points out that the instruction we rejected in Everett indicated that a cruise ship opei’ator could be liable if it “negligently created or maintained its premises” as a whole, while Pizzino’s requested instruction would permit liability if the operator created the specific “unsafe or .fore-seeably hazardous condition” that injured her. This, however, is a distinction without legal significance. Although the specific instruction we addressed in Everett is slightly different than the instruction at issue here, the rule we crafted in Everett is broad enough to render both instructions misstatements of law. In Everett, we reasoned that creation of a defect — and not simply creation or maintenance of the premises as a whole — was insufficient to obviate the notice requirement. Id, at 1358 (<HOLDING>); see also id. at 1359 (deeming unacceptable
holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process holding while there may be some case law to support plaintiffs argument the majority approach is that the failure to attach process defect is merely procedural and that this particular procedural defect may be cured holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect