Carnival Cruise Lines - Case Study Example

2.2 The Case Law principally is Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), which found that “in light of present-day commercial realities and expanding international trade we conclude that the forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside.” 2.3 Statutory Law is 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), which provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought" (forum non conveniens). 3. Analysis – The spouses Shute boarded the Tropicale in Los Angeles, California, on a cruise to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and back.

On the return trip, as the ship passed international waters, Eulala Shute slipped on a deck mat during a guided tour of the ship’s galley and was injured. The spouses filed suit, alleging negligence against the ship’s owners, Carnival Cruise Lines, and its employees. The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Washington’s Western District. Carnival contended that the proper forum for the resolution of the dispute is in Florida, on the basis of the terms and conditions of the Passenger Contract Ticket. . It also noted that a cruise line has a special interest in limiting the fora where it may be brought to court, because its customers can come from any number of locations as it is a business that transports people from place to place, and that passengers benefit from reduced fares due to the savings the cruise line realizes by limiting the fora for litigation.

REACTION Upon reading the full text of the decision and after careful consideration, I would tend to disagree with the decision of the majority, and side with the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice Marshall. On the reasons given, I disagree that Carnival would be open to litigation in any number of places, because its customers would be concentrated in those areas it does business in. If Carnival has agents that market its services in certain areas, then Carnival earns money from them in their place of residence; they have sufficient operations in that area because their agent acts in their name and with their authorization.

Furthermore, I disagree with the decision that savings from not incurring costs from filing pretrial motions directly translate to customers’ lower fares; what is certain is that without assuming anything else, it automatically adds to the firm’s profits. “Section 1404(a) is.intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” (Stewart Organization, Inc. v Ricoh Corporation, 487 U.S. 22 [1988]).

The conditions in Bremen are unlike those in Carnival. I side with Justices Stevens and Marshall in observing that in Bremen the parties were