Preview
Case Number: CACE-21-007553 Division: 21
Filing # 124824285 E-Filed 04/13/2021 01:15:09 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.:
MARCHELL OSBORN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., a
Florida corporation,
And ERWIN BYNES,
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff, MARSHELL OSBORN, an Oregon citizen and resident, sues Defendants,
FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., a Florida corporation, and ERWIN BYNES, and alleges:
COUNT I —- NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT ERWIN BYNES
1 This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand ($30,000.00) dollars,
exclusive of interest and costs.
2. Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN is sui juris and at all material times has been a
citizen and resident of the state of Oregon.
3 Defendant ERWIN BYNES is sui juris and is a permanent resident of Broward
County Florida.
4 At all material times Defendant ERWIN BYNES has been employed by
Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. as a stevedore.
#** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 04/14/2021 11:58:46 AM.**#*
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
5 At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope
of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., has been engaged in the
business of stevedoring, including handling baggage for cruise ship passengers, at locations
including Terminal 26, Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida (“Terminal 26”).
6. At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope
of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., handled luggage brought
by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to
transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26.
7 At all material times, ERWIN BYNES, as a porter handling luggage in Terminal
26 through the use of carts, had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to operate the luggage carts
with reasonable care so as not to injure those passengers.
8 At all material times, including May 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was a cruise ship
passenger disembarking at Port Everglades and waiting in Terminal 26 to retrieve her luggage,
so that ERWIN BYNES had a duty of reasonable care to her to operate luggage carts within the
terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure her.
9. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, ERWIN BYNES, acting within the
course and scope of his employment with the Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. was
operating inside Terminal 26 a luggage cart loaded with luggage, for the purpose of transporting
the luggage through the terminal.
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
10. At the time and place referenced in the previous two paragraphs, ERWIN BYNES
breached his duty and was thereby negligent in his operation of the luggage cart in one or more
of the following respects:
a. He failed to secure the luggage on the cart adequately;
b He failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and obstacles while
operating the cart;
Cc. He failed to maneuver or operate the cart with reasonable care for the
safety of pedestrians in the area;
d He failed to keep the luggage cart under proper control while operating it;
e. He failed to exercise reasonable care to war or notify pedestrians in the
area that a luggage cart loaded with luggage was approaching.
f. He failed to secure or stack the luggage properly causing it to tip and fall
over.
He failed to request assistance in stacking the luggage on the luggage cart.
He loaded an excessive or unsafe amount of luggage on the cart.
He stacked too much luggage on the cart.
J He stacked luggage on the cart in an unstable configuration so that
luggage fell from the cart as it moved.
11. As a direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced in the
preceding paragraph, improperly secured and stacked luggage fell off of the luggage cart the
porter was operating and struck the Plaintiff from behind.
3
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
12. As a further direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence
referenced above, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN was injured in and about her body and
extremities, suffered pain therefrom, sustained mental anguish, sustained disfigurement,
disability and the inability to lead a normal life, and the aggravation or activation of pre-existing
medical conditions. Furthermore, she incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and
health care expenses as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or continuing in
their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN demands judgment against Defendant
ERWIN BYNES for damages and the costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all
issues so triable as of right.
COUNT I — VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT FLORIDA
STEVEDORING, INC.
13. This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand ($30,000.00) dollars,
exclusive of interest and costs.
14. Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN is sui juris and at all material times has been a
citizen and resident of the state of Oregon.
15. Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is a Florida corporation, with its
principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
16. At all material times Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has done
business in Broward County, Florida.
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
17. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has been
engaged in the business of stevedoring, including handling baggage for cruise ship passengers, at
locations including Terminal 26, Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida (“Terminal 26”).
18. At all material times, porters employed by Defendant FLORIDA
STEVEDORING, INC. and acting in the course and scope of their employment, including
Defendant ERWIN BYNES, handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port
Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’
luggage within Terminal 26.
19. At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope
of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., handled luggage brought
by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to
transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26.
20. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., acting
through its porters including ERWIN BYNES, had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to
operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure those
passengers.
21. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was a cruise ship
passenger disembarking at Port Everglades and waiting in Terminal 26 to retrieve her luggage,
so that Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. had a duty of reasonable care to her to
operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure her.
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
22. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting
within the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING,
INC. was operating inside Terminal 26 a luggage cart loaded with luggage, for the purpose of
transporting the luggage through the terminal.
23. On the date and in the place referenced in the preceding paragraph, Defendant
FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior for negligence of Defendant ERWIN BYNES in operating the luggage cart in Terminal
26.
24. At the time and place referenced in the previous three paragraphs, ERWIN
BYNES failed to exercise reasonable care in operation of the luggage cart he was operating and
was thereby negligent in one or more of the following respects:
a. He failed to secure the luggage on the cart adequately;
b He failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and obstacles while
operating the cart;
c. He failed to maneuver or operate the cart with reasonable care for the
safety of pedestrians in the area;
d He failed to keep the luggage cart under proper control while operating it;
e. He failed to exercise reasonable care to warn or notify pedestrians in the
area that a luggage cart loaded with luggage was approaching.
f. He failed to secure or stack the luggage properly causing it to tip and fall
over.
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
He failed to request assistance in stacking the luggage on the luggage cart.
He loaded an excessive or unsafe amount of luggage on the cart.
He stacked too much luggage on the cart.
J He stacked luggage on the cart in an unstable configuration so that
luggage fell from the cart as it moved.
25. As a direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced in the
preceding paragraph, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously
liable as alleged above, improperly secured and stacked luggage fell off of the luggage cart the
porter was operating and struck the Plaintiff from behind.
26. As a further direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence
referenced above, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously liable
as alleged above, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN was injured in and about her body and
extremities, suffered pain therefrom, sustained mental anguish, sustained disfigurement,
disability and the inability to lead a normal life, and the aggravation or activation of pre-existing
medical conditions. Furthermore, she incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and
health care expenses as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or continuing in
their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN demands judgment against Defendant
FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. for damages and the costs of this action and further demands
trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
COUNT Ill —- NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY
DEFENDANT FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC.
27. This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand ($30,000.00) dollars,
exclusive of interest and costs.
28. Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN is sui juris and at all material times has been a
citizen and resident of the state of Oregon.
29. Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is a Florida corporation, with its
principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
30. At all material times Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has done
business in Broward County, Florida.
31. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has been
engaged in the business of stevedoring, including handling baggage for cruise ship passengers, at
locations including Terminal 26, Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida (“Terminal 26”).
32. At all material times, porters employed by Defendant FLORIDA
STEVEDORING, INC. and acting in the course and scope of their employment, including
Defendant ERWIN BYNES, handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port
Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’
luggage within Terminal 26.
33. At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope
of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., handled luggage brought
by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to
transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26.
8
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
34. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., acting
through its porters including ERWIN BYNES, had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to
operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure those
passengers.
35. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. had a duty to
passengers in Terminal 26 to adopt and implement policies and procedures so that porters would
operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure those
passengers, and a duty to train the porters adequately to implement and follow those policies and
procedures.
36. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was a cruise ship
passenger disembarking at Port Everglades and waiting in Terminal 26 to retrieve her luggage,
so that Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. had a duty of reasonable care to her as
described in the preceding paragraph.
37. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting
within the course and scope of his employment as a porter with the Defendant FLORIDA
STEVEDORING, INC. was operating inside Terminal 26 a luggage cart loaded with luggage, for
the purpose of transporting the luggage through the terminal.
38. On the date and in the place referenced in the preceding paragraph, Defendant
FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. failed to exercise reasonable care in the adoption and
implementation of policies and procedures for safe operation of luggage carts in the terminal,
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
and failed adequately to train porters including Defendant ERWIN BYNES to implement
policies and procedures for the safe operation of luggage carts, and was thereby negligent.
39. At the time and place referenced in the previous four paragraphs, as a direct and
proximate result of the failure by FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. to adopt and implement
policies and procedures for the safe operation of luggage carts and failure to train its porters
adequately, as referenced in the preceding paragraph, ERWIN BYNES was inadequately trained
in the safe operation of luggage carts, and thereby failed to exercise reasonable care in operation
of the luggage cart he was operating and was negligent in one or more of the following respects:
a. He failed to secure the luggage on the cart adequately;
b He failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and obstacles while
operating the cart;
Cc. He failed to maneuver or operate the cart with reasonable care for the
safety of pedestrians in the area;
d He failed to keep the luggage cart under proper control while operating it;
e. He failed to exercise reasonable care to war or notify pedestrians in the
area that a luggage cart loaded with luggage was approaching.
He failed to secure or stack the luggage properly causing it to tip and fall
over.
He failed to request assistance in stacking the luggage on the luggage cart.
He loaded an excessive or unsafe amount of luggage on the cart.
He stacked too much luggage on the cart.
10
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
J He stacked luggage on the cart in an unstable configuration so that
luggage fell from the cart as it moved.
40. As a direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced in the
preceding paragraph, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously
liable due to its failure to adopt and implement policies and to train porters as alleged above,
improperly secured and stacked luggage fell off of the luggage cart the porter was operating and
struck the Plaintiff from behind.
41. As a further direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence
referenced above, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously liable
as alleged above, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN was injured in and about her body and
extremities, suffered pain therefrom, sustained mental anguish, sustained disfigurement,
disability and the inability to lead a normal life, and the aggravation or activation of pre-existing
medical conditions. Furthermore, she incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and
health care expenses as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or continuing in
their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN demands judgment against Defendant
FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. for damages and the costs of this action and further demands
trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.
11
Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right
Executed this 13" day of April, 2021.
s/NICHOLAS I. GERSON
NICHOLAS I. GERSON
Bar Number No. 0020899
ngerson@gslawusa.com
GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A.
1980 Coral Way
Miami, Florida 33145
Telephone: (305) 371-6000
Facsimile: (305) 371-5749
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
Preview
Case Number: CACE-21-007553 Division: 21 Filing # 124824285 E-Filed 04/13/2021 01:15:09 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: MARCHELL OSBORN, Plaintiff, VS. FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., a Florida corporation, And ERWIN BYNES, Defendants. / COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff, MARSHELL OSBORN, an Oregon citizen and resident, sues Defendants, FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., a Florida corporation, and ERWIN BYNES, and alleges: COUNT I —- NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT ERWIN BYNES 1 This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand ($30,000.00) dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. 2. Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN is sui juris and at all material times has been a citizen and resident of the state of Oregon. 3 Defendant ERWIN BYNES is sui juris and is a permanent resident of Broward County Florida. 4 At all material times Defendant ERWIN BYNES has been employed by Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. as a stevedore. #** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 04/14/2021 11:58:46 AM.**#* Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. 5 At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., has been engaged in the business of stevedoring, including handling baggage for cruise ship passengers, at locations including Terminal 26, Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida (“Terminal 26”). 6. At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26. 7 At all material times, ERWIN BYNES, as a porter handling luggage in Terminal 26 through the use of carts, had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to operate the luggage carts with reasonable care so as not to injure those passengers. 8 At all material times, including May 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was a cruise ship passenger disembarking at Port Everglades and waiting in Terminal 26 to retrieve her luggage, so that ERWIN BYNES had a duty of reasonable care to her to operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure her. 9. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, ERWIN BYNES, acting within the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. was operating inside Terminal 26 a luggage cart loaded with luggage, for the purpose of transporting the luggage through the terminal. Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. 10. At the time and place referenced in the previous two paragraphs, ERWIN BYNES breached his duty and was thereby negligent in his operation of the luggage cart in one or more of the following respects: a. He failed to secure the luggage on the cart adequately; b He failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and obstacles while operating the cart; Cc. He failed to maneuver or operate the cart with reasonable care for the safety of pedestrians in the area; d He failed to keep the luggage cart under proper control while operating it; e. He failed to exercise reasonable care to war or notify pedestrians in the area that a luggage cart loaded with luggage was approaching. f. He failed to secure or stack the luggage properly causing it to tip and fall over. He failed to request assistance in stacking the luggage on the luggage cart. He loaded an excessive or unsafe amount of luggage on the cart. He stacked too much luggage on the cart. J He stacked luggage on the cart in an unstable configuration so that luggage fell from the cart as it moved. 11. As a direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced in the preceding paragraph, improperly secured and stacked luggage fell off of the luggage cart the porter was operating and struck the Plaintiff from behind. 3 Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. 12. As a further direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced above, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN was injured in and about her body and extremities, suffered pain therefrom, sustained mental anguish, sustained disfigurement, disability and the inability to lead a normal life, and the aggravation or activation of pre-existing medical conditions. Furthermore, she incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and health care expenses as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or continuing in their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these damages in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN demands judgment against Defendant ERWIN BYNES for damages and the costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right. COUNT I — VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. 13. This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand ($30,000.00) dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. 14. Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN is sui juris and at all material times has been a citizen and resident of the state of Oregon. 15. Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 16. At all material times Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has done business in Broward County, Florida. Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. 17. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has been engaged in the business of stevedoring, including handling baggage for cruise ship passengers, at locations including Terminal 26, Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida (“Terminal 26”). 18. At all material times, porters employed by Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. and acting in the course and scope of their employment, including Defendant ERWIN BYNES, handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26. 19. At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26. 20. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., acting through its porters including ERWIN BYNES, had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure those passengers. 21. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was a cruise ship passenger disembarking at Port Everglades and waiting in Terminal 26 to retrieve her luggage, so that Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. had a duty of reasonable care to her to operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure her. Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. 22. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting within the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. was operating inside Terminal 26 a luggage cart loaded with luggage, for the purpose of transporting the luggage through the terminal. 23. On the date and in the place referenced in the preceding paragraph, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for negligence of Defendant ERWIN BYNES in operating the luggage cart in Terminal 26. 24. At the time and place referenced in the previous three paragraphs, ERWIN BYNES failed to exercise reasonable care in operation of the luggage cart he was operating and was thereby negligent in one or more of the following respects: a. He failed to secure the luggage on the cart adequately; b He failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and obstacles while operating the cart; c. He failed to maneuver or operate the cart with reasonable care for the safety of pedestrians in the area; d He failed to keep the luggage cart under proper control while operating it; e. He failed to exercise reasonable care to warn or notify pedestrians in the area that a luggage cart loaded with luggage was approaching. f. He failed to secure or stack the luggage properly causing it to tip and fall over. Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. He failed to request assistance in stacking the luggage on the luggage cart. He loaded an excessive or unsafe amount of luggage on the cart. He stacked too much luggage on the cart. J He stacked luggage on the cart in an unstable configuration so that luggage fell from the cart as it moved. 25. As a direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced in the preceding paragraph, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously liable as alleged above, improperly secured and stacked luggage fell off of the luggage cart the porter was operating and struck the Plaintiff from behind. 26. As a further direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced above, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously liable as alleged above, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN was injured in and about her body and extremities, suffered pain therefrom, sustained mental anguish, sustained disfigurement, disability and the inability to lead a normal life, and the aggravation or activation of pre-existing medical conditions. Furthermore, she incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and health care expenses as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or continuing in their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these damages in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN demands judgment against Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. for damages and the costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right. Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. COUNT Ill —- NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY DEFENDANT FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. 27. This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand ($30,000.00) dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. 28. Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN is sui juris and at all material times has been a citizen and resident of the state of Oregon. 29. Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 30. At all material times Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has done business in Broward County, Florida. 31. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. has been engaged in the business of stevedoring, including handling baggage for cruise ship passengers, at locations including Terminal 26, Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida (“Terminal 26”). 32. At all material times, porters employed by Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. and acting in the course and scope of their employment, including Defendant ERWIN BYNES, handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26. 33. At all material times, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., handled luggage brought by cruise ship passengers to Port Everglades, Florida, including in that process the use of carts to transport the passengers’ luggage within Terminal 26. 8 Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. 34. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC., acting through its porters including ERWIN BYNES, had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure those passengers. 35. At all material times, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. had a duty to passengers in Terminal 26 to adopt and implement policies and procedures so that porters would operate luggage carts within the terminal with reasonable care so as not to injure those passengers, and a duty to train the porters adequately to implement and follow those policies and procedures. 36. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was a cruise ship passenger disembarking at Port Everglades and waiting in Terminal 26 to retrieve her luggage, so that Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. had a duty of reasonable care to her as described in the preceding paragraph. 37. At all material times, including May 5, 2019, Defendant ERWIN BYNES, acting within the course and scope of his employment as a porter with the Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. was operating inside Terminal 26 a luggage cart loaded with luggage, for the purpose of transporting the luggage through the terminal. 38. On the date and in the place referenced in the preceding paragraph, Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. failed to exercise reasonable care in the adoption and implementation of policies and procedures for safe operation of luggage carts in the terminal, Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. and failed adequately to train porters including Defendant ERWIN BYNES to implement policies and procedures for the safe operation of luggage carts, and was thereby negligent. 39. At the time and place referenced in the previous four paragraphs, as a direct and proximate result of the failure by FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. to adopt and implement policies and procedures for the safe operation of luggage carts and failure to train its porters adequately, as referenced in the preceding paragraph, ERWIN BYNES was inadequately trained in the safe operation of luggage carts, and thereby failed to exercise reasonable care in operation of the luggage cart he was operating and was negligent in one or more of the following respects: a. He failed to secure the luggage on the cart adequately; b He failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and obstacles while operating the cart; Cc. He failed to maneuver or operate the cart with reasonable care for the safety of pedestrians in the area; d He failed to keep the luggage cart under proper control while operating it; e. He failed to exercise reasonable care to war or notify pedestrians in the area that a luggage cart loaded with luggage was approaching. He failed to secure or stack the luggage properly causing it to tip and fall over. He failed to request assistance in stacking the luggage on the luggage cart. He loaded an excessive or unsafe amount of luggage on the cart. He stacked too much luggage on the cart. 10 Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. J He stacked luggage on the cart in an unstable configuration so that luggage fell from the cart as it moved. 40. As a direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced in the preceding paragraph, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously liable due to its failure to adopt and implement policies and to train porters as alleged above, improperly secured and stacked luggage fell off of the luggage cart the porter was operating and struck the Plaintiff from behind. 41. As a further direct and proximate result of ERWIN BYNES’ negligence referenced above, for which Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. is vicariously liable as alleged above, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN was injured in and about her body and extremities, suffered pain therefrom, sustained mental anguish, sustained disfigurement, disability and the inability to lead a normal life, and the aggravation or activation of pre-existing medical conditions. Furthermore, she incurred medical, hospital, and other out of pocket and health care expenses as a result of her injuries. These damages are permanent or continuing in their nature and the Plaintiff will continue to sustain and incur these damages in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MARCHELL OSBORN demands judgment against Defendant FLORIDA STEVEDORING, INC. for damages and the costs of this action and further demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right. 11 Osborn v. Florida Stevedoring, Inc. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right Executed this 13" day of April, 2021. s/NICHOLAS I. GERSON NICHOLAS I. GERSON Bar Number No. 0020899 ngerson@gslawusa.com GERSON & SCHWARTZ, P.A. 1980 Coral Way Miami, Florida 33145 Telephone: (305) 371-6000 Facsimile: (305) 371-5749 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12