THE CRUISE PASSENGER'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES 2001 UPDATED

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

This Article May Not Be Reproduced Without The Permission Of Thomas A. Dickerson

July 1, 2001

By Judge Thomas A. Dickerson[1]� ����

See also:
•The Cruise Passenger's Rights & Remedies: 2006
• The Cruise Passenger's Rights and Remedies: 2003
• Cruise Passenger's Rights and Remedies: 2000

Floating Deluxe Hotels

Modern cruise vessels are best viewed as floating hotels[2] 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 before[3]. The advertising for cruise vacations is seductive, indeed, with ships now being built that exceed 100,000 tons and accommodate over 3,000 passengers. A recent study compared the Titanic at 882 feet long and weighing 46,328 tons with the 3,838 passenger Voyager of the Seas at 1,020 feet long and weighing 142,000 tons[4]. 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 2002[5].

The Downside Of Rapid Expansion

" As the industry grows and more and more ships ply the seas, however, there are bound to be further incidents like those that have peppered the evening news in recent months : Last September, a fire on Carnival's Tropicale caused the ship to drift in the Gulf of Mexico for an entire day--during a tropical storm, no less--before the crew were able to restart the engines and return to port. Passengers complained of malfunctioning toilets and sewage in the hallways. That same month, the brand-new Norwegian Sky ran aground in the St. Lawrence Seaway, even though it had two local pilots on board. The vessel was stranded for three hours before the tide allowed it to float free. On a clear night last August the Norwegian Dream collided with a container ship in the English Channel. Its hull was dented and 21 passengers sustained minor injuries. Investigators... suspect that one of the vessels had faulty navigation equipment or that the crew were not monitoring it properly. In July, Carnival disclosed that between 1993 and 1998, passengers and crew members made 108 allegations of rape or other sexual misconduct on board its ships. In December 1998, Royal Caribbean's Monarch of the Seas struck a reef off the coast of St. Martin; all 2,557 passengers had to be evacuated and flown home "[6].

Back to Top

History Of Modern Cruising

" For much of the twentieth century, of course, sea passage was more about crossing than cruising. Only on the competitive transatlantic route could travelers readily book a stateroom on the kind of seagoing Art Deco museum that still fires the imagination. But in fact, many of these great vessels were short-lived: The Titanic sunk in 1912, the sleek Lusitania torpedoed in 1915, the France and her Louis XIV interiors sold for scrap in 1934, and the peerless Normandie stripped of her Lalique fixtures ( and every other extravagance ) when she was transformed into a U.S. troopship in 1941.

Ultraluxury liners were phased out, losing travelers to jet airlines. But true cruising was only really beginning, and the industry had its own postwar baby boom, giving birth to a new generation of vessels that were built for pleasure cruising, not plain old crossing. Among the first and finest was the Carolina, a standard setter for Cunard. Launched in 1949, she mirrored both the past and the present: Her elegant interiors typified the great postwar liners, but she was also modern, with an outdoor swimming pool, a bathroom in every cabin ( not just first class ), and a crew-to-passenger ratio that approached one-to-one...Opulence had its day. Gone is the Queen Mary ( now a $150 a night floating hotel in Long Beach, California), along with the Louis Vuitton gown trunks and port of call baggage stickers that traveled with her. But if pomp has been lost, consider the gain in circumstances. Ships now not only frequent waters from the Inside Passage to the Aegean, they also sail to ports that most of us need five-pound atlases to locate, from Deception Island to Nosy Be to Muroran. More than six hundred cruise ships now ply the waves, with capacities ranging from fewer than thirty passengers to more than three thousand. With these kinds of numbers, the competition is relentless...more than fifty new ships are on order...The unsinkable dream is swell travel on the high seas, and cruise lines aim to design ships that deliver. Dining rooms are becoming true restaurants, an onboard spa is all but guaranteed, and balconied cabins are increasingly commonplace.[7] "

Summary Of Common Cruise Passenger Problems

Common problems experienced by cruise passengers, which are discussed in greater detail below, include:

  1. Accidents causing death or physical injuries, both onboard the cruise ship and during shore excursions including
    1. Assaults,
    2. Rapes,
    3. Robberies,
    4. Medical
      5. malpractice,
    5. Failing to have state of the art medical facilities and trained medical personnel to care for injured passengers.
  2. Port skipping, itinerary changes and delays;
  3. Misrepresentations about the:
    1. Promised itinerary;
    2. Nature & Quality of the accommodations, facilitiesand services onboard ship;
  4. Discomfort arising from
    1. Legionnaires Disease;
    2. Tainted food and water;
    3. Sailing into tropical storms;
    4. Malfunctioning air conditioning;
    5. Malfunctioning water purification systems;
    6. Malfunctioning toilets;
    7. Lost, damaged or stolen baggage;
    8. Failure to accommodate and assist handicapped passengers and comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act;
  5. Illegal dumping of oil and other environmental crimes;
  6. Deceptive port charges and other misleading and deceptive marketing practices;
  7. Enforcement of over-reaching clauses in cruise contracts including
    1. Forum selection clauses;
    2. Choice of law clauses;
    3. Disclaimers of liability;
    4. Limitations on recoverable damages;
    5. Short time limitations in which to file claims and commence lawsuits;
    6. Restrictive cancellation policies;
  8. Under-funding of bonds to protect passenger deposits;
  9. Recommending shore excursions without properly investigating whether foreign service providers are licensed, insured, have safe track records and comply with local safety regulations.

How Should Aggrieved Passengers Respond?

Passengers who are dissatisfied with their cruise experience may file complaints and/or commence a lawsuit seeking appropriate compensation.

The Art Of Complaining

Kevin Doyle of Conde Nast Traveler Magazine in his article "Cruise Smart, How To Ensure Smooth Sailing, From Booking To Disembarking"[8] recommends the following:

" This magazine has heard stories of cabin toilets being clogged for days, showers spraying putrid water, and air conditioning that either didn't work or turned the cabin into a deep-freeze. One reader even complained about a waiter aggressively soliciting tips, telling sad tales of his many hungry children on a far-off continent. These situations deserve immediate attention: Notify the chief purser or the hospitality director ( or the maitre d' for dining room problems ) and politely suggest a satisfactory resolution...Solutions...How to convince the crew to fix your problems...Be reasonable. Requesting a full refund because you've found a fly in your soup or because a burned-out lightbulb hasn't been replaced won't get you much more than a bad reputation among the staff. Man the faxes. If the situation is not resolved to your satisfaction, use the ship's fax machine to send a letter of complaint to the president of the cruise line, explaining the situation and requesting intervention. Carefully consider any offers. On very rare occasions-such as the time a reader and his wife were literally flushed out of their cabin by a broken water pipe-the line will offer compensation on the spot. If you accept, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone you're entitled to more should you change your mind later ".

Suing The Cruise Line & Others

If the aggrieved passengers are unable to resolve the more minor of these problems through complaining then litigation may be necessary after the cruise is completed. In filing a claim and preparing a lawsuit the passenger should carefully read the cruise ticket since it contains numerous clauses limiting liability including very short time periods in which to file claims and commence lawsuits. Most importantly, the aggrieved passengers and his or her attorney should be aware that the passenger's rights and remedies are governed by admiralty and maritime law which in many important respects is very different from the common law. The remainder of this article discusses just how pro-cruise line maritime law is and how difficult it can often be to successfully sue and recover damages. Lastly, the aggrieved passenger may wish to consider suing his local travel agent, tour operator or sponsoring organization that arranged the cruise vacation. In that regard see these additional articles:

Dickerson, Taking Your Travel Agent On A Trip To The Court House[9], Dickerson, Tour Operators And Air Carriers: Modern Theories Of Liability>[10] and Dickerson, Sponsoring Group Travel: A Discussion Of Liability Issues-2000[11].

Back to Top

Accidents Onboard The Cruise Ship

Common travel problems experienced by cruise passengers include death and physical injuries caused by:
  1. Slips, trips and falls
    [ Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Cruises[12]( 350 lb. passenger on honeymoon cruise falls on gangplank ); Rainey v. Paquet Cruises[13]( fall on disco dance floor );
    Lee v. Regal Cruises[14] ( fall on melting ice cubes on stairway );
    Kunken v. Celebrity Cruises[15] ( ankle broken entering cabin )];
  2. Drownings and pool accidents
    [ Smith v. Mitlof[16] ( water taxi capsizes drowning one passenger and injuring others );
    Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp. [17]( rider of Yamaha WaveJammer jet ski dies after collision with anchored vessel off Mexico coast );
    United Shipping Co. v. Witmer [18]( passenger drowns during boat tour of Bahamas );
    Smith v. West Rochelle Travel Agency [19]( passenger on booze cruise leapt overboard and was killed when he came into contact with the vessel's propellers );
    Kruempelstaedter v. Sonesta International Hotels Corp.[20]( after exiting pool passenger burns feet on hot sun exposed surface );
    Benezra v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.[21] ( passenger slips and falls on pool steps );
    Carron v. Holland America Line[22] ( passenger in pool " propelled into a sharp statute...causing injury " );
    Brown v. New Commodore Cruise Line[23] ( passenger fractures ankle recklessly jumping into pool from one deck above )];
  3. Flying coconuts
    [ McDonough v. Celebrity Cruises[24] ( passenger struck in head with rum filled coconut [ a drink called the " Coco Loco " ] dropped from a deck above ];
  4. Stray golf balls
    [ Catalan v. Carnival Cruise Lines[25] ( passenger driving golf balls into sea strikes another passenger )];
  5. Discharging shot gun shells
    [ Fay v. Oceanic Sun Line[26] ( skeet shooting passenger discharges shot gun shell into another passenger )];
  6. Defective exercise equipment
    [ Berman v. Royal Cruise Lines[27] ( passenger injured exercising on treadmill)];
  7. Diseases
    [ Licensed Practical Nurses v. Ulysses Cruises, Inc.[28]( passengers suffer from bacterial infection );
    Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[29]( Legionnaires' Disease contracted by passengers because of defective filter in whirlpool spa; compensation and punitive damages awarded after trial );
    Freeman v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. [30]( Legionnaires' Disease; class of passengers suffering from emotional distress and fear certified );
    Hirschhorn v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[31] ( passengers became ill and needed medical treatment );
    Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino[32] ( respiratory disorder caused by improperly maintained air-conditioning and ventilating system )];
  8. Rapes & sexual assaults
    [ State v. Stepansky[33] ( crew member charged with crimes of attempted sexual assault and burglary onboard cruise ship );
    Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe [34]( passenger claims that bartender put drugs into her drink and sexually assaulted her );
    Nadeau v. Costly [35]( rape of passenger );
    Morton v. De Oliveira[36] ( rape );
    Johnson v.Commodore Cruise Lines[37] ( rape of passenger and cover up on cruise );
    York v. Commodore Cruise Line[38] ( 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..." ); Navin, "Stalking Sexual Predators at Sea: The response of the cruise industry to sexual assaults onboard", 1999 International Travel Law Journal 192)];
  9. Assaults by crew members
    [ O'Hara v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. [39]( two passengers assaulted by crew member );
    Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises[40] ( crewman assaults passenger )];
  10. Assaults by passengers
    [ Colavito v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.[41] ( assault by intoxicated passenger)];
  11. Malpractice by ship's doctor
    [ Cimini v. Italia Crociere International[42]( cruise ship disclaimer of liability for malpractice of ship's doctor enforced );
    Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc.[43] ( no liability for medical malpractice );
    Pickens v. Costa Armatorie[44]( malpractice by ship's doctor );
    Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited[45]( passenger bitten by brown recluse spider; medical malpractice );
    Afflerbach v. Cunard Line Ltd.[46]( passenger falls while disembarking injuring buttocks, elbow and right shoulder; medical malpractice and failure to assist );
    Warren v. Ajax Navigation Corp.[47]( malpractice by ship's doctor in treatment rendered after heart attack );
    Fairley v. Royal Cruise Line Ltd.[48]( ship may be liable for ship's doctor's malpractice );
    Meitus v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.[49] ( crew member contracts viral encephalitis; misdiagnosis and medical malpractice );
    Rand v. Hatch[50]( failure to diagnose passenger's blood sugar level and render proper medical treatment );
    Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines[51] ( passenger raped by crew member and misdiagnosed as having had heart attack; removed from ship and abandoned on shore );
    Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line [52]( ship not liable for medical malpractice)].
  12. Fires
    [ Neenan v. Carnival Corp.[53] ( fire onboard M.S. Tropicale in September 16, 1999; passengers
    " were held inside a smoke-filled, unventilated ' muster station ' within the ship, after it caught fire...As significant portions of the M.S. Tropicale were ablaze, its sanitary system and engines allegedly became inoperable ( which ) produced backup, overflow and the constant smell of human waste...the events on this day caused damage to ( the passenger's ) personal property and resulted in ' severe discomfort and nausea throughout most of the voyage ' ".
    See also Wade,"Fire Safety For Ships at Sea", New York Times, Practical Traveler, August 2, 1998, p. 4.

    " Unlike the Titanic or the Andrea Doria, the Carnival cruise ship Ecstasy lost not a single passenger or crew member. But in its smaller way, the Ecstasy fire, which produced thick smoke that was on hundreds of television newscasts, will probably contribute to the evolution of marine safety.

    The time line of progress on marine safety reads as a perfect counterpoint to tragedies afloat. After more than 1,000 people, mostly children, died on an excursion aboard the General Slocum, which caught fire in New York in 1904, requirements for lifesaving gear and fire equipment were tightened. When more than 1,500 died on the Titanic in 1912, lifeboat personnel were required to be certified, and an international conference was called to approve a Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea. The Andrea Doria-Stockholm crash in 1956, in which 52 died, brought requirements that hulls be divided by steel bulkheads.

    With the Ecstasy, which was built with sprinklers, smoke inhalation in corridors caused the only injuries, and they were mild. ( The investigators, at this writing, do not know if the sprinklers were going to be effective in the fire, or if the fireboats were essential. There were also complaints of confusion and delay in informing passengers of the fire and the procedures to follow ).

    There were no sprinklers aboard Commodore Cruise Line's Universe Explorer, where five crew members died of smoke inhalation in a 1996 fire....There are many other ships without sprinklers, or even smoke alarms that go off on the spot. Sometimes they are installed then taken out-in a laundry, for example-because they go off too often "];

  13. Collisions
    [ Travel Weekly, Aug. 30, 1999 ( " Norwegian cancels sailings in wake of ship collision " )];
  14. Gastrointestinal disorders
    [ Adler v. Royal Cruise Line, Ltd.[54]( passengers become ill because of unsanitary conditions );
    Bounds v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.[55] ( food contamination );
    Hernandez v. The Motor Vessel Skyward[56] ( contaminated food and water );
    Barbachym v. Costa Line[57] ( food poisoning );
    Williams v. Carnival Cruise Lines[58] ( seasickness; fear of seasickness )];
  15. Heart attacks
    [ Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.[59];
    Warren v. Ajax Navigation Corp[60]. ( passenger claimed malpractice by ship's doctor in treatment after heart attack )];
  16. Malfunctioning toilets
    [ Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines[61] ];
  17. Pool jumping
    [ Brown v. New Commodore Cruise Line Limited [62]( passenger jumps from deck above into pool below and suffers broken ankle after landing on " wooden bench ' about a foot short ' of the pool " )];
  18. Sliding down banisters
    [ Meyer v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. [63]( intoxicated passenger injured while sliding down banister )];
  19. Poorly designed bathrooms, sofas, bunkbeds & passageways
    [ Hood v. Regency Maritime Corp.[64] ( while using bathroom passenger struck by piece of tub );
    Palmieri v. Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc.[65] ( jury verdict for passenger injured falling over sofa bed );
    Kunken v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. [66]( passenger breaks ankle entering passageway to cabin );
    Marchewka v. Bermuda Star Lines, Inc. [67]( passenger falls when rungs of bunk bed ladder gave way )];
  20. Open hatches
    [ In re Vessel Club Med[68] ( passenger steps into open engine hatch and hurts ankle );
    Hendricks v. Transportation Services of St. John, Inc.[69] ( passenger falls into open hatchway on ferry )];
  21. Storms & Hurricanes
    [ Domblakly v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[70] ( passengers injured when cruise ship battered by hurricane );
    In re Catalina Cruises, Inc.[71] ( passengers injured during rough weather caused by storm );
    Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Limited[72] ( passengers injured when cruise ship sails into Hurricane Eduardo )];
  22. Spider Bites
    [ Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited[73] ( passenger bitten by brown recluse spider )];
  23. Snapping mooring lines
    [ Douville v. Casco Bay Island Transit[74] ( ferry passengers injured because of a failure to detach mooring line before departing )].

Back to Top

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 tours[75], 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.[76] ( tourists insured in bus accident; foreign bus company insolvent, uninsured and irresponsible; tour operator has duty to select responsible independent contractors )].

Three Zones Of Danger

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

Accidents during shore excursions may involve

(1) Assaults, rapes, robberies and shootings
[ Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line[93]; Carlisle v. Ulysses Line[94]; Travel Weekly, Jan. 9, 1997 ( " A dozen passengers sailing on Holland America Line's Noordam were robbed at gunpoint at the Prospect Plantation In Ocho Rios, Jamaica " )];

(2) Horseback riding
[ Colby v. Norwegian Cruise Lines[95] ( horse riding accident during shore excursion )];

(3) Jet skis
[ Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.[96] ( rider of Yamaha WaveJammer jet ski dies after collision with anchored vessel off the Mexican coast );
Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.[97] ( passenger injured riding a Sea-Doo provided by cruise ship );
In re Complaint of Royal Caribbean Cruises[98] ( passengers on jet skis collide )];

(4) Scuba diving
[ Neely v. Club Med Management Services, Inc. [99]( American employed as scuba instructor at St. Lucia Club Med resort sucked into dive boat propellers );
Sinclair v. Soniform, Inc.[100] ( scuba diver suffers decompression sickness due to defect in buoyancy compensator vest and failure of crew to detect his symptoms );
Matter of Pacific Adventures, Inc.[101] ( scuba diver's leg entangles in dive boat propeller );
McClenahan v. Paradise Cruises, Ltd.[102] ( snuba diver injured) ( " Snuba diving differs from more traditional Scuba diving; Snuba diving is apparently similar to snorkeling and uses a common air supply on the surface with air hose for a group of divers );
Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters[103] ( scuba accident during shore excursion );
Courtney v. Pacific Adventures[104] ( scuba diver's leg becomes entangled in boat propeller);
Shultz v. Florida Keys Dive Venter, Inc.[105] ( scuba diver drowns );
Cutchin v. Habitat Curacao [106]( scuba accident at dive resort );
Borden v. Phillips [107]( scuba diver drowns; maritime law does not apply; release enforced under Florida law )].

(5) Snorkeling
[ Mayer v. Cornell University [108]( bird watcher on tour of Costa Rica drowns during snorkeling expedition to Isle de Cano )];

(6) Boat tours
[ United Shipping Co. v. Witmer[109] ( cruise passengers drown during boat tour in the Bahamas )];

(7) Traffic accidents
[ Young v. Players Lake Charles[110] ( intoxicated gamblers leave casino boat and have traffic accident )];

(8) Fist fights
[ Petro v. Jada Yacht Charters[111]( two passengers fight each other on shore )];

(9) Catamaran rides
[ Henderson v. Carnival Corp.[112] ( passenger injured during catamaran trip )];

(10) Medical malpractice at local clinics
[ Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.[113] ( sick passenger removed from cruise to inadequate and filthy intensive care facility in Bombay );
Martinides v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.[114] ( cruise passenger has angina attack and was stabilized in ship's infirmary, then transferred to Naples hospital recommended as the best for cardiac care; in reality the facility was a maternity hospital with neither the equipment nor the trained staff to care for cardiac patients. Three days later passenger dies and family sued cruiseline alleging negligence in

" failure to provide adequate medical care, failure to properly provide information regarding medical care options, and failure to recommend a facility with proper medical services and/or equipment and directing the deceased...to a medical facility which was inadequate " );
DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line[115] ( passenger suffered injuries from motor scooter accident in Cozumel, Mexico and subsequent malpractice of Mexican doctors )];

(11) Abandoned on shore
[ Daniel v. Costa Armatori[116] ( passenger abandoned on shore )].

(12) Parasailing
[ Matter of See N Ski Tours[117] ( parasailing accident );
Matter of Beiswenger Enterprises Corp.[118] ( parasailing accident )].

(13) Waterskiing
[ O'Hara v. Bayliner[119] ( water skiing accident )].

(14) Snowmobiling
[ See "Passenger killed in shore excursion accident", Travel Weekly, July 31, 2000, p. 8 ( " A female passenger aboard Orient Lines' Marco Polo was killed in a snowmobiling accident...during a shore excursion on Langjokull Glacier near Raykjavik, Iceland " )].


Back to Top

Other Common Complaints

Besides physical injuries cruise passengers may have claims arising from:
  1. Cancellations
    [ Slade v. Cheung & Risser Enterprises[120] ( Great Lakes cruise line absconded with passenger payment; travel agent liable for failing to investigate financial responsibility )];
  2. Flight delays
    [ Harden v. American Airlines[121]

    ( passengers miss two days of cruise because of delayed air transportation )].
  3. Baggage loss [ Mainzer v. Royal Olympic Cruises[122] ( cruise vessel losses one peace of passenger's baggage for four days )].
  4. Port skipping and unannounced itinerary changes
    [ Casper v. Cunard Line[123] ( mechanical breakdown and scheduled itinerary changed );
    Bloom v. Cunard Line[124] ( two ports of call, Puerto Rico and Nassau, canceled )].
  5. Misrepresentations about
    1. The existence of specific facilities [ Boyles v. Cunard Line[125] ( cruise line misrepresented availability of " Spa at Sea " program )].
    2. Quality of the facilities
      [ Vallery v. Bermuda Star Line[126]
      ( " 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 Center[127] ( cruise vessel misrepresented as being new when only refurbished ) ].
    3. Disabled Accessible Rooms & Facilities

      Disabled travelers[128] present special problems which airlines, both domestic[129] and foreign[130], hotels[131] and cruise ships need to address. Until recently, some cruiselines did not feel bound by the directives of the Americans with Disabilities Act[132]. This changed in 2001 when a disabled passenger purchased a cruise represented to have rooms and public facilities which were wheelchair accessible. The passenger paid " a fee in excess of the advertised price to obtain a purportedly wheelchair-accessible cabin ", discovered after boarding that her cabin and the public areas were not wheelchair accessible and was "' denied the benefits of services, programs and activities of the vessel and its facilities '" The passenger's subsequent lawsuit, Stevens v. Premier Cruises,Inc. [133], established that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign flagged cruise ships touching U.S. ports [ "...this case is about whether Title III requires a foreign-flag cruise ship reasonably to accommodate a disabled, fare-paying, American passenger while the ship is sailing in American waters " ].

      Other Courts have ruled upon the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to cruise ships [ Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines [134]( cruiseline misrepresented that its cruise ship, Holiday, had rooms and facilities which were " disabled accessible "; travel agents liable under Americans with Disabilities Act for " failing to adequately research, and for misrepresenting, the disabled accessible condition of the Holiday " ); Briefer v. Carnival Corp.[135] ( travel agents governed by Americans with Disabilities Act ); Deck v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc.[136]( passengers claim cruise ship violated Americans with Disabilities Act )].

  6. Discomfort
    [ Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line[137] ( QEII sailed before major refitting work on cabins and other facilities was complete; asbestos removal );
    Simon v. Cunard Line[138] ( lack of fresh water and malfunctioning air conditioning system )];
  7. Deceptive port charges:
    Cruiselines have generated substantial profits by forcing passengers to pay " port charges " in addition to the cost of the cruise. Sometimes these " port charges " have exceeded $150 per passenger and were explained to passengers as required by port authorities and governmental agencies. In reality, very little of the " port charge " was ever paid to port authorities or governmental agencies, most, if not all of the collected revenues, being pocketed by the cruise line as profit. This practice is deceptive, has been the subject of an enforcement proceeding brought by the Florida Attorney General [ See " Cruise Lines Fined for ' Misleading ' Cruise Costs "[139]
    ( " Six cruise ship lines operating from Florida ports will pay a total of $295,000 and revise their advertising policies to settle allegations that they misled consumers about cruise costs, according to Florida attorney general Bob Butterworth... accused the lines of charging consumers more for so-called ' port charge ' than necessary to cover actual dockage costs and keeping the difference " )]
    and has been the subject of several consumer class actions [ See Collins, Florida Judge Slashes Fee Request, Blasts Attorneys Suing Cruise Lines[140]
    ( " Florida Attorney General...investigated the charges in 1996, and found that many cruise lines inflated those costs above and beyond what ports charged cruise lines. As a result...plaintiffs' attorneys filed 12 class actions against Renaissance and six other lines; Celebrity Cruises, Carnival Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean International and Kloster Cruise Line ( now Norwegian Cruise Line ), all based in Miami; Los Angeles-based Princess Cruises and Seattle-based Holland America Line...estimated that the various cruise lines charged their customers $250 million a year in port charges, more than twice the amount needed for port fees...Attorneys reached a settlement with Renaissance last April, when they agreed to issue vouchers up to $60 to plaintiffs depending on when they traveled..." )]
    alleging fraud and violation of state consumer protection statutes [ Ames v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[141]( deceptive port charges; time limitations enforced; complaint dismissed; not a class action ); In Re: Carnival Cruise Lines Port Charges Litigation, Notice Of Settlement Of Class Action[142]
    ( " This action was commenced on April 19, 1996 against Carnival for allegedly misrepresenting the nature and purpose of the ' port charges ' it advertised and collected from its cruise passengers. The action alleges that Carnival's advertising and other promotional materials implied ' port charges ' represented monies paid by Carnival to governmental authorities, that Carnival paid less to those governmental authorities than it collected from passengers and that Carnival's passengers are due the difference between the amount collected from them and the amount paid to governmental authorities " ); Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines [143]
    ( " We therefore conclude that where the cruise line bills the passenger for port charges but keeps part of the money for itself, that is a deceptive practice...Reliance and damages are sufficiently shown by the fact that the passenger parted with money for what should have been a ' pass-through ' port charge, but the cruise line kept the money " );
    N.G.L. Travel Associates v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[144]( travel agents sue for damages arising from deceptive port charges; complaint dismissed because travel agents are not consumers and cruise lines was not unjustly enriched at the expense of travel agents );
    Renaissance Cruises, Inc. v. Glassman [145]( deceptive port charges; certification of nationwide class granted );
    Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., v. Picaut [146] ( deceptive port charges; summary judgment or cruiseline reversed );
    Cronin v. Cunard Line Limited [147]( deceptive port charges; complaint dismissed; six months time limitation in which to file lawsuit enforced );
    Pickett v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc. [148]( deceptive port charges; nationwide class certified; proposed settlement rejected as inadequate )].

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. Nassau[149], 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 airlines[150], domestic hotels[151], international hotels[152], tour operators[153], travel agents[154], informal travel promoters[155] and depository banks[156], there has been little, if any , change in the passengers' rights and remedies in actions against cruise lines."[157] Cruise passengers are at a distinct disadvantage in prosecuting their claims. Here's why?


Back to Top

Limitation Of Vessel Owner's Liability

Ship owners are permitted under The Limitation Of Vessel Owner's Liability Act[158] to limit their liability for passenger claims to the value of vessel. The Limitation Act provides in relevant part that " ' [t]he liability of the owner of any vessel...for any...loss...without the privity or knowledge of such owner...shall not...exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending ' "[159]. A limitation action is instituted by the posting of security in an amount equal to the value of the vessel with notice given to all prospective claimants. After claims are filed the Court conducts a two step analysis. First, the Court must establish what acts of negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness, if any, caused the accident. Second, the Court must establish whether ( the cruise line ) had ' knowledge or privity ' of negligence or the unseaworthiness of the vessel. In a Limitation proceeding the claimant must present some evidence of negligence or unseaworthiness before the burden shifts to the cruise line to establish lack of knowledge or privity. " If there is no evidence of ( the cruise line's ) negligence or contributory fault, then ( the cruise line ) is entitled to exoneration from all liability "[160]. A Limitation action can, if successful, dramatically limit a passenger's recoverable damages [ Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.[161]( Limitation of Liability Act grants owners the right to seek to limit their liability for ship board injuries );
Matter of Illusions Holdings, Inc.[162]( scuba accident; claimed acts of negligence included (1) failing to give proper diving instructions, (2) abandoning injured diver; no negligence; exoneration under Limitation Act granted );
In Re Vessel Club Med [163]( passenger steps into open hatchway and injures ankle; owner seeks to limit liability under Limitation Act to $80,000 value of vessel );
Matter of Bay Runner Rentals, Inc.[164]( personal watercraft accident; negligent acts included (1) failure to warn that watercraft did not have off-throttle steering, (2) failure to give proper instructions in lack of off-throttle steering; exoneration under Limitation Act denied );
Matter Of See N Ski Tours, Inc. [165]( para-sailing accident; claimed acts of negligence included (1) failure to train para-sailing crew, (2) operating in adverse weather conditions, (3) towing to close to shore, (4) failing to maintain tow rope and para-sailing equipment; settlement of $22,000 approved );
In Re Seadog Ventures, Inc. [166]( for-hire pleasure boat strikes swimmer in Lake Michigan; owner seeks to limit liability under the Limitation Act to $543,200 interest in vessel );
Matter of Beiswenger Enterprises Corp. [167]( para-sailing accident );
Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.[168]( passengers on day trip excursion to Coco Cay Island rent See-Doo jet ski from cruise line and are injured in a collision; claimed acts of negligence included (1) allowing inexperienced riders to operate in a restricted area, (2) failing to properly train and supervise riders, (3) failing to enforce safety rules, (4) selling alcohol to riders and (5) failing to provide jet skis with sound warning devices; no negligence found; release enforced; had negligence been established then liability of cruise line would have been limited to $7,200 value of Sea-Doo )].


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 "[169].

Cruise passenger tickets, however, may be in any size type [ Lerner v. Karageorgis Lines, Inc.[170] ( 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.[171] ( 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 Cruises[172] ( time limitations in passenger ticket in English language enforced even though passenger was unable to read English )].

Back to Top


Time Limitations

Most States allow injured consumers, at least, 2�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 Lines[173] ( 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 Corp[174] ( 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 Cruises[175] ( trip and fall in ship's lounge; cruise line may be estopped from relying on one year time limitation ); Rams v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines[176] ( one year time limitation does not apply to accidents during shore excursions ); Berg v. Royal Caribbean Cruises[177] ( 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 Line[178] ( cruise vessel misrepresented availability of exercise facilities in " Spa at Sea "; six months time limitation to file lawsuit enforced ); Cronin v. Cunard Line[179] ( 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 Line[180] ( 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 Shipping[181] ( 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, Ltd[182] ( 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 Suppliers[183] )] the Courts have, generally, held that contract formation does not take place at the consumer's location [ Thompson v. Handa-Lopez[184] ( 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.[185] ( guest drowns in Hong Kong hotel pool; being available for litigation in local forum is reasonable cost of doing business in the forum )].


Back to Top

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. Shute[186] ( 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 Tours[187] ( passenger must have " ample opportunity to examine... contents " of passenger ticket );
Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises[188] ( 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. Shute[189] ( forum selection clauses subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental reasonableness )].


Cancellation Fees And Adequacy Of Notice

To be enforceable forum selection clauses in cruise tickets or brochures must be fundamentally fair [ [ Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute[190] ]. Fundamental fairness means

This latter requirement has been interpreted to mean that passengers should receive the cruise contract early enough to be able to cancel without being subjected to a cancellation fee. In Cismaru v. Radisson Seven Seas Cruises,[192] a Florida forum selection clause was not enforced because the passenger received the cruise contract 21 days before departure. Were the passenger to cancel the cruise contract on the day of receipt he would have been subjected to a 50% cancellation fee. " This falls short of the ability to reject the contract ' with impunity ' contemplated in Shute. In other words...Radisson sent ( a cruise ticket ) at a time when ( the passenger ) could not conceivably have canceled without avoiding a penalty ". Some Courts have agreed that imposition of a cancellation penalty means that notice was inadequate rendering the forum selection clause unenforceable [ McTigue v. Regal Cruises, Inc.[193] ( passenger sustains physical injury during cruise; clause which provided that
" Passage money shall be considered earned at the earlier of the time of payment or embarkation. Carrier is entitled to receive and retain earned passage money under all circumstances and is not liable to make any refund " rendered the ability of passenger to cancel without penalty illusory; " Absent prior notice, the Court will not enforce a ( Florida forum selection clause )...that substantially limits a passenger's legal rights ");
White v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.[194] ( passenger falls down gangplank; ticket received 4 days before departure and cancellation would have resulted in 100% penalty; Greece forum selection clause not enforced );
Grivesman v. Carnival Cruise Lines[195] ( Florida forum selection clause enforced; passengers received ticket early enough to have " forfeited only their deposit if they had canceled their trip at that time " );
Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc.[196] ( passengers assaulted by crew members; Californiaforum selection clause not enforced because tickets received 2 days before cruise and cancellation would have resulted in a 100% cancellation fee );
Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Limited[197] ( passengers injured when cruise ship sailed into Hurricane Eduardo; passengers received ticket 23 days before departure and immediate cancellation would have resulted in $400 penalty; Florida forum selection clause not enforced )] while other Courts have rejected this concept
[ Natale v. Regency Maritime Corp.[198] ( time limitations clause enforced notwithstanding cancellation penalty of 90% );
Boyles v. Cunard Line Ltd.[199] ( passenger ticket contract enforceable notwithstanding significant cancellation fee );
Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.[200] ( contract terms not necessarily unreasonable because of the imposition of penalties if passenger canceled );
Lauri v. Cunard Line Limited[201] ( passenger became ill onboard Queen Elizabeth II; Florida forum selection clause enforced; receipt of ticket 19 days before departure meant that immediate cancellation would have resulted in 100% penalty; refundability of tickets not dispositive on issue of notice );
Bounds v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.[202] ( contaminated food and water onboard Stella Solaris; Greek forum selection clause enforced notwithstanding minimum cancellation penalty of 25% " no matter when they purchased the ticket " );
Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited[203]( passenger bitten by a brown recluse spider suffers from medical malpractice; Florida forum selection clause enforced notwithstanding $400 cancellation penalty );
Schulz v. Holland America-Line Westours, Inc.[204] ( passenger sustains physical injury; time limitation clause enforced; " The Schulzes' argument is premised on the false assertion that they could not cancel their tickets without incurring financial penalty. Had they checked with their travel agent, they would have found that the entire purchase price, including the travel agent's fee, would have been refunded " )].


Back to Top

Vindicating Important Civil Rights

At least, one Court has taken the extraordinary position of refusing to enforce a forum selection clause on the grounds of public policy. In Walker v. Carnival Cruise Line [205] a travel agent had been informed that the passenger was disabled, used a wheelchair, and would require a disabled accessible guest room and disabled accessible facilities. Although the cruiseline and the travel agent assured the passenger that the ship and his room would be disabled accessible he discovered that neither his room nor the ship were disabled accessible. While the passenger claimed misrepresentations and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act the cruiseline sought to enforce a forum selection clause and transfer the case from Californiato Florida. Initially, the Court granted the cruiseline's request finding the forum selection clause reasonable and fair and dismissed the case as to it. Upon reconsideration, the Court refused to enforce the Florida forum selection clause for two reasons. First, " the fact that plaintiffs' physical disabilities and economic constraints are so severe that, in combination, they would preclude plaintiffs from having their day in court " Second, " the fact that plaintiffs are seeking to vindicate important civil rights ".


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 Cruises[206] ], Peru [ Affram Carriers, Inc. V. Moeykens[207] ], Naples, Italy [ Hodes v. SNC Achille Lauro[208] ], the State of Washington [ Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.[209] ] and even Miami, Florida [ Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines[210] ]. 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.


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 Francaise[211] ( choice of Bahamian law clause enforced; cruise between Singapore and Australia )] or China [ Jewel Seafoods Ltd. v. M/V Peace River[212] ( choice of Chinese law clause enforced )]. In determining whether choice of law clauses should be enforced, the courts may consider several factors including

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, SPA[214] ].


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 Aviation[215] ]. 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, Ltd[216]. ]. 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 Court[217] ]. 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 Hotel[218] ].


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 Transatlantique[219] ]. The passenger ticket will contain a host of nearly 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 Marine[220] ]. In addition, some Courts have held that disclaimers of simple negligence, particularly, regarding the health and safety of the passengers can not be disclaimed [ Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines[221] ( malfunctioning toilets ruin cruise vacation; clause in cruise contract seek to disclaim all liability for the discomfort of passengers; " Of the three disclaimers, the disclaimer of liability for negligence appears to be the most applicable to this suit. Yet, for good reason Carnival does not rely on this disclaimer. 46 U.S.C.A. �� 183c expressly invalidates any contract provision purporting to limit a ship's liability for negligence to its passengers.It shall be unlawful for the manager, agent, master, or owner of any vessel transporting passengers between ports of the United States or between any such port and a foreign port to insert in any rule, regulation, contract, or agreement any provision or limitation (1) purporting, in the event of loss of life or bodily injury arising from the negligence or fault of such owner or his servants, to relieve such owner, master, or agent from liability.Even prior to 1936, the year �� 183c was enacted, such provisions were held to be void under common law as against public policy ( Liverpool and Great Western Steam Co. v. Phoenix Insurance, 129 U.S. 397, 441, 9 S.Ct. 469, 471, 32 L.Ed. 788 (1889) ")].

Back to Top


Shore Excursion Disclaimers

The Courts have been willing to enforce disclaimers of liability regarding accidents that occur during shore excursions [ Dubret v. Holland America Line Westours[222] ( bus accident during shore excursion; disclaimer of liability enforced );
Henderson v. Carnival Corp.[223] ( passenger injured on catamaran trip while on excursion from cruise; notwithstanding Carnival logo on catamaran and crew member shirts cruise ship disclaimer of ownership or control of catamaran company enforced );
Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.[224] ( day trip to Coco Cay Island owned by cruiseline; passengers rent Sea-Doo, sign waiver and are injured in accident; no negligence found )]. Such a disclaimer may not be enforceable if the injured passenger relied upon representations, or warranties regarding safety [ Bergonzine v. Maui Classic Charters[225] ( 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.

While disclaimers may be enforceable as against cruise ships they do not insulate ground service providers such as bus companies and dock operators from liability [ Sharpe v. West Indian Company[226]( passenger leaves cruise ship to board waiting tour bus and is struck by failing railing; time limitation in cruise contract enforced as against cruise ship; clause that stated " The Exclusions Or Limitations Of Liability Of Carrier Set Forth In The Provisions Of This Contract Shall Also Apply To And Be For The Benefit Of Agents, Independent Contractors, Concessionaires And Suppliers Of Carrier, As Well As Owners And Operators Of All Shoreside Properties At Which The Vessel May Call " not enforced as against dock operators and local truck company responsible for accident )].


Force Majeure/Act Of God Defense

The cruiseline may claim that a delay in sailing or a cancellation of the cruise vacation or an itinerary change was caused by a storm or hurricane [ DeNicola v. Cunard Line Limited[227] ( storm );
Domblakly v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[228]( passengers injured when cruise ship battered by hurricane );
In re Catalina Cruises, Inc.[229] ( passengers injured when cruise ship sails into storm );
Williams v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.[230] ( 207 passengers seasick after cruise ship sails into storm )] or an Act of God.

As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1887 in the Majestic [231] " the act of God is limited... to causes in which no man has any agency whatever; because it was never intended to arise ". Acts of God may include storms at sea[232], snowstorms [ Alstrom Machinery, Inc. v. Associated Airfreight, Inc. [233]( air carrier breached contract in failing to deliver cargo notwithstanding force majeure clause in contract of carriage and unanticipated snowstorm ); Klakis v. Nationwide Leisure Corp.[234] ( charter tour passengers confined in airport for 2 � days during snowstorm ), a typhoon or volcanic eruption [ DeVera v. Japan Airlines[235] ( Manila Airport closed because of volcano and typhoon ) or a revolution or civil disorder [ Jamil v. Kuwait Corp.[236] ( flight delayed 4 days due to coup in Pakistan ) or a pilot's strike [ Leake v. American Airlines, Inc.[237] ( passengers missed cruise because of airline strike )].

To prevail, however, the carrier must establish a causal connection between the Act Of God or force majeure and its failure to deliver timely transportation. In addition, the air carrier must prove that it acted reasonably to reinstitute the transportation service once the snowstorm or unexpected event ceased [ Bernstein v. Cunard Line[238] ].


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 Lines[239] ( 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 [ see discussion above ].

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 Letter[240]

" 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 malpractice[241] committed by their on board doctors and nurses [ see discussion above ]. 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 Line[242] ( 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."[243]


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

[1]. 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, 1981-2001, updated biannually, Web Page http://members.aol. Com/travellaw/index.html; Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, 1988-2001, updated annually, Web Page http:// members.aol.com/class50/index.html; and nearly 190 articles on Consumer Law issues. For many of Judge Dickerson's articles see http://www.classactionlitigation.com/library/ca_articles.html

2. See e.g.,

�� ����

[3]. Navin, "Stalking Sexual Predators at Sea: The response of the cruise industry to sexual assaults onboard", 1999 International Travel Law Journal, at p. 193.

[4]. Conde Nast Traveler, March 2000, p. 163.

[5]. Id.

[6]. Carothers, "A Steady Course?, Stop Press," Conde Nast Traveler, October 2000, p. 25. See also Blum, "Ecstasy fire prompts closer look at safety on the seas," Travel Weekly, March 1, 1999, p. 6.

[7]. " The Golden Age Of Cruising," Conde Nast Traveler, March 2001.

[8]. Doyle, "Cruise Smart, How To Ensure Smooth Sailing, From Booking To Disembarking," Stop Press, Conde Nast Traveler, December 2000, p. 63.

[9]. Dickerson, "Taking Your Travel Agent On A Trip To The Court House," http://www.classactionlitigation.com/library/travelagent.htm

[10]. Dickerson, "Tour Operators And Air Carriers: Modern Theories Of Liability," http://www.classactionlitigation.com/library/toac.htm

[11]. Dickerson," Sponsoring Group Travel: A Discussion Of Liability Issues-2000," http://www.classactionlitigation.com/library/sgt.htm

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

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

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

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

[16]. Smith v. Mitlof, 2001 WL 173499 ( S.D.N.Y. 2001 ).

[17]. Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 216 F. 3d 338 ( 3rd Cir. 2000 ).

[18]. United Shipping Co. v. Witmer, 724 So. 2d 722 ( Fla. App. 1999 ).

[19]. Smith v. West Rochelle Travel Agency, 238 A.D. 2d 398, 656 N.Y.S. 2d 340 ( 1997 ).

[20]. Kruempelstaedter v. Sonesta International Hotels Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11453 ( N.D. Ill. 2000 ).

[21]. Benezra v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6818 ( 9th Cir. 2000 ).

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

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

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

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

[26]. Fay v. Oceanic Sun Line, 1985 American Maritime Cases 1132 ( N.Y. Sup. 1984 ).

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

[28]. Licensed Practical Nurses v. Ulysses Cruises, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16619 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

[29]. Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12155 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

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

[31]. Hirschhorn v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9403 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).

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

[33]. State v. Stepansky, 761 So. 2d 1027 ( Fla. Sup. 2000 ).

[34]. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 767 So. 2d 626 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).

[35]. Nadeau v. Costly, 1994 A.M.C. 2810 ( Fla. App. 1994 ).

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

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

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

[39]. O'Hara v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 254 ( S.D.N.Y. 1997 ).

[40]. Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 1992 America Maritime Cases 1797 ( D. Hawaii 1992 ).

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

[42]. Cimini v. Italia Crociere International, 1981 A.M.C. 2674 ( S.D.N.Y. 1981 ).

[43]. Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc., 1982 A.M.C. 1507 ( E.D. Pa. 1982 ).

[44]. Pickens v. Costa Armatorie, 1978 A.M.C. 2064 ( N.D. Ill. 1978 ).

[45]. Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited, 897 F. Supp. 1304 ( D. Ore. 1995 ).

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

[47]. Warren v. Ajax Navigation Corp., 1995 A.M.C. 2609 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).

[48]. Fairley v. Royal Cruise Line Ltd., 1993 A.M.C. 1633 ( S.D. Fla. 1993 ).

[49]. Meitus v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10157 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).

[50]. Rand v. Hatch, 762 So. 2d 1001 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).

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

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

[53]. Neenan v. Carnival Corp., 2001 WL 64747 ( S.D. Fla. 2001 ).

[54]. Adler v. Royal Cruise Line, Ltd., 1996 A.M.C. 1349 ( N.D. Cal. 1996 ).

[55]. Bounds v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 1997 A.M.C. 25 ( C.D. Cal. 1996 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

[62]. Brown v. New Commodore Cruise Line Limited, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 536 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

[63]. Meyer v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1995 A.M.C. 1652 ( N.D. Cal. 1994 ).

[64]. Hood v. Regency Maritime Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17298 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

[65]. Palmieri v. Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3724 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

[66]. Kunken v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19321 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).

[67]. Marchewka v. Bermuda Star Lines, Inc., 1998 A.M.C. 599 ( S.D.N.Y. 1996 ).

[68]. In re Vessel Club Med, 90 F. Supp. 2d 550 ( D.N.J. 2000 ).

[69]. Hendricks v. Transportation Services of St. John, Inc., 1999 V.I. LEXIS 16 ( T.C.V.I. 1999 ).

[70].Domblakly v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).

[71]. In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F. 3d 1422 ( 9th Cir. 1998 ).

[72]. Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, 5 S.W. 3d 232 ( Tex. App. 2000 ).

[73]. Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited, 897 F. Supp. 1304 ( D. Ore. 1995 ).

[74]. Douville v. Casco Bay Island Transit, 1998 A.M.C. 2775 ( D.N.H. 1998 ).

[75]. 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 " ).

[76]. Winter v. I.C. Holidays, Inc., New York Law Journal, January 9, 1992, p. 23, col. 4 ( N.Y. Sup. ).

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

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

[79]. Smith v. Commodore Cruise Line Limited, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14267 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).

[80]. Sharpe v. West Indian Company, Ltd., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13715 ( D.V.I. 2000 ) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[87]. Lubick v. Travel Services, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 904 ( D.V.I. 1983 ).

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

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

[90]. Rams v. Intrav, Inc., 1994 American Maritime Cases 1573 ( 1st Cir. 1994 ).

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

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

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

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

[95]. Colby v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., 1996 WL 173016 ( D. Conn. 1996 ).

[96]. Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., 216 F. 3d 338 ( 3rd Cir. 2000 ) .

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

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

[99]. Neely v. Club Med Management Services, Inc., 63 F. 3d 166 ( 3rd Cir. 1995 ).

[100]. Sinclair v. Soniform, Inc., 935 F. 2d 599 ( 3rd Cir. 1991 ).

[101]. Matter of Pacific Adventures, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 874 ( D. Hawaii 1998 ).

[102]. McClenahan v. Paradise Cruises, Ltd., 888 F. Supp. 120 ( D. Hawaii 1995 ).

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

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

[105]. Shultz v. Florida Keys Dive Venter, Inc., 224 F. 3d 1269 ( 11th Cir. 2000 ).

[106]. Cutchin v. Habitat Curacao, 1999 A.M.C. 1377 ( S.D. Fla. 1999 ).

[107]. Borden v. Phillips, 752 So. 2d 69 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).

[108]. Mayer v. Cornell University, 909 F. Supp. 81 ( N.D.N.Y. 1995 ), aff'd 107 F. 3d 3 ( 2d Cir. 1997 ) cert. denied 522 U.S. 818, 1185 S. Ct. 68, 139 L. Ed. 2d 30 ( 1997 ).

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

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

[111]. Petro v. Jada Yacht Charters, 1994 WL 255037 ( D. Hawaii 1994 ).

[112]. Henderson v. Carnival Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18821 ( S.D. Fla. 2000 ).

[113]. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 318 ( 9th Cir. 2001 ).

[114]. Martinides v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., C94-1386 ( W.D. Wash. ).

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

[116]. Daniel v. Costa Armatori, 1980 A.M.C. 2874 ( D.C.D.C. 1980 ).

[117]. Matter of See N Ski Tours, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2983 ( D. Ala. 2000 ).

[118]. Matter of Beiswenger Enterprises Corp., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1294 ( M.D. Fla. 1999 ).

[119]. O'Hara v. Bayliner, 89 N.Y. 2d 636 ( N.Y. Ct. App. 1997 ).

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

[121]. 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).

[122]. Mainzer v. Royal Olympic Cruises, Ltd, 177 Misc. 2d 553, 677 N.Y.S. 2d 668 ( 1998). See also:

[123]. Casper v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 560 F. Supp. 240 ( E.D. Pa. 1983 ). See also:

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

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

[126]. 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 ).

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

[128]. See Wade,"Cruise Ships and The Disabled", Practical Traveler, New York Times, Sunday Travel Section, p. 4; Special Report," Shipping News Cruise Passengers Gain More Rights", Consumer Reports Travel Letter, December 2000, p. 12; Blum, "AAA to publish guides for disabled travelers", Travel Weekly, February 5, 2001, p. 8.

[129]. See Air Carrier's Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. Section 41705.

[130]. Alino v. Aerovias De Mexico, S.A., 2000 WL 33152065 ( S.D. Fla. 2000 )( Air Carriers Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. Section 41705(a)

( " In providing air transportation, an air carrier...including any foreign air carrier, may not discriminate..." ). " does not apply to a foreign air carrier operating a foreign domestic flight that does not travel to a place within the United States " );
Blum, DOT aims to extend disability rules to foreign lines, Travel Weekly, February 1, 2001, p. 5 ( " The (DOT) is actively carrying out a new mandate from Congress to bring foreign airlines under the jurisdiction of U.S. law in order to guarantee disabled travelers equal access to air transportation " ).

[131]. Sigros v. Walt Disney World Co., 2001 WL 28683 ( D. Mass. 2001 )( disabled hotel guest injured in wheelchair accident sues resort claiming violations of Americans with Disabilities Act ).

[132]. 42 U.S.C Section 12101.

[133]. Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14421 ( 11th Cir. 2000 ).

[134]. Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1083 ( N.D. Cal. 1999 ), on reconsideration, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1135 ( N.D. Cal. 1999 ).

[135]. Briefer v. Carnival Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21256 ( D. Ariz. 1999 ).

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

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

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

[139]. " Cruise Lines Fined for ' Misleading ' Cruise Costs ", Travel Trade, Feb. 10, 1997, p. 27.

[140]. Collins, "Florida Judge Slashes Fee Request, Blasts Attorneys Suing Cruise Lines", Miami Daily Business Review, March 15, 2001.

[141]. Ames v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11559 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ) .

[142]. In Re: Carnival Cruise Lines Port Charges Litigation, Case. No. 96-8078 CA 03, Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Dist, Dade County, Notice Of Settlement Of Class Action.

[143]. Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, 758 So. 2d 699 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).

[144]. N.G.L. Travel Associates v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6544 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).

[145]. Renaissance Cruises, Inc. v. Glassman, 738 So. 2d 436 ( Fla. App. 1999 ).

[146]. Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., v. Picaut, 746 So. 2d 1132 ( Fla. App. 1999 ).

[147]. Cronin v. Cunard Line Limited, 672 N.Y.S. 2d 864 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1998 ).

[148]. Pickett v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., 6 P. 3d 63 ( Wash. Ct. App. 2000 ) .

[149]. Schwartz v. S.S. Nassau, 345 F. 2d 465, 467 ( 2d Cr. 1965 ).

[150]. Dickerson, Travel Law, at Chapter 2.

[151]. Id. at Chapter 4.

[152]. Id.

[153]. Id. at Chapter 5.

[154]. Id.

[155]. Id.

[156]. Id. at Chapters 2 & 5.

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

[158]. 46 U.S.C. Section 183(a).

[159]. Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1370 ( S.D. Fla. 1999 ).

[160]. Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1370 ( S.D. Fla. 1999 ).

[161]. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 2001 WL 167535 ( Sup. Ct. 2001 ).

[162]. Matter of Illusions Holdings, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 238 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).

[163]. In Re Vessel Club Med, 90 F. Supp. 2d 550 ( D.N.J. 2000 ).

[164]. Matter of Bay Runner Rentals, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 795 ( D. Maryland 2000 ) .

[165]. Matter Of See N Ski Tours, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2983 ( S.D. Ala. 2000 ).

[166]. In Re Seadog Ventures, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5805 ( N.D. Ill. 2000 ).

[167]. Matter of Beiswenger Enterprises Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1294 ( M.D. Fla. 1999 ).

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

[169]. New York Civil Practice Law And Rules, Section 4544.

[170]. See N. 4, infra.

[171]. 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 ).

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

[173]. See N. 4, supra.

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

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

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

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

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

[179].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 ).

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

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

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

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

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

[185]. Nowak v. Tak How Inv. Ltd., 1995 WL 521874 ( D. Mass. 1995 ).

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

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

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

[189]. See N. 16, supra.

[190]. See N. 16, supra.

[191]. See e.g.,

[192]. Cismaru v. Radisson Seven Seas Cruises, Inc., 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 16 ( Tex. App. 2001 ).

[193]. McTigue v. Regal Cruises, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist LEXIS 5568 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).

[194]. White v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 924 ( S.D. Texas 1998 ).

[195]. Grivesman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 661 ( N.D. Ill. 2001 ).

[196]. Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 794 F. Supp. 1005 ( D. Hawaii 1992 ).

[197]. Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, 5 S.W. 3d 232 ( Tex. App. 1999 ).

[198]. Natale v. Regency Maritime Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3413 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).

[199]. Boyles v. Cunard Line Ltd., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21449 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 ).

[200]. Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist LEXIS 10194 ( E.D. Pa. 1994 ).

[201]. Lauri v. Cunard Line Limited, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8627 ( E.D. Mich. 2000 ).

[202]. Bounds v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 1997 A.M.C. 25 ( C.D. Cal. 1996 ).

[203]. Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited, 897 F. Supp. 1304 ( D. Ore. 1995 ).

[204]. Schulz v. Holland America-Line Westours, Inc., 230 Wis. 2d 749, 604 N.W. 2d 35 ( 1999 ).

[205]. Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1083 ( N.D. Cal. 1999 ), on reconsideration 107 F. Supp. 2d 1135 )( N.D. Cal. 2000 ).

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

[207]. Affram Carriers, Inc. v. Moeykens, 1998 WL 340360 ( 5th Cir. 1998 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[216]. 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 )

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

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

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

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

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

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

[223]. Henderson v. Carnival Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18821 ( S.D. Fla. 2000 ).

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

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

[226]. Sharpe v. West Indian Company, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13715 ( D.V.I. 2000 ).

[227]. DeNicola v. Cunard Line Limited, 642 F. 2d 5 ( 1st Cir. 1981 ).

[228]. Domblakly v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).

[229]. In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F. 3d 1422 ( 9th Cir. 1998 ).

[230]. Williams v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 403 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).

[231]. The Majestic, 166 U.S. 375, 17 S. Ct. 597, 41 L. Ed. 1039 ( 1887 ).

[232]. DeNicola v. Cunard Line Limited, 642 F. 2d 5 ( 1st Cir. 1981 ); Domblakly v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ); In re Catalina Cruises, Inc., 137 F. 3d 1422 ( 9th Cir. 1998 ); Williams v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 403 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).

[233]. Alstrom Machinery, Inc. v. Associated Airfreight, Inc., 675 N.Y.S. 2d 161 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1998 ).

[234]. Klakis v. Nationwide Leisure Corp., New York Law Journal, November 30, 1978, p. 6, col. 2 ( N.Y. Sup. 1978 ), rev'd 73 A.D. 2d 521, 422 N.Y.S. 2d 407 ( 1979 ) .

[235]. De Vera v. Japan Airlines, DeVera v. Japan Airlines, 24 Aviation Cases 18,317 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 ).

[236]. Jamil v. Kuwait Corp., 772 F. Supp. 482 ( D.D.C. 1991 ).

[237]. Leake v. American Airlines, Inc., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2667 ( Conn. Super. 2000 ) .

[238]. Bernstein v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 19 Aviation Cases 17,485 ( S.D.N.Y. 1985 ).

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

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

[241]. 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.

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

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

Back to Top