Taylor v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 20-14754, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 23650 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021)

Pamela Taylor was a passenger aboard Royal Caribbean’s cruise vessel. She allegedly tripped and fell while disembarking the ship. Ms. Taylor sued Royal Caribbean for negligence. Her first complaint was struck as a shotgun pleading, and the district court granted her leave to file an amended complaint with the warning that failure to comply could cause dismissal. Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss Taylor’s amended complaint on the basis that it did not comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The district court agreed and dismissed Taylor’s case in its entirety. Ms. Taylor appealed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Court found that Taylor failed to plead the causation element in each of her negligence claims. The Court noted that Taylor never identified which of her allegations caused the incident, but rather merely alleged possibilities—Taylor failed to plausibly allege what actually and proximately caused her to trip and fall, leaving Royal Caribbean to guess what failure caused her injuries.

Specifically, on Taylor’s negligent failure to warn claim, the Court held that the amended complaint never identified the cause of her injuries but for a general allegation of the gangway’s unevenness she asserted, by itself, was dangerous. The Court reasoned it was left to guess what warnings Royal Caribbean could have given as to the gangway’s unevenness and whether failing to provide such warnings was the proximate cause of the alleged injuries.

Next, on the negligent maintenance claim, the Court concluded that Taylor never identified which one of Royal Caribbean’s alleged maintenance failures caused the alleged unevenness of the gangway flooring. Instead, she merely alleged a possibility that did not satisfy the required pleading requirements.

Finally, as to the negligent failure to follow policies, the court found that Taylor did not allege facts establishing the Royal Caribbean policy that was not followed that resulted in her injuries.

At bottom, the Court ruled that the district court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. Based on this, and that the statute of limitations has run, Taylor is barred from suing arising from this incident.

The appeal was handled by Michael Dono and the district court proceedings by Elisha Sullivan, Charlotte Zubizarreta, and Evan Gutwein.