presumably some type of informational pamphlet, as “a crew member and/or employee.” (D.E. No. 14, Am.Compl^ 29). Therefore, Plaintiffs allege that in addition to ship doctor, Dr. Coiner was recognized in other capacities aboard the Conquest. Based on such allegations, this Court is unwilling to conclude that there are no conceivable facts under which the Plaintiffs would be entitled to relief. Therefore, Carnival’s Motion to Dismiss as to Count IV is denied. C. Count V — Breach of Contract The general rule of admiralty law is that a ship’s passengers are not covered by the warranty of seaworthiness, a term that imposes absolute liability on a sea vessel for the carriage of cargo and seamen’s injuries. See Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, 145 F.Supp.2d 1337,
holding that passengers claims could not be based on unseaworthiness recognizing action for wrongful death based on unseaworthiness holding that claims based on grounds not objected to at trial cannot be considered on appeal holding that questioning of passengers on bus including asking for drivers licenses and tickets constituted consensual encounter and passengers were free to decline to answer questions holding that if random suspicionless questioning of bus passengers for inspection of identification and tickets was consensual encounter it was not a violation of passengers fourth amendment rights