Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

Supreme Court of the United States

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; 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 not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter

Case opinions

Majority by: Blackmun
Joined by: Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
Dissent by: Stevens
Joined by: Marshall

Laws applied

Forum selection clause

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991)^[1], 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.

1 Facts
2 Question presented
3 Opinion of the Court
4 Dissent
5 External link

[edit] 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.

[edit] Question presented

The Supreme Court limited the issue to whether the forum selection clause was enforceable.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Dissent

Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Marshall. Stevens wrote that the common law recognizes that contracts of adhesion are subject to scrutiny for reasonableness. In this case, he felt that the plaintiffs should not have to cross the country to have their day in court against a large corporation.