Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522 (1991)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Eulala and Russel Shute (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (defendant) in Washington after Eulala Shute got injured on a cruise. The cruise line moved to dismiss the case, citing a clause in their ticket contracts that required all disputes to be handled in Florida, where Carnival headquarters is located. Lower courts had mixed judgments, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

The Shutes (plaintiffs) purchased tickets for a Carnival Cruise Lines ship (defendant) through a travel agent in Washington state. After purchasing the tickets, they received paper tickets containing a form contract, which included a clause requiring all legal disputes to be handled in Florida.

During the cruise, Eulala slipped on a deck mat and got injured. They filed a lawsuit against Carnival in Washington, but the cruise line argued that pursuant to the contract, the case should be heard in Florida, and Washington district court lacked personal jurisdiction.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon

The District Court supported Carnival’s claim for insufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction in Washington and granted its motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that significant contacts with Washington existed and it would not abide by the forum selection clause. Carnival then appealed, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Can a forum selection clause in a non-negotiated contract, stating that all disputes will be brought in a specific forum, allow that forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties?

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

A forum selection clause in a non-negotiated contract can allow a specified forum to exercise personal jurisdiction unless issues of notice and fundamental fairness arise.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The majority opinion emphasized that a forum selection clause could help reduce uncertainty about where to bring litigation arising from a contract. It held that it would be unfair for Carnival to face cases nationwide and that the clause helps reduce potential litigation costs, resulting in lower ticket prices for passengers.


Conclusion Icon

The court ruled in favor of Carnival, stating that such forum selection clauses are generally enforceable, barring any notice or fairness issues.

Concurring Opinions

Judge Icon

Justices Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter concurred with the majority, seeing the utility of the forum selection clause in reducing confusion and potential litigation costs.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Icon

Justices Stevens and Marshall disagreed with the majority’s reasoning that reduced insurance premiums and litigation costs validate forum selection clauses’ reasonability.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. Forum selection clauses in non-negotiated contracts allow the specified forum to assert jurisdiction, barring any notice or fundamental fairness issues.
  2. Such clauses help reduce potential litigation costs and uncertainty regarding where to bring litigation.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What is implied by judicial fairness in forum selection clauses context?

Judicial fairness involves courts evaluation on whether a forum selection clause is fairly applied to both parties; considering aspects like inconvenience and contract clarity.

What differentiates typical contracts with forum selection clauses?

They usually contain standardized terms compared to other contracts with more flexible terms.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Civil Procedure