Mock trial decision
susanxoxo
SecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-20692-KMM
NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and
guardian of minors K. W., M. W., and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate of
BARBARA SIBBLIS,
Plaintiffs, vs.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., a Liberian Corporation,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR MARITIME WRONGFUL DEATH AND
PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of minors
K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and BARRINGTON L.
SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate of BARBARA SIBBLIS, sue Defendant
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. a Liberian Corporation (“ROYAL CARIBBEAN”
or “RCCL”) and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. On or about February 20, 2019, NICOLE WOODLEY, BARBARA SIBBLIS
and CLARICE LEE along with minors K.W., M.W. and C.W. JR. were paying
passengers on a Royal Caribbean cruise ship, the Adventure of the Seas.
2. As part of the cruise experience, ROYAL CARIBBEAN offered passengers,
including the Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS, the opportunity to go on
various shore excursions on scheduled ports-of-call.
3. While on the ship, Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS purchased directly from
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 1 of 40
Page 2 of 40
ROYAL CARIBBEAN the shore excursion “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” (also
known as “Golden Eagle Shore Excursion”) owned/operated by OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS, taking place in the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg, St.
Maarten. ROYAL CARIBBEAN represented that the shore excursion consisted
of a catamaran sail boat ride and wading at a beach. ROYAL CARIBBEAN
recommended this excursion for their family that ranged from age 5 to age 75.
4. For the beach portion of Golden Eagle Shore Excursion, OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS disembarked the passengers from the sail boat into deep water
(estimated to be over 10 feet) with only foam noodles for the adults to as a
floatation device to reach the beach.
5. The wind and sea conditions made it very difficult for the passengers to get from
the deep water to the beach.
6. NICOLE WOODLEY, BARBARA SIBBLIS and CLARICE LEE along with
minors K.W., M.W. and C.W. JR. feared for their safety and struggled to get to
the beach.
7. NICOLE WOODLEY and CLARICE LEE along with minors K.W., M.W. and
C.W. JR. eventually made it to the beach.
8. BARBARA SIBBLIS drowned while attempting to get to the beach.
A. The Parties
9. Plaintiffs, NICOLE WOODLEY and CLARICE LEE along with minors
K.W., M.W. and C.W., JR., are residents of New York.
10. Plaintiff, BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate
of BARBARA SIBBLIS, is a resident of Florida.
11. Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN, was and is a for-profit corporation with its
world-wide headquarters, principal address, and principal place of business located
in Miami-Dade, Florida.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 2 of 40
Page 3 of 40
12. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN was the owner and operator of the cruise vessel
Adventure of the Seas, and sold the shore excursion to the Plaintiffs and BARBARA
SIBBLIS.
13. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was and is a for-profit foreign business entity with
operations in St. Maarten. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS operated the shore
excursion that resulted in the death of BARBARA SIBBLIS. OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS owned the catamaran sail boat vessel used during the subject shore
excursion.
C. Jurisdiction
14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the maritime
and admiralty jurisdiction of the court. In particular, pursuant to Article III, §2 of
the United States Constitution, delegating jurisdiction over admiralty cases to the
federal courts, and 28 U.S.C. §1333.
15. Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters, salt or fresh, with or
without tides, natural or artificial, which are in fact navigable. The term ‘navigable
waters’ means a body of water which, in its present configuration, constitutes a
highway of commerce, between the states or with foreign countries.
16. On February 20, 2019, Plaintiffs were a paying passengers on Defendant ROYAL
CARIBBEAN’s vessel, Adventure of the Seas, which was in navigable waters. On
the aformentioned date, BARBARA SIBBLIS died and the Plaintiffs were injured
in the scheduled-port-of-call of Philipsburg, St. Maarten, during the “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion marketed, promoted and sold on board the
Adventure of the Seas. The “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion engaged in
an unreasonably dangerous activity where the passengers were disembarked from
the sail boat into deep water without adequate floatation devices. Accordingly,
this Court has admiralty jurisdiction over this case because the tort occurred on
navigable waters. More importantly, the case arises out of traditional maritime
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 3 of 40
Page 4 of 40
activity: a cruise ship transporting passengers on the high seas sells and promotes
an excursion consisting of sail boat ride and wading at a beach, at a scheduled-
port-of-call.
17. It is a settled principle of maritime law that a ship owner owes passengers the duty
of exercising at least reasonable care under the circumstances. This duty applies
whether the paying passenger was injured in the vessel or in a scheduled port-of-
call.
18. Accordingly, the legal rights and liabilities arising from the incident are within the
full reach of the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
19. This court also has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. The
matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interests and costs, the sum specified
by 28 U.S.C. 1332 and Plaintiffs are citizens of a different state than the Defendant.
20. Plaintiffs also assert all claims arising and relating to Florida state law under the
Savings to Suitors Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over ROYAL CARIBBEAN, because
Defendant has, at all times material to this matter, itself or by and through its
agents, officers, distributors, and/or representatives:
22. Held its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida;
23. Operated, conducted, engaged in, and/or carried on a business venture in Florida
and held open an office in Florida;
24. Operated cruise ships that arrive and depart from the Port of Miami, in Miami-
Dade County, Florida;
25. Used, possessed, or held a mortgage or other lien on real property within Florida;
26. Engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within Florida by maintaining
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 4 of 40
Page 5 of 40
stores, offices, employees, distributors, and/or registered agents in Florida;
27. Employs several thousand Floridians to work at its Miami headquarters;
28. Sold products in Florida, advertised products in Florida, and/or entered into
contracts in Florida; and,
29. Pursuant to its own ticket contract, ROYAL CARIBBEAN submits itself to the
jurisdiction of this Court.
30. Venue is proper in this Court because the cruise ticket contract issued by ROYAL
CARIBBEAN contains a forum selection clause requiring all disputes arising out
of and in connection with the subject cruise be litigated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. Carnival Cruise Lines,
Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522 (1991).
31. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN, was and is a
foreign corporation, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, and was and is a business entity and common carrier engaged in the
passenger cruise business.
32. At all times material hereto, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS is an entity based in St.
Maarten that operated, managed, and/or controlled the “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” (also known as the Golden Eagle Shore Excursion), which was offered,
advertised, arranged, sponsored, recommended, marketed, sold, co-operated,
and/or co-managed by ROYAL CARIBBEAN.
33. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, operated the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion for passengers of the Adventure of the Seas, on February 20, 2019.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 5 of 40
Page 6 of 40
34. On January 23, 2021 OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was dismissed from this lawsuit
based on a determination that OUT ISLAND CHARTERS is not subject to this
Court’s jurisdiction.
35. Before and after a passenger boards the vessel, ROYAL CARIBBEAN offers,
arranges for, recommends and markets excursions operated by OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS. For instance, ROYAL CARIBBEAN advertises and promotes OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS’ excursions on its websites. These websites, hosted in
Florida, specifically target millions of North American cruise passengers. ROYAL
CARIBBEAN allows passengers to book and pay for OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS’s excursion through ROYAL CARIBBEAN’ website from “180 days
before travel, and up to 5 days before they depart.” In this way, ROYAL
CARIBBEAN passengers can purchase the tour, read about the tour, see pictures,
see a video, and all of the excursion items that OUT ISLAND CHARTERS will
offer upon their arrival at the port-of-call.
36. ROYAL CARIBBEAN also allows passengers to book and pay for OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS’ tours at designated ROYAL CARIBBEAN excursion and
exploration desks on board its ships. There, passengers can talk to a ROYAL
CARIBBEAN crewmember, trained by ROYAL CARIBBEAN, to answer
questions and provide information about OUT ISLAND CHARTERS’ excursions
and to help the guest book and buy OUT ISLAND CHARTERS’ tours.
37. ROYAL CARIBBEAN maintains a department and/or a specific group of
employees in its headquarters in Florida devoted to creating, developing,
promoting, marketing, coordinating, explaining, overseeing, supervising, auditing,
tracking and monitoring its ports of call and the excursions sold to its passengers,
including the subject shore excursion operated by OUT ISLAND CHARTERS.
38. Once a passenger books an OUT ISLAND CHARTERS excursion on the ROYAL
CARIBBEAN website (or on a ROYAL CARIBBEAN ship), pays for the
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 6 of 40
Page 7 of 40
excursion in full, and participates in the excursion; OUT ISLAND CHARTERS
sends an invoice to ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s accounts payable department in
Florida. These invoices are then processed and approved by the accounts payable
department in Florida. Once processed and approved, the funds are wire
transferred to OUT ISLAND CHARTERS based on banking details provided to
the cruise line.
39. In order to maintain existing (and obtain new) business, OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS, submit bids for contracts to ROYAL CARIBBEAN headquarters in
Florida. Through these bids, OUT ISLAND, offer to ROYAL CARIBBEAN the
excursions it operates in Philipsburg, St. Maarten and elsewhere. The bids include
forms (created by ROYAL CARIBBEAN), generally referred to as tour proposal
templates or Universal Bid. In the template, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS give
ROYAL CARIBBEAN information regarding each excursion including: tour
operator information, tour pricing, timing, accessibility, safety policies, licenses,
permits and prior accidents and injuries that have occurred on its tours.
40. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS has to submit these bids and the attached tour
templates to ROYAL CARIBBEAN in Florida, in order to renew existing
agreements and/or obtain new business from ROYAL CARIBBEAN. ROYAL
CARIBBEAN then processes the bid and determines (at its Florida offices),
whether or not to renew and/or expand its existing agreement with OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS.
41. Upon information and belief, at all times material, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS
entered into a written contract with ROYAL CARIBBEAN entitled Tour Operator
Manual and Agreement and/or a business enterprise and/or course of dealing
(collectively referred to herein as “tour operator agreement”) with ROYAL
CARIBBEAN to do the marketing, selling and provision of recreational shore
excursions, for the benefit of ROYAL CARIBBEAN cruise passengers. The tour
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 7 of 40
Page 8 of 40
operator agreement provides that its purpose is to enhance “passengers’
experiences” and ensure “passengers’ safety”.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
42. At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN owned, operated,
managed, maintained and/or controlled the vessel, Adventure of the Seas.
43. ROYAL CARIBBEAN is a common carrier and Plaintiffs’ and the Estate of
BARBARA SIBBLIS’ direct claims of negligence herein fall within the parameters
of 46 U.S.C. § 30509 prohibitions against disclaimers. The statute’s language is
broad and unqualified, and it prohibits common carriers from limiting their liability
for “personal injury or death caused by negligence or fault of the owner [of the
passenger vessel] or the owner’s employees or agents.” See id. 30509(a)(1)(A).
44. At all times material hereto, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS owned and/or
operated the Golden Eagle Shore Excursion a/k/a “A Golden Eagle Sailaway”
which was offered, arranged for, sponsored, recommended, marketed, sold, co-
operated and/or managed by ROYAL CARIBBEAN, as part of the voyage on the
Adventure of the Seas.
45. On or about February 20, 2019, Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS were paying
passengers on ROYAL CARIBBEAN’ vessel, Adventure of the Seas. The Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS’ itinerary consisted of a 8-night eastern Caribbean cruise
from February 16, 2019 to February 24, 2019 (hereinafter “the subject cruise”).
46. Excursions from the Adventure of the Seas were advertised to passengers, in
ROYAL CARIBBEAN’ promotional material, including, but not limited to,
brochures which contained ROYAL CARIBBEAN’ logo as well as on ROYAL
CARIBBEAN’ website.
47. ROYAL CARIBBEAN offered passengers aboard the Adventure of the Seas the
opportunity to go on various shore excursions during the subject cruise, including,
but not limited to the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 8 of 40
Page 9 of 40
48. ROYAL CARIBBEAN had a shore excursion desk aboard the Adventure of the
Seas for the purpose of, inter alia, providing passengers recommendations regarding
shore excursions and charging passengers for shore excursions.
49. While on the ship, ROYAL CARIBBEAN recommended to the Plaintiffs and
BARBARA SIBBLIS to purchase the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” taking place in
the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg, St. Maarten. On or about February 20,
2019, as part of Plaintiffs’ cruise on the Adventure of the Seas, Plaintiffs and
BARBARA SIBBLIS purchased and booked the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” at
the ROYAL CARIBBEAN excursion desk.
50. Before going on the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, ROYAL
CARIBBEAN did not provide any information to the Plaintiffs or BARBARA
SIBBLIS with respect to the name, address, owner and/or operator of the
excursion. Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS reasonably believed that the “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” was being operated by ROYAL CARIBBEAN.
51. At the time of the incident, BARBARA SIBBLIS was 75-years-old, minor
children M.W. and C.W. JR. were 5-years-old and minor child K.W. was 8-years-
old.
52. When recommending and selling the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion,
ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s employee on board the cruise ship at the shore excursion
desk identified the excursion as easy and perfect for the young and older ages of
their group.
53. A ROYAL CARIBBEAN document further described the tour as follows:
Catamaran Sail: Enjoy the tropical breeze as your vessel speeds across the
sparkling sea as fast as 20 knots. Beach and Snorkeling: The boat anchors
offshore a beautiful spot where you can swim, sun and snorkel. Lunch and
Drinks: Your friendly crew will serve baguette sandwiches and ice-cold
beverages on the return to port. (SM08) Notes: Guests may need to wade or
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 9 of 40
Page 10 of 40
swim in the water to access the beach. Nudity may be observed at the beach.
Minimum Age: 4 years Maximum Weight: 250 lbs.
54. The ROYAL CARIBBEAN employee and document did not provide any further
description or warnings about the A Golden Eagle Sailaway. In particular,
ROYAL CARIBBEAN did not inform its passengers, including the Plaintiffs or
BARBARA SIBBLIS, that the sail boat would disembark the passengers into the
ocean in deep water with only foam noodles as a floatation device to get to the
beach.
55. ROYAL CARIBBEAN did not inform its passengers, including the Plaintiffs or
BARBARA SIBBLIS, that the adults would not be provided with life jackets or
other reasonable floatation devices to get to the beach.
56. ROYAL CARIBBEAN did not inform its passengers, including the Plaintiffs or
BARBARA SIBBLIS, that they may encounter strong ocean currents and/or other
dangerous sea conditions after disembarking the sail boat to get to the beach.
57. ROYAL CARIBBEAN did not inform its passengers, including the Plaintiffs or
BARBARA SIBBLIS, that they should be a strong swimmer in order to go to the
beach on this excursion.
58. Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS relied on the representations provided by
ROYAL CARIBBEAN that it was “easy” and “appropriate for the ages in their
group” in making their decision to purchase the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion.
59. Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS purchased the subject shore excursion based
on the recommendation of the ROYAL CARIBBEAN employee at the shore
excursion desk onboard the cruise ship.
60. Had Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS known that the subject shore excursion
would involve strong ocean currents and/or other dangerous sea conditions after
disembarking the sail boat without appropriate floatation devices to get to the
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 10 of 40
Page 11 of 40
beach, they would not have purchased the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion.
61. Upon her arrival to the scheduled port-of-call in Philipsburg, St. Maarten, the
Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS disembarked the Adventure of the Seas, and were
directed to board the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion catamaran.
62. The “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion catamaran sailed around the
island for some sightseeing and to a snorkeling spot. The next stop was supposed
to be at a dock and for wading at a beach.
63. Instead, the catamaran sail boat anchored in the ocean in deep water offshore from
the beach. The passengers were disembarked from the catamaran into the ocean
(estimated to be over 10 feet deep). The water was too deep for them to wade to
the beach. The adult passengers were only provided with foam noodles to use for
floatation to get to the beach.
64. The shore excursion employees did not provide an adequate safety briefing to the
passengers prior to disembarking them into the deep ocean water to get to the
beach.
65. The shore excursion employees did not provide the passengers, including Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS, with adequate floatation devices for safely getting to the
beach from the catamaran anchored in deep water offshore.
66. The shore excursion employees did not provide the passengers, including Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS, with a life vest for safely getting to the beach from the
catamaran anchored in deep water offshore.
67. The shore excursion employees did not provide the passengers, including Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS, with an adequate warning regarding the sea and
weather conditions.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 11 of 40
Page 12 of 40
68. The shore excursion employees did not provide the passengers, including Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS, with an adequate warning regarding the dangers of
getting to the beach from the catamaran anchored in deep water offshore.
69. The shore excursion employees did not provide the passengers, including Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS, with adequate instructions for safely getting to the
beach from the catamaran anchored in deep water offshore.
70. The shore excursion employees did not inform the passengers, including Plaintiffs
and BARBARA SIBBLIS, that only strong swimmers should attempt to swim to
beach and others should remain onboard.
71. The wind and sea conditions made it very difficult for the passengers, including
BARBARA SIBBLIS and Plaintiffs to get from the catamaran anchored in deep
water to the beach.
72. NICOLE WOODLEY, BARBARA SIBBLIS and CLARICE LEE along with
minors K.W., M.W. and C.W. JR. feared for their safety and struggled to get to
the beach.
73. NICOLE WOODLEY and CLARICE LEE along with minors K.W., M.W. and
C.W. JR. eventually made it to the beach; however, BARBARA SIBBLIS had
been separated from them as they struggled to get the young children and
themselves safely to the beach.
74. BARBARA SIBBLIS was later found face down in the ocean. Her non-responsive
body was brought to the beach.
75. A doctor on vacation performed CPR on BARBARA SIBBLIS’ lifeless body while
awaiting paramedics.
76. Attempts to revive BARBARA SIBBLIS were unsuccessful and a doctor
pronounced her dead on the beach.
77. NICOLE WOODLEY and CLARICE LEE along with minors K.W., M.W. and
C.W. JR. witnessed BARBARA SIBBLIS’ non-responsive body being brought
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 12 of 40
Page 13 of 40
from the ocean onto the beach. They watched the multiple attempts to revive her
fail and the pronouncement of her death.
78. At all times material hereto, NICOLE WOODLEY and CLARICE LEE along
with minors K.W., M.W. and C.W. JR. were in the zone danger. They lives were
also at risk trying to get to the beach. They suffered shock, fear, horror and
emotional distress in their own struggle to safely get to the beach, in witnessing the
unsuccessful attempts to revive BARBARA SIBBLIS, and in witnessing her dead
body.
79. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, its employees, servants, agents,
representatives, and/or tour operator partner, including OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS and its employees, agents, servants and representatives, failed to
exercise reasonable care in the operation and performance of the “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion and negligently operated the shore excursion in such a
manner that Plaintiffs sustained severe and permanent injuries and BARBARA
SIBBLIS died.
80. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, its employees, servants, agents,
representatives, and/or tour operator partner, including OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS and its employees, agents, servants and representatives, failed to keep
a proper look out and monitor passengers swimming to the beach to determine if
they were in trouble or needed assistance.
81. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, its employees, servants, agents,
representatives, and/or tour operator partner, including OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS and its employees, agents, servants and representatives, failed to
rescue BARBARA SIBBLIS and Plaintiffs when they encountered difficulty
attempting to get to the beach from the catamaran anchored in deep water.
82. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS managed and operated the “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion in an unreasonably dangerous and careless manner, by
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 13 of 40
Page 14 of 40
employing unfit, incompetent, and inexperienced employees to operate the shore
excursion.
83. During OUT ISLAND CHARTERS’ operation of the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway”
shore excursion, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS operated it in a dangerous and
careless manner, by employing crew members incapable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards in the shore excursion.
84. Despite such actual or constructive knowledge, ROYAL CARIBBEAN continued
to renew the tour operator agreement with OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, and
continued to promote and sell the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
85. Upon information and belief, as a result of the incident suffered by other
participants in the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, ROYAL
CARIBBEAN knew or should have reasonably learned that incidents involving
other participants were being caused on the shore excursion because OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS hired staff who lacked skill, knowledge, and experience,
and were unfit or incompetent or incapable of identifying existing and predicting
hazards in the shore excursion.
86. Upon information and belief, as a result of the incident suffered by other
participants in the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, ROYAL
CARIBBEAN knew or should have reasonably learned that incidents involving
other participants were being caused on the shore excursion because OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS failed to provide adequate floatation devices, such as a life
vest, to passengers.
87. ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or should have known that OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS was not competent and/or fit to manage and operate the “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
88. Upon information and belief, as evidenced by other passengers’ reviews of shore
excursion and prior incidents, ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew prior to February 20,
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 14 of 40
Page 15 of 40
2019, that “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion consisted of the passengers
swimming in deep ocean water with strong currents with a only foam noodle for
floatation, and willfully and/or knowingly and/or recklessly failed to inform its
passengers, including the Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS, of the dangers
and/or risks. Further, ROYAL CARIBBEAN willfully and/or knowingly and/or
recklessly misrepresented the nature of the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion. ROYAL CARIBBEAN willfully and/or knowingly and/or recklessly
disregarded the rights and safety of its passengers, including the Plaintiffs and
BARBARA SIBBLIS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN was aware of the probable
consequences of promoting the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion by
downplaying and misrepresenting its nature and the dangers it posed, leading the
Plaintiffs to sustain severe and permanent injuries and BARBARA SIBBLIS’s
death.
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
Maritime Wrongful Death
89. The within maritime wrongful death action brought by Plaintiff BARRINGTON
L. SIBBLIS in his capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Decedent
BARBARA SIBBLIS arises under the Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA”),
46 U.S.C. §§ 30301-30308, and seeks damages for:
a. The loss of financial support and the economic value of services which
Decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS provided to her dependent family members,
including but not limited to her Husband, Plaintiff BARRINGTON SIBBLIS;
b. The loss of parental nurture and guidance for Decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS’
children and grandchildren for whom, beyond the irreplaceable values of
companionship and affection, Decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS provided guidance,
training, instruction, and/or other assistance on such things to moral, educational,
employment, civic, physical training and other matters;
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 15 of 40
Page 16 of 40
c. Funeral expenses; and
d. Any and all other damages entitled to by law.
Maritime Personal Injury
90. The within maritime personal injury actions brought by Plaintiffs NICOLE
WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of minors K.W., M.W.;
and C.W., JR. and CLARICE LEE, individually; arise under: The General
Maritime Law of the United States as may be supplemented without conflict by
the law of the State of Florida and seek full tort damages for the Defendant’s
negligence and their negligently inflicted emotional distress.
ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS
91. At all material times, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN was and is engaged in
the business of providing cruise vacation experiences to the public. The experience
of recreational shore excursions and activities at the various ports of call are the
sine qua non of the cruises sold and advertised by Defendant ROYAL
CARIBBEAN.
92. At all times material, ports-of-call and shore excursions were, and are, a part of
ROYAL CARIBBEAN’ cruise packages, and the varying cruises packages are
often distinguished by the shore excursions offered and ports-of-call.
93. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN uses the ports-of-call and shore excursions to
entice the public to purchase cruise packages.
94. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN develops, organizes, promotes, advertises,
vouches for, and directly sells the shore excursions provided by subsidiaries,
employees, agents, servants, representatives and/or tour operator partners,
including OUT ISLAND CHARTERS.
95. The excursions and ports-of-call become a permanent part of a particular cruise
and are described, marketed and advertised in the literature published by ROYAL
CARIBBEAN and provided directly to passengers.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 16 of 40
Page 17 of 40
96. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN profits directly from the sale of shore
excursions, taking and keeping the majority of the shore excursion revenue. The
revenue from these excursions forms a significant portion of the overall revenue
generated by ROYAL CARIBBEAN and is an integral portion of its business plan
and model.
97. At all material times, ROYAL CARIBBEAN hired and/or utilized its
employees, agents, representatives, crewmembers, and/or other agents to
promote, market, coordinate, explain and directly sell excursions provided by
OUT ISLAND CHARTERS.
98. As part of its promotion of this significant portion of its business, ROYAL
CARIBBEAN maintains a department in its headquarters in Florida devoted to
creating, developing, promoting, marketing, coordinating, explaining, selling,
overseeing, supervising, auditing, tracking and monitoring its ports of call,
including the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg, St. Maarten, including the
subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
99. In addition, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN maintains a specified group of
employees and crew members on each of its ships, including the Adventure of the
Seas, to promote, market, coordinate, explain, oversee, supervise and sell these
excursions as well as to assist the various tour operators, including OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS to carry out and perform excursions at the scheduled port-of-call of
Philipsburg, St. Maarten, including the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion.
100. At all material times, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN derived substantial
income from developing, promoting, marketing, coordinating, directly selling and
vouching for the recreational shore excursions, beach activities and amenities,
including those at the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg, St. Maarten, for the
benefit of passengers on board ROYAL CARIBBEAN vessels.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 17 of 40
Page 18 of 40
101. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, in an effort to persuade and convince its
passengers to buy its cruises and purchase its excursions, makes representations in
its literature, advertisements, promotional materials and onboard about the safety
and security of the excursions, including that the excursions are safe and operated
with reliable and insured tour operators.
102. As part of its efforts to persuade its passengers to purchase and partake in
these excursions, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN represents to its passengers,
including Plaintiff, that it regularly oversees, monitors, audits, tracks and inspects
the operations of its tour operators, such as OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, both
before and after it includes them as operators of the tours, which it promotes and
sells to its passengers.
103. As part of its efforts to persuade its passengers to purchase and partake in
these excursions, including the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion,
ROYAL CARIBBEAN represents that it sets safety standards which its tour
operators, including OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, must comply with in carrying
out the excursions ROYAL CARIBBEAN promotes and sells to its passengers.
These representations, included on the ROYAL CARIBBEAN website and
promotional materials emphasize that the excursions booked “meet the high
standards of ROYAL CARIBBEAN” as “your security and comfort are of
paramount importance” and that excursions are monitored to ensure the “highest
quality.”
104. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN made these representations with the
purpose and intent that passengers rely upon them.
105. During Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS’ review of the marketing and
promotional material onboard, and their discussions with shipboard personnel and
personnel in St. Maarten, Plaintiff and BARBARA SIBBLIS were not informed of
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 18 of 40
Page 19 of 40
OUT ISLAND CHARTERS or that it had any involvement in the “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
106. At all times material hereto, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was the agent,
apparent agent, servant, and/or employee of ROYAL CARIBBEAN and at all
times acted within the course and scope of its employment, agency, apparent
agency, joint venture or service by virtue of the following, among other facts:
a. ROYAL CARIBBEAN made all arrangements for the subject excursion
without disclosing to Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS that the subject
excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities);
b. ROYAL CARIBBEAN marketed the subject excursion using its company logo
on its website and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship without disclosing to
Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS that the subject excursion was being run by
another entity (and/or entities);
c. ROYAL CARIBBEAN maintained a department and/or specific group of
employees in its headquarters in Florida devoted to creating, developing,
promoting, marketing, coordinating, explaining, overseeing, supervising,
auditing, tracking and monitoring its ports of call and the excursions sold to its
passengers, including the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
d. ROYAL CARIBBEAN maintained an excursion desk on its ship, staffed by its
employees, where ROYAL CARIBBEAN marketed, offered and sold
excursions, provided expert advice and information, answered questions,
handled and resolved complaints and refunds, on behalf of its subsidiary,
employees, servants, agents, representative, and/or tour operator partner,
including OUT ISLAND CHARTERS for which ROYAL CARIBBEAN
incurred certain expenses and costs;
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 19 of 40
Page 20 of 40
e. ROYAL CARIBBEAN recommended its passengers to not engage in
excursions, tours and/or activities that are not sold through ROYAL
CARIBBEAN;
f. Until the point that Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS actually participated in
the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, the Plaintiffs and BARBARA
SIBBLIS’ exclusive contact concerning the excursion was with ROYAL
CARIBBEAN and/or ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s onboard excursion desk;
g. ROYAL CARIBBEAN determined the amount of money charged for the
subject excursion;
h. The fee for the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion was charged to the
Plaintiffs and/or BARBARA SIBBLIS, and collected from the Plaintiffs
and/or BARBARA SIBBLIS, exclusively by ROYAL CARIBBEAN;
i. Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS received a receipt from ROYAL
CARIBBEAN for the purchase of the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion;
j. ROYAL CARIBBEAN employed personnel on its vessels to transport
passengers to Philipsburg, St. Maarten and for the purpose of organizing the
excursion and passengers going on the excursion;
k. ROYAL CARIBBEAN determined the time and length of each excursion;
l. ROYAL CARIBBEAN controlled the operation of the excursion by
promulgating various rules and regulations governing the conduct of the
excursion, the equipment to be utilized and the personnel allowed to conduct
the excursion, which it required its subsidiary, employees, servants, agents,
representative, and/or tour operator partner OUT ISLAND CHARTERS to
follow as part of its agreement with ROYAL CARIBBEAN;
m. ROYAL CARIBBEAN controlled and/or maintained the right of control over
the excursion by supervising and monitoring its performance and retaining the
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 20 of 40
Page 21 of 40
right to require its subsidiary, employees, servants, agents, representative,
and/or tour operator partner OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, to modify, alter or
change the manner in which each excursion was conducted, the equipment
utilized and/or the personnel conducting such excursion;
n. ROYAL CARIBBEAN controlled the operation of the excursion by expressly
reserving the right to determine when each excursion was safe to operate under
the conditions existing at the time, including the right to modify, terminate or
abort each excursion at any time when it was necessary to do so for the safety
of its passengers;
o. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN represented to its passengers that the
excursions which it sold to them were safe, operated by reliable personnel using
safe equipment and were being operated subject to the safety requirements
established by ROYAL CARIBBEAN;
107. At all times material, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was an agent,
ostensible/apparent agent, and/or representative of ROYAL CARIBBEAN. Any
representations by ROYAL CARIBBEAN to the contrary do not control the legal
status of the parties.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR NEGLIGENCE, CARELESSNESS,
WANTONNESS, and RECKLESSNESS
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL CARIBBEAN
108. Plaintiffs NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of
minors K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and
BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate of
BARBARA SIBBLIS hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth
herein, paragraphs 1-107, and allege as follows.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 21 of 40
Page 22 of 40
109. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN owed a duty to their
passengers, including Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS, to exercise
reasonable care for the health, welfare, and safety of their passengers.
110. At all times material, Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care,
should have known that the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion
was being operated in a negligent and unsafe manner and was unreasonably
dangerous and presented an undue risk of harm to its cruise ship passengers. Said
dangers and risks existed for a sufficient length of time so as to provide notice to
Defendant that the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion was unsafe
for its passengers.
111. At all times material, Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care,
should have known that the dangers and risks associated with the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion would increase the likelihood of
passengers being injured on the subject shore excursion.
112. At all times material Defendant’s conduct was outside the range of ordinary
activity involved in an catamaran sail boat ride and beach wading/swimming tour.
Defendant’s conduct was not inherent to this particular type of excursion and well
outside the range of ordinary and acceptable behavior for an activity represented
as “Easy.” Defendant’s increased the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the
activity. Defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent.
113. Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS had no knowledge of the conduct
and dangers of the activities of Defendant that ultimately caused Plaintiffs’ harm
and death of BARBARA SIBBLIS.
114. At all times material, Defendant, by and through their agents, servants, officers,
and/or employees, were negligent, careless, wanton and reckless and breached
their duty of care to Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS by committing
the following acts and/or omissions, including, but not limited to:
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 22 of 40
Page 23 of 40
a. Failing to accurately inform cruise ship passengers, including Plaintiffs and
decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS, of the dangers and undue risks associated with
the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion; and
b. Failing to warn passengers, including the Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA
SIBBLIS, that the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion involved deep
water swimming with strong ocean currents and/or other dangers without life
vests or other reasonable floatation device;
115. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of Defendant’s negligence,
decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS was caused to perish on or about February 20,
2019.
116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs were
severely and permanently injured on or about February 20, 2019.
117. As a further and direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence,
Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, mental
anguish, inconvenience, the loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of earnings,
and have incurred medical expenses in the past and will incur medical expenses in
the future. All of said damages are permanent and continuing in nature.
118. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury and requests this Court enter
judgment against Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for all damages permitted by
law, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other or
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR NEGLIGENT SELECTION AND RETENTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINES
119. Plaintiffs NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of
minors K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and
BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate of
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 23 of 40
Page 24 of 40
BARBARA SIBBLIS hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth
herein, paragraphs 1-107 and allege as follows.
120. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN developed, created,
hired, selected, contracted, and retained OUT ISLAND CHARTERS to provide
shore excursions to its passengers, including the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion, at the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg, St. Maarten.
121. Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS entrusted their health, safety, and
welfare to Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for the subject “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion.
122. Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS justifiably relied on ROYAL
CARIBBEAN to provide a safe shore excursion, and to use reasonable care for
their health, safety, and welfare.
123. At all times material, ROYAL CARIBBEAN owed a duty to their passengers,
in particular Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS to use reasonable care
in the development, creation, hiring, selection, and retention of the employees,
servants, agents and/or representatives to provide shore excursions to their cruise
ship passengers, in particular the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
124. In order to comply with their responsibility to use reasonable care in the hiring,
selection, and retention of the employees, servants, agents and/or representatives
offering shore excursions to its cruise ship passengers, in particular the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, ROYAL CARIBBEAN was required to
make an appropriate investigation of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS.
125. At all times material, ROYAL CARIBBEAN failed to make an appropriate
investigation of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS prior to hiring it and/or selecting it
to offer for cruise passengers.
126. Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN made an appropriate investigation of OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS prior to hiring it and/or selecting it to offer for cruise
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 24 of 40
Page 25 of 40
passengers, ROYAL CARIBBEAN would have and/or should have known of the
dangers, including but not limited to deep water swimming, strong currents,
and/or lack of life jackets.
127. At all times material, after ROYAL CARIBBEAN hired and/or selected OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS, it failed to make ongoing appropriate investigations of
OUT ISLAND CHARTERS in order to determine whether to continue offering
the excursion to the cruise passengers.
128. Had ROYAL CARIBBEAN made an appropriate investigation of OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS after hiring it and/or selecting it to offer to cruise
passengers, ROYAL CARIBBEAN would have and/or should have known of the
dangers, including but not limited to deep water swimming, strong currents,
and/or lack of life jackets.
129. An appropriate investigation before and after hiring and/or selecting would
have revealed the unsuitability of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS to provide a safe
shore excursion, in particular the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion.
130. Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care,
should have known that its subsidiary, employees, servants, agents, representative,
and/or tour operator partner involved in the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion was unfit to operate a shore excursion in a reasonably safe manner.
131. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or, in the
exercise of reasonable care, should have known that its subsidiary, employees,
servants, agents, representative, and/or tour operator partner hired and retained to
operate the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, presented foreseeable
risks to passengers.
132. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or, in the
exercise of reasonable care, should have known that improper and negligent
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 25 of 40
Page 26 of 40
operation would increase the likelihood of passengers being seriously injured or
killed on the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
133. As such, it was unreasonable to hire, select, and retain OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS to provide shore excursions to its passengers, in particular the “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
134. In addition to the aforementioned acts and/or omissions, Defendant ROYAL
CARIBBEAN by and through their employees, servants, agents and/or
representatives, were negligent and breached their duty of care by selecting and
retaining OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, and committing the following acts and/or
omissions, including, but not limited to:
a. Failing to conduct an adequate and proper investigation of the “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion before hiring and/or selecting it;
b. Failing to conduct an adequate and proper investigation of the “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion after hiring and/or selecting it;
135. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of Defendant’s negligence,
decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS was caused to perish on or about February 20,
2019.
136. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs were
severely and permanently injured on or about February 20, 2019.
137. As a further and direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence,
Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, mental
anguish, inconvenience, the loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of earnings
and have incurred medical expenses in the past and will incur medical expenses in
the future. All of said damages are permanent and continuing in nature.
138. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury and requests this Court enter
judgment against Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for all damages permitted by
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 26 of 40
Page 27 of 40
law, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other or
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINES
139. Plaintiffs NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of
minors K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and
BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate of
BARBARA SIBBLIS hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth
herein, paragraphs 1-107, and alleges as follows.
140. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN had a pecuniary
interest in coordinating, marketing, promoting, advertising, vouching for, and
directly selling the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion to its cruise
passengers.
141. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, owed a duty to their
passengers, including Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS, to exercise
reasonable care in obtaining and accurately communicating any information
relating to the shore excursions they developed, created, coordinated, marketed,
promoted, advertised, vouched for, and directly sell to their cruise ship passengers.
142. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN made numerous
misrepresentations of material fact relating to their sponsored shore excursions,
including the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, including, but
not limited to:
“We selected only the most reputable companies available to provide your
excursions ...the companies providing your excursions are selected by ROYAL
CARIBBEAN based on their excellent reputation for service and safety...our
primary concern at ROYAL CARIBBEAN is your safety and security;”
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 27 of 40
Page 28 of 40
“Safety: Your security and comfort are of paramount importance. Every effort
is made to ensure that each tour operates safely;” and
“We select local shore excursion operators who provide quality and safe shore
excursions.”
143. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN knew or, in the
exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the representations of material
fact, outlined above, were untrue and misleading.
144. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, by and through their
agents, servants, officers, and/or employees, were negligent, careless, and
breached its duty of care by committing the following negligent acts and/or
omissions, including, but not limited to:
a. Supplying false information relating to the shore excursions offered by
Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN to Plaintiffs and decedent BARBARA
SIBBLIS in the course of their business of providing shore excursions to fare-
paying cruise passengers;
b. Supplying false information relating to the safety of the subject “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion to Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS in the
course of their business of providing shore excursions to fare-paying cruise
passengers;
c. Supplying misleading information relating to the shore excursions offered by
Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN to Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS in
the course of their business of providing shore excursions to fare-paying cruise
passengers;
d. Supplying misleading information relating to the subject “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion to Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS in the course
of their business of providing shore excursions to its fare-paying cruise
passengers; and/or
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 28 of 40
Page 29 of 40
e. All other negligent acts and/or omissions discovered during litigation.
145. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN made the
misrepresentations of material fact, outlined above, to induce cruise ship
passengers to purchase the shore excursions it developed, created, coordinated,
marketed, and directly sold.
146. At all times material, Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS reasonably and
justifiably relied upon Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN misrepresentations of
material fact outlined above.
147. At all times material, Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN misrepresentations of
material fact relating to the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion
influenced Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS to purchase said excursion.
Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS would not have purchased the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, or any excursion for that matter, but for
Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN misrepresentations of material fact relating to
the safety and procedure of their sponsored excursions, including the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
148. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of Defendant’s negligence,
decedent BARBARA SIBBLIS was caused to perish on or about February 20,
2019.
149. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs were
severely and permanently injured on or about February 20, 2019.
150. As a further and direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence,
Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, mental
anguish, inconvenience, the loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of earnings
and have incurred medical expenses in the past and will incur medical expenses in
the future. All of said damages are permanent and continuing in nature.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 29 of 40
Page 30 of 40
151. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury and requests this Court enter
judgment against Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for all damages permitted by
law, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other or
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY –
OSTENSIBLE AGENCY (APPARENT AGENCY)
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINES
152. Plaintiffs NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of
minors K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and
BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as personal representative of the Estate of
BARBARA SIBBLIS hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth
herein, paragraphs 1-107, and alleges as follows.
153. At all times material, ROYAL CARIBBEAN held out OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS, as the shore excursion operator, and as their ostensible agent.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN represented to their cruise passengers, including Plaintiff
and BARBARA SIBBLIS that OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was an ostensible
agent of ROYAL CARIBBEAN. Said representations of ostensible agency
included, but were not limited to, the following:
a. From the moment passengers begin researching cruise package
information, ROYAL CARIBBEAN bombard them with a series of aggressive
advertisements and promotions for shore excursions, including the subject “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion, and the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg, St. Maarten, on its
website and in its brochures, pamphlets, photographs, and other advertisements. OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS is not mentioned or indicated anywhere in this process;
b. ROYAL CARIBBEAN coordinate, organize, promote, market,
advertise, vouch for, and directly sell shore excursions provided by OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS, including the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, on its
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 30 of 40
Page 31 of 40
website, in its brochures, and on board its cruise ships at kiosks run exclusively by ROYAL
CARIBBEAN employees;
c. Passengers pay ROYAL CARIBBEAN directly for shore excursions,
including the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion, without ever coming into
contact with any employee or representative of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS. When payment
is processed for shore excursions, it is reflected on passengers’ transaction receipts and
banking statements as a transaction made exclusively with Defendant ROYAL
CARIBBEAN;
d. ROYAL CARIBBEAN print the ticket stubs that passengers are
required to present for admission to the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
These tickets stubs are printed on ROYAL CARIBBEAN paper and delivered to passengers’
cruise ship cabins before the cruise ship even reaches the scheduled port-of-call of Philipsburg,
St. Maarten; and
e. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was not identified as the owner and/or
operator of the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion at any time when it was
being marketed by ROYAL CARIBBEAN and purchased by passengers, including Plaintiff
and BARBARA SIBBLIS. In fact, at all times material, when customers selected the
description link for the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion on ROYAL
CARIBBEAN website, there was no indication of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS whatsoever,
yet the web page displayed an abundance of ROYAL CARIBBEAN logos and
representations.
154. At all times material, the representations, outlined above, were made to
passengers, including Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS intentionally and/or by
want of reasonable care.
155. As a result of the numerous and pervasive representations, outlined above,
Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS had a reasonable belief that OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS had the authority to act on behalf of, and for the benefit of, ROYAL
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 31 of 40
Page 32 of 40
CARIBBEAN with respect to the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion.
156. As a further result of the numerous and pervasive representations of agency,
outlined above, Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS had a reasonable belief that
ROYAL CARIBBEAN had a right to control the conduct of its agent, OUT
ISLAND CHARTERS, with respect to the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway”
shore excursion.
157. As a further result of the numerous and pervasive representations of agency,
outlined above, Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS had a reasonable belief that
ROYAL CARIBBEAN had a right to control the safety policies and procedures of
its agent, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, with respect to the subject “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
158. Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS reasonably relied and acted upon such
beliefs of agency in purchasing the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore
excursion, which resulted in the death of BARBARA SIBBLIS and Plaintiffs being
severely and permanently injured.
159. As such, ROYAL CARIBBEAN is vicariously liable for the negligent acts
and/or omissions of their ostensible agent, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS.
160. At all times material, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS owed a duty to its excursion
passengers, including Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS, to provide a reasonably
safe excursion.
161. At all times material, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS knew or, in the exercise of
reasonable care, should have known the dangers and risks associated with the
subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
162. At all times material, OUT ISLAND CHARTERS knew or, in the exercise of
reasonable care, should have known that the dangers and risks associated with the
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 32 of 40
Page 33 of 40
subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion would increase the likelihood
of passengers being injured or killed on the subject excursion.
163. OUT ISLAND CHARTERS was negligent, careless, and breached its duty of
care by committing the following negligent acts and/or omissions, including, but
not limited to:
a. Failing to provide a safe shore excursion;
b. Failing to provide an excursion with proper equipment and personnel;
c. Failing to select a reasonably safe shore excursion to operate;
d. Failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and performance of the “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
e. Failing to keep a proper look out and monitor passengers to determine if they were
in trouble or needed assistance/rescue – particularly when swimming in deep
water;
f. Managing and operating the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion in an
unreasonably dangerous and careless manner, by employing unfit, incompetent,
and inexperienced employees to operate the shore excursion;
g. Hiring staff, who through their lack of skill, knowledge, and experience, were
incapable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion;
h. Failing to promote, market, and sell reasonably safe shore excursions to its
passengers;
i. Failing to conduct an adequate and proper investigation of the “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion;
j. Failing to routinely monitor and/or supervise the subject “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion;
k. Failing to provide safe, competent and experienced operators and employees for
the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 33 of 40
Page 34 of 40
l. Failing to properly and adequately train the captain and crew of the boat used for
the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion.
m. Failing to adequately monitor, supervise and audit the ongoing operations of its
employees, servants, agents, and/or representatives to ensure it was using safe,
proper and appropriate equipment, properly trained and competent personnel, and
proper and safe procedures to provide a reasonably safe excursion for its passengers
participating in the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
n. Failing to properly and adequately inspect, investigate, screen, select, and retain
the services of its employees, servants, agents, and/or representatives, to ensure it
was operating and running a reasonably safe excursion, in particular the subject
“A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
o. Failing to provide safe, competent, and experienced operators and employees for
the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
p. Failing to properly and adequately train the crewmembers used for the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
q. Failing to adopt and implement proper and adequate policies, protocols, and
procedures for the supervision of its employees, servants, agents, and/or
representatives, to ensure it was operating and running a reasonably safe excursion,
in particular the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
r. Failing to adopt and implement proper and adequate policies, protocols, and
procedures for addressing the safety of the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway”
shore excursion;
s. Failing to adopt and implement proper and adequate policies, protocols, and
procedures for the selection of safe shore excursions, in particular the “A Golden
Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
t. Failing to adopt and implement proper and adequate policies, protocols, and
procedures requiring its employees, servants, agents, and/or representatives
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 34 of 40
Page 35 of 40
involved in the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion to abide by reasonable
safety standards;
u. Failing to provide adequate and proper information regarding the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion so that Plaintiffs and BARBARA
SIBBLIS could make an informed decision as to their participation in the subject
excursion;
v. Failing to accurately inform cruise ship passengers of the dangers and undue risks
associated with the subject “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
w. Failing to adequately and properly warn passengers, in particular Plaintiffs and
BARBARA SIBBLIS of the dangers and undue risks involved with the subject “A
Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion;
x. Assuring passengers, including Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS, that all aspects
and conditions of the subject excursion were reasonably safe and appropriate for
them, when in fact they were not;
y. Failing to ensure all necessary steps were taken for Plaintiffs and BARBARA
SIBBLIS to safely participate in all aspects of the subject “A Golden Eagle
Sailaway” shore excursion;
z. Failing to implement a method of operation which was reasonably and safe and
which would prevent the creation of a dangerous condition, such as the one in this
case, and utilizing or allowing negligent methods of operation by its employees,
servants, agents, and/or representatives;
aa. Failing to promulgate and enforce appropriate safety rules for its employees,
servants, agents, and/or representatives;
bb. Instructing and/or allowing and/or condoning the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway”
shore excursion operator to engage passengers in deep water swimming with strong
ocean currents and/or other dangers without life vests or other reasonable
floatation device;
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 35 of 40
Page 36 of 40
cc. Other acts and/or omissions of negligence that will be proven at trial;
dd. Failing to warn passengers, including the Plaintiffs and BARBARA SIBBLIS, that
the “A Golden Eagle Sailaway” shore excursion involved deep water swimming
with strong ocean currents and/or other dangers without life vests or other
reasonable floatation device.
164. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS
and Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence, decedent BARBARA
SIBBLIS was caused to perish on or about February 20, 2019.
165. As a direct and proximate result of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS and
Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely and
permanently injured on or about February 20, 2019.
166. As a further and direct and proximate cause of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS
and Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN’s negligence, Plaintiffs sustained serious
and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, the
loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of earnings and have incurred medical
expenses in the past and will incur medical expenses in the future. All of said
damages are permanent and continuing in nature.
167. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury and requests this Court enter
judgment against Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for all damages permitted by
law, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other or
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PLAINTIFF NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of minors
K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR.’s CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 36 of 40
Page 37 of 40
168. Plaintiff NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of
minors K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR., references and incorporates the allegations
of Paragraphs 1 through 107 as fully as if set forth herein.
169. Due to the negligence of Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, directly and
vicariously due to the negligence of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, and in addition
to her and they directly witnessing the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff NICOLE
WOODLEY and her minor children K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR. were in the
zone of danger and not only placed at risk of immediate physical harm, but in fact
experienced such immediate harm in the form of fear and anxiety over and for their
own physical safety and well-being.
170. The negligence of Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN, directly and
vicariously due to the negligence of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, caused and
continue to cause Plaintiff NICOLE WOODLEY and her minor children K.W.,
M.W.; and C.W., JR.to suffer emotional injuries and damages.
171. The emotional injuries and/or damages suffered by Plaintiff NICOLE
WOODLEY and her minor children K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR. include
repetitive, ongoing, and/or continuous physical symptoms and manifestations to
include depression, post-traumatic stress, insomnia, and/or nightmares.
172. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of ROYAL
CARIBBEAN, directly and vicariously due to the negligence of OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS, Plaintiff NICOLE WOODLEY and her minor children K.W.,
M.W.; and C.W., JR. were caused to sustain bodily injury and resulting pain and
suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of earnings,
medical care and treatment, and/or aggravation of a previous existing condition.
The losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff NICOLE WOODLEY
and her minor children K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR. will suffer such losses in the
future.
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 37 of 40
Page 38 of 40
173. Plaintiff NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of
minors K.W., M.W.; and C.W., JR., demands trial by jury and requests this Court
enter judgment against Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for all tort damages
permitted by law, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and
such other or further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PLAINTIFF CLARICE LEE’S CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
174. Plaintiff CLARICE LEE references and incorporates the allegations of
Paragraphs 1 through 107 as fully as if set forth herein.
175. Due to the negligence of ROYAL CARIBBEAN, directly and vicariously
due to the negligence of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, and in addition to her
directly witnessing the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff CLARICE LEE was in the
zone of danger and not only placed at risk of immediate physical harm, but in fact
experienced such immediate harm in the form of fear and anxiety over and for her
own physical safety and well-being.
176. The negligence of ROYAL CARIBBEAN, directly and vicariously due to
the negligence of OUT ISLAND CHARTERS, caused and continue to cause
Plaintiff CLARICE LEE to suffer emotional injuries and damages.
177. The emotional injuries and/or damages suffered by Plaintiff CLARICE
LEE include repetitive, ongoing, and/or continuous physical symptoms and
manifestations to include depression, post-traumatic stress, insomnia, and/or
nightmares.
178. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of ROYAL
CARIBBEAN, directly and vicariously due to the negligence of OUT ISLAND
CHARTERS, Plaintiff CLARICE LEE was caused to sustain bodily injury and
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 38 of 40
Page 39 of 40
resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life,
loss of earnings, medical care and treatment, and/or aggravation of a previous
existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff
CLARICE LEE will suffer such losses in the future.
179. Plaintiff CLARICE LEE demands trial by jury and requests this Court enter
judgment against Defendant ROYAL CARIBBEAN for all tort damages permitted
by law, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other or
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby request and demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Date: February 5, 2021
MEISTER LAW Attorney for Plaintiffs
9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 101
Miami, Florida 33156 Phone: (305) 590-5570
Fax: (305) 675-3787 Email: [email protected] [email protected]
BY: s/TonyaJMeister
TONYA J. MEISTER FLORIDA BAR NO.: 062924
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 39 of 40
Page 40 of 40
SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 20-CV-20692-KMM
NICOLE WOODLEY, individually and as mother and guardian of minors K. W., M.
W., and C.W., JR.; CLARICE LEE, individually; and BARRINGTON L. SIBBLIS, as
personal representative of the Estate of BARBARA SIBBLIS v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES, LTD., a Liberian Corporation, and OUT ISLAND CHARTERS NV
Tonya J. Meister, Esq.
MEISTER LAW LLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 750
44 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff
Jeffrey E. Foreman, Esq.
[email protected] [email protected]
Noah D. Silverman, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]
Lauren S. Rose, Esq. [email protected]
[email protected] FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2300 2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555/Fax: 305-374-9077 Counsel for Defendant
Case 1:20-cv-20692-KMM Document 71 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 40 of 40
