No. 18-91
Antoinette Pizzino v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., dba Norwegian Cruise Line
Response Waived
Tags: actual-notice common-law constructive-notice cruise-line cruise-lines dangerous-condition maritime-law maritime-negligence negligence negligence-standard notice notice-requirement premises-liability
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a plaintiff in a maritime negligence case should be required to show defendant's actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition when the plaintiff would have no such obligation under common law
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether, in cases where a defendant or its agent has created the dangerous condition that causes injury, a plaintiff in a maritime negligence case should be required to make a separate showing that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition when the plaintiff would have no such obligation under the common law? li PARTIES AND
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-06
Waiver of right of respondent NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. to respond filed.
2018-07-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 20, 2018)
Attorneys
Antoinette Pizzino
Elizabeth Koebel Russo — Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Petitioner
Elizabeth Koebel Russo — Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Petitioner
NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.
Curtis J. Mase — Mase Mebane & Briggs, P.A., Respondent
Curtis J. Mase — Mase Mebane & Briggs, P.A., Respondent