Carnival Passenger Sues Over Wet Floor Slip Near Guest Services on Mardi Gras
Mason alleges he slipped on an unreasonably wet and slippery floor near the guest services area. The floor’s condition was not visible or marked, and neither signs nor crew warnings were present. Mason asserts that condensation, improper flooring material, or lack of maintenance caused the dangerous surface.
Despite surveillance cameras in the area, Mason contends Carnival failed to act on the hazard in time to prevent the fall.
Lawsuit Alleges Dangerous Flooring Conditions on Deck 8, With Prior Similar Incidents Cited Across Carnival Fleet
Case Name: Terrell Mason v. Carnival Corporation
Case Number: 1:25-cv-21767-BB
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
Filing Date: April 17, 2025
Plaintiff: Terrell Mason, Alabama resident
Defendant: Carnival Corporation (d/b/a Carnival Cruise Line)
Vessel: Carnival Mardi Gras
Incident Date: June 20, 2024
Location: Deck 8, near guest services
Legal Claims
Mason’s complaint includes four counts of negligence under general maritime law:
1. Negligent Failure to Warn
- Carnival allegedly failed to warn about:
- The slippery floor near guest services
- Known issues from prior similar incidents
- Absence of non-slip materials
- Lack of signage or crew instruction
2. Negligent Maintenance
- Claims Carnival failed to:
- Regularly inspect and dry the area
- Maintain slip-resistant materials
- Restrict access to hazardous zones
- Monitor wet floor risks in high-traffic zones
3. Negligent Design
- The lawsuit criticizes Carnival’s selection of materials with low friction when wet
- Design lacked proper:
- Drainage
- Slip-resistant strips
- Adequate floor-cleaning protocols
4. General Negligence
- Failure to adopt and enforce reasonable safety policies
- Inadequate staff training
- Failure to learn from fleet-wide fall incidents
Comparative Litigation Analysis
Citing a Pattern of Similar Incidents
Mason’s complaint draws on at least four prior lawsuits involving similar flooring across the Carnival fleet:
- Helderman v. Carnival – Deck 7, Carnival Celebration
- Croteau v. Carnival – Deck 16, Carnival Celebration
- Winger v. Carnival – Deck 7, Carnival Celebration
- Mercedes v. Carnival – Deck 8, Carnival Mardi Gras (same deck as Mason’s fall)
This supports a constructive notice theory: that Carnival knew the flooring was unsafe under certain conditions yet failed to redesign, warn, or maintain the area.
Trend & Policy Implications
Wet Deck Slip-and-Fall Cases: A Cruise Industry Liability Risk
Slip-and-fall lawsuits continue to represent a major share of cruise passenger claims. The Carnival Mardi Gras—a flagship of the line—has faced multiple similar complaints tied to interior public spaces. As with other recent cases, this one may influence:
- Cruise line flooring material selection in guest areas
- Adoption of better drainage and non-skid treatments
- Real-time crew response protocols and signage requirements
A finding of negligence could prompt fleet-wide audits of surface safety in guest service zones, lobbies, and entertainment decks.
Contact Us Today
If you or someone you know has been injured on a cruise due to wet or unsafe surfaces, you may have a valid claim under maritime law. Cruise operators are responsible for maintaining safe walkways and alerting passengers to hidden hazards.
Speak with a maritime attorney today to explore your legal rights. Time limits apply under federal law and cruise contracts—don’t wait to secure the compensation you deserve.
