This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
| Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute | ||||||
 |
||||||
| Argued January 15, 1991 Decided April 17, 1991 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full case name |
Carnival Cruise Lines, Incorporated v. Eulala Shute, et vir.
|
|||||
| Citations | 499 U.S. 585 (more) 111 S. Ct. 1522; 113 L. Ed. 2d 622; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2221; 59 U.S.L.W. 4323; 1991 AMC 1697; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2729; 91 Daily Journal DAR 4419 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Court held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is deemed fundamentally fair. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter | |||||
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Marshall | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Forum selection clause | ||||||
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.
Contents |
Facts
The plaintiffs, Eulala and Russel Shute, were passengers on a cruise ship operated by the defendant, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. The Shutes had bought tickets in Washington and signed a contract, with a forum selection clause mandating that injured parties would sue in Florida, to the exclusion of all other jurisdictions. The plaintiffs boarded the cruise in California, and one was injured in international waters off the coast of Mexico. The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit in Washington, in violation of the contract clause.
The defendant sought summary judgment based on:
- the forum selection clause, and
- a lack of minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state
The trial court dismissed based solely on the lack of sufficient contacts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed because the cruise line had reached into Washington via advertising, and held that but for the defendant's solicitation, there would be no cause of action. The Court of Appeals also held that forum selection clause was void because of unequal bargaining power between the parties, and because it would be an undue hardship for the Shutes to have to go all the way to Florida to sue. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court based on that court's Admiralty jurisdiction.
Question presented
The Supreme Court limited the issue to whether the forum selection clause was enforceable.
Opinion of the Court
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, held the Shutes to their deal. The Court noted that Florida is not a random jurisdiction - Carnival is headquartered there and does much business there, and Washington does not necessarily make sense in the context of an accident off the coast of Mexico on a ship that left from California. The hardship on the plaintiffs mattered little, as they had signed the contract, and no one forced them to go on a cruise. On the other hand, it made sense for the cruise industry, which carries passengers from all over, to have a single forum for lawsuits. The cruise line will thereby avoid defending itself in many different courts, which will save money, which will translate to cheaper tickets.
Dissent
Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Marshall. Stevens dissents for several reasons including objections to contracts of adhesion created by parties who have unequal bargaining power, the fact that the notice of the forum selection clause was not made available to the purchaser until after payment was tendered and a lack of an opportunity for refunds at the point when the forum selection clause was disclosed.
Stevens attached a copy of the original ticket to his dissent to show how only the most meticulous passenger would notice the clause and that notice might be in contention.
See also
External links
- ^ Text of Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute , 499 U.S. 585 (1991) is available from: · Enfacto · Findlaw
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 7 November 2008, at 16:19.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.