GERALDINE NEIMAN AND HERMAN NEIMAN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
COSTA LINES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, SUNSHINE TRAVEL SERVICE, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND AMERIKAN SERVICES, LTD., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Passengers sued a cruise line for sexual assault that occurred during a cruise, alleging they filed suit more than one year after the incident. The trial court granted summary judgment for the cruise line based on a one-year limitation period in the passage ticket, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the ticket did not provide adequate warning of its contractual terms and conditions.
The court held that the passage ticket did not contain a clear facial warning of the existence of a contract, and therefore a question of fact exists as to whether the appellant had actual notice of the contract. The one-year limitation clause was not enforceable as a matter of law based on the inadequate warning.
[1] A limitation period contained in a passage ticket is enforceable only if the steamship line has done all it reasonably could to warn the passenger that the terms and cond…
[2] A passage ticket must contain a clear, facial warning to the passenger regarding the existence of a contract and its important terms and conditions for a limitation perio…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the steamship line had done all it reasonably could to warn the passenger that the terms and conditions were important matters of contract affecting his legal rights”
Establishes the legal standard for enforceability of passage ticket limitations derived from The Majestic
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeraldine Neiman was allegedly sexually assaulted by a crew member during a cruise operated by appellees. Appellants filed suit more than one year aft…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
DELL, Judge.
Appellants sued appellees for damages, alleging that a crew member sexually assaulted Geraldine Neiman during a cruise on appellees’ ship. Appellants filed their suit more than one year after the alleged assault. The trial court held that a one year limitation contained in the Passage Ticket barred her claim and entered summary judgment in favor of appellees.
The enforceability of a limitation such as that contained in appellees’ Passage Ticket is governed by The Majestic, 166 U.S. 375, 17 S.Ct. 597, 41 L.Ed. 1039 (1897) and its progeny, and turns on whether “the steamship line had done all it reasonably could to warn the passenger that the terms and conditions were important matters of contract affecting his legal rights.” Silvestri v. Italia Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione, 388 F. 2d 11, 17 (2d Cir.1968). We have examined the cases cited by the parties, and note that in each case which holds the limitations enforceable, the ticket, clearly and on its face, warns the passenger that his contract for passage is subject to important terms and conditions. We have reviewed the Passage Ticket and hold as a matter of law that it did not contain a clear facial warning of the existence of a contract. We also hold that a question of fact exists as to whether appellant had actual notice of the existence of a contract. We recognize that the Third District recently considered the adequacy of such a notice in Hallman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 459 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, the ticket considered in Hallman, materially differed from appellees’ Passage Ticket.
We reverse the final summary judgment in favor of appellees and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Majestic, 166 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1897)
- Ciro Silvestri v. Italia Societa PER Azioni DI Navigazione, 388 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1968)
- Lowell M. Hallman and Eva B. Hallman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 459 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)