Petrey v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.

── Petrey v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM PETREY, No. 24-4386 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-03401- JLS-AJR v. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD.; ALASKA HOTEL PROPERTIES, OPINION LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 18, 2025 Pasadena, California Filed April 23, 2026 Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Mark J. Bennett, and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Sung 2 PETREY V. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. SUMMARY* Maritime Negligence In an action brought by William Petrey against Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. and Alaska Hotel Properties, LLC (collectively, “Princess”) for negligently constructing a dangerous bathroom configuration that caused him to trip and fall, the panel (1) vacated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Princess on Petrey’s maritime negligence claim and (2) affirmed the district court summary judgment in favor of Princess on Petrey’s alternative negligence per se theory. To recover for negligence under maritime law, a plaintiff must establish duty, breach, causation, and damages. Princess owed Petrey a duty of reasonable care. To show that Princess created or maintained an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm, Petrey must show that Princess knew or should have known both that the condition existed and that a reasonable person would have foreseen that the condition was unreasonably dangerous. The panel held that because Princess owns the lodge where the accident happened and constructed the bathroom configuration, there was no dispute that Princess knew of or should have known this allegedly hazardous condition existed. The panel held that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Princess knew or should have known that the bathroom configuration was unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  PETREY V. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. 3 court’s summary judgment in favor of Princess on Petrey’s maritime negligence claim. The panel agreed with the district court that Princess was entitled to summary judgment on Petrey’s negligence per se theory of breach. Petrey failed to show the Lodge’s bathroom configuration violated an applicable plumbing code provision to establish Princess breached the duty of reasonable care under a negligence per se theory. COUNSEL Thomas F. Friedberg (argued), Law Offices of Friedberg & Bunge, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. André M. Picciurro (argued), Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, San Diego, California, for Defendants- Appellees. OPINION SUNG, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff William Petrey fell in his hotel room’s bathroom while staying at the Denali Princess Wilderness Lodge as part of a Princess cruise. Petrey brought an action for damages against Defendants Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. and Alaska Hotel Properties, LLC (collectively, “Princess”), claiming that Princess negligently constructed a dangerous bathroom configuration that caused him to trip and fall. The 4 PETREY V. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. district court granted Princess’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Petrey’s traditional theory of negligence failed as a matter of law because he “proffered no evidence that [Princess] had actual o