TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME:UPDATED

TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME:UPDATED[ A DISCUSSION OF SELECTED ISSUES WHICH OFTEN ARISE IN TRAVEL CASES: CHOICE OF LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE ENFORCEABILITY OF FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES IN TRAVEL CONTRACTS ] Originally Published In The International Travel Law Journal, Fall 1998 And May Not Reproduced Without The Permission Of Thomas A. Dickerson August 15, 2000 Revision Number 1 By Judge Thomas A. Dickerson1 Traveling abroad, whether by international air carrier2, aboard a cruiseship3 or while participating in a tour4, can be a wonderful experience until you have an accident. This was, especially, true for these unlucky tourists: (1) Killed in Egypt [ Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp.5 ( guests murdered in hotel restaurant by terrorists )]; Klinghofer v. Achille Lauro6 ( tourist murdered on cruiseship by terrorists )]; Iceland [ Travel Weekly7, " A female passenger aboard Orient Lines' Marco Polo was killed in a snowmobile accident July 24 during a shore excursion on the Langjokull Glacier near Reykjavik, Iceland " ]; Nassau [ Carlisle v. Ulysses Line, Ltd.8 ( robbers ambush and murder cruise passenger on beach )]; Maui, Hawaii [ Travel Weekly9, " Six passengers, pilot killed in Maui tour helicopter crash " ]; Bahamas [ Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc.10 ( cruise passenger drowns while being transported from ship to shore for excursion )]; British Columbia [ Goldstein v. D.D.B. Needham11 ( five adventure tourists killed during rafting accident )]; Cozumel, Mexico [ Varey v. Canadian Helicopters Limited12 ( cruise passengers drown when helicopter crashes on return to Cozumel, Mexico from tour of ruins in Chichen Itza )]; Cave Creek, Arizona [ Love v. Maritz, Inc.13 ( car salesmen on sales incentive tour are burned to death when hot air balloon crashes in desert )]; Great Barrier Reef, Australia [ Reuters14, Tourists Mutiny Over Holiday In Hell ( dive boat captain strands two U.S. divers on the Great Barrier Reef who then drown and are eaten by sharks )]. (2) Assaulted in Florida [ Hardy v. Pier 99 Motor Inn15 ( guests stabbed in hotel parking lot )]; Puerto Rico [ Woods-Leber v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico16 ( mongoose attacks guest sunbathing at hotel pool )]; Jamaica [ Schreiber v. Camm17 ( guests at Jamaican vacation estate shot by security guard )]; Cayman Islands [ Wilson v. American Trans Air, Inc.18 ( guest assaulted at hotel )]; St. Thomas ( Manahan v. NWA, Inc.19 ( tourist mugged on walk to restaurant from hotel )]; Galapagos Islands [ O'Keefe v. Inca Floats, Inc.20 ( sexual assault during cruise to Galapagos Islands )]. (3) Raped in the Bahamas [ Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.21 ( guest raped at resort ) ]; Loretti v. Holiday Inns, Inc.22 ( hotel guest raped on safe beach )]; Jamaica [ Catalano v. NWA, Inc.23 ( tourist raped during sailing excursion on a two-person sunfish sailboat ); Creteau v. Liberty Travel, Inc.24 ( tourist raped and robbed in Jamaica )]; Cayman Islands [ Wilson v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd.25 ( guest raped at hotel )]; at sea [ Morton v. De Oliviera26 ( passenger raped on cruiseship ); Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines27 ( passenger raped by crew member; removed from ship and abandoned on shore )]. (4) Robbed in Puerto Rico [ Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line28 ( cruise passengers robbed and stabbed on pier )]; Grand Bahamas [ Fling v. Hollywood Travel and Tours29 ( tourist shot and robbed )]; Kenya [ Dow v. Abercrombie & Kent30 ( tourists on safari assaulted and robbed by bandits while camping in the Oloolo Escarpment in the Masai Mara reserve )]; Jamaica [ Travel Weekly31 " A dozen passengers sailing on Holland America Line's Noordam were robbed at gunpoint at the Prospect Plantation in Ochos Rios, Jamaica " ]; New Orleans, Louisiana [ Searcy v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.32 ( guest attending meeting of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary robbed in his hotel room )]. (5) Swimming in the Dominican Republic [ Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A.33 ( tourist struck by motorboat while swimming off the beach )]; Costa Rica [ Mayer v. Cornell University34 ( tourist on birdwatching tour of Costa Rica drowns while snorkeling off the Il de Cano )]; Cabo San Lucas, Mexico [ Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Company35 ( tourist drowns snorkeling off of Lovers' Beach )]; Cayman Islands [ Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman Ltd.36 ( tourist drowns in ocean )]; Maui, Hawaii [ Rygg v. County of Maui37 ( hotel guest is paralyzed and rendered a quadriplegic in surfing accident off of Kamaoele II Beach )]; Jamaica [ Reid-Walen v. Hansen38 ( tourist run over by motor boat while swimming in the crystal clear waters of Jamaica )]; Island of Hawaii [ Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters39 ( scuba diver drowns diving in the Deep Reef )]; Taiwan [ Sun v. Taiwan40 ( tourist drowns during recreational visit to Ken-Ting National Park )]; Guadeloupe [ Sankaran v. Club Mediterranee, S.A.41 ( guest on snorkeling excursion abandoned and forced to return to Club Med facility by swimming and walking on sharp reef )]; Cancun, Mexico [ Rodriguez v. Class Travel Worldwide42 ( minor tourist on Grad Trip 1998 to Cancun pushed into hotel pool and suffers tragic injuries ); Sova v. Apple Vacations43 ( tourist injures back during scuba dive on snorkeling excursion )]; Acapulco, Mexico [ Feldman v. Acapulco Princess Hotel44 ( accident at hotel pool )]; Hong Kong [ Nowak v. Tak How Inc. Ltd45 ( guest drowns in hotel pool )]; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [ Darby v. Societe Des Hotels Meridien46 ( hotel guest drowns in ocean )]. (6) Riding camels in Egypt [ MacLachlin v. Marriott Corporation47 ( tourist thrown from angry camel breaks eight ribs and fractures pelvis )]; horses in Jamaica [ Colby v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc.48 ( horse riding accident during shore excursion )]; Copper Canyon, Mexico [ Honeycutt v. Tour Carriage, Inc.49 ( tourist at Club Med facility thrown from horse and breaks ankle )]; Sonora Bay, Mexico [ May v. Club Med Sales, Inc.50 ( guest at Sonora Bay Club Med thrown from horse )]; Bahamas [ Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd.51 ( tourist thrown from horse )]; Acapulco, Mexico [ Barber v. Princess Hotels International52 ( horse riding accident )]. (7) Riding in tour buses or limos in Vietnam [ Pearl Cruises v. Cohon53 ( cruise passengers injured in automobile accident during shore excursion )]; Morroco [ Davies v. General Tours, Inc.54 ( tourist injured exiting tour bus )]; St. Thomas [ Lubick v. Travel Services, Inc.55 ( driver lost control and wrecked tour bus )]; Glasgow, Scotland [ Ramage v. Forbes International, Inc.56 ( tour bus accident )]; Mali [ Winter v. I.C. Holidays, Inc.57 ( bus accident; driver unlicenced and uninsured )]; Germany [ Chouset v. American Airlines, Inc.58 ( tour bus door closes on tourist's arm )]; Bahamas [ Fertels v. Resorts International59 ( motor vehicle accident in the Bahamas )]; Quebec, Canada [ Lowy v. Heimann's Bus Tours, Inc.60 ( tour bus accident )]; Spain [ Rovinsky v. Hispanidad Holidays, Inc.61 ( accident in tour bus advertised as being safe )]; Cozumel, Mexico [ DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd62 ( scooter accident )]; Acapulco, Mexico [ Dubret v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc.63 ( bus transporting guest from hotel to airport collides with garbage truck )]; Egypt [ Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc.64 ( tour van accident )]; England [ McCartney v. Windsor, Inc.65 ( tour bus accident )]. (8) Driving a rental car in the Bahamas [ Sadkin v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.66 ( rental car accident )]; Mexico [ Chung v. Chrysler Corp.67 ( students killed in rental car crash )]; Italy [ Travalja v. Maieliano Tours68 ( rental car accident ) ]; England [ Weiner v. B.O.A.C.69 ( rental car accident )]; Rumania [ Kermisch v. Avis Rent-A-Car70 ( tourists arrested in Rumania for mistreating their rental vehicle ) ]. (9) Jumping into the ocean [ Smith v. Chason71 ( minor tourist jumps into ocean during booze cruise and drowns after being struck with ship's propellers )]; off of trains [ Meurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.72 ( female student crushed by steel wheels of party train to Mazatlan, Mexico ) ]; off of balconies [ Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.73 ( 18 year old student jumps to death from hotel balcony in Mazatlan, Mexico); Powell v. Trans Global Tours, Inc.74 ( guest leans against hotel balcony rail and falls to ground in Mexico )]. (10) Boating in the Bahamas [ Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services75 ( boating accident ); United Shipping Co. v. Witmer76 ( cruise passenger drowns during boat tour )]; sail boating in the ocean [ McAleer v. Smith77 ( sail trainees drown after vessel capsizes during race )]; cruising the Nile River [ Elsis v. TWA78 ( cruise boat burns to the waterline as Captain and crew abandon ship and passengers )]; canoeing in a river [ Glenview Park District v. Melhus79 ( canoeist who drowned during trip down river was promised that canoeing would be perfectly safe )]; whale watching in British Columbia [ Rawlins v. Clipper Cruise Line80 ( accident during whale watching excursion in waters off Victoria Harbor )]; jet boat excursion in Hell's Canyon [ Walther v. Hell's Canyon Adventures81 ( white water rafting accident )]; speed boating in China [ Wong Mee Wan v. Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd.82 ( tourist drowns in speedboat accident )]. (11) Para-sailing in Cancun, Mexico [ Hernandez v. Quality Inns, Inc.83 ( tourist falls to death in para-sailing accident )]. (12) Playing tennis in Hawaii [ Anderson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc84 ( guest falls on hotel tennis court )]; playing golf in Bermuda [ Bruemmer v. Marriott Corporation85 ( while searching for lost ball golfer falls to death from cliff adjacent to tee area for the 18th hole )]; hiking in the Mohonk Mountain Preserve [ Bouchard v. Smiley Brothers, Inc.86 ( tourist falls to death during hiking expedition )]; bicycling in Virginia [ Coles v. Jenkins ( tourist killed bicycling during Virginia Horse and Wine Country tour )]; Yosemite National Park [ Pau v. Yosemite Park87 ( tourist killed riding on trails advertised as being safe )]; snowmobiling in Colorado [ Grutkowski v. Steamboat Lake Guides & Outfitters, Inc.88 ( snowmobiling accident in Routt National Forest in Colorado )]; tube-riding in the Bahamas [ Schettino v. Paradise Beach Inn, Ltd.89 ( tourist injured in tube ride pulled by motorboat )]; scuba diving in Puerto Rico [ Torres v. National Association of Underwater Instructors90 ( tourist injured during scuba dive )]. (13) Riding in airplanes in China [ Barkanic v. General Administrator of Civil Aviation91 ( tourist killed in airplane crash during tour )]; La Paz, Bolivia [ Philippe v. Lloyd's Aero Boliviano92 ( tourist takes plane to La Paz traveling from sea level to an altitude of 13,313 feet within 40 minutes during which he suffers cerebral injuries due to hypoxia )]; Kenya [ Abercrombie & Kent v. Carlson Marketing Group93 ( tourists killed when plane crashes into a mountain )]. (14) Sweating in Montana [ Paster v. Putney Student Travel, Inc.94 ( tourist contracts oral yeast infections after smoking a tobacco filed pipe during a sweat ceremony on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana )]. (15) Walking in Volcanos National Park, Hawaii ( Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc.95 ( tourist falls on hot lava rocks )]; South Africa [ Connolly v. Samuelson96 ( tourist falls during walking safari )]; Fiji Islands [ Lavine v. General Mills, Inc.97 ( tourist falls on slippery rocks )]; Canadian Rockies [ Cohen v. Heritage Motor Tours, Inc.98 ( tourist falls crossing stream )]; Minahasu Highlands, Indonesia ( Carney v. Singapore Airlines99 ( tourist wearing only shorts and sandals falls into steaming hot sulphur vent and is severely burned )]; Brazil [ Stevenson v. Four Winds Travel, Inc.100 ( tourist falls on slimy pier in Amazon River, Brazil )]; Egypt [ Sanders v. Nabila Tours & Cruises101 ( tourist injured during tour of Catacombs Hala )]. (16) Being poisoned by adulterated food [ McFadden v. Staley102 ( restaurant patrons ill from eating adulterated food ) ]; tainted water [ Klein v. Marriott International, Inc.103 ( contaminated water at Bermuda hotel )]; carbon monoxide [ Assicurazioni Generali, SPA v. Neil104 ( hotel guests injured from carbon monoxide poisoning )]; shigella [ Averitt v. Southland Motor Inn of Oklahoma105 ( food poisoning from ingestion of shigella )]; Legionnaire's Disease [ Freeman v. Celebrity Lines, Inc.106 ( cruise passengers contract Legionnare's disease ); Russell v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.107 ( Legionnare's Disease; travel agent has no duty to warn )]. Life Is Very Different Abroad Travelers assume that should they have an accident in a foreign country they will be protected by the same safety standards, high quality medical care, consumer protection laws and user friendly legal system available in the United States. The reality, however, is quite the opposite. In many foreign countries (1) The safety standards are much lower [ see Wilson v. Best Travel108 ( tourist falls through weak plate glass window in Athens hotel; plate glass thickness standards lower in Greece than in England where tourist resided ); Carley v. Theatre Development Fund109 ( tourist falls through window at hotel in St. Petersburg, Russia ); Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.110 ( 18 year old tourist from Arizona consumes large quantities of alcoholic beverages for three days and jumps to death from third story hotel balcony; Arizona Dram Shop law does not apply; drinking age in Mexico is lower than in Arizona ); Cicchiello v. Reney Tours Plane Broker, Inc.111 ( tourist injured when gas stove at hotel exploded )]. (2) The quality of medical care is much lower [ DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd.112 ( cruise passenger on shore excursion suffers injuries in motor scooter accident; medical malpractice by local infirmary in Cozumel, Mexico ); Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line113 ( malpractice by ship's doctor ); Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc.114 ( malpractice by ship's doctor ); Blinzler v. Marriott International, Inc.115 ( guest suffers heart attack at hotel; surviving spouse claims delay in obtaining medical assistance caused death; hotel liable for delay in calling emergency aid ); Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines. Ltd.116 ( passenger raped by crewmember and misdiagnosed as having had heart attack ); Room v. Caribe Hilton Hotel117 ( delay in providing medical assistance to heart attack victim ); Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines118 ( airline crew failed to assist passenger with heart attack; damages of $1.8 million awarded to passenger for aggravation of damage to heart; $600,000 loss of consortium )]. (3) The law is less sympathetic to the injured traveler in, among other places, (a) Egypt [ MacLachlin v. Marriott Corporation119 ( tourist thrown from angry camel in Egypt; " an Egyptian forum which is based partially on Koranic law would be unduly harsh to plaintiff " )]; (b) France [ In Re Air Crash Off Long Island, New York120 ( air crash; France does not allow punitive damages )]; (c) Dominican Republic [ Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A.121 ( tourist struck by motor boat while swimming; Dominican Republic does not recognize product liability claims )]; (d) Turkey [ Mercier v. Sheraton International, Inc.122 ( contract dispute; Turkey may not recognize claims for breach of contract or tortious interference with contract )]; (e) Hong Kong [ Nowack v. Tak How Inv. Ltd.123 ( drowning accident; law uncertain in Hong Kong )]; (f) Malaysia [ Simcox v. McDermott International124 ( slip and fall on barge; Malaysia has similar substantiative law to U.S. )]; (g) Cayman Islands [ Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman Ltd.125 ( recovery for wrongful death in Cayman Island may not exceed $5000 )]; (h) China [ Barkanic v. General Administration of Civil Aviation126 ( air crash; maximum recoverable damages limited to $20,000 ]; (i) Mexico [ Wendelken v. Superior Court127 ( slip and fall; Mexico limits lost wage damages to 25 pesos per day )]; Hernandez v. Burger128 ( auto accident; Mexican law limits recovery to the amount of the injured's party's medical and rehabilitative expenses and lost wages at the minimum rate )]. and (4) The legal system discourages litigation by, among other things, barring contingency fee arrangements with attorneys and jury trials in, among other places, (a) Bermuda [ Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp.129 ( hotel guest playing golf falls off cliff adjacent to tee area for 18th hole and subsequently dies from his injuries; no contingent fees in Bermuda )]; (b) Bahamas [ Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.130 ( 18 year old female guest raped at hotel; no jury trials or contingency fees in Bahamas )]; (c) France [ In Re Air Crash Off Long Island, New York131 ( air crash; France does not allow contingency fee arrangements )]; (d) Cayman Islands [ Wilson v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd.132 ( rape at hotel; no contingency fees or jury trials in Cayman Islands ); Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman Ltd.133 ( no contingency fees or jury trials in Cayman Islands )]; (e) Jamaica [ Reid-Walen v. Hansen134 ( motorboat accident; no contingency fees or jury trials in Jamaica ); Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc.135 ( no contingency fees or jury trials in Jamaica )]; (f) England [ Neville v. Anglo American Management136 ( tour bus accident; no contingency fees or jury trails in England )]; (g) Trinidad and Tobago [ Flynn v. General Motors, Inc.137 ( car accident; no jury trial in Trinidad and Tobago )]; (h) Finland [ Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Oy Wartsila AB138 ( accident aboard cruiseship; no jury trials in Finland )]; (i) Israel [ Gyenes v. Zionist Organization of America139 ( student drowned in Jordan River; no right to jury trial in Israel )]. Is The Forum Selected Convenient? Travelers injured abroad may commence a lawsuit in a U.S. court against a cruiseline, foreign hotel, tour bus company or various other ground operators. In response the defendants may seek to dismiss the lawsuit because the U.S. forum selected is not convenient [ forum non conveniens ] or a clause in the cruise passenger ticket, hotel registration form or tour participant contract states that all lawsuits must be brought in a specific forum [ forum selection clause ]. In addition, the defendants may seek an early determination by the Court that the law of a foreign country applies to one or more issues in the case [ choice of law ]. The applicable law, foreign or domestic, bears on the convenience of the selected forum. The theory being that foreign Courts are better able to interpret their own law than the Courts of a U.S. forum [ Mercier v. Sheraton International, Inc.140 ( contract dispute; difficulty in interpreting Turkish law one reason for dismissal ); Rudisill v. Sheraton Copenhagen Corp.141 ( fall in Danish hotel bathtub; Danish courts better able to apply Danish law ); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Oy Wartsila AB142 ( contract dispute; Finnish courts better able to interpret Finnish law )]. Should the Court grant a forum non conveniens motion it may condition dismissal upon the defendant agreeing to the transfer of the case to a distant forum for trial [ Chhawchharia v. The Boeing Co.143 ( dismissal subject to defendant submitting to jurisdiction of English or Scottish courts, waiving any statute of limitation defense, conceding liability for all compensatory damages, providing access to all evidence, and paying the awarded damages ); Diaz v. Mexicana de Avion, S.A.144 ( dismissal subject to defendant accepting service in and jurisdiction of Mexican courts, waiving statute of limitations, producing all evidence and witnesses, and agreeing to satisfy any judgments ); Fertels v. Resorts International145 ( dismissal subject to accepting service and waiving statute of limitations )]. Such a result may mean the termination of the lawsuit since the litigation costs and general inhospitableness of many foreign jurisdictions makes it virtually impossible to proceed. Plaintiff's Choice Is Important Although it is not dispositive [ Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno146 ( air crash )] the forum selected by the plaintiff, particularly if he or she resides in that forum, will be given serious consideration prior to dismissing a lawsuit on the grounds of forum non conveniens [ Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp.147 ( murder in Egyptian hotel; " the choice of an American court over a foreign court should be given the heightened deference " ); Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.148 ( guest raped at hotel in Bahamas ); Anderson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.149 ( guest falls on hotel tennis court ); Smith v. Chason150 ( minor tourist drowns during booze cruise ); Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc.151 ( tourist falls on hot lava rocks at Volcanoes National Park ); Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services152 ( boating accident in the Bahamas ); Carter v. Trafalgar Tours, Ltd.153 ( auto accident in Austria )]. Residing or Doing Business in the Forum If the plaintiff and the defendant reside in or are doing business in the selected forum the Courts will rarely dismiss the lawsuit [ Flynn v. General Motors, Inc.154 ( accident in Trinidad and Tobago; plaintiff from New York; lawsuit in New York; defendant doing business in New York ); Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp.155 ( accident in Bermuda; plaintiff from Illinois; lawsuit in Illinois; one of defendants doing business in Illinois ); Wilson v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd.156( accident in Cayman Islands; plaintiff from Indiana; lawsuit in Iowa; defendant-franchisor Tennessee corporation has agent in Iowa; defendant-franchisee Cayman Island corporation with offices in Tennessee ); Kermisch v. Avis Rent-A-Car157 ( tort in Rumania; plaintiff from New York; defendant-franchisor doing business in New York )]. The reasoning is that taxpayers should have access to the local courts. The converse, that non taxpayers should not have easy access to the local courts, is also true. Some Courts presume that a defendant who can afford an office in the forum is also able to respond to local lawsuits. In Sadkin v. Avis Rent A Car System158, a case involving a rental car accident in the Bahamas, the Court refused to dismiss the lawsuit because the rental car franchisor and decedent resided in New York State. Advertising In The Forum If a defendant advertises and solicits business in the forum it should expect to be available for lawsuits brought by injured residents. In Reid-Walen v. Hansen159, a case involving a motorboat accident in the Bahamas, the Court found that because of a Bahamian hotel's solicitation of business in the U.S. it " should not be ( totally ) surprised...that they may be sued in the courts of the U.S. " And In Nowak v. Tak How Inv. Ltd160., a case involving a drowning in a Hong Kong hotel pool, the Court held that a cost of doing business is being available to respond to lawsuits in the U.S. The Nowak Court also declared that Massachusetts, where the lawsuit was brought, had a strong interest in protecting its citizens from solicitations for unsafe services [ Carter v. Trafalgar Tours, Ltd.161 ( auto accident in Austria ); Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp.162 ( golfing accident in Bermuda ); Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman, Ltd.163 ( tourist drowns in ocean off of Cayman Islands ); Radigan v. Innisbrook Resort164 ( tourist falls in Florida hotel )]. Availability Of Alternative Forum Generally, the Court will not dismiss a lawsuit unless there is an alternative forum available to hear plaintiff's claim. As stated by one Court " The court must be alert to the realities of the plaintiff's position, financial or otherwise, and his or her abilities as a practical matter to bring suit in the alternate forum "165. The Courts differ widely on just how different the alternative forum can be to still be " available ". Such factors as whether the foreign forum recognizes U.S. legal theories [ Mercier v. Sheraton International, Inc.166 ( failure to show that Turkish law expressly recognizes claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract )], allows continency fee arrangements with attorneys [ Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc.167 ( no contingency fees in Jamaica )], provides for jury trials [ Flynn v. General Motors, Inc168. ( no jury trials in Trinidad and Tobago )] and limits recoverable damages [ Abouchalache v. Hilton International Co.169 ( limit on punitive damages not dispositive )( see above for other cases )]. Plaintiff's Emotional Burden In Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp.170 tourists were shot and murdered at hotel restaurant in Egypt. In denying a motion to dismiss the lawsuit the Court noted the emotional burden of having family members travel to Egypt. " Plaintiffs are atypical in that they are either the widows or the victim of a murderous act directed specially against foreigners. Understandably, they are strongly adverse to litigating in a country where foreigners have been the target of hostile attacks and have concerns for their own safety if required to travel there ". Location Of Witnesses & Evidence Proving or defending an accident case may require the production of witnesses and documentary and physical evidence which is located in the distant forum where the accident occurred. In arguing for dismissal the defendant will show the Court a list of essential witnesses which are beyond the Court's jurisdiction and, hence, unavailable for trial [ Dunham v. Hotelera Canco, S.A.171 ( snorkeling accident in Mexico; witnesses not subject to subpoena power of U.S. courts ); Carney v. Singapore Airlines172 ( tour accident in Indonesia; defendant would not be able to subpoena witnesses if action brought in U.S. ); Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors173 ( French witnesses not subject to subpoena power of U.S. courts ); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. OY Wartsila AB174 ( Finnish witnesses and experts beyond subpoena power of U.S. courts )]. The defendant may also assert that the jury must have a view of the accident scene [ Rudisill v. Sheraton Copenhagen Corp.175 ( guest falls in hotel bathtub; view of site important consideration )]. The Court must examine the actual necessity of each listed witness [ Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A.176 ( Spanish tourist struck by motorboat while swimming of the beach in Dominican Republic; all 41 witnesses to the accident lived in Dominican Republic and spoke only Spanish; motion to dismiss granted ); Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services177 ( boating accident in the Bahamas; all witnesses to the accident in the Bahamas; motion to dismiss granted ); Anderson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.178 ( guest falls on hotel tennis court; although most witnesses reside in Hawaii the defendant failed to identify any of them; motion to transfer denied ); Abouchalache v. Hilton International Co.179 ( bomb explosion at London hotel; necessary witnesses and view of accident scene in London; motion to dismiss granted ); Sarfaty v. Rainbow Helicopters, Inc.180 ( witnesses to helicopter accident located in Canada )] and decide whether there are alternative forms of evidence which will make the witness's presence unnecessary such as dispositions, video presentations and sworn statements [ Delarosa v. Holiday Inn181 ( guest falls at North Carolina hotel; testimony of New York medical witnesses may be videotaped; motion to transfer to North Carolina granted ); Broussard v. Deauville Hotel Resorts, Inc182 ( guest falls in Miami hotel; motion to transfer granted; medical witnesses may testify via video deposition ); Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp.183 ( admissions, video tapes, models, photographs acceptable alternative evidence )]. On occasion the non-resident witness may be an employee of the resident defendant and the Court may require the employer to produce such a witness at its own expense [ MacLachlin v. Marriott Corp.184 ( Egyptian bell captain could be ordered to appear at trial in New York by resident employer hotel corporation )]. Choice of Law & Court Congestion If the case involves the application of foreign law then the Court may wish to consider whether a foreign court would not be in better position to interpret its own law [ Mercier v. Sheraton International, Inc.185 ( contract dispute; difficulty in interpreting Turkish law one reason for dismissal ); Rudisill v. Sheraton Copenhagen Corp.186 ( fall in Danish hotel bathtub; Danish courts better able to apply Danish law ); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Oy Wartsila AB187 ( contract dispute; Finnish courts better able to interpret Finnish law )]. Another factor which a Court may consider is the extent to which the transferee Court is able to handle the case sent to it. In Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas, Ltd.188 the Court refused to transfer a case to the Calcutta High Court in India because there were only two Judges available to handle a backlog of 156,477 pending cases. Describing the Indian court as " almost on the verge of collapse " the Court concluded that it was not " available " in any practical sense [ see also: Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc.189 ( Hawaii courts less congested than those in New York; motion to transfer to Hawaii granted )]. Forum Selection Clauses It is quite common for travel suppliers to insert a clause into their consumer contracts requiring dissatisfied customers to file lawsuits in a specific forum, typically, one which is convenient for the travel supplier but not for the consumer. Such clauses can have a dramatic effect upon the consumer's enthusiasm in prosecuting his or her claim. Stated, simply, the further away the Court is the less likely it is that the aggrieved consumer will file a lawsuit. This is because the cost of traveling to a distant court house and the cost of retaining out of state and, particularly, out of country attorneys [ no contingency fee arrangements in most foreign jurisdictions ( see discussion above ) ] is too great to justify serious litigation. And this is, of course, the very reason why forum selection clauses are so popular with travel suppliers. Forum Selection Clauses Are Gaining Popularity The Courts have addressed the enforceability of forum selection clauses in travel contracts issued by (a) Cruiselines [ Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shutte190 ( Florida forum selection clause enforced ); Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.191 ( Greek forum selection clause enforced ); Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.192 ( Greek forum selection clause not enforced ); Hodes v. SNC Achille Lauro193 ( Naples forum selection clause enforced ); O.C. Harden v. American Airlines194 ( Hawaii forum selection clause enforced ); Jewel Seafoods, Ltd. v. M/V Peace River195 ( Chinese forum selection clause enforced ); Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.196 ( Washington forum selection clause enforced ); Rawlins v. Clipper Cruise Lines197 ( Missouri forum selection clause enforced ); Hollmann v. Cunard Line Limited198 ( London forum selection clause enforced )]; (b) Hotels [ Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.199 ( female guest raped at hotel; Bahamas forum selection clause in guest registration form signed by minor guest's step father not enforced; void by reason of guest reaching age of majority )]; (c) Tour Operators [ Rodriquez v. Class Travel Worldwide200 ( minor tourist injured after being pushed into hotel pool; California forum selection clause in tour operator's registration form enforced ); Paster v. Putney Student Travel, Inc.201 ( tourist contracted oral yeast infection on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana during a " sweat ceremony ", one portion of which included the passing of a tobacco filed pipe; Vermont forum selection clause in tour operator's tour participant contract enforced )]. Passengers Must Receive Adequate Notice The traveler must have an opportunity to read the forum selection clause although it is not necessary that he actually do so. In determining whether a passenger had notice of a forum selection clause the courts will examine the type size and the positioning of the lettering of the clause [ [ Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines202 ( Florida forum selection clause in cruise passenger ticket enforced; notice adequate; " It is well settled that passengers need not have actually read a ticket to be bound by the terms contained therein...The issue is simply whether passengers had an opportunity to read their tickets " ); O.C. Harden v. American Airlines203 ( " passengers are bound by provisions printed on a ticket, even though the passenger did not actually read those provisions " ); Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.204 ( notice adequate );; Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.205 ( notice inadequate ); Gomez v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines206 ( notice adequate ); Smith v. Doe207 ( notice adequate )]. In addition, adequate notice presupposes that the passenger has received the ticket sometime before the cruise so it may be read [ Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Limited208 ( notice inadequate; passengers paid in full for cruise and were then notified of forum selection clause in ticket; " the way in which NCL imposed the forum selection clause upon the passengers after they paid for the cruise in full offends our notion of fair play and does not pass the test of fundamental fairness " )]. Forum Selection Clauses Must Be Reasonable The U.S. Supreme Court has held that negation of a forum selection clause requires evidence of bad faith. " It bears emphasis that forum-selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness "209 There must be some evidence that the forum was selected as a means of " discouraging cruise passengers from pursuing legitimate claims ". U.S. forums such as Florida or Washington are, generally, considered reasonable [ Kaufman v. Ocean Spirit Shipping Ltd.210 ( forum selection clause transferring case from Michigan to Louisiana fair )] and are not " remote alien forums "211. However, distant foreign forums are more suspect [ Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd.212 ( forum selection clause limiting litigation to India unenforceable as unjust and unreasonable ); Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.213 ( Greek forum selection clause not enforced )]. FOOTNOTES1 . Thomas A. Dickerson is a Westchester County Court Judge with a web page at http://members.aol.com/judgetad/index.html. Judge Dickerson is the author of Travel Law, Law Journal Press, New York, 1981-2000, updated biannually, with a web page at http:// members.aol.com/travellaw/index.html; Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, New York, 1988-2000, updated annually, with a web page at http://members.aol.com/class50/ index.html and over 170 articles on consumer law issues many of which are available at http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv.html.2 . See Dickerson, Flight Delays: The Airline Passenger's Rights And Remedies; http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv/flightdelays.html.3 . See Dickerson, The Cruise Passengers Rights And Remedies ; http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv/cruiserights.html4 . See Dickerson, What Tort Lawyers Should Know About Travel Law; http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv/travellaw.html; Dickerson, Tour Operators And Air Carriers: Modern Theories Of Liability, http:// courts.state.ny.us/tandv/toac.html5 . Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 203 F. 3d 180 ( 2d Cir. 2000 ).6 . Klinghofer v. Achille Lauro, 816 F. Supp. 934 ( S.D.N.Y. 1993 )7 . Travel Weekly, July 31, 2000, p. 8.8 . Carlisle v. Ulyssess Line, Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 ( Fla. App. 1985 ).9 . Travel Weekly, July 27, 2000, p. 4.10 . Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 123 F. 3d 1287 ( 9th Cir. 1997 ), cert. denied 118 S. Ct. 906 ( 1998 ).11 . Goldstein v. D.D.B. Needham, 740 F. Supp. 461 ( S.D. Ohio 1990 ).12 . Varey v. Canadian Helicopters Limited, Case No: 95-13755-18 ( Fla. Cir. Ct. Broward County ).13 . Love v. Maritz, Inc., No. CV 96-07104, Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County.14 . Reuters, November 2, 1998.15 . Hardy v. Pier 99 Motor Inn, 664 So. 2d 1085 ( Fla. App. 1995 ).16 . Woods-Leber v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico, 1997 WL 476360 ( 1st Cir. 1997 ).17 . Schreiber v. Camm, 1994 WL 131611 ( D.N.J. 1994 ).18 . Wilson v. American Trans Air, Inc., 874 F. 2d 386 ( 7th Cir. 1989 ).19 . Manahan v. NWA, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 1105 ( D.V.I. 1992 ), recon. denied 821 F. Supp. 1110 ( D.V.I. 1992 ), aff'd 995 F. 2d 218 ( 3rd Cir. 1993 ).20 . O'Keefe v. Inca Floats, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17088 ( N.D. Cal. 1997 ).21 . Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328 ( S.D. Fla. 1998 ).22 . Loretti v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 1986 WL 5339 ( E.D. Pa. 1986 ).23 . Catalano v. NWA, Inc., 1998 WL 777023 ( D. Minn. 1998 ).24 . Creteau v. Liberty Travel, Inc., 195 A.D. 2d 1012, 600 N.Y.S. 2d 576 ( 1993 ).25 . Wilson v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd., 916 F. 2d 1239 ( 7th Cir. 1990 ).26 . Morton v. De Oliviera, 984 F. 2d 289 ( 9th Cir. 1993 ).27 . Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines, 1996 American Maritime Cases 666 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).28 . Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 789 F. Supp. 488 ( D.P.R. 1992 ).29 . Fling v. Hollywood Travel and Tours, 765 F. Supp. 1302 ( N.D. Ohio 1990 ).30 . Dow v. Abercrombie & Kent International, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7290 ( N.D. Ill. 2000 ).31 . Travel Weekly, January 9, 1997, p. 4.32 . Searcy v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 676 So. 2d 1137 ( La. App. 1996 ).33 . Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A., 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8053 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).34 . Mayer v. Cornell University, 107 F. 3d 3 ( 2d Cir. 1997 ), cert. denied 1997 WL 336602 ( 1997 ).35 . Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Company, 186 F. 3d 588 ( 5th Cir. 1999 ).36 . Lehman v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd., 713 F. 2d 339 ( 8th Cir. 1983 ).37 . Rygg v. County of Maui, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1129 ( D. Hawaii 1999 ).38 . Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F. 2d 1390 ( 8th Cir. 1991 ).39 . Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F. Supp. 778 ( D. Hawaii 1993 ).40 . Sun v. Taiwan, 1998 WL 738002 ( N.D. Cal. 1998 ), rev'd 201 F. 3d 1105 ( 9th Cir. 2000 ).41 . Sankaran v. Club Mediterranee, S.A., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11750 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).42 . Rodriquez v. Class Travel Worldwide, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1926 ( E.D. La. 2000 ).43 . Sova v. Apple Vacations, 984 F. Supp. 1136 ( S.D. Ohio 1997 ).44 . Feldman v. Acapulco Princess Hotel, 137 Misc. 2d 787, 520 N.Y.S. 2d 477 ( 1987 ).45 . Nowak v. Tak How Inc., Ltd., 1995 WL 521874 ( D. Mass. 1995 ).46 . Darby v. Societe Des Hotels Meridien, 1999 WL 642877 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).47 . MacLachlin v. Marriott Corporation, New York Law Journal, January 18, 1994, p. 29, col. 2 ( N.Y. Sup. 1994 ).48 . Colby v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., 1996 WL 173016 ( D. Conn. 1996 ).49 . Honeycutt v. Tour Carriage, Inc., 94 CV 134 (MCK)( W.D.N.C. March 18, 1996 ).50 . May v. Club Med Sales, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 937 ( E.D. Pa. 1993 ).51 . Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd., 620 F. Supp. 578 ( E.D. Pa. 1985 ), aff'd mem. 800 F. 2d 1140 ( 3rd Cir. ), cert. denied 107 S. Ct. 578 ( 1986 ).52 . Barber v. Princess Hotels International, 134 A.D. 2d 312, 520 N.Y.S. 2d 789 ( 1987 ).53 . Pearl Cruises v. Cohon, 728 So. 2d 1226 ( Fla. App. 1999 ).54 . Davies v. General Tours, Inc., 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2387 ( Conn. Super. 1999 ).55 . Lubick v. Travel Services, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 904 ( D.V.I. 1983 ).56 . Ramage v. Forbes International Inc., 1997 WL 785613 ( C.D. Cal. 1997 ).57 . Winter v. I.C. Holidays, Inc., New York Law Journal, January 9, 1992, p. 23, col. 4 ( N.Y. Sup. ).58 . Chouset v. American Airlines, Inc., 1993 WL 501607 ( E.D. La. 1993 ).59 . Fertels v. Resorts International, 43 A.D. 2d 241, 350 N.Y.S. 2d 913, aff'd 35 N.Y. 2d 895, 364 N.Y.S. 2d 891 ( 1974 ).60 . Lowy v. Heimann's Bus Tours, Inc., 240 A.D. 2d 548, 658 N.Y.S. 2d 452 ( 1997 ).61 . Rovinsky v. Hispanidad Holidays, Inc., 580 N.Y.S. 2d 49 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1992 ).62 . DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd., 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 ( Cal. App. 1994 ).63 . Dubret v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1151 ( W.D. Wash. 1998 ).64 . Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 2d 87 ( D. Mass. 1998 ).65 . McCartney v. Windsor, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1623 ( E.D. Pa. 1996 ).66 . Sadkin v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 224 A.D. 2d 303, 638 N.Y.S. 2d 435 ( 1996 ).67 . Chung v. Chrysler Corp., 1995 WL 669183 ( D.D.C. 1995 ).68 . Travalja v. Maieliano Tours, 622 N.Y.S. 2d 961 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1995 ).69 . Weiner v. B.O.A.C., 60 A.D. 2d 427, 401 N.Y.S. 2d 91 ( 1978 ).70 . Kermisch v. Avis Rent-A-Car, 71 A.D. 2d 790, 419 N.Y.S. 2d 793 ( 1979 ).71 . Smith v. Chason, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7636 ( D. Mass. 1997 ).72 . Meurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294, 890 P. 2d 69 ( 1994 ).73 . Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 394, 891 P. 2d 861 ( 1994 ).74 . Powell v. Trans Global Tours, Inc. 594 N.W. 2d 252 ( Minn. App. 1999 ).75 . Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services, 738 F. Supp. 1386 ( S.D. Fla. 1990 ).76 . United Shipping Co. v. Witmer, 724 So. 2d 722 ( Fla. App. 1999 ).77 . McAleer v. Smith, 860 F.Supp. 924 ( D.R.I. 1994 ).78 . Elsis v. TWA, 22 CCH Aviation Cases 17,806 ( N.Y. Sup. 1989 ).79 . Glenview Park District v. Melhus, 540 F. 2d 1321 ( 7th Cir. 1976 ).80 . Rawlins v. Clipper Cruise Line, 1998 American Maritime Cases 1260 ( E.D. Mo. 1996 ).81 . Walther v. Hell's Canyon Adventurers, Inc., 1997 American Maritime Cases 2098 ( D. Ore. 1997 ).82 . Wong Mee Wan v. Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd., 4 All ER 745 ( 1995 ).83 . Hernandez v. Quality Inns, Inc., New York Law Journal, March 23, 1993, p. 21, col. 6 ( N.Y. Sup. 1993 ).84 . Anderson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 904 ( Conn. Super. 2000 ).85 . Bruemmer v. Marriott Corporation, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2514 ( N.D. Ill. 1991 ).86 . Bouchard v. Smiley Brothers, Inc., 685 N.Y.S. 2d 289 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1999 ).87 . Pau v. Yosemite Park, 928 F. 2d 880 ( 9th Cir. 1991 ).88 . Grutkowski v. Steamboat Lake Guides & Outfitters, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20255 ( E.D. Pa. 1998 ).89 . Schettino v. Paradise Beach Inn, Ltd., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21899 ( D.N.J. 1992 ).90 . Torres v. National Association of Underwater Instructors, 1996 WL 288217 ( D.P.R. 1996 ).91 . Barkanic v. Civil Aviation Administration........92 . Philippe v. Lloyd's Aero Boliviano, 710 So. 2d 807 ( La. App. 1998 ).93 . Abercrombie & Kent International, Inc. v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4469 ( E.D. Pa. 1989 ).94 . Paster v. Putney Student Travel, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9194 ( C.D. Cal. 1999 ).95 . Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).96 . Connolly v. Samuelson, 671 F. Supp. 1312 ( D. Kan. 1987 ).97 . Lavine v. General Mills, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 332 ( N.D. Ga. 1981 ).98 . Cohen v. Heritage Motor Tours, Inc., 215 A.D. 2d 105, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 387 ( 1994 ).99 . Carney v. Singapore Airlines, 940 F. Supp. 1496 ( D. Az. 1996 ).100 . Stevenson v. Four Winds Travel, Inc., 462 F. 2d 899 ( 5th Cir. 1972 ).101 . Sanders v. Nabila Tours & Cruises, No. AO79884 ( Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 1, 1998 ).102 . McFadden v. Staley, 687 So. 2d 357 ( Fla. App. 1997 ).103 . Klein v. Marriott International, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 176 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).104 . Assicurazioni Generali, SPA v. Neil, 1998 WL 801496 ( 4th Cir. 1998 ).105 . Averitt v. Southland Motor Inn of Oklahoma, 720 F. 2d 1178 ( 10th Cir. 1983 ).106 . Freeman v. Celebrity Lines, Inc., 1994 WL 689809 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 ).107 . Russell v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2000 WL 1013954 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).108 . Wilson v. Best Travel ( 1993 ) 1 All ER 353.109 . Carley v. Theater Development Fund, 1998 WL 695421 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).110 . Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 394, 891 P. 2d 861 ( 1994 ).111 . Cicchiello v. Reney Tours Plane Broker, Inc., 1996 WL 278348 ( Conn. Super. 1996 ).112 . DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd., 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 ( Cal. App. 1994 ).113 . Gillmore v. Caribbean Cruise Line, 789 F. Supp. 488 ( D.P.R. 1992 ).114 . Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc., 1982 American Maritime Cases 1507 ( E.D. Pa. 1982 ).115 . Blinzler v. Marriott International, Inc., 1994 WL 363920 ( D.R.I. 1994 ), aff'd 1996 WL 164966 ( 1st Cir. 1996 ).116 . Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines, Ltd., 1996 American Maritime Cases 666 ( S.D.N.Y. 1995 ).117 . Room v. Caribe Hilton Hotel, 659 F. 2d 5 ( 5th Cir. 1981 ).118 . Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 1997 WL 450150 ( 11th Cir. 1997 ).119 . MacLachlin v. Marriott Corp., New York Law Journal, January 18, 1994, p. 29, col. 2 ( N.Y. Sup. 1994 ).120 . In Re Air Crash Off Long Island, New York, July 17, 1996, 65 F. Supp. 2d 207 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).121 . Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A., 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8053 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).122 . Mercier v. Sheraton International, Inc., 935 F. 2d 419 ( 1st Cir. 1991 ).123 . Nowack v. Tak How Inv. Ltd., 1995 WL 521874 ( D. Mass. 1995 ).124 . Simcox v. McDermott International, 1994 WL 24170 ( S.D. Tex. 1994 ).125 . Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman, Ltd., 713 F. 2d 339 ( 8th Cir. 1983 ).126 . Bankanic v. General Administration of Civil Aviation, 923 F. 2d 957 ( 2d Cir. 1991 ).127 . Wendelkin v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 455, 671 P. 2d 896 ( 1983 ).128 . Hernandez v. Burger, 102 Cal. App. 3d 795, 162 Cal. Rptr. 564 ( 1980 ).129 . Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2514 ( N.D. Ill. March 4, 1991 ).130 . Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328 ( S.D. Fla. 1998 ).131 . In Re Air Crash Off Long Island, New York, July 17, 1996, 65 F. Supp. 2d 207 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999 ).132 . Wilson v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd., 916 F. 2d 1239 ( 7th Cir. 1990 ).133 . . Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman, Ltd., 713 F. 2d 339 ( 8th Cir. 1983 ).134 . Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F. 2d 1390 ( 8th Cir. 1991 )135 . Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc., 1995 WL 65522 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).136 . Neville v. Anglo American Management, 594 N.Y.S. 2d 747 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1993 ).137 . Flynn v. General Motors, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 5 ( E.D.N.Y. 1992 ).138 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Oy Wartsila AB, 159 BR 984 ( S.D. Fla. 1993 ).139 . Gyenes v. Zionist Organization of America, 169 A.D. 2d 41 ( N.Y. App. Dic. 1991 ).140 . Mercier v. Sheraton International Inc., 935 F. 2d 419 ( 1st Cir. 1991 ).141 . Rudisill v. Sheraton Copenhagen Corp., 817 F. Supp. 443 ( D. Del. 1993 ).142 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Oy Wartsila AB, 159 BR 984 ( S.D. Fla. 1993 ).143 . Chhawchharia v. The Boeing Co., 657 F. Supp. 1157 ( S.D.N.Y. 1987 ).144 . Diaz v. Mexicana de Avion, S.A., 20 CCH Aviation Cases 17,983 ( W.D. Tex. 1987 ).145 . Fertels v. Resorts International, 43 A.D. 2d 241, 350 N.Y.S. 2d 913, aff'd 35 N.Y. 2d 895, 364 N.Y.S. 2d 891 ( 1974 ).146 . Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255, 102 S. Ct. 252, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 ( 1981 ).147 . Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 203 F. 3d 180 ( 2d Cir. 2000 ).148 . Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328 ( S.D. Fla. 1998 ).149 . Anderson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 904 ( Conn. Super. 2000 ).150 . Smith v. Chason, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7636 ( D. Mass. 1997 ).151 . Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).152 . Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services, 738 F. Supp. 1386 ( S.D.N.Y. 1990 ).153 . Carter v. Trafalgar Tours, Ltd., 704 F. Supp. 673, 678-679 ( W.D. Va. 1989 ).154 . Flynn v. General Motors, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 5 ( E.D.N.Y. 1992 ).155 . Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp., 1991 WL 30141 ( N.D. Ill. 1991 ).156 . Wilson v. Humphreys Cayman Ltd., 916 F. 2d 1239 ( 7th Cir. 1990 ).157 . Kermisch v. Avis Rent-A-Car, 71 A.D. 2d 790, 419 N.Y.S. 2d 793 ( 1979 ).158 . Sadkin v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 224 A.D. 2d 303, 638 N.Y.S. 2d 435 ( 1996 ).159 . Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F. 2d 1390 ( 8th Cir. 1991 ).160 . Nowak v. Tak How Inv. Ltd., 1995 WL 521874 ( D. Mass. 1995 ).161 . Carter v. Trafalgar Tours, Ltd., 702 F. Supp. 673 ( W.D. Va. 1989 ).162 . Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp., 1991 WL 30141 ( N.D. Ill. 1991 ).163 . Lehman v. Humphrey Cayman, Ltd., 713 F. 2d 339 ( 8th Cir. 1983 ).164 . Radigan v. Innisbrook Resort, 142 N.J. Super. 419, 361 A. 2d 610 ( 1976 ), mod'd 150 N.J. Super. 427, 375 A. 2d 129 ( 1997 ).165 . Nowak v. Tak How Inv. Ltd., 1995 WL 521874 ( D. Mass. 1995 ).166 . Mercier v. Sheraton International Inc., 935 F. 2d 419 ( 1st Cir. 1991 ).167 . Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc., 1995 WL 65522 ( S.D. Fla. 1995 ).168 . Flynn v. General Motors, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 5 ( E.D.N.Y. 1992 ).169 . Abouchalache v. Hilton International Co., 464 F. Supp. 94 ( S.D.N.Y. 1978 ).170 . Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 203 F. 3d 180 ( 2d Cir. 2000 ).171 . Dunham v. Hotelera Canco S.A., 1996 WL 421844 ( E.D. Va. 1996 ).172 . Carney v. Singapore Airlines, 1996 WL 598667 ( D. Ariz. 1996 ).173 . Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 1996 WL 428086 ( 11th Cir. 1996 ).174 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. OY Wartsila AB, 159 BR 984 ( S.D. Fla. 1993 ).175 . Rudisill v. Sheraton Copenhagen Corp., 817 F. Supp. 442 ( D. Del. 1993 ).176 . Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A., 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8053 ( Fla. App. 2000 ).177 . Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services, 738 F. Supp. 1386 ( S.D. Fla. 1990 ).178 . Anderson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 904 ( Conn. Super. 2000 ).179 . Abouchalache v. Hilton International Co., 464 F. Supp. 94 ( S.D.N.Y. 1978 ).180 . Sarfaty v. Rainbow Helicopters, Inc., 221 A.D. 2d 618, 634 N.Y.S. 2d 164 ( 1995 ).181 . Delarosa v. Holiday Inn, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6882 ( S.D.N.Y. 2000 ).182 . Broussard v. Deauville Hotel Resorts, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12716 ( E.D. La. 1999 ).183 . Bruemmer v. Marriott Corp., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2514 ( N.D. Ill. March 4, 1991 ).184 . MacLachlin v. Marriott Corp., New York Law Journal, January 18, 1994, p. 29, col. 2 ( N.Y. Sup. 1994 ).185 . Mercier v. Sheraton International Inc., 935 F. 2d 419 ( 1st Cir. 1991 ).186 . Rudisill v. Sheraton Copenhagen Corp., 817 F. Supp. 443 ( D. Del. 1993 ).187 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Oy Wartsila AB, 159 BR 984 ( S.D. Fla. 1993 ).188 . Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas, Ltd., 958 F. Supp. 958 ( D. Nev. 1993 ).189 . Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ).190 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shutte, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 39, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 ( 1991 ).191 . Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 67 F. 3d 7 ( 2d Cir. 1995 ).192 . Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 924 ( S.D. Tex. 1998 ).193 . Hodes v. SNC Achille Lauro, 858 F. 2d 905 ( 3d Cir. 1988 ).194 . O.C. Harden v. American Airlines, 178 F.R.D. 583 ( M.D. Ala. 1998 ).195 . Jewel Seafoods Ltd. v. M/V Peace River, 39 F. Supp. 2d 628 ( D.S.C. 1999 ).196 . Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 322 ( E.D.N.Y. 1999 ).197 . Rawlins v. Clipper Cruise Lines, 1998 American Maritime Cases 1254 ( N.D. Cal. 1995 ).198 . Hollmann v. Cunard Line Limited, 1998 American Maritime Cases 2168 ( N.Y. Sup. 1996 ).199 . Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328 ( S.D. Fla. 1998 ).200 . Rodriquez v. Class Travel Worldwide, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1926 ( E.D. La. 2000 ).201 . Paster v. Putney Student Travel, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9194 ( C.D. Cal. 1999 ).202 . Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1083 ( N.D. Cal. 1999 ).203 . O.C. Harden v. American Airlines, 178 F.R.D. 583 ( M.D. Ala. 1998 ).204 . Carron v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 322 ( E.D.N.Y. 1999 ).205 . Doe v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328 ( S.D. Fla. 1998 ).206 . Gomez v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, 1997 WL 256093 ( D.P.R. 1997 ).207 . Smith v. Doe, 1998 WL 46891 ( E.D. La. 1998 ).208 . Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, 5 S.W. 2d 232 ( Tex. App. 1999 ).209 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shutte, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 39, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 ( 1991 ).210 . Kaufman v. Ocean Spirit Shipping Ltd., 1993 American Maritime Cases 178 ( W.D. Mich. 1990 ).211 . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shutte, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 39, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 ( 1991 ).212 . Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas, Ltd., 958 F. Supp. 958 ( D. Nev. 1993 ).213 . Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 924 ( S.D. Tex. 1998 ).