Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15581 & 18-10513
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-24421-FAM
ROBERT EDWARD PETERSEN,
ANN WILMA PETERSEN, his wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD. d.b.a.
Norwegian Cruise Line,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 5, 2018)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 2 of 12
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Petersen slipped and fell on the deck of a
Norwegian Cruise Line (“NCL”) cruise ship. He sued NCL, claiming that NCL
was negligent in several ways. Petersen’s wife, Plaintiff-Appellant Anne Wilma
Petersen, brought a loss of consortium claim. The district court granted summary
judgment in favor of NCL and the Petersens appealed. For the reasons discussed
below, we conclude that the district court prematurely granted summary judgment
regarding Mr. Petersen’s negligence claims but properly granted summary
judgment in favor of NCL on Mrs. Petersen’s loss of consortium claim.
Accordingly, we affirm with respect to the judgment of the district court regarding
Mrs. Petersen’s loss of consortium claim, but we reverse the grant of summary
judgment as to Mr. Petersen’s negligence claims and remand to the district court
for further proceedings on those claims. 1
I. STANDARD
The Court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de
novo, viewing the record, and all its inferences, in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Zaben v. Air Prod. & Chemicals, Inc.,
129 F.3d 1453, 1455
(11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant
1
The district court also entered an order taxing costs in favor of NCL. The Petersens separately
appealed from that order, and we consolidated that appeal with this one. Because we reverse the
district court’s grant of summary judgment regarding Mr. Petersen’s negligence claims, we also
vacate the award of costs.
2
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 3 of 12
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Additionally, a
district court may grant summary judgment to a nonmovant or on grounds not
raised by the parties only “[a]fter giving notice and a reasonable time to respond.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
II. BACKGROUND
A. Mr. Petersen’s Fall and Injuries
In October 2015, the Petersens took a cruise on NCL’s cruise ship, the
Breakaway. On October 22, 2015, the Breakaway docked in Bermuda. Rather than
go ashore, the Petersens stayed on the Breakaway and planned to soak in the hot
tub on deck 16. When the Petersens arrived at deck 16, Mrs. Petersen went to the
hot tub and Mr. Petersen went to the bar to get her a drink. According to Mr.
Petersen’s deposition, he recalls feeling strong wind as he stepped onto the deck.
He testified that he remembers the wind blowing water from decorative waterfalls
onto him and the deck. Mr. Petersen testified that he does not recall it raining but
does remember seeing water on the deck. As Mr. Petersen walked from the bar to
the hot tub, both of his feet slipped out from under him. He landed on his back and
hit his head on the deck. The ship’s closed-circuit television system (“CCTV”)
captured video footage of Mr. Petersen’s fall from several angles.
3
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 4 of 12
Mr. Petersen was knocked unconscious by the fall and taken to a hospital in
Bermuda. After an examination, Mr. Petersen returned to the Breakaway and
remained on board for the rest of the cruise. He sought additional medical
treatment when he returned home. According to Mr. Petersen’s treating physician,
the fall caused small areas of bleeding in Mr. Petersen’s brain. Mr. Petersen still
suffers from headaches, impaired vision, equilibrium problems, speech problems,
and memory problems due to the fall.
B. Deck Material and Maintenance
The deck material on which Mr. Petersen fell is called Bolidt Bolideck
Select Soft (“Bolidt Select Soft”). The Petersens offer evidence of sixty other NCL
passengers who slipped and fell on liquid on the Bolidt Select Soft decks on the
Breakaway during the three years before Mr. Petersen’s fall. The Petersens also
offer evidence suggesting that NCL used too strong of a detergent to clean the
Bolidt Select Soft deck material. Specifically, NCL’s “Deck Night Washing
Policy” suggests that NCL used a detergent called “Bolidt Super Stripper” to clean
all of its decks, including the Bolidt Select Soft. But the deck manufacturer’s
instructions recommend that cruise lines clean the Bolidt Select Soft deck material
with a “[m]ild soap cleaner for daily use” called “Royal Soft.” The instructions
recommend the use of a “[s]trong . . . cleaning/degreasing agent,” the “Bolidt
Super Stripper,” on a different kind of Bolidt deck but do not recommend its use
4
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 5 of 12
on the Bolidt Select Soft. The instructions also warn: “Bolidt Super Stripper is to
be used only in the maximum concentrations specified. All traces of Super Stripper
should be removed after cleaning by washing with potable water. Prolonged
exposure to Super Stripper may permanently damage the deck surface.”
C. District Court Proceedings
The Petersons sued NCL for negligence and loss of consortium. In their
complaint, the Petersens claim that NCL was negligent in several ways.
Specifically, they allege, “[NCL] owed a duty to the passengers, and in particular
to the Plaintiffs, to exercise reasonable care to design, maintain and operate its
vessel Norwegian Breakaway in a reasonably safe condition.” They claim that
NCL was negligent in fulfilling this duty by “[f]ailing to warn passengers of the
dangerous conditions of the walking surface of the deck or floor,” as well as by
“[f]ailing to promulgate and/or follow proper procedures for monitoring the
slipperiness and keeping the walking surface of the deck or floor reasonably safe
for passengers.”
NCL filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) NCL had no
duty to warn Mr. Petersen of the dangerous condition because the dangerous
condition was open and obvious; (2) NCL had no duty to warn Mr. Petersen of the
dangerous condition because it had no notice of the dangerous condition; and
(3) maritime law does not recognize a cause of action for loss of consortium. NCL
5
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 6 of 12
did not address any claim that it negligently maintained the deck in the motion for
summary judgment. In their response in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, the Petersens again referred to NCL’s allegedly negligent maintenance
of the deck, stating, “Defendant’s operations created the unreasonably dangerous
condition, by negligent maintenance . . . .” Moreover, at the hearing before the
magistrate judge regarding the motion for summary judgment, the Petersens’
counsel argued extensively regarding Mr. Petersen’s claim that NCL negligently
maintained the deck.
The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment was appropriate
on all of the Petersens’ claims. Regarding Mr. Petersen’s negligence claims, the
magistrate judge concluded that NCL had no duty to warn Mr. Petersen of the
slipperiness of the deck because the dangerous condition—the wet deck—was
open and obvious. The magistrate judge did not address negligent maintenance at
all in the report and recommendation. The Petersens objected to the report and
recommendation, arguing again in part that NCL negligently maintained the deck.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Like
the magistrate judge, the district court did not address negligent maintenance.
On appeal, the Petersens argue that: (1) the district court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of NCL on Mr. Petersen’s failure to warn claim based
on the open and obvious doctrine because the unreasonably slippery nature of the
6
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 7 of 12
deck was not open and obvious; (2) the district court erred by granting summary
judgment in favor of NCL on Mr. Petersen’s negligent maintenance claim because
NCL did not seek summary judgment regarding that claim; and (3) the district
court erred by denying Mrs. Petersen’s loss of consortium claim.
III. DISCUSSION
The parties agree that, because Mr. Petersen’s injuries occurred on navigable
waters, federal maritime law controls this case. Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines,
912 F.2d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
394
F.3d 891, 901–02 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that federal maritime law governed a
cruise passenger’s sexual assault case against a cruise ship even though the assault
took place while the ship was docked in Bermuda). In analyzing a maritime tort
case, the Court applies the general principles of negligence law. Chaparro v.
Carnival Corp.,
693 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Under those
principles, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant had a duty, (2) the
defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach actually and proximately caused the
plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm.
Id. A cruise line owes
its passengers a duty of “ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances, a
standard which requires, as a prerequisite to imposing liability, that the carrier have
had actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition.” Keefe v. Bahama
Cruise Line, Inc.,
867 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The cruise
7
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 8 of 12
line’s duty to its passengers includes “a duty to warn of known dangers . . . in
places where passengers are invited or reasonably expected to visit” that would not
be open and obvious to a reasonable person under the circumstances. Chaparro,
693 F.3d at 1336; Deperrodil v. Bozovic Marine, Inc.,
842 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir.
2016) (“A vessel owner does not need to warn passengers or make special
arrangements for open-and-obvious risks.”).
A. Negligent Failure to Warn
The Petersens first argue that the district court should not have applied the
open and obvious doctrine to Mr. Petersen’s negligent failure to warn claim.
Specifically, they claim that, although it was obvious that the deck on which Mr.
Petersen fell was wet, it was not open and obvious that the deck was unreasonably
slippery. The Petersens offer the following evidence to support their claim that the
deck on which Mr. Petersen fell was unreasonably slippery: (1) the video footage
showing that both of Mr. Petersen’s feet slipped completely out from under him in
such a manner that a jury might find that the deck surface was unreasonably
slippery; (2) the fact that sixty other NCL passengers fell on Bolidt Select Soft
decking on the Breakaway during the three year period before Mr. Petersen fell;
and (3) the evidence suggesting that NCL used the Bolidt Super Stripper detergent
on the Select Soft deck, even though that was not recommended by the
manufacturer.
8
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 9 of 12
We agree with the Petersens that this evidence is sufficient for a reasonable
juror to conclude that the deck on which Mr. Petersen fell was unreasonably
slippery. Furthermore, we agree that, although the wetness of the deck was open
and obvious, the unreasonably slippery state of the deck may not have been open
and obvious to a reasonable person.2 Because there is evidence in the record from
which a reasonable juror could conclude that the deck was unreasonably slippery,
we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the failure to warn
claim based on its conclusion that the water on the deck was an open and obvious
risk.
We recognize that in the district court NCL raised additional alternative
arguments in its defense against Mr. Petersen’s negligent failure to warn claim—
i.e., NCL’s alleged lack of notice of the risk-creating condition and its argument
that the warnings actually given were adequate. However, Mr. Petersen’s failure to
warn claim was rejected by the magistrate judge and the district court solely on the
open and obvious ground, and neither addressed NCL’s alternative grounds.
Having vacated the district court’s judgment with respect to the open and obvious
2
We have reached this same conclusion in another unpublished case. See Frasca v. NCL
(Bahamas), Ltd., 654 F. App’x 949, 953 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (reversing the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in a case in which the plaintiffs presented evidence that the
deck was unreasonably slippery because, although it may be obvious that water on a deck will
make it slicker than usual, the deck’s visible wetness may not alert a reasonable person to the
extent of the deck’s slipperiness).
9
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 10 of 12
ground, we remand Mr. Petersen’s failure to warn claim to the district court to
consider in the first instance NCL’s alternative arguments.
B. Negligent Maintenance
The Petersens next argue that the district court erred by granting summary
judgment with regards to their negligent maintenance claim. Specifically, they
claim that NCL did not move for summary judgment regarding this claim and that
the district court did not give them sufficient notice of its intent to grant summary
judgment on the claim. We agree with the Petersens that the district court did not
properly address their negligent maintenance claim.
The Petersens’ complaint lists a single negligence count against NCL. But
the substance of the complaint makes clear that the Petersens claim that NCL was
negligent in several ways, including by negligently maintaining the deck material.
Moreover, counsel for the Petersens eliminated any uncertainty by arguing
extensively regarding Mr. Petersen’s negligent maintenance claim at the summary
judgment hearing. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge, who conducted the hearing,
did not address the negligent maintenance claim in his report and recommendation.
And despite the fact that the Petersens argued that the deck was negligently
maintained in their objections to the report and recommendation, the district court
also failed to address that claim. Given that NCL did not move for summary
judgment regarding Mr. Petersen’s negligent maintenance claim, the district court
10
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 11 of 12
never addressed that claim, and there is evidence suggesting that NCL did not
follow the manufacturer’s instructions for cleaning the deck, we remand for the
district court to address Mr. Petersen’s negligent maintenance claim in the first
instance.
C. Loss of Consortium
This Court has held that plaintiffs may not recover loss of consortium
damages for personal injury claims under federal maritime law. See In re Amtrak
Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Ala. on Sept. 22, 1993,
121 F.3d 1421,
1429 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that the plaintiffs could not recover punitive or loss
of consortium damages for personal injuries sustained when a commercial vessel
crashed into a railway bridge); see also Lollie v. Brown Marine Serv., Inc.,
995
F.2d 1565, 1565 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“[N]either the Jones Act nor
general maritime law authorizes recovery for loss of society or consortium in
personal injury cases.”). “We are bound to follow a prior precedent or en banc
holding, except where that holding has been overruled or undermined to the point
of abrogation by a subsequent en banc or Supreme Court decision.” Tobinick v.
Novella,
884 F.3d 1110, 1118 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Chambers v. Thompson,
150 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 1998)).
The Petersens recognize that this Circuit’s precedent precludes Mrs.
Petersen’s loss of consortium claim. Nevertheless, they argue that the Court should
11
Case: 17-15581 Date Filed: 09/05/2018 Page: 12 of 12
reexamine In re Amtrak in light of the Supreme Court’s more recent holding in
Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend,
557 U.S. 404,
129 S. Ct. 2561,
174 L. Ed. 2d
382 (2009). In Atlantic Sounding, the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of
general maritime law, a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful and
wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation in the appropriate case.
Id. at 424,
129 S. Ct. at 2575. Nothing in that opinion undermines our holding in In
re Amtrak. See In re Amtrak, 121 F.3d at 1429 (suggesting that punitive or loss of
consortium damages may be available under federal maritime law “in exceptional
circumstances such as willful failure to furnish maintenance and cure to a
seaman”). That is, there are no exceptional circumstances in this case and no
allegations of intentional conduct. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant
of summary judgment regarding Mrs. Petersen’s loss of consortium claim.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with
instructions.
12
