SHIRLEY CORONA AND ANTHONY CORONA, APPELLANTS,
v.
COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A., COSTA CRUISE LINE N.V., N/K/A COSTA CRUISE LINES, N.V., L.L.C., FOREIGN BUSINESS ENTITIES, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Passengers on a cruise ship sued for negligence after the wife, who uses a cane, fell when a bathroom door handle came loose in their cabin. The trial court granted summary judgment for the cruise line, but the appellate court reversed, finding disputed material facts remain regarding whether the cruise line negligently maintained the door handle.
The court concluded that the cruise line failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of disputed issues of material fact, and therefore summary judgment was improper. The case presents genuine issues of material fact suitable for trial, including whether the cruise line should have discovered and repaired the loose door handle through its normal maintenance and cleaning operations.
[1] A cruise line owes a duty of reasonable care to its passengers to maintain its vessels in a safe condition.
[2] A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant cruise line has not carried its burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment and the cruise line's failure to meet it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShirley Corona, who walks with a cane, was a passenger on the M/V Costa Romántica cruise ship operated by Costa Cruise Lines. While exiting the bathro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Res Ipsa Loquitur cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Shirley and Anthony Corona appeal an adverse summary judgment in a premises liability case arising on a cruise ship. We conclude that disputed issues of material facts remain, and remand for further proceedings. The plaintiffs, Shirley and Anthony Corona, were passengers on the M/V Costa Romántica. This is a cruise ship operated by defendant-appellee Costa Cruise Lines.
Mrs. Corona walks with the assistance of a cane. During the first night at sea, she used the bathroom which was within their cabin. While emerging from the bathroom she leaned on the door handle, which came out of its housing. She lost her balance and fell, suffering serious injuries.
Subsequently, a member of the maintenance staff came to inspect the door. He found that the screws which fasten the door handle assembly to the door had come out and were lying on the floor. The maintenance person restored the door handle to its proper position and fastened it with the screws.
The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the cruise line in its maintenance of the bathroom door handle. The cruise line moved for summary judgment, contending that there was no evidence that the cruise line was at faylt. The trial court granted summary judgment for the cruise line, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
Based on the record now before us, we conclude that the defendant cruise line has not carried its burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact. See Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 643 (Fla.1999); Roll v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966).
Common experience would indicate that doorknob or door handle assemblies do loosen up from time to time, but typically this is a slow process which should be noticeable to those who use the door. Certainly the cruise line has a cleaning staff, and undoubtedly they move this door from time to time in order to clean behind it. It is reasonable to assume that this type of problem would have existed, and worsened, over a period of time such that the cruise line staff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, it. The fact that the maintenance person was able to repair the problem using the existing fixture and screws would tend to rule out the possibility that there was any manufacturing defect in the door handle assembly itself.
For the stated reasons, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. In light of the rationale just stated, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ argument that res ipsa loquitur should apply in this case.
The cruise line suggests that the plaintiffs were as well positioned as anyone to notice the problem with the door handle. If the cruise line contends that the plaintiffs were themselves negligent, that would create an issue of comparative negligence but would not absolve the cruise line of responsibility.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quirch v. Coro, 842 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…tion for a summary judgment, it was their burden to conclusively establish that they could not receive any alternative financing after the exercise of due diligence and not merely assert the same. See Corona v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., 2003 WL 354870, 844 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb.19, 2003) (summary judgment reversed where defendant did not meet burden of demonstrating nonexistence of material fact); Payne v. Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 837 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (summary judgment may not…
-
Claretha Youngblood v. Pasadena AT Pembroke Lakes S., Ltd., 882 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…a person. It is a matter of common understanding that a towel rack is designed to support the weight of a piece of cloth, not a person. Youngblood cites to Bidar v. Amfac, Inc., 66 Haw. 547, 669 P. 2d 154 (1983) and Corona v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., 844 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, these cases are distinguishable because neither involved the duties of a landlord to a tenant. [*1099] In sum, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of this complaint, as appellant failed to allege a legal duty on the pa…
-
Frango v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 891 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…eral maritime law, RCCL owed the Frangos the duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances. See Kermarec v. Compagnie General Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed,2d 550 (1959). As in Corona v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., 844 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), “[bjased on the record now before us, we conclude that the defendant cruise line has not carried its burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact.” We cannot agree that by briefly stopping…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)