Quick Read
- Hannah Smith lost both legs in a 2025 catamaran propeller accident in the Bahamas.
- The lawsuit alleges the excursion operator provided Smith with alcohol and marijuana.
- Carnival Cruise Line is seeking to dismiss the case, citing the operator’s status as an independent contractor.
Legal Battle Over Shore Excursion Liability
Hannah Smith, a 22-year-old summa cum laude graduate of Miles College, has initiated a federal lawsuit against Carnival Cruise Line following a catastrophic accident during a May 12, 2025, shore excursion in the Bahamas. The incident, which occurred during the “Pearl Island Beach Escape with Lunch” tour, resulted in the amputation of both of Smith’s legs.
According to court documents filed by the Brais Law Firm, Smith was participating in an excursion booked directly through Carnival’s platform when the incident took place. The lawsuit alleges that excursion employees served Smith alcohol and provided her with marijuana before the return vessel reached Nassau. Smith claims that a crew member instructed her to enter the water near a dive platform to use it as a restroom. Shortly thereafter, the catamaran’s engines were engaged while passengers were still disembarking, pulling Smith into a spinning propeller.
Allegations of Negligence and Duty of Care
The legal complaint asserts that Carnival Cruise Line holds liability for the incident based on its vetting process for third-party vendors and the fact that the excursion was advertised and sold through the cruise line’s official channels. Attorney Keith S. Brais stated that the legal team intends to hold all responsible parties accountable for the series of decisions that led to the tragedy. Following the accident, Smith underwent over 30 surgical procedures, including a hip disarticulation.
In response to the filing, Carnival Cruise Line has moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The company argues that its booking materials clearly define shore excursion operators as independent contractors, thereby insulating the cruise line from liability for the operators’ actions. The case is being closely watched as it challenges the extent of a cruise line’s “duty of care” for passengers participating in off-ship activities marketed under the cruise line’s brand.