Nancy Gould v. Carnival Corporation

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13308
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
NANCY GOULD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CARNIVAL CORPORATION,
A Panamanian Corporation
d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Line,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 1 of 10

-- 1 of 10 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13308
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-20289-JG
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nancy Gould sued Carnival Corporation for negligence af-
ter she was injured while boarding one its cruise ships due to a
physical altercation between two other passengers on the gangway
ramp. The district court1 conducted a bench trial and determined
that Carnival was not liable for Gould’s injuries for multiple, inde-
pendent reasons. Among them, the court found that Carnival
lacked notice of a risk-creating condition, that even if it had notice
it lacked a duty or reasonable time to intervene, and that an inter-
vention would not have prevented Gould’s injuries. Gould primar-
ily contests the court’s findings as to the issue of notice. But she
has not properly challenged other independent grounds for the
judgment against her. So we affirm the judgment without address-
ing the merits of her arguments.
I.
We present the facts as found by the district court following
a bench trial, which Gould largely does not dispute.
See Garcia-
Celestino v. Ruiz Harvesting, Inc., 898 F.3d 1110, 1118 (11th Cir.
1 A magistrate judge conducted the bench trial and entered final judgment by
consent of the parties.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For ease of reference, we refer
to the magistrate judge as the “district court.”
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 2 of 10

-- 2 of 10 --

21-13308 Opinion of the Court 3
2018) (“On review after a bench trial, we accept all of the district
court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”).
In May 2018, Gould was a cruise passenger on board the
Car-
nival Liberty. On the first full day of the cruise, Gould and her
daughter spent part of the day ashore in Nassau, The Bahamas. On
their return to the vessel, they were walking behind a man and
woman who were arguing on the pier. At some point the man
charged at the woman and punched her in the head in front of
Gould and her daughter. When this incident occurred, Gould was
approximately 40 yards from the passenger gangway ramp con-
necting the pier and the
Carnival Liberty. No Carnival employees
witnessed this incident.
After the incident on the pier, the man and woman contin-
ued walking toward the gangway, and Gould and her daughter fol-
lowed. Despite the violent incident, Gould did not feel in any dan-
ger from the couple. Gould and her daughter entered the gangway
behind the couple. The couple resumed their argument on the
gangway. They were not yelling, but the argument quickly turned
physical. Within a minute of resuming their argument, the man
swung at the woman, who attempted to dodge the blow and
knocked into Gould, causing her to fall off the gangway and strike
her head on the pier below.
Carnival did not have any security officers stationed at the
base of the gangway where it connects to the pier. The pier is the
responsibility of local port authorities pursuant to Carnival’s con-
tractual security plan with the Bahamian Port Authority. Instead,
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 3 of 10

-- 3 of 10 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13308
three security officers were stationed just inside the ship, primarily
to verify authorization to board. Carnival was unaware of any
physical altercation—either on the pier or the gangway—until after
Gould was injured.
II.
Gould sued Carnival for negligence, alleging multiple theo-
ries of liability. The district court held a four-day bench trial in
April 2021. It then entered judgment in favor of Carnival and made
detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in support. In a 67-
page order, the district court systematically explained why, in its
view, Gould could not prevail on her negligence claim.
To start, the district court found that Carnival lacked actual
or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition, which was an
essential element of Gould’s claim. In particular, the court deter-
mined that no Carnival crewmember had actual notice of the vio-
lent incidents. Not only that, but the court concluded that Carnival
had no duty to monitor the pier; rather, that was the responsibility
of the Bahamian Port Authority. And it rejected Gould’s argument
that Carnival had constructive notice from an incident of violence
on a gangway in 2016. In the court’s view, the “risk-creating con-
dition” was the violent man, “not the gangway itself,” so the prior
“unrelated fight” was not sufficient to impute notice to Carnival.
The court also noted that the risk of violence between two passen-
gers traveling together was present on all parts of the ship. The
court concluded that, without notice to Carnival, Gould could not
show that Carnival breached a duty to her.
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 4 of 10

-- 4 of 10 --

21-13308 Opinion of the Court 5
Even though it found the lack of notice dispositive, the dis-
trict court went further and made several alternative rulings under
the assumption that Carnival had adequate notice. First, it found
that the danger posed by the violent passenger was open and obvi-
ous to Gould. The court noted that Gould witnessed the violent
incident on the pier just before she entered the gangway, so she
was aware of the passenger’s violent propensities but failed to take
any action to protect herself or her daughter.
Second, the district court concluded that, even if Carnival
had notice of a risk-creating condition on the gangway, it had no
duty to intervene. The court explained that, while Carnival had a
duty to “evaluate the situation,” an evaluation “would show that
no immediate intervention was needed on the gangway ramp.”
The court noted that Gould felt safe on the ramp even when the
couple resumed their argument, so there was “no need to inter-
vene and create a risk on the ramp.” Instead, in the court’s view,
Carnival could have satisfied its duty of reasonable care to Gould
by waiting for the man to pass through security before questioning
him.
Third, even if Carnival had notice and a duty to intervene,
the district court continued, “general maritime law affords Carni-
val reasonable time to remedy the situation.” The court con-
cluded, however, that it was not reasonable to expect Carnival to
intervene within the minute it took for the argument to turn vio-
lent. The court elaborated that “Carnival Security would have to
evaluate the situation, abandon their designated posts, walk
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 5 of 10

-- 5 of 10 --

6 Opinion of the Court 21-13308
through the narrow, crowded gangway, and successfully intervene
with [the man] before he lunged at [the woman]—all in less than a
minute.” So for that reason, too, the court found that Carnival was
not liable for failing to intervene.
Fourth and finally, the district court determined that, even
if Carnival breached a duty to intervene, Gould failed to prove that
the lack of intervention proximately caused her injuries. In the
court’s view, there was “no evidence supporting the speculative
theory that [the violent passenger] would have heeded an admon-
ishment or warning from Carnival or that an intervention would
prove effective,” and it could not simply “presume that an inter-
vention by Carnival would have prevented [Gould’s] injuries.” In
fact, according to the court, the man’s “erratic behavior indicates
that an on-the-gangway admonishment or intervention by Carni-
val would have had little to no effect” and “may have placed
[Gould] and other passengers in
greater danger.” Thus, the court
reasoned that Gould did not prove proximate cause even if she
could prove duty and breach.
Concluding that Gould “fail[ed] to prove notice, breach of
duty, and proximate cause,” the district court entered judgment in
favor of Carnival. This appeal followed.
III.
On appeal, Gould primarily challenges the district court’s
findings and conclusions concerning the issue of notice, which she
acknowledges is an essential element of her negligence claim. She
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 6 of 10

-- 6 of 10 --

21-13308 Opinion of the Court 7
contends that the court erred by (a) failing to make sufficiently de-
tailed findings of fact about prior incidents of violence on Carnival’s
gangways, and omitting one incident entirely; (b) failing to con-
clude that the prior incidents were not substantially similar; and
(c) requiring evidence that the gangway was riskier than other lo-
cations on the ship, and ignoring evidence that it was.
Gould makes a few arguments apart from notice.2 She as-
serts that the court erred to the extent it found Carnival had no
duty to monitor safety on the gangway. And she contends that the
“failure to position a security officer at the base of the gangway”
was the proximate cause of her injuries. In Gould’s estimation,
“this security officer should have, pursuant to [Carnival’s] own pol-
icies and procedures for handling domestic disputes, as well as for
handling intoxicated individuals, separated the two individuals
from the other passengers boarding the gangway.”
When an appellant appeals a district court judgment that is
based on “multiple, independent grounds,” she “must convince us
that every stated ground for the judgment against [her] is incor-
rect.”
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th
Cir. 2014). And “[w]hen an appellant fails to challenge properly on
appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judg-
ment, [s]he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that
2 There was some dispute in the district court as to the extent of injuries Gould
suffered from the incident, which Gould also raises on appeal, but the district
court expressly declined to rule on that issue, so we do not address it further.
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 7 of 10

-- 7 of 10 --

8 Opinion of the Court 21-13308
ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”
Id.
An appellant fails to properly brief an issue for appeal when she fails
to advance any arguments or cite any authorities to establish that
the court’s ruling was in error.
Id. at 681.
Here, we decline to reach Gould’s arguments on appeal be-
cause she has failed to properly challenge independent grounds for
the district court’s judgment. Gould primarily disputes the court’s
findings on the issue of notice, but the court went on to make sev-
eral alternative rulings under the assumption that Carnival had no-
tice. So she must convince us that all those grounds were incorrect
to obtain reversal.
See id. at 680. She has not. In particular, the
court made three independent rulings that Gould has failed to
properly challenge on appeal.
First, the district court found that, while Carnival had a duty
to monitor and evaluate safety on the gangway, it was not required
to immediately “intervene and create a risk on the ramp.” We see
nothing in the court’s order to support Gould’s claim that the court
found Carnival had no duty of care with respect to the gangway.
Nor do her arguments about proximate cause show error with re-
spect to the court’s ruling that Carnival did not breach a duty to
Gould by failing to intervene.
Second, the district court found that Carnival lacked reason-
able time to intervene and remedy the situation once the argument
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 8 of 10

-- 8 of 10 --

21-13308 Opinion of the Court 9
between the couple resumed on the gangway.3 Gould responds
that a security officer stationed at the base of the gangway could
have reached the couple within the minute it took for the argu-
ment to turn violent. However, she does not identify any error in
the court’s conclusions that “general maritime law afford[ed] Car-
nival reasonable time to remedy the situation” and that it was “un-
reasonable to expect Carnival Security to intervene within less than
a minute,” even if it would have been physically possible for Car-
nival to do so.
Third, and finally, the district court determined that, even if
Carnival breached a duty to intervene, Gould failed to prove that
any invention would have prevented her injuries for purposes of
establishing proximate cause. Gould argues that a security officer
stationed at the base of the gangway could and should have inter-
vened and separated the two individuals from the other passengers.
But she fails to address the court’s findings that any intervention
likely would have been ineffective and “may have placed Plaintiff
and other passengers in greater danger” because of the man’s er-
ratic and violent behavior on the narrow gangway.
Because Gould has not “convince[d] us that every stated
ground for the judgment against [her] is incorrect,” it “follows that
3 To the extent Gould contends that the couple was arguing as they entered
the gangway, and so would have alerted a security officer had one been sta-
tioned at the base of the gangway, she has not shown that the district court
clearly erred in finding that the argument resumed only after they were al-
ready on the gangway.
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 9 of 10

-- 9 of 10 --

10 Opinion of the Court 21-13308
the judgment is due to be affirmed.”
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. Ac-
cordingly, we affirm the judgment in favor of Carnival without
reaching Gould’s other arguments.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-13308 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 10 of 10

-- 10 of 10 --