Spataro v. Kloster Cruise, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 373,D,373
• Citation: 894 F.2d 44
• Parties: Cathy SPATARO and Salvatore Spataro, Appellants, v. KLOSTER CRUISE, LIMITED d/b/a Norwegian Caribbean Lines, Appellee. ocket 89-7257.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 44

894 F.2d 44

1990 A.M.C. 936

Cathy SPATARO and Salvatore Spataro, Appellants, v. KLOSTER CRUISE, LIMITED d/b/a Norwegian Caribbean Lines, Appellee.

No. 373, Docket 89-7257.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 22, 1989.

Decided Jan. 10, 1990.

Marc Reibman, Brooklyn, NY, for appellants.

Peter A. Junge, New York City (Richard M. Fricke, Lilly Sullivan Purcell Barkan & Junge, P.C., of counsel), for appellee.

Before OAKES, Chief Judge, TIMBERS and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case concerns a problem which, judging from the cases appearing in the federal casebooks, has beset a fair number of people who have had accidents while vacationing on pleasure cruises.

The appellants, Cathy and Salvatore Spataro, were passengers on the SS Norway, a cruise liner operated by appellee Kloster Cruise, Limited. According to the Spataros, on July 19, 1987, one of Kloster Cruise's stewards negligently placed a breakfast tray in their cabin, with the result that hot coffee spilled and burned Ms. Spataro's leg. The record indicates that the Spataros had retained counsel, at the very latest, by November 18, 1987. With the assistance of counsel, the Spataros subsequently sued Kloster Cruise, seeking recovery for Ms. Spataro's physical injury and Mr. Spataro's loss of consortium. The complaint was served on November 10, 1988, and Kloster Cruise removed to federal court on November 28, 1988.

A clause in the contract of passage on the ticket furnished by Kloster Cruise to the Spataros provided, "[I]n no event shall any suit for any cause against the carrier with respect to ... personal injury ... be maintainable, unless suit shall be commenced within one (1) year from the day when the ... personal injury ... occurred...." The Spataros' complaint was initiated after the one-year contractual limitations period had expired.

By an order dated March 1, 1989, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mark A. Costantino, Judge, found the one-year contractual limitations period valid and accordingly granted summary judgment to Kloster Cruise. On appeal, the Spataros challenge the validity of Kloster Cruise's contractual limitations period. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Federal law places at least two constraints upon a sea carrier's use of a contractual limitations period. First, a federal statute requires that any such limitations period allow the passenger at least one year from the date of injury to sue. See 46 U.S.C. App. Sec. 183b(a) (Supp. V 1987). Kloster Cruise's limitations period complies with this provision.

Second, courts decline to incorporate a limitations period into a passenger ticket contract when the ticket does not sufficiently alert the passengers as to the restriction on their rights. The seminal case in this regard is Silvestri v. Italia Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione, 388 F.2d 11 (2d Cir.1968), an opinion written by Judge Friendly refusing to enforce a sea carrier's contractual limitations period on grounds that the carrier had failed "to impress the importance of the terms and conditions upon the passenger." See id. at 17.

Silvestri leaves some ambiguity as to the standard a sea carrier must satisfy to limit the time in which a passenger may sue. Prior to examining the ticket at issue in Silvestri, Judge Friendly canvassed precedent and concluded that "the thread that runs implicitly through the cases sustaining incorporation [of contractual limitations periods] is that 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." See id. (emphasis added). Other circuits and district courts within our circuit have taken note of Silvestri's "all it reasonably could" language and, by and large, have read it to stand for a standard of reasonable communicativeness. ¹ Likewise, we interpret Silvestri to require that sea carriers reasonably communicate any limitations period to their passengers.

The ticket at issue constituted eight pages, approximately three-and-one-half inches high and eight inches wide--comparable to a typical airline ticket. The first page bore the insignia of Norwegian Caribbean Lines, the name under which Kloster Cruise was doing business. The second page, which was highlighted with the headline "IMPORTANT!", requested, in bold lettering and large type, that passengers identify their baggage and complete their embarkation cards before arriving for the cruise. The parties have not furnished the third or fourth pages. The fifth page is the passenger copy of the pertinent trip information. The top of the fifth page contains Norwegian Caribbean Lines' insignia in heavy bold letters and large type. Most of the remainder of the fifth page lists things such as the passengers' names, the date of departure, the cabin number, and the fare. The bottom left-hand corner of the fifth page is boxed off in red print and contains a caution, also in red print. The caution starts with "NOTICE," displayed in medium-sized lettering. Then, in much smaller letters, the caution continues "THE PASSENGER'S ATTENTION IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT APPEARING ON PAGES 6, 7, AND 8." At the top of the sixth page, the ticket states in bold letters, "Passengers are advised to read the terms and conditions of the Passenger...