THE CRUISE PASSENGER'S RIGHTS & REMEDIES

Modern Cruising Can Be A Wonderful Experience. But Please Don't Have An Accident. Because You Will Then Discover That Your Rights As A Modern Consumer Are Severely Limited By Ancient Legal Doctrines Which Favor Shipowners Over Passengers

[ Submitted For Publication To The International Travel Law Journal ] February 15, 2000
By Judge Thomas A. Dickerson*


See also:
•The Cruise Passenger's Rights & Remedies: 2006
• The Cruise Passenger's Rights and Remedies: 2003
• Cruise Passenger's Rights and Remedies 2001 Updated

Modern cruise vessels are best viewed as floating hotels1 that transport their guests from exotic port to exotic port where the passengers stay a few hours for shopping, snorkeling, scuba diving, parasailing and touring. The cruise industry is growing rapidly with 6 million cruise passengers world wide in 1998, a 7.8% increase from the year before2. The advertising for cruise vacations is seductive, indeed, with ships now being built that exceed 100,000 tons and accommodate over 3,000 passengers. The commitment of the cruise industry to the future is extraordinary with $10.5 billion invested in the construction of 35 new " mega " ships for delivery by 20023.

Accidents Onboard The Cruise Ship


Common travel problems experienced by cruise passengers include physical injuries caused by:
  1. slips, trips and falls
    [ Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Cruises4( 350 lb. passenger on honeymoon cruise falls on gangplank ); Rainey v. Paquet Cruises5( fall on disco dance floor ); Lee v. Regal Cruises6 ( fall on melting ice cubes on stairway ); Kunken v. Celebrity Cruises7 ( ankle broken entering cabin );
  2. drownings and other pool accidents
    [ Carron v. Holland America Line8 ( passenger in pool " propelled into a sharp statute...causing injury " ); Brown v. New Commodore Cruise Line9 ( passenger fractures ankle recklessly jumping into pool from one deck above )];
  3. flying coconuts
    [ McDonough v. Celebrity Cruises10 ( passenger struck in head with rum filled coconut [ a speciality drink called the " Coco Loco " ] dropped from a deck above ];
  4. stray golf balls [ Catalan v. Carnival Cruise Lines11 ( passenger driving golf balls into sea strikes another passenger );
  5. discharging shot gun shells [ Fay v. Oceanic Sun Line12 ( skeet shooting passenger discharges shot gun shell into another passenger ); and
  6. defective exercise equipment
    [ Berman v. Royal Cruise Lines13 ( passenger injured exercising on treadmill )];
  7. (4) Legionnaires' disease
    [ Freeman v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc14. ( exposure to bacteria causing Legionnaires' disease )] and other viruses [ Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino15 ( respiratory disorder caused by improperly maintained air- conditioning and ventilating system )];
  8. (5) rapes 16
    [ Morton v. De Oliveira17 ( rape ); Johnson v.Commodore Cruise Lines18 ( rape of passenger and cover up on cruise ); York v. Commodore Cruise Line19 ( sexual assault ); Travel Weekly, August 16, 1999 ( " Cruising Holds Steady Despite Assault Reports...As reported, 108 allegations of sexual misconduct were included in a lawsuit filed in July by a former Carnival employee, who said she was raped by a Carnival officer..." )] and
  9. assaults by crew members
    [ Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises20 ( crewman assaults passenger ) and
  10. assaults by passengers
    [ Colavito v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.21 ( assault by intoxicated passenger );];
  11. malpractice by ship's doctor
    [ Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines22 ( passenger raped by crew member and misdiagnosed as having had heart attack; removed from ship and abandoned on shore ); Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line 23( ship not liable for medical malpractice )].
  12. smoke inhalation
    [ Travel Weekly, Sept. 27, 1999 ( " Controversy surrounded Carnival Cruise Lines' Tropicale in the aftermath of a fire that left the ship drifting without power for almost 24 hours as a tropical storm threatened "; Travel Weekly, March 1, 1999 ( " Ecstasy Fire Prompts Closer Look At Safety On The Seas " ) ];
  13. collisions
    [ Travel Weekly, Aug. 30, 1999 ( " Norwegian cancels sailings in wake of ship collision " )];
  14. gastrointestinal disorders
    [ Hernandez v. The Motor Vessel Skyward24 ( contaminated food and water ); Barbachym v. Costa Line25 ( food poisoning ); Williams v. Carnival Cruise Lines26 ( seasickness; fear of seasickness )];
  15. heart attacks
    [ Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. 27; Warren v. Ajax Navigation Corp28. ( passenger claimed malpractice by ship's doctor in treatment after heart attack )];
  16. ( malfunctioning toilets
    [ Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines29 ].


Accidents During Shore Excursions


Prior to arriving at a port of call the cruise ship's staff will give lectures about the shopping to be expected and the availability of tours to include snorkeling and scuba dive areas, archaeological sites, catamaran rides, para-sailing, helicopter rides and so forth. Cruise ships may generate substantial income from these tours30, which are typically delivered by independent contractors not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and which may be uninsured, unlicenced and irresponsible [ Winter v. I.C. Holidays, Inc.31 ( tourists insured in bus accident; foreign bus company insolvent, uninsured and irresponsible; tour operator has duty to select responsible independent contractors )].

Back to Top

Three Zones Of Danger


There are three zones in which accidents occur beyond the safety of the ship.

Other Common Complaints


Besides physical injuries cruise passengers may have claims arising from:
  1. cancellations [ Slade v. Cheung & Risser Enterprises54 ( Great Lakes cruise line absconded with passenger payment; travel agent liable for failing to investigate financial responsibility ); Ocean Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Abeta Travel Service ],
  2. flight delays [ Harden v. American Airlines55 ( passengers miss two days of cruise because of delayed air transportation )],
  3. baggage loss [ Mainzer v. Royal Olympic Cruises56 ( cruise vessel losses one peace of passenger's baggage for four days )],
  4. port skipping and unannounced itinerary changes [ Casper v. Cunard Line57 ( mechanical breakdown and scheduled itinerary changed ); Bloom v. Cunard Line58 ( two ports of call, Puerto Rico and Nassau, canceled )],
  5. misrepresentations about:
    1. the existence of specific facilities [ Boyles v. Cunard Line59 ( cruise line misrepresented availability of " Spa at Sea " program )],
    2. the quality of the facilities [ Vallery v. Bermuda Star Line60 ( " The drapes were partly dirty and dingy...the headboards of the beds were broken and the mattresses of the beds were concave...The stateroom...did not meet the quality as described in the brochure as being special, luxurious and beautiful nor was it exquisite..." ); Gelfand v. Action Travel Center61 ( cruise vessel misrepresented as being new when only refurbished ) ], © handicapped accessability [ Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Charters62 ( cruise line misrepresented that cruise was suitable for handicapped ); Deck v. American Hawaii Cruises63 ( passenger charges cruise line with violating American With Disabilities Act )],
  6. discomfort [ Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line64 ( QEII sailed before major refitting work on cabins and other facilities was complete; asbestos removal ); Simon v. Cunard Line65
    ( lack of fresh water and malfunctioning air conditioning system )],and
  7. deceptive port charges [ Cronin v. Cunard Line66 ( " The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that in addition to Cunard's advertised all-inclusive fare, each passenger is required to pay an amount referred to as a ` port and handling charge `...but often exceeds $150 per passenger. Plaintiffs allege that Cunard intentionally misleads passengers into believing that these port charges are paid to port authorities and governmental agencies and that Cunard is a mere conduit for the collection of these fees. In reality...Cunard does not disclose that only a small percentage of the separate port charge is actually turned over to port authorities or government agencies and the substantial balance is pocketed by Cunard. Plaintiffs claim that Cunard's promotional materials deceptively portray the port charges as being a separate fee, beyond the control of Cunard, but are really designed to enhance Cunard's revenue while keeping the price of the fare competitive with other cruise lines " ); Travel Weekly, April 12, 1999 ( " Royal Caribbean International and Celebrity Cruises each notified hundreds of thousands of their past passengers that they may be eligible for benefits as part of voluntary agreements to settle class-action suits involving port charges " )].


Back to Top


21st Century Cruising, 19th Century Rights



" The unpleasant reality is that the cruise vessel's responsibilities and your rights as an injured passenger are governed not by modern, consumer oriented common and statutory law, but by 19th century legal principals, the purpose of which is to insulate the maritime industry from the legitimate claims of passengers. The policy enunciated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 35 years ago in Schwartz v. S.S. Nassau67, a case involving a passenger's physical injuries, applies equally today, " The purpose of [ 46 U.S.C. 183c ]...' was to encourage shipbuilding and ( its provisions )...should be liberally construed in the shipowner's
favor `". Although recent years have seen the expansion of travel consumers' rights and remedies in actions against airlines68, domestic hotels69, international hotels70, tour operators71, travel agents72, informal travel promoters73 and depository banks74, there has been little, if any , change in the passengers' rights and remedies in actions against cruise lines."75 Cruise passengers are at a distinct disadvantage in prosecuting their claims. Here's why?


Ticket Print Size & Language


A cruise passenger's rights are, to a large extent, defined by the terms and conditions set forth in the passenger ticket.
Modern consumers expect the size of the print in consumer contracts to be large enough to be visible and readable. New York State, for example, requires consumer transaction contracts to be " printed...clear and legible [ in print ] eight points in depth or five and one-half points in depth for upper case type [ to be admissible ] in evidence in any trial "76.

Cruise passenger tickets, however, may be in any size type [ Lerner v. Karageorgis Lines, Inc.77 ( four-point type )]. The microscopic terms and conditions in passenger tickets are, clearly, meant to be unreadable and invisible. In fact, maritime law, which governs the rights and remedies of cruise passengers, preempts all State laws requiring consumer contracts to be in a given type size [ Lerner v. Karageorgis Lines, Inc.78 ( enforcement of time limitation provision in four-point type; maritime law preempts New York's statute requiring consumer contracts to be in ten-point type )]. In addition, the terms and conditions in passenger tickets are enforceable even though the passenger can neither read nor understand the language in which the tickets are printed [ Paredes v. Princess Cruises79 ( time limitations in passenger ticket in English language enforced even though passenger was unable to read English )].



Time Limitations


Most States allow injured consumers, at least, 2½ years in which to commence physical injury lawsuits and up to 6 years for breach of contract and fraud claims. Maritime law, however, allows cruise lines to impose very short time limitations for the filing of claims and the commencement of lawsuits. For physical injuries occurring on cruise vessels that touch U.S. ports
[ Lerner v. Karageorgis Lines80 ( 46 U.S.C. 183b time limitations apply only to cruise vessels touching U.S. shores )] ] passengers may be required to file a claim within six months and commence a lawsuit within one year [ Buriss v. Regency Maritime Corp81 ( passenger's bunk crashed to floor; one year time limitation enforced )]. On occasion the Courts may decide not to enforce the one year time limitation [ Dillon v. Admiral Cruises82 ( trip and fall in ship's lounge; cruise line may be estopped from relying on one year time limitation ); Rams v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines83 ( one year time limitation does not apply to accidents during shore excursions ); Berg v. Royal Caribbean Cruises84 ( passenger mislead into not filing lawsuit within one year )].

For non-physical injury claims cruise lines may impose even shorter time limitation periods [ Boyles v. Cunard Line85 ( cruise vessel misrepresented availability of exercise facilities in " Spa at Sea "; six months time limitation to file lawsuit enforced ); Cronin v. Cunard Line86 ( deceptive port charges; six months' time limitation in which to commence lawsuit enforced )]. On occasion the Courts may decide not to enforce these particularly short time limitations [ Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Line87 ( passenger raped by crew member; claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress governed by Mississippi's 3 year statute of limitations; passenger ticket time limitations of 15 days to file claim and 6 months to sue for non-physical claims void )].



Jurisdiction


Most consumers purchase cruise vacations from their local retail travel agent. The cruise will depart from one of several domestic ports of call, e.g., New York or Port of Miami, typically, where the cruise line is headquartered. Modern consumers expect to be able to file a complaint or commence a lawsuit over a defective good or service in their local courts. Such is not the rule, however, when it comes to complaints against cruise lines.
To be able to sue a cruise company locally the consumer's court must have jurisdiction. Even though cruise companies may distribute brochures through and take orders from retail travel agents, such marketing activities are insufficient to serve as a basis for jurisdiction [ Kaufman v. Ocean Spirit Shipping88( dissemination of cruise brochures through travel agents and advertising in scuba magazine insufficient to support long arm jurisdiction )].
The " solicitation-plus doctrine " doctrine governs jurisdiction in travel cases with the " plus " equivalent to contract formation in the local forum [ Afflerbach v. Cunard Line, Ltd89 ( national advertising of cruise vacations and sales through travel agents insufficient for jurisdiction )]. With the possible exception of Internet sales through interactive web sites [ Dickerson, The Internet, The " Solicitation Plus " Doctrine, And Jurisdiction Over Foreign Hotels & Other Travel Suppliers90 )] the Courts have, generally, held that contract formation does not take place at the consumer's location [ Thompson v. Handa-Lopez91 ( Californiacorporation doing sufficient business in Texas through interactive web site allowing Texans to enter into contracts to play casino games )]. Some courts, however, have been willing to assume jurisdiction on little more than local advertising [ Nowak v. Tak How Inv.92 ( guest drowns in Hong Kong hotel pool; being available for litigation in local forum is reasonable cost of doing business in the forum )].

Forum Selection Clauses


The passenger ticket may contain a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause, both of which can have a negative impact upon the passenger's ability to prosecute his claim. A forum selection clause will require that all passenger lawsuits be brought in the local court where the cruise line is headquartered [ Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute93 ( a clause in the ticket provided that " It is agreed...that all disputes...shall be litigated...before a Court located in the State of Florida, U.S.A., to the exclusion of the Courts of any other state or country " )]. Forum selection clauses are, generally, enforceable if notice is adequate [ Osborn v. Princess Tours94 ( passenger must have " ample opportunity to examine... contents " of passenger ticket ); Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises95 ( forum selection clause ( Athens, Greece ) not enforced; ticket delivered too late to allow consumer to seek refund of $1,770 ticket price ) ] and they are reasonable and fair [ Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute96 ( forum selection clauses subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental reasonableness )].

Why Are Forum Selection Clauses Important?


Stated, simply, it is less expensive and more convenient for injured passengers to be able hire an attorney and sue in a local court than being forced to travel to and prosecute their claim in Greece [ Effron v. Sun Line Cruises97 ], Peru [ Affram Carriers, Inc. V. Moeykens98 ], Naples, Italy [ Hodes v. SNC Achille Lauro99 ], the State of Washington [ Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.100 ] and even Miami, Florida [ Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines101 ]. When faced with prosecuting a claim in a distant forum most passengers will be discouraged from doing so. This the purpose of forum selection clauses and explains why cruise lines favor their use in passenger tickets.

Back to Top


Choice Of Law Clauses


In addition to forum selection clauses, passenger tickets may also designate the law to be applied in resolving any dispute which may arise. The law selected may be that of the Bahamas [ Kirman v. Compagnie Francaise102 ( choice of Bahamian law clause enforced; cruise between Singapore and Australia )] or China [ Jewel Seafoods Ltd. v. M/V Peace River103 ( choice of Chinese law clause enforced )]. In determining whether choice of law clauses should be enforced, the courts may consider several factors including (1) the place of the wrongful act, (2) the law of the flag, (3) the allegiance of domicile of the injured passenger, (4) the allegiance of the ship owner, (5) the place of the contract, (6) the inaccessibility of the foreign forum and (7) the law of the forum [ Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro104 ]. Choice of law clauses are, generally, enforceable unless the passenger can demonstrate that " enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust ", " the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching " or " enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought " [ Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, SPA105 ].

Why Are Choice Of Law Clauses Important?


The law to be applied to an injured traveler's claim can have a dramatic impact on the likelihood of recovering proper damages.
For example, in a wrongful death case involving a crash in China in which two Americans were killed, the court, relying on New York choice of law rules, decided to apply Chinese law which limited the maximum recoverable damages to $20,000 [ Barkanic v. General Administration of Civil Aviation106 ]. In another case, the traveler was seriously injured when she was thrown from a horse during a vacation in the Bahamas. She sued several Bahamian entities most responsible for her injuries. However, the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act meant that the foreign entities would be insulated from any liability[ Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd107. ]. In yet another instance, the traveler slipped and fell on an unlighted path while vacationing in Mexico. At issue was whether the court should apply Arizona or Mexican law to the issue of recoverable damages. The difference was dramatic. Mexico allowed no more than twenty-five pesos per day in lost wage claims, while Arizona had no such limits. The court applied the more generous law of Arizona[ Wendelken v. Superior Court108 ]. Just the opposite happened in a case involving an accident on a water slide at a Mexican hotel in which the court applied Mexican damages law resulting in a severe limit on the plaintiff's pain and suffering damages[ Feldman v. Acapulco Princess Hotel109 ].


Disclaimers Of Liability



As a general rule, cruise vessels are common carriers and held to a relatively high standard of care [ Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique110 ]. The passenger ticket will contain a host of invisible clauses many of which seek to disclaim liability for a variety of problems that may arise during the cruise. As with consumer contracts on dry land instances of gross negligence and intentional misconduct can not be disclaimed by common carriers [ Royal Ins. Co. v. Southwest Marine111 ]. In addition, some Courts have held that disclaimers of simple negligence, particularly, regarding the health and safety of the passengers can not be disclaimed as well [ Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines112 ( malfunctioning toilets )]. The Courts have been willing to enforce disclaimers of liability regarding accidents that occur during shore excursions [ Dubret v. Holland America Line Westours113 ( bus accident during shore excursion; disclaimer of liability enforced )]. Such a disclaimer may not be enforceable if the injured passenger relied upon representations, or warranties regarding safety [ Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Charters114 ( 350 lb. handicapped passenger broke ankle because of inattention and lack of assistance by crew; misrepresentations in brochure that cruises were " suitable for handicapped individuals "; $42,500 in special damages awarded )], competence and reliability of on-shore suppliers of travel services.


Limitations On Recoverable Damages

Cruise vessels that touch U.S. shores may not disclaim liability for loss, death, damage or delay caused or contributed to by the vessel's negligence [ 46 U.S.C. 183c; Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines115 ( malfunctioning toilets; disclaimers not enforced )].

However, in 1996 the cruise industry was able to convince Congress to enact a provision permitting " provisions or limitations in contracts, agreements or ticket conditions of carriage with passengers which relieve...operator of a vessel from liability for infliction of emotional distress, mental suffering or psychological injury " [ 46 U.S.C. 183c(b)(1) ]. Such a disclaimer does not apply to physical injuries, or those arising from being " at actual risk of physical injury " caused by the negligence or intentional misconduct of the cruise vessel or crew. Nor does such a disclaimer limit liability arising from " sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape ".
In addition, a cruise vessel may invoke the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act which allows it to limit liability to the value of the vessel. In one case involving a passenger injured in a jet ski accident the Court would have allowed the cruise vessel to limit its liability for the collision to the value of the jet ski [ Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises116 ].


Medical Treatment & Malpractice

The most disturbing aspect of cruise vacations is what happens when a passenger is sick or injured and needs the care of on board medical professionals. First, there are no uniform standards for medical care professionals or for the nature and quality of the medical equipment in the clinic and operating room. As noted in Consumer Reports Travel Letter117 " Many passengers would be surprised to discover that there are no international standards for medical care on passenger cruise ships--not even one requiring that a physician be on board. Although most cruise ships generally do carry doctors, many of them are not US-trained or licensed to practice medicine in the States...No international agency regulates the infirmary facilities or equipment, or requires a standard of training for cruise-ship doctors...Bradley Feuer, DO, surveyed the medical facilities and staff qualifications of 11 cruise lines in 1996...Among the findings: 27% of nurses and doctors were not certified in advanced cardiac life support; 54% of doctors and 72% of nurses were not certified in advanced trauma life support. Nearly half the doctors--45%--weren't board certified in their areas of practice ".

Second, and even more worrisome, is the fact that cruise lines are, typically, not held liable for the medical malpractice118 committed by their on board doctors and nurses [ Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line119 ( ship not liable for medical malpractice ); Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc.120 ( malpractice by ship's doctor; no jurisdiction; no liability )]. Some Courts, however, have been willing to find a cruise vessel liable for the medical malpractice of a ship's doctors [ Fairley v.Royal Cruise Line121 ( rejecting policy that cruise lines not liable for medical malpractice )]. " Such a policy encourages cruise lines to hire less than the best medical personnel and does a great disservice to passengers who mistakenly may believe that new, modern cruise ships have the best medical personnel and equipment available."122


Conclusion


Cruise vacations can be wonderful experiences. However, potential cruise passengers are well advised to think carefully about their legal rights should they be injured and otherwise be dissatisfied with a cruise vacation.

Back to Top

FOOTNOTES


* Thomas A. Dickerson is a Westchester County Court Judge, New York State, Web Page at http://members.aol.com/judgetad/ index.html, and the author of Travel Law, Law Journal Press, New York, 1981-2000, updated biannually; Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, 1988-2000, updated annually, and 167 articles on Consumer Law issues.
1. Udell v. Hamburg-American Line, 141 Misc. 754, 253 N.Y.S. 209, aff'd 255 N.Y.S. 1011 ( 1931 )( liability of steamship company for loss of passenger's fur coat is that of an innkeeper ).
Contra:
Second Circuit: York v. Commodore Cruise Line, 1994 WL 511581
( S.D.N.Y. 1994 )( passenger sexually assaulted by crew members; cruise ships are not floating hotels; no negligence for doors having locks with easy access from outside; policy of rescuing passengers outweighs increased security ).
2 . Navin," Stalking Sexual Predators a Sea: The response of the cruise industry to sexual assaults onboard," 1999 International Travel Law Journal, at p. 193.

3 . Id.

4 . Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Charters, 1995 American Maritime Cases 2628 ( D. Hawaii. 1995 ).

5 . Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F. 2d 169 ( 2d Cir. 1983 ).

6 . Lee v. Regal Cruises, Ltd., 1999 WL 87466 ( S.D.N.Y. 1996 ).

7 . Kunken v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,1999 WL 1140868 ( S.D.N.Y.
1999 ).

8 . Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 322 ( E.D.N.Y. 1999 ).

9 . Brown v. New Commodore Cruise Line Limited, 2000 WL 45443 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

10 . McDonough v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,1999 WL 680453
( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).

11 . Catalan v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1985 American Maritime Cases 1929 ( D. Md. 1984 ).

12 . Fay v. Pceanic Sun Line, 1985 American Maritime Cases 1132 ( N.Y. Sup. 1984 ).

13 . Berman v. Royal Cruise Line, Ltd., 1995 American Maritime Cases 1926 ( Cal. Sup. 1995 ).

14 . Freeman v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1994 WL 689809 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 ).

15 . Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino. LLC, 186 F. 3d 620 ( 5th Cir. 1999 ).

16 . See N. 3, supra, at pp. 196-197 [ Carnival Cruise Line admitted in Jane Doe v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 98-21008 CA, Miami-Dade Circuit Court," reported incidents, twenty-two were alleged rapes, sixteen against passengers. Twenty- eight...were described only as a kiss, with the remainder consisting of minor advances...those who complained 93 were passengers and 15 crew members " ].

17 . Morton v. De Oliviera, 984 F. 2d 289 ( 9th Cir. 1993 ).

18 . John v. Commodore Cruise Lines Ltd., 1995 WL 441982 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).

19 . York v. Commodore Cruise Lines, 1995 American Maritime Cases 399 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994).

20 . Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 1992 Amarican Maritime Cases 1797 ( D. Hawaii 1992 ).

21 . Colavito v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1983 American Maritime Cases 1378 ( S.D. Tex. 1981 ).

22 . Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines, 1996 American Maritime Cases 666 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).

23 . Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 789 F. Supp. 488 ( D.P.R. 1992 ).

24 . Hernandez v. The Motor Vessel Skyward, 61 F.R.D. 558 ( S.D. Fla. 1973 ), aff'd 502 F. 2d 1278 ( 5th Cir. 1975 ).

25 . Barbachym v. Costa Line, 713 F. 2d 216 ( 6th Cir. 1983 ).

26 . Williams v. Carnival Cruise Line, 907 F. Supp. 403 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).

27 . Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1985 American Maritime Cases 836 ( Fla. App. 1984 ).

28 . Warren v. Ajax Navigation Corp., 1995 American Maritime Cases 2609 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).

29 . Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 741 F. 2d 1332 ( 11th Cir. 1984 ).

30 . See e.g., Hernandez v. Holiday Inn, New York Law Journal, March 23, 1993, p. 21, col. 6 ( N.Y. Sup. )( parasailing accident on hotel beach; relationship between hotel and parasailing operator described as follows:
" Hotel Class Action Litigationnda contracted with the parasailing concessionaire ` Deportes Aquaticos `, received a monthly fee pursuant to the contract; and that employees of the hotel were responsible for regularly inspecting the activity and equipment of the parasailing concessionaire. The parasailing activity was conducted along the Hotel Class Action Litigationnda beach and signs were posted on the grounds of the hotel directing guests to the parasailing activity...plaintiff's husband was instructed by a clerk of the hotel's front desk to go to the beach area to sign- up for parasailing " ).
31 . Winter v. I.C. Holidays, Inc., New York Law Journal, January 9, 1992, p. 23, col. 4 ( N.Y. Sup. ).

32 . Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 123 F. 3d 1287 ( 9th Cir. 1998 ), cert. dismissed 522 U.S. 1100 ( 1998 ).

33 . Favorito v. Pannell, 27 F. 3d 716 ( 1st Cir. 1994 ).

34 . Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 789 F. Supp. 488 ( D.P.R. 1992 ).

35 . Sullivan v. Ajax Navigation Corp., 1995 WL 140172 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).

36 . Petro v. Jada Yacht Charters, Ltd., 854 F. Supp. 698 ( D. Hawaii 1994 ).

37 . Dubret v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1151 ( W.D. Wash. 1998 ).

38 . Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 2d 87 ( D. Mass. 1998 ).

39 . DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd., 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 ( Cal. App. 1994 ).

40 . Berg v. Royal Caribbean Cruise, Ltd., 1994 American Maritime Cases 806 ( D.N.J. 1992 ).

41 . Carlisle v. Ulysses Line, Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 ( Fla. App. 1985 ).

42 . Rams v. Intav, Inc., 1994 American Maritime Cases 1573 ( 1st Cir. 1994 ).

43 . Varey v. Canadian Helicopters Limited, Case No: 95-13755-18 ( Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward County.

44 . Metzger v. Italian Line, 1976 American Maritime Cases 453 ( S.D.N.Y. 1975 ).

45 . Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 789 F. Supp. 488 ( D.P.R. 1992 ).

46 . Carlisle v. Ulyssess Line, Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 ( Fla. App. 1985 ).

47 . Colby v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., 1996 WL 173016 ( D. Conn. 1996 ).

48 . In re Complaint of Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 1999 WL 556892 ( S.D. Fla. 1999).

49 . Tancredi v.Dive Makai Charters, 823 F. Supp. 778 ( D. Hawaii 1993 ).

50 . Courtney v. Pacific Adventures, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 874 ( D. Hawaii 1998 ).

51 . United Shipping Co. ( Nassau ) Ltd. v. Witmer, 724 So. 2d 722 ( Fla. App. 1999 ).

52 . Young v. Players Lake Charles, L.L.C., 47 F. Supp. 2d 832 ( S.D. Tex. 1999 ).

53 . DeRooche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd., 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 ( Cal. App. 1994 ).

54 . Slade v. Cheung & Risser Enterprises, Inc., 10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 627 ( Pa. C. P. 1979 ).

55 . Harden v. American Airlines, 1998 WL 260251 ( M.D. Ala. 1998 ).
See also:
Second Circuit: Bernstein v. Cunard Line. Ltd., 19 CCH Aviation Cases 17,485 ( S.D.N.Y. 1985 )( snowstorm delays air transportation to port of cruise departure).
56 . Mainzer v. Royal Olympic Cruises, Ltd, 177 Misc. 2d 553, 677 N.Y.S. 2d 668 ( 1998 ).
See also:
Second Circuit: Ames v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1998 WL 427694 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 )( one piece of baggage missing for most of cruise ).
Seventh Circuit: Cada v. Costa Lines, Inc., 1984 American Maritime Cases 1491 ( N.D. Ill. 1984 )( baggage destroyed during fire on cruise vessel ).

57 . Casper v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 560 F. Supp. 240 ( E.D. Pa. 1983 ). See also:
Second Circuit: Desmond v. Holland American Cruises, N.V., 1981 American Maritime Cases 211 ( S.D.N.Y. 1981 ).
Fourth Circuit: Whitman v. Traveltips, Inc., 1982 American Maritime Cases 429 ( W.D. Va. 1981).
State Courts:
New York : Yollin v. Holland American Cruises, Inc., 97 A.D. 2d 729, 468 N.Y.S. 2d 873 ( 1983 )( Bermuda skipped ).

58 . Bloom v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 76 A.D. 2d 237, 430 N.Y.S. 2d 607 ( 1980 ).

59 . Boyles v. Cunard Line Ltd., 1994 American Maritime Cases 1631 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 ).

60 . Vallery v. Bermuda Star Line, 141 Misc. 2d 395, 532 N.Y.S. 2d 965 ( N.Y. Sup. 1988 ).

See also:
Second Circuit: Ames v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1998 WL 427694 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 )( passengers induced to buy Deluxe Suite when only Standard Cabins were available ).

61 . Gelfand v. Action Travel Center, Inc., 55 Ohio App. 3d 193, 563 N .E. 2d 317 ( 1988 ).

62 . Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Charters, 1995 American Maritime Cases 2628 ( D. Hawaii 1995 ).

63 . Deck v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1057 ( D. Hawaii. 1999 ).

64 . Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line Ltd., Index No. 95 Civ. 1325 (HB)(S.D.N.Y.).

65 . Simon v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 75 A.D. 2d 283, 428 N.Y.S. 2d 952 ( 1980 ).

66 . Cronin v. Cunard Line Limited, Index No. 115899/96, Decision March 29, 1997 ( N.Y. Sup. )( complaint dismissed for failing to commence lawsuit within 6 month time limitation in cruise contract ), aff'd 672 N.Y.S. 2d 864 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1998 ).
See also: 67 . Schwartz v. S.S. Nassau, 345 F. 2d 465, 467 ( 2d Cr. 1965 ).

68 . Dickerson, Travel Law, at Chapter 2.

69 . Id. at Chapter 4.

70 . Id.

71 . Id. at Chapter 5.

72 . Id.

73 . Id.

74 . Id. at Chapters 2 & 5.

75 . Dickerson, "Laws Leave Passengers Shipwrecked," National Law Journal, May 29, 1995, p. B9.

76 . New York Civil Practice Law And Rules, Section 4544.

77 . See N. 4, infra.

78 . Lerner v. Karageorgis Lines, Inc., 1984 American Maritime Cases( N.Y. Sup. 1984 ), rev'd 1985 American Maritime Cases 1578 ( N.Y. App. Div. ), aff'd 66 N.Y. 2d 479, 497 N.Y.S. 2d 894, 488 N.E. 2d 824 ( 1985 ).

79 . Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 2d 87 ( D. Mass. 1998 ).

80 . See N. 4, supra.

81 . Buriss v. Regency Maritime Corp., 1994 American Maritime Cases 2355 ( S.D.N.Y. 1993 ).

82 . Dillon v. Admiral Cruises, Inc., 960 F. 2d 743 ( 8th Cir. 1992 ).

83 . Rams v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc., 1994 American Maritime Cases 1573 ( 1st Cir. 1994 ).

84 . Berg v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 1994 American Maritime Cases 806 ( D.N.J. 1994 ).

85 . Boyles v. Cunard Line Ltd., 1994 American Maritime Cases 1631 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 ).

86 . Cronin v. Cunard Line Limited, Index No. 115899/96, Decision March 29, 1997 ( N.Y. Sup. ), aff'd 672 N.Y.S. 2d 864 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1998 ).

87 . Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Line Ltd., 1995 American Maritime Cases 666 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).

88 . Kaufman v. Ocean Spirit Shipping, Ltd., 1993 American Maritime Cases 178 ( W.D. Mich. 1990 ).

89 . Afflerbach v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1260 ( D. Wyo. 1998 ).

90 . Dickerson," The Internet, The " Solicitation Plus " Doctrine, And Jurisdiction Over Foreign Hotels & Other Travel Suppliers," The International Travel Law Journal, Fall 1999.

91 . Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc., 1998 WL 142300 ( W.D. Tex. 1998 ).

92 . Nowak v. Tak How Inv. Ltd., 1995 WL 521874 ( D. Mass. 1995 ).

93 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 39, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 ( 1991 ).

94 . Osborn v. Princess Tours, Inc., 1995 American Maritime Cases 2119 ( S.D. Texas. 1995).

95 . Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 1998 WL 141661 ( S.D. Tex. 1998 ).

96 . See N. 16, supra.

97 . Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 67 F. 3d 2 ( 2d Cir. 1995 ).

98 . Affram Carriers, Inc. v. Moeykens, 1998 WL 340360 ( 5th Cir. 1998 ).

99 . Hodes v. SNC Achille Lauro, 858 F. 2d 905 ( 3d Cir. 1988 ).

100 . Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 322 ( E.D.N.Y. 1999 ).

101 . Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1995 American Maritime Cases 281 ( E.D. Pa. 1994 ).

102 . Kirman v. Compagnie Francaise, 1994 American Maritime Cases 2848 ( Cal. Sup. 1993 ).

103 . Jewel Seafoods Ltd. M/V Peace River, 1999 WL 166559 ( D.S.C. 1999 ).

104 . Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 795 F. Supp. 112, 115-116 ( S.D.N.Y. 1992 ).

105 . Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, SPA, 954 F. 2d 763, 768 ( D.C..Cir. 1992 ).

106 . Barkanic v. General Administration of Civil Aviation, 923 F. 2d 957 ( 2d Cir. 1991 ).

107 . Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd., 620 F. Supp. 578 ( E.D. Pa. ), aff'd 800 F. 2d 1150 ( 3d Cir. ), cert. denied 107 S. Ct. 578 ( 1986 )

108 . Wendelken v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 455, 671 P. 2d 896 ( 1983 ).

109 . Feldman v. Acapulco Princess Hotel, 137 Misc. 2d 878, 520 N.Y.S. 2d 477 ( 1987 ).

110 . Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S. Ct. 406, 3 L. Ed. 2d 550 ( 1958 ).

111 . Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Southwest Marine, 194 F. 3d 1009 ( 9th Cir. 1999 ).

112 . Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F. 2d 1332, 1334 ( 11th Cir. 1984 ).

113 . Dubret v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1151 ( W.D. Wash. 1998 ).

114 . Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Charters, 1995 American Maritime Cases 2628 ( D. Hawaii 1995 )].

115 . Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F. 2d 1332 ( 11th Cir. 1984 ).

116 . Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1367 ( S.D. Fla. 1999 ).

117 . "Cruise-Ship Health Care: Prescription for Trouble," Consumer Reports Travel Letter, April 1999, p. 1, 6.

118 . See Herschaft," Cruise Ship Medical Malpractice Cases: Must Admiralty Courts Steer by the Star of Stare Decisis?," International Law Quarterly, Fall 1993, vol. XII, p. 4.

119 . Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 789 F. Supp. 488 ( D.P.R. 1992 ).

120 . Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc., 1982 American Maritime Cases 1507 ( E.D. Pa. 1982 ).

121 . Fairley v. Royal Cruise Line Ltd, 1993 American Maritime Cases 1534 ( S.D. Fla. 1989).

122 . Dickerson, "Laws Leave Passeners Shipwrecked," National Law Journal, May 29, 1995, p. B9.

Back to Top