South Carolina Woman Sues MSC Cruises After Wind Vortex in Cabin Causes Severe Injuries on MSC Seashore
Deserie Cubler, a resident of South Carolina, has filed a maritime personal injury lawsuit against MSC Cruises SA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit, filed under Case No. 1:26-cv-20403, alleges that Cubler sustained severe and permanent injuries when a powerful wind tunnel effect inside her stateroom threw her across the room. The incident reportedly occurred on September 21, 2024, aboard the MSC Seashore, a vessel within the cruise line’s Seaside class.
Passenger Injured by Powerful Wind Tunnel Effect Created by Opening Balcony and Cabin Doors Simultaneously
According to the complaint, the incident took place while Cubler was a fare-paying passenger aboard the MSC Seashore. The lawsuit details that Cubler was attempting to reenter her cabin from the balcony at the exact moment her husband opened the front door to the hallway. This simultaneous opening of the balcony and corridor doors allegedly created an intense wind vortex or suction effect within the cabin. The force of this sudden airflow was reportedly strong enough to lift a healthy adult off their feet. Cubler alleges that the wind tunnel effect violently threw her into a mirror and a dresser located inside the room.
The lawsuit asserts that as a result of this impact, Cubler suffered significant physical injuries. The medical conditions listed in the complaint include muscle and tendon tears in her left hip, deep lacerations to her left ankle, a concussion, chronic post-concussive symptoms, migraines, and vision loss. Additionally, the plaintiff claims she has experienced a permanent loss of strength, mobility, and range of motion in her left ankle and hip, which continues to affect her daily life.
Lawsuit Accuses MSC Cruises of Failing to Warn Passengers of Dangerous Air Pressure Hazards in Cabins
The legal action claims that MSC Cruises was negligent in failing to warn passengers about the dangers of creating a wind vortex by opening opposite doors in the cabin. The complaint alleges that crew members, specifically housekeeping staff, were present in the immediate vicinity—within ten to fifteen feet—of Cubler’s cabin just prior to the incident. Despite their presence and alleged knowledge of the potential for dangerous air pressure changes, the staff reportedly failed to provide any verbal warnings or intervene to prevent the hazardous condition.
Cubler’s legal team argues that MSC Cruises knew or should have known about the risk of wind tunnels in staterooms. The complaint suggests that this is not an isolated occurrence, alleging that previous passengers on the MSC Seashore and other vessels in the MSC fleet have suffered similar incidents involving wind vortices. The lawsuit contends that because cabins are frequently occupied by multiple guests, the coincidental opening of balcony and hallway doors is a foreseeable event that the cruise line should have anticipated and guarded against.
Complaint Alleges Negligent Design and Lack of Safety Mechanisms to Prevent Cabin Wind Vortices on Seaside Class Ships
Beyond the failure to warn, the lawsuit targets the design and construction of the MSC Seashore and its sister ships in the Seaside class, which include the MSC Seaside, MSC Seaview, and MSC Seascape. The plaintiff alleges that these vessels share substantially similar deck plans and door designs that contribute to the creation of dangerous wind tunnels. The complaint claims that the cabin and balcony doors were defective because they lacked adequate devices or mechanisms to mitigate rapid air pressure changes.
The filing argues that MSC Cruises participated in the design process or approved the installation of these specific doors despite them failing to meet industry safety standards for wind vortex mitigation. The plaintiff asserts that reasonable safety measures, such as air dampers or warning signage, were available and could have prevented the incident. By allowing these conditions to persist, the lawsuit claims MSC Cruises breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for its guests.
Plaintiff Seeks Compensation for Concussion and Orthopedic Injuries Caused by Cruise Ship Negligence
Cubler is pursuing damages for the physical, emotional, and financial toll of the incident. The lawsuit seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, hospitalization costs, and nursing care required for her injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff is claiming damages for lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and the diminished value of her vacation. The complaint emphasizes that the injuries have resulted in ongoing pain and suffering, disability, scarring, and a loss of independence.
The lawsuit brings multiple counts of negligence against MSC Cruises, including negligent failure to remedy the dangerous condition, negligent failure to warn, and negligent design or approval of the vessel’s features. The plaintiff argues that the cruise line had a non-delegable duty to inspect the ship for hazards and that its failure to do so directly resulted in the severe injuries she sustained.
Contact a Cruise Ship Injury Lawyer Today if You Were Hurt by Dangerous Cabin Conditions
Cruise lines have a responsibility to ensure their vessels are safe for passengers and to warn guests of hidden dangers, such as the potential for violent wind tunnels in cabins. If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to a wind vortex, defective door design, or other dangerous conditions aboard a cruise ship, you may be eligible for compensation under maritime law. Our experienced team of maritime injury attorneys is ready to evaluate your case and help you navigate the complex legal landscape of cruise ship litigation.
Contact us now to speak with a cruise ship injury attorney.
Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.
