A six-person federal jury in Miami awarded $300,000 to Diana Sanders, a 45-year-old California nurse, after finding that Carnival Corporation was negligent for serving her at least 14 shots of tequila in under nine hours aboard the Carnival Radiance. The verdict, returned on April 10, 2026, exceeded the $250,000 Sanders's legal team had requested at trial. The jury found Carnival 60% at fault and Sanders 40% responsible for her injuries.
Case at a Glance
- Verdict: $300,000
- Case Type: Premises Liability (Alcohol Over-service)
- Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami)
- Verdict Date: April 10, 2026
- Plaintiff: Diana Sanders
- Defendant: Carnival Corporation
- Plaintiff Attorney: Spencer Aronfeld, Aronfeld Trial Lawyers (Coral Gables, FL)
- Fault Split: 60% Carnival / 40% Sanders
What Happened Aboard the Carnival Radiance?
On January 5, 2024, Diana Sanders was a passenger on the Carnival Radiance when crew members served her at least 14 shots of tequila between approximately 2:58 pm and 11:37 pm, a span of 8 hours and 39 minutes.
Shortly after the last drink was served, between 11:45 pm and approximately 12:20 am, Sanders suffered a severe fall down a flight of stairs. According to her complaint, the fall was a direct result of her intoxication, which was "caused by this over-service of alcohol."
Sanders, a neonatal intensive care nurse from Vacaville, California, sustained serious injuries including a concussion, headaches, a possible traumatic brain injury, back injuries, tailbone injuries, and bruising.
Why Did the Jury Side with the Passenger?
The central legal question was whether Carnival's crew had a duty to stop serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated passenger. Sanders's legal team argued that Carnival's crew had a responsibility "to supervise and/or assist passengers aboard the vessel who Carnival knew, or should have known, were engaging, or were likely to engage in behavior potentially dangerous to themselves or others."
The jury agreed, finding Carnival 60% at fault for the injuries. Sanders was assigned 40% of the responsibility. Despite that shared fault, the jury still awarded $300,000, which was $50,000 more than her attorneys had asked for at trial.
The trial lasted one week in Miami federal court before a six-person jury.
How Did Carnival Defend the Case?
Carnival fought the lawsuit aggressively, seeking dismissal multiple times before trial. The cruise line argued that Sanders "fails to identify any crew member who over-served her or which bar she consumed alcohol at," making it impossible to pinpoint a negligent employee.
Carnival also argued that Sanders "does not sufficiently allege that any crew member knew or should have known that Plaintiff was intoxicated," pointing to the absence of allegations that she was "stumbling, sleeping at a bar, slurring her words, or exhibiting any other intoxicated-like behaviors."
The jury rejected these arguments.
A Carnival spokesperson stated after the verdict: "Carnival Corporation respectfully disagrees with the verdict and believes there are grounds for a new trial and appeal, which it will pursue."
Who Represented the Plaintiff?
Spencer Aronfeld, founder of Aronfeld Trial Lawyers in Coral Gables, Florida, represented Sanders at trial. Aronfeld, who specializes in cruise ship injury cases, noted the rarity of this result.
"It's hard to get to trial, period," Aronfeld told the Miami Herald. "I've had many over-service cases that have settled but none that went the full distance."
He added that "holding a major cruise line accountable for the over-service of alcohol is an extremely challenging legal argument to make."
Why Does This Verdict Matter for Cruise Ship Injury Cases?
This case touches on a gap between land-based alcohol liability laws and the rules that apply at sea. On land, most U.S. states enforce dram shop laws that hold bartenders and their employers liable when they serve a visibly intoxicated customer who then injures themselves or others. At sea, federal maritime law applies, and the standard is different.
The jury's verdict signals that cruise lines cannot avoid accountability simply because dram shop statutes do not apply on the open ocean. The duty of reasonable care for passenger safety, a bedrock principle of maritime law, still applies when a guest becomes dangerously intoxicated onboard.
Alcohol is a significant revenue source for cruise lines. According to the Miami Herald, cruise operators deliberately position "alcohol serving stations in every nook and cranny" to encourage onboard spending. This case is not isolated. In a separate lawsuit, Royal Caribbean was sued after allegedly serving a passenger 33 drinks in under 12 hours.
For plaintiff trial attorneys handling cruise injury or over-service cases, this verdict provides a trial-tested framework for arguing that cruise lines bear responsibility for monitoring and limiting alcohol consumption by their passengers.
If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff trial lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is alcohol overservice liability?
Alcohol overservice occurs when a business continues to serve alcoholic beverages to a person who is visibly intoxicated. On land, dram shop laws in most states allow the injured person to sue the establishment. At sea, the legal theory relies on the cruise line's general duty of care under maritime law rather than state-specific dram shop statutes.
Q: Can a plaintiff recover damages if they were partially at fault?
Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover damages even if they share some fault for their injuries. In this case, the jury assigned 40% fault to Sanders and 60% to Carnival. The $300,000 award reflects the jury's assessment after accounting for Sanders's share of responsibility.
Q: Is Carnival appealing the verdict?
Yes. Carnival stated that it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and believes there are grounds for a new trial and appeal, which it will pursue." The final outcome of this case may change on appeal.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 Major Verdict, LLC. All rights reserved. For more information visit our reuse and editorial standards information.
