wind was blowing at the time of Plaintiff's incident, Def.’s Reply 56.1 ¶ 39, the Court finds that there is an issue of fact as to whether the wind was blowing in light of the above-cited deposition testimony.

On certain occasions, Carnival issues audible warnings and provides additional signage warning guests not to go on balconies due to high winds. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 39; Def.’s 56.1 Reply ¶ 39. It is undisputed that no such warning was issued that day. Id.

The doorway has a five-inch threshold that Plaintiff was required to step over to reenter the cabin. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 13 (citing Corp. Rep. Dep. Tr. at 202). Suzanne Vazquez ("Vazquez"), Carnival's corporate representative, acknowledged that thresholds can pose a "trip hazard" if a passenger does not use caution while stepping over them. Id. (citing Corp. Rep. Dep. Tr. at 202). Plaintiff stated at her deposition that she was wearing a "long skirt" at the time of the incident and the reason she placed her left hand on the door jamb was to enable her to step over the threshold. Id. (citing Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 65:21–23).

The Parties dispute exactly what caused the door to close so quickly. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 14; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 14. At her deposition, Plaintiff recalled that Traxler initially believed that the wind caused the door to close so quickly. Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 79:1–17. However, Plaintiff also stated that she later realized that the closing mechanism on the door was broken. Id. at 79:17–21. Plaintiff has submitted video evidence, taken by Lockwood, showing the operation of the door shortly after the incident took place, before any effort to replace the Door Stopper was made. (ECF No. 86). The video shows the door closing on its own, then getting stuck in place. Id. Then, after someone touches it, the door closes very quickly. Id. Immediately thereafter, the individual who captured the video touches the Door Stopper and demonstrates that it is loose. Id. From this evidence, a trier of fact could determine that the Door Stopper was not functioning properly because (1) the door got stuck, and (2) the door closed very quickly after someone appeared to touch it. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is a dispute as to whether the Door Stopper was functioning properly at the time of the incident. The Court also find that there is enough evidence to create a dispute that the functionality of the Door Stopper, coupled with high winds, were the cause of the door closing on Plaintiff's finger.¹⁰ Additionally, there is no dispute that, despite Plaintiff's request for Carnival to preserve physical evidence relating to this matter, the Door Stopper was subsequently lost when the Inspiration was sold for scrap parts during Carnival's "pause in global operations during the COVID-19 pandemic." Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 36–37; Def.’s 56.1 Reply ¶¶ 36–37.

In addition, there was a prior incident in Cabin U107 involving the balcony door on March 17, 2019. Def.’s 56.1 ¶ 29; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 29. There, a passenger named Debra Mackey ("Mackey") was entering the cabin from the balcony and testified during her deposition that as she came inside "the door slammed really hard" and, despite her attempt to pull her hand away, closed on her finger. Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 29; Debra Mackey Deposition Transcript ("Mackey Dep. Tr.") (ECF No. 83-6) at 12:6–18. Mackey further stated that there was "no pressure there to make [the door] close a little slower" and "it was like it was pushed shut." Mackey Dep. Tr. at 30:12–31:4.

There is no dispute that a work order was generated for maintenance on Cabin U107's balcony door...