Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Morrow v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
Citations: 262 F. Supp. 2d 474; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26576; 2002 WL 32091779Docket: CIV.A. 1:CV 02-0384
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; October 21, 2002; Federal District Court
Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line filed a motion to transfer venue from the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the Southern District of Florida, citing a forum selection clause in the passenger ticket contract that mandated all lawsuits related to injuries during the cruise be filed in Dade County, Florida. Plaintiff Renee Morrow, a minor, was allegedly injured while on the cruise on March 11, 2001, and her parents purchased the tickets that included the contested forum selection clause. The plaintiffs argued that the minor status of Renee Morrow rendered her not bound by the contract terms, thus making the Middle District of Pennsylvania a proper venue. The court examined whether a minor can be exempted from a valid forum selection clause, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, which upheld the enforceability of such clauses. The court found no Third Circuit or Supreme Court precedent regarding minors and forum selection clauses but cited cases from other circuits where minors were held accountable for the terms of contracts they benefited from. Courts in cases such as Igneri v. Carnival Corp. and Paster v. Putney Student Travel have established that minors cannot accept the benefits of a contract while simultaneously avoiding its obligations. Based on these precedents, the court indicated a likelihood of upholding the forum selection clause against the minor, leading to the conclusion that the motion to transfer venue would be granted. In Paster, a minor plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a travel agency for an infection contracted during a trip attributed to unsanitary conditions. The court enforced a forum selection clause, determining that the plaintiff, by participating in the trip, had accepted the contract's benefits and was thus bound by its terms. No cases were cited by the plaintiff’s counsel, nor found by the court, in which a forum selection clause was not enforced solely due to the plaintiff's minor status. The court noted that since the plaintiff benefited from the contract by taking the cruise, it would be inequitable to release her from the obligations of that contract. Consequently, the court ordered the venue to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case was distinguished from Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Limited, where a forum selection clause was not enforced against a minor because it was part of a contract with her father, while here, the plaintiff had her own contract with Norwegian Cruise Line.