Q: Right after 22 Carnival Splendor passengers were robbed while hiking on a nature trail in Mexico last month, the media quoted legal experts as saying Carnival was liable for any losses or injuries because the excursion was endorsed by Carnival. Is that correct?
A: A cruise passenger would have a very hard time trying to pin liability on a cruise line for a loss or injury that occurred on a shore excursion, regardless of whether the line endorsed the tour or the excursion operator. Legally, you are definitely at risk whenever you put your safety in the hands of a local operator.
Carnival's 9,178-word ticket contract, which the Supreme Court has upheld as constituting a valid contract regardless of whether the passenger has read or understood it, states that Carnival has no liability whatsoever for what happens on shore excursions. The contract states:
"Guest acknowledges that all shore excursions/tours [are] operated [by] independent contractors. Even though Carnival shall be entitled to collect a fee and earn a profit from the ticket of such services by such persons or entities, Carnival neither supervises nor controls their actions, nor makes representation either express or implied as to their suitability. ... Guest agrees that Carnival assumes no responsibility, does not guarantee performance and shall be liable for any negligent or intentional acts or omissions, loss, damage, injury or delay to guest and/or baggage, property or effects in connection with said services."
Not only does Carnival disclaim all liability, but it also rather gratuitously goes a step further and states that whatever legal defenses are available to Carnival are also available to shore excursion operators:
"All rights, exemptions from liability, defenses and immunities of Carnival under this contract shall also inure [to the] benefit of ... independent contractors, including, but not [limited to] shore excursion or tour operators ... who shall have no liability to the guest ... which is greater than or different from that of Carnival."
For example, under the Carnival contract, you must submit a written claim for any injuries with "full particulars" within 30 days after the cruise ends, and you must file suit within six months. Any shore excursion company could take advantage of these deadlines and have a U.S. or foreign suit thrown out if the plaintiff missed them.
In the Mexico case, the cruise line immediately stated that it would reimburse the passengers for their lost money and valuables, but the line did this as a gesture of goodwill and in the interest of crisis management, not as a legal obligation.
In his book "Travel Law," Judge Thomas Dickerson aptly sums up what legal reform is sorely needed here: "Cruise ship-sponsored local tours are vigorously promoted and generate substantial revenues for the cruise line. It is fair and reasonable to hold the cruise line responsible for its own negligence in recommending dangerous tours and failing to reveal material information such as ... areas to stay away from. It is also fair to hold cruise lines liable for the tortious misconduct of third-party suppliers that the ship's crew recommends. Such an obligation will serve as an incentive to cruise lines to carefully select responsible and fully insured independent contractors subject to suit in U.S. courts."
Mark Pestronk is a Washington-based lawyer specializing in travel law. To submit a question for Legal Briefs, email him at [email protected].