Saundra Smith v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., a Bermuda Corporation d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Lines

Smith v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · December 19, 2025 · No. 25-cv-21618-BLOOM/Elfenbein

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida rules on Norwegian Cruise Lines’s motion to dismiss Saundra Smith’s amended complaint arising from her fall while disembarking in a wheelchair. The court dismisses Count I because it combines distinct negligence theories and includes an impermissible negligent-mode-of-operation theory, while finding that Counts II through V sufficiently plead notice or vicarious liability at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Decision date
December 19, 2025
Docket number
25-cv-21618-BLOOM/Elfenbein
Procedural posture
Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff's amended maritime-negligence complaint. The court granted the motion in part as to Count I and denied it as to Counts II through V.
Standard of review
On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and determines whether the allegations plausibly state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
Precedential value
Nonprecedential district-court order
Disposition
other

Topics

motions to dismissadmiraltynegligencepleadingsvicarious liability

Practice areas

admiralty and maritime lawpersonal injurynegligencecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Counts I and II adequately alleged that NCL had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous gangway condition.
  2. Whether Count I improperly combined multiple distinct negligence theories in a shotgun pleading.
  3. Whether Count I asserted an impermissible negligent-mode-of-operation theory under federal maritime law.
  4. Whether Counts III, IV, and V adequately pleaded vicarious liability claims without alleging that NCL itself had notice of the dangerous condition.

Holdings

  1. Counts I and II sufficiently alleged actual or constructive notice because the complaint described prior substantially similar incidents with dates, vessels, circumstances, and locations, including one incident on the same vessel.
  2. Count I was an impermissible shotgun pleading because it combined distinct negligence theories, including gangway maintenance, failure to provide crewmember assistance, and failure to provide alternative safe means of ingress or egress, in a single count.
  3. Count I included an impermissible negligent-mode-of-operation theory because the allegation concerning failure to implement and enforce maintenance protocols challenged NCL's general policies and procedures rather than conduct tied to the specific circumstances of Smith's injury.
  4. Counts III, IV, and V adequately stated vicarious liability claims because the complaint identified the NCL crewmembers responsible for supervising passenger disembarkation as the allegedly negligent employees, even though it did not provide their names or official titles.

Key quotations

The duty of reasonable care requires, “as a prerequisite to imposing liability, that the carrier have had actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition.”
Therefore, so long as Plaintiff has sufficiently identified a negligent employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, the vicarious liability claim will survive dismissal.
Because Plaintiff is the “master of .. . her complaint and may choose to proceed under a theory of direct liability, vicarious liability, or both[,]”

Factual background

Saundra Smith, a fare-paying passenger using a wheelchair, was disembarking NCL's BREAKAWAY on a carpeted gangway while her son pushed her wheelchair. At the connection between the gangway and a transition ramp, the wheelchair's wheels caught on a misleveled or excessively sloped area, causing the wheelchair to tip and Smith to fall. Smith alleged that she suffered fractures and other physical and economic injuries and that NCL had notice based on several prior gangway-related incidents.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed the action on April 8, 2025, and filed an amended complaint on August 27, 2025, asserting direct and vicarious negligence claims arising from her fall while disembarking a cruise ship in a wheelchair. Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed Count I but allowed Counts II through V to proceed, directing Defendant to answer the surviving counts.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…