Connelly, Marjorie A.

English

DOCS@RWU

Roger Williams University Law ReviewVolume 7 | Issue 2 Article 11Spring 20022001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Tort/Contract LawMarjorie A. ConnellyRoger Williams University School of LawFollow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LRThis Survey of Rhode Island Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion inRoger Williams University Law Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact mwu@rwu.edu.Recommended CitationConnelly, Marjorie A. (2002) "2001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Tort/Contract Law," Roger Williams University Law Review:Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 11.Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol7/iss2/1120021 SURVEY SECTION 429Tort/Contract. Tateosian v. Celebrity Cruise Serv. Ltd., 768 A.2d1248 (R.I. 2001). Cruise ticket that contained a time limitation forbringing cases and a forum selection clause was held valid due totimely notice and acceptance of the terms by payment.FACTS AND TRAVELThis is an appeal from a summary judgment ruling dismissingthe negligence claim on the grounds that under the cruise contractthere was a one year limitation for commencement of litigation andthis case was not bought in one year.' The motion justice concludedthat the forum selection clause was reasonable and valid.2The plaintiffs received the embarkation coupon with a twopage document that set forth the important contract clauses. 3 Theplaintiffs did not have to pay until they signed the embarkationcoupon.4 The embarkation coupon would not be valid if the twopage document had been detached before boarding.5The plaintiffs purchased tickets for a cruise to begin on March29, 1997.6 While aboard the ship, the plaintiff became ill from foodpoisoning.7 She was hospitalized for ten days and missed severalweeks of employment." The plaintiffs filed suit in October 1998,alleging negligence in food preparation for passenger meals. s OnSeptember 1999 Celebrity filed a motion for summary judgment. 10The district court judge concluded that the issue of notice in forumselection clause cases is a question of law, and therefore there wasno question of material fact remaining."ANALYSIS AND HOLDINGWhile forum selection clauses are subject to judicial scrutinyfor fundamental fairness, 12 the court found that they are consid-1. Tateosian v. Celebrity Cruise Serv. Ltd., 768 A.2d 1248, 1249 (R.I. 2001).2. Id.3. Id. at 1251.4. Id.5. Id.6. Id. at 1250.7. Id.8. Id.9. Id.10. Id.11. Id. at 1249-50.12. Id. at 1250.430 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 7:403ered prima facie valid. 13 The challenger to the fundamental fair-ness of the forum selection clause has a heavy burden of proof tomeet. 14 A cruise line can shorten the time-limitation to not lessthan one year from date of injury.' 5The court recited a two-prong test to the fundamental fairnessof the forum selection clause. 16 The first prong is facial clarity ofthe clause on the ticket.17 The next prong is that the passengerhas the opportunity to become informed about the clause.1sIn this case, the plaintiff did not have to pay until after signingthe embarkation coupon and reading the material regarding limitson the right to sue. This was clear notice to the plaintiffs that suchlimitations existed.The court went on to explain that even if the plaintiffs did notread the limitation at the time they purchased the ticket, theyshould have once they realized they had a cause of action. 19 If theydid not have a copy, then they should have contacted the cruiseline to obtain a copy of the limitations. 20 The cruise line, in a re-sponse to the notice of suit, notified the plaintiffs that their rightswere limited by the cruise ticket.2 ' The plaintiffs then should havefollowed up and found out what those limitations were. 22CONCLUSIONThe plaintiffs had the opportunity to read the limitations ontheir rights before paying for the tickets and the tickets clearlystated that there were limitations. Based on these two factors thecourt up held the summary judgment.Maijorie A. Connelly13. Id.14. Id. (quoting Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 592(1991)).15. Id. (referring to 46 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 183(a)).16. Id. at 1251.17. Id.18. Id.19. Id.20. Id.21. Id.22. Id.

2001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Tort/Contract Law

HELIN Digital Commons

https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1231&amp;context=rwu_LR

2001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Tort/Contract Law

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DOCS@RWU

HELIN Digital Commons

HELIN Digital Commons