Law Cases in Miami Florida

Michel v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company, 554 So.2d 593 (Fla.3 DCA 1989) on Rehearing on en banc

The firm represented a vessel owner, Michel, in a claim against a dry dock company /ship repairer for breach of the warranty of workmanlike performance in a ship repair contract. The shipyard had performed extensive repairs on the vessel which subsequently sank at sea several days after leaving the shipyard. The shipyard moved for Summary Judgment based on an exculpatory clause in its ship repair contract which was granted. The firm successfully argued on appeal that the exculpatory clause was vague, ambiguous and should not have been enforced by the trial court. The court of appeals reversed and the trial court was ordered to set the case for trial. The ship yard and the plaintiff settled shortly before trial for a confidential sum.

Mc Cann vs. Sea Escape Limited, 641 So.2d 892 (3 DCA 1994)

The firm successfully represented a one-day cruise operator in a claim made by a passenger who claims she was kicked in the face by a dancer during a performance. The dancer, employed by an independent contractor, Strip-O-Gram, allegedly was dancing exuberantly near the front of the stage when he inadvertently kicked the plaintiff in the face. The plaintiff, who sustained a fractured nose, argued that the dancer was an agent of the vessel operator. The firm successfully argued on a Motion for Summary that the dancer was an independent contractor, not permanently attached to the vessel as required by Maritime Law, and Summary Judgment was entered. The Third District Court of Appeals in Miami agreed and affirmed Summary Judgment in favor of the ship owner.

Discovery Sun Partnership Limited vs. Kapsomenakis, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 95-1068

The firm represented a ship owner in a maintenance and cure claim presented by a Jones Act Seaman. The firm, on behalf of the ship owner, filed a Declaratory Judgment action in Federal Court seeking a decree that the seaman was not entitled to maintenance and cure because his alleged injuries arose as a result of his own willful misconduct. The court entered an order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff was notified several days before the alleged incident that he had been fired; that on the day of the incident he was observed intentionally throwing himself from a ladder in the engine room and intentionally striking his head against a door. The plaintiff was subsequently restrained by other crewmembers as he attempted to pull a fire extinguisher from its bracket on bulkhead and strike himself in the head with it. In the face of these undisputed facts, the court held as a matter of law that the seaman was not entitled to maintenance and cure for the alleged injuries because they arose from his own blatant willful misconduct.

Beckman vs. Ricks Watercraft Rentals, 3rd District Court of Appeals

Mr. Beckman was injured in a personal water craft accident in the Florida Keys. Mr. Beckman failed to file his lawsuit within the three-year Uniform Maritime Statute of Limitations arguing instead that the four-year Florida Statute of Limitations and negligent cases should apply. The Third District Court of Appeals held as a matter of law that a boating accident involving personal water craft arose under admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law and as such was governed by the Uniform three-year Statute of Limitations.

Frango vs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 891 So.2d 1208 (2005 Fla.3rd DCA)

The firm represented a cruise line in a maritime personal injury case. The issue of significance on appeal was whether Frango's spouse was entitled to a claim for loss of consortium under maritime law. The Frango case is the first case in the State of Florida which held that consortium claims are not permitted in personal injury cases under admiralty and maritime law.

Corona vs. Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Mrs. Corona claimed that during the first night of a cruise, she used the bathroom door in her cabin. While emerging from the bathroom, she leaned on the door handle, which according to Corona came apart in her hand, causing her to loose her balance and fall. Initially, the trial court granted the firm's Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Costa Crociere S.p.A., on the grounds that there was no evidence of negligence, specifically actual or construction notice of any dangerous condition causing or contributing to causing Mrs. Corona's fall. On appeal, the Third District Court reversed the trial court judgment on the basis that the cruise lines maintenance personnel knew or should have known of the allegedly defective door handle. The case was remanded and tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Andrea Giles vs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 03-12541

The plaintiff, Giles, claimed that she slipped and fell on a defective stairway aboard a Royal Caribbean ship causing her to fall sustaining a serious ankle fracture. The plaintiff and her mother both testified at trial that they saw a defective, worn smooth, condition on the rug covering the stair thread. The ship's Safety Officer testified at trial that he inspected the scene shortly after the incident and found no defective condition. The case was tried to a Jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defense.

Russo vs. Judy Zkiab, Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 04-25412

In this case, the firm represented a homeowner who was sued by an insect exterminator servicing the home. The exterminator's employee entered the home through the front door and exited through a back door into the back yard where he proceeded to fumigate. Upon attempting to leave, rather than walking through the house, the fumigator attempted to jump over a fence. The fumigator testified that the gate on the fence was locked and that he had knocked on the back door which was not answered. The homeowners testified that the fumigator never knocked on the rear door and they only learned of the injury after the incident had occurred. The case was tried to verdict before a jury in Miami, Florida which returned the verdict in favor of the firm's client, homeowner.

Gerber vs. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Ltd., Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 02-18368

The plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on a slippery and dangerous condition while exiting the Windjammer Café aboard a Royal Caribbean vessel. The plaintiff sustained a spinal compression fracture which required surgery. The case was tried to verdict before a jury in Miami, Florida which found no negligence on behalf of Royal Caribbean.

Meza-Vazquez vs. Costa Crociere S.p.A., Broward County Case No.: 02-16382

The plaintiff, a Jones Act Seaman, sued Costa claiming that he injured his back and sustained an inguinal hernia while working as a seaman aboard the vessel. The plaintiff also argued that Costa was liable for aggravation of his condition in failing to provide prompt and adequate medical care as required by the general maritime law. The case was tried to verdict before a jury. The plaintiff requested damages of several hundred thousand dollars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $10,000.00, which was Costa's settlement offer before trial.

Martin v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Ltd., Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 02-11456

The plaintiff, Mr. Martin, claimed that he slipped and fell on a stairway aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise vessel. The plaintiff claimed that he fell due to rough weather and that Royal Caribbean was negligent in failing to warn him of the impending bad weather. The plaintiff sustained spinal injuries requiring three surgical procedures. The firm moved for Summary Judgment on behalf of Royal Caribbean on the basis that the General Maritime Law imposed no duty on the part of the ship owner to warn a passenger of rough weather which is an open and obvious condition. The court granted the firm's Motion for Summary Judgment and the matter was dismissed.

Grassell vs. Discovery Sun Partnership, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale Division)

The plaintiff, Donald Grassell, sued Discovery Cruise Lines, for negligence claiming that Discovery failed to exercise reasonable care for his safety when he suffered a heart attack aboard the vessel. The plaintiff argued that Discovery Cruise Lines should have returned the vessel to port when they learned of plaintiff's heart attack or, alternatively, called the United States Coast Guard for a helicopter evacuation. The plaintiff also argued that Discovery was negligent for failing to have thrombolytic drugs in the vessel's infirmary. The case was tried before the United States District Court Judge in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The firm argued on behalf of the cruise line that the plaintiff's wife did not complain that her husband had a heart attack or that he had, in fact, collapsed. The plaintiff advised a crewmember that her husband “was ill.” The court found as a matter of law, that under the circumstances, the ship's doctor responding to the scene within 10 to 15 minutes was reasonable. The court analogized to a situation on land where a person may suffer a heart attack or collapse in a public place such as a grocery store or shopping mall. The court stated that in such a circumstance it would not be unreasonable for fire rescue to arrive within 10 to 15 minutes, especially since the plaintiff had failed to notify the crewmember that her husband had collapsed.

The evidence at trial showed that the cruise line was more than half way from Port Everglades to its destination of Freeport, Bahamas when the incident occurred and that returning to Ft. Lauderdale would have been unreasonable. The evidence further showed that the plaintiff was maintained in the ships infirmary under the observation of the ship's physician until the vessel arrived to Freeport after which the plaintiff was immediately disembarked and hospitalized within 10 to 15 minutes.

The plaintiff claimed that the delay in providing medical care, and not transporting him back to Ft. Lauderdale, caused him to suffer extensive heart damage making him a “cardiac cripple.” In light of the totality of the evidence, the court found that discovery was not negligent in the manner in which Mr. Grassell was treated by the ship's doctor, and that the ship's captain was not negligent in following the advice and recommendations of the ship's doctor to proceed to Freeport.


2121 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 730 Miami, Florida 33134 USA Tel: 305.774.1477 Fax: 305.774.1075 Email: info @ rodriguez-aronson.com	Michel v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company, 554 So.2d 593 (Fla.3 DCA 1989) on Rehearing on en banc The firm represented a vessel owner, Michel, in a claim against a dry dock company /ship repairer for breach of the warranty of workmanlike performance in a ship repair contract. The shipyard had performed extensive repairs on the vessel which subsequently sank at sea several days after leaving the shipyard. The shipyard moved for Summary Judgment based on an exculpatory clause in its ship repair contract which was granted. The firm successfully argued on appeal that the exculpatory clause was vague, ambiguous and should not have been enforced by the trial court. The court of appeals reversed and the trial court was ordered to set the case for trial. The ship yard and the plaintiff settled shortly before trial for a confidential sum. Mc Cann vs. Sea Escape Limited, 641 So.2d 892 (3 DCA 1994) The firm successfully represented a one-day cruise operator in a claim made by a passenger who claims she was kicked in the face by a dancer during a performance. The dancer, employed by an independent contractor, Strip-O-Gram, allegedly was dancing exuberantly near the front of the stage when he inadvertently kicked the plaintiff in the face. The plaintiff, who sustained a fractured nose, argued that the dancer was an agent of the vessel operator. The firm successfully argued on a Motion for Summary that the dancer was an independent contractor, not permanently attached to the vessel as required by Maritime Law, and Summary Judgment was entered. The Third District Court of Appeals in Miami agreed and affirmed Summary Judgment in favor of the ship owner. Discovery Sun Partnership Limited vs. Kapsomenakis, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 95-1068 The firm represented a ship owner in a maintenance and cure claim presented by a Jones Act Seaman. The firm, on behalf of the ship owner, filed a Declaratory Judgment action in Federal Court seeking a decree that the seaman was not entitled to maintenance and cure because his alleged injuries arose as a result of his own willful misconduct. The court entered an order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff was notified several days before the alleged incident that he had been fired; that on the day of the incident he was observed intentionally throwing himself from a ladder in the engine room and intentionally striking his head against a door. The plaintiff was subsequently restrained by other crewmembers as he attempted to pull a fire extinguisher from its bracket on bulkhead and strike himself in the head with it. In the face of these undisputed facts, the court held as a matter of law that the seaman was not entitled to maintenance and cure for the alleged injuries because they arose from his own blatant willful misconduct. Beckman vs. Ricks Watercraft Rentals, 3rd District Court of Appeals Mr. Beckman was injured in a personal water craft accident in the Florida Keys. Mr. Beckman failed to file his lawsuit within the three-year Uniform Maritime Statute of Limitations arguing instead that the four-year Florida Statute of Limitations and negligent cases should apply. The Third District Court of Appeals held as a matter of law that a boating accident involving personal water craft arose under admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law and as such was governed by the Uniform three-year Statute of Limitations. Frango vs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 891 So.2d 1208 (2005 Fla.3rd DCA) The firm represented a cruise line in a maritime personal injury case. The issue of significance on appeal was whether Frango's spouse was entitled to a claim for loss of consortium under maritime law. The Frango case is the first case in the State of Florida which held that consortium claims are not permitted in personal injury cases under admiralty and maritime law. Corona vs. Costa Crociere S.p.A. Mrs. Corona claimed that during the first night of a cruise, she used the bathroom door in her cabin. While emerging from the bathroom, she leaned on the door handle, which according to Corona came apart in her hand, causing her to loose her balance and fall. Initially, the trial court granted the firm's Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Costa Crociere S.p.A., on the grounds that there was no evidence of negligence, specifically actual or construction notice of any dangerous condition causing or contributing to causing Mrs. Corona's fall. On appeal, the Third District Court reversed the trial court judgment on the basis that the cruise lines maintenance personnel knew or should have known of the allegedly defective door handle. The case was remanded and tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Andrea Giles vs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 03-12541 The plaintiff, Giles, claimed that she slipped and fell on a defective stairway aboard a Royal Caribbean ship causing her to fall sustaining a serious ankle fracture. The plaintiff and her mother both testified at trial that they saw a defective, worn smooth, condition on the rug covering the stair thread. The ship's Safety Officer testified at trial that he inspected the scene shortly after the incident and found no defective condition. The case was tried to a Jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defense. Russo vs. Judy Zkiab, Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 04-25412 In this case, the firm represented a homeowner who was sued by an insect exterminator servicing the home. The exterminator's employee entered the home through the front door and exited through a back door into the back yard where he proceeded to fumigate. Upon attempting to leave, rather than walking through the house, the fumigator attempted to jump over a fence. The fumigator testified that the gate on the fence was locked and that he had knocked on the back door which was not answered. The homeowners testified that the fumigator never knocked on the rear door and they only learned of the injury after the incident had occurred. The case was tried to verdict before a jury in Miami, Florida which returned the verdict in favor of the firm's client, homeowner. Gerber vs. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Ltd., Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 02-18368 The plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on a slippery and dangerous condition while exiting the Windjammer Café aboard a Royal Caribbean vessel. The plaintiff sustained a spinal compression fracture which required surgery. The case was tried to verdict before a jury in Miami, Florida which found no negligence on behalf of Royal Caribbean. Meza-Vazquez vs. Costa Crociere S.p.A., Broward County Case No.: 02-16382 The plaintiff, a Jones Act Seaman, sued Costa claiming that he injured his back and sustained an inguinal hernia while working as a seaman aboard the vessel. The plaintiff also argued that Costa was liable for aggravation of his condition in failing to provide prompt and adequate medical care as required by the general maritime law. The case was tried to verdict before a jury. The plaintiff requested damages of several hundred thousand dollars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $10,000.00, which was Costa's settlement offer before trial. Martin v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Ltd., Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 02-11456 The plaintiff, Mr. Martin, claimed that he slipped and fell on a stairway aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise vessel. The plaintiff claimed that he fell due to rough weather and that Royal Caribbean was negligent in failing to warn him of the impending bad weather. The plaintiff sustained spinal injuries requiring three surgical procedures. The firm moved for Summary Judgment on behalf of Royal Caribbean on the basis that the General Maritime Law imposed no duty on the part of the ship owner to warn a passenger of rough weather which is an open and obvious condition. The court granted the firm's Motion for Summary Judgment and the matter was dismissed. Grassell vs. Discovery Sun Partnership, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale Division) The plaintiff, Donald Grassell, sued Discovery Cruise Lines, for negligence claiming that Discovery failed to exercise reasonable care for his safety when he suffered a heart attack aboard the vessel. The plaintiff argued that Discovery Cruise Lines should have returned the vessel to port when they learned of plaintiff's heart attack or, alternatively, called the United States Coast Guard for a helicopter evacuation. The plaintiff also argued that Discovery was negligent for failing to have thrombolytic drugs in the vessel's infirmary. The case was tried before the United States District Court Judge in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The firm argued on behalf of the cruise line that the plaintiff's wife did not complain that her husband had a heart attack or that he had, in fact, collapsed. The plaintiff advised a crewmember that her husband “was ill.” The court found as a matter of law, that under the circumstances, the ship's doctor responding to the scene within 10 to 15 minutes was reasonable. The court analogized to a situation on land where a person may suffer a heart attack or collapse in a public place such as a grocery store or shopping mall. The court stated that in such a circumstance it would not be unreasonable for fire rescue to arrive within 10 to 15 minutes, especially since the plaintiff had failed to notify the crewmember that her husband had collapsed. The evidence at trial showed that the cruise line was more than half way from Port Everglades to its destination of Freeport, Bahamas when the incident occurred and that returning to Ft. Lauderdale would have been unreasonable. The evidence further showed that the plaintiff was maintained in the ships infirmary under the observation of the ship's physician until the vessel arrived to Freeport after which the plaintiff was immediately disembarked and hospitalized within 10 to 15 minutes. The plaintiff claimed that the delay in providing medical care, and not transporting him back to Ft. Lauderdale, caused him to suffer extensive heart damage making him a “cardiac cripple.” In light of the totality of the evidence, the court found that discovery was not negligent in the manner in which Mr. Grassell was treated by the ship's doctor, and that the ship's captain was not negligent in following the advice and recommendations of the ship's doctor to proceed to Freeport.
	Rodriguez, Aronson & Essington, P.A. ©2006 - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use