A federal court in Miami has denied cross motions for summary judgment in a case that centers on vicarious liability, and whether actual or constructive notice is a requirement in a plaintiff's negligence claim.

The case centers on whether companies have to be aware of potential dangers, or if their employees' alleged knowledge is enough to bolster plaintiffs' claims.

The dispute centered on damages suffered by Eric Ewing, a 53-year-old passenger aboard Carnival Corp.'s Ecstasy cruise ship, who claimed he was eating a slice of pizza in his cabin on a lower bunk bed when the top bunk came crashing down on top of him.

Keith Brais, a board-certified maritime attorney at Brais & Associates, represents Ewing. His client alleged vicarious liability, claiming Carnival policy dictates that a cabin steward must check the bed each day to make sure it was safe. Brais argued that notice is not required to prove Carnival was at fault.

Precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit requires that in a federal maritime case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a cruise ship operator had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that led to the alleged damages, plaintiffs counsel said. This requirement of notice has to be met. even if the cruise operator caused the dangerous condition, or if an employee created it through active, vicarious negligence.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida stated in its order on competing summary judgment motions that if Ewing prevailed in a jury trial, Carnival would likely appeal the decision. The case would then likely go before an en banc panel at the appellate court, or the U.S. Supreme Court, if Ewing seeks to overturn the Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Now, the case will proceed to a jury trial to determine whether the cruise line had actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the injury, and if Ewing should receive damages from the injuries he says he sustained aboard the cruise line.

Brais said a medical test showed Ewing's brain is shrinking 50 times faster than it should be for a person of his age as a result of his injuries. And, for the rest of Ewing's life, his traumatic brain injury will require him to use a walker to avoid falling down.

Brian Scarry, a partner at Horr Novak & Skipp in Miami represents Carnival in the case. He did not respond to request for comment.

Read the U.S. District Court order:

The U.S. District Court stated in its order that Ewing presented adequate evidence to avoid summary judgment for the defense "by a razor-thin margin." The court determined that the case should go to trial because a jury either "could permissibly infer from the record that Carnival had the requisite knowledge," or that Carnival was not on notice and therefore should not be liable for Ewing's alleged injuries.

The court also stated in its opinion that the Eleventh Circuit might clarify the notice requirement and rule that a cruise operator can be vicariously liable for an employee's active negligence "without actual or constructive notice." But, that is "not yet law" in the Eleventh Circuit given that several Circuit opinions have reinforced the actual or constructive notice requirement in the past few years.

Brais said this case will be closely watched because vicarious liability is a hot topic in the maritime community. Specifically, plaintiffs counsel are focused on the issue of whether actual or constructive notice is still a requirement in a plaintiff's negligence claim.

He said, "Cruise lines seemingly act like they can avoid liability for the negligent acts of their employees, even if they knowingly or unknowingly create a dangerous condition that injuries a passenger."