The defendant, SP Cruises OPCO Ltd (aka Azamara), sought dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered injury as a result of Azamara and the co-defendants' negligence. The plaintiff was a passenger on the cruise ship Azamara Journey, which made a scheduled port of call in Croatia. The plaintiff partook in a shore excursion to Krka National Park for which Azamara advertised and sold tickets. After reaching the park, the plaintiff was struck by the tour bus that had taken her there. The plaintiff alleged that the tour bus was co-managed and/or co-operated by Azamara. As a result of being struck by the tour bus, the plaintiff was thrown into an adjacent ravine which caused her serious injuries requiring immediate medical care. The plaintiff sought compensation for the defendants' alleged negligence. The plaintiff argued that her ticket contract adopted the Athens Convention 2002, and that the shore excursion waiver was thus voided by art 18 of the Athens Convention 2002.

Azamara alleged that the plaintiff, by agreeing to the ticket contract, expressly waived Azamara's liability for any injury occurring during shore excursions. Azamara alleged that the tour bus that struck the plaintiff was owned and operated by Gulliver, and that Azamara did not operate or control the bus or employ the driver. Azamara argued that since the plaintiff's journey was not between a United States port, or between any such port and a foreign port, its shore excursion waiver was not invalidated by 46 USC § 30527.4. Azamara stated that this action was governed by US general maritime law, and that the Athens Convention was inapplicable beyond the specific terms that were incorporated into the ticket contract.

Held: Claim dismissed.

Azamara asserts that its shore excursion waiver is valid and enforceable under general maritime law and that the Athens Convention does not invalidate the shore excursion waiver. On the other hand, the plaintiff has predicated her complaint on the legal theory that the Athens Convention and the laws of the European Union invalidate the shore excursion waiver. This argument, however, is meretricious as best.

The United States is not a signatory of the Athens Convention and is certainly not a member of the European Union. 'Because the United States has not ratified the Athens Convention, it carries no force of law on its own. However, a contract provision that incorporates the Athens Convention to limit carrier liability for personal injury may be enforceable as a term of a valid contract.': Wajnstat 2011 WL 13099034 *3 (see CMI790). Further, the enforcement of the Athens Convention as a term of a ticket contract may not conflict with the laws of the United States: Henson v Seabourn Cruise Line Ltd Inc 410 F Supp 2d 1246 1248-1249 (SD Fla 2005) (Moreno J) (CMI813). As such, the Athens Convention holds no binding effect beyond its valid incorporation as a term to the contract.

The plaintiff acknowledges that the Athens Convention holds no inherent binding effect in the US and cites Wajnstat in support of this proposition. The plaintiff argues, however, that due to the incorporation of the Athens Convention and Regulation 392/2009 in s 12(d) of the ticket contract, the ticket contract has adopted the Athens Convention in its entirety. The plaintiff accordingly asserts that the ticket contract as a whole is governed not only by all of the terms of the Athens Convention and Regulation 392/2009 but a bevy of other regulations and directives of the European Union as well. This argument does not find support in the jurisprudence of the Eleventh Circuit, however. Wajnstat states that the Athens Convention may be applicable, but only as a term of a contract. The Eleventh Circuit has further held that cruise ship ticket contracts may incorporate specific provisions of the Athens Convention without being bound by all provisions of the Athens Convention: see Farris v Celebrity Cruises Inc No 11-21489-CIV, 2011 WL 13175627 *4 (SD Fla, 29 June 2011) (Lenard J), affd 487 F App 542 (11th Cir 2012) (CMI795).

The only mention in the ticket contract of the Athens Convention or Regulation 392/2009 is found in s 12(d). Section 12(d) limits the liability of the carrier for death or personal injuries suffered on voyages that embark or disembark from a European Union Member State to the amounts allowable under the Athens Convention and Regulation 392/2009. Section 12(d) does not promise rights for the plaintiff under the Athens Convention or any of the laws of the European Union. For these reasons, the incorporation of a provision of the Athens Convention as a term in the ticket contract does not cause it in its entirety to fall under the scope of the Athens Convention or any of the laws of the European Union. The Court thus finds that there is no reason why the shore excursion waiver would be invalidated by the Athens Convention or other European Union laws.

Azamara contends that the terms of the ticket contract, including the shore excursion waiver, are unambiguous. The plaintiff argues that these terms are ambiguous, and that this ambiguity must be resolved in her favour. Indeed, '[c]ruise passenger tickets are contracts of adhesion, and as such, ambiguities in them must be construed against the carrier': Wajnstat *5 (citing Wallis v Princess Cruises Inc 306 F 3d 827, 838 (9th Cir 2002)) (CMI814). However, the ambiguities which the plaintiff seeks to delineate are grounded in her assertion that the shore excursion waiver is invalidated by the Athens Convention, and various European Union regulations and directives.

The Court has already disposed of these arguments, however, and without the involvement of these sources of law, there is no ambiguity in the ticket contract. The portion at issue in this case is the shore excursion waiver in s 6 which states Azamara is not liable for, among other things, injuries sustained during shore excursions. Section 12(d), which is the only section invoking the Athens Conventions and Regulation 392/2009, concerns the limitation of liability for the carrier on cruises that embark or disembark in ports within the European Union. Section 12(d) of the Ticket Contract differs from s 6 in that s 12(d) applies to instances where the carrier is liable but seeks to limit its liability. The ticket contract states that except as otherwise provided, the contract is governed by general maritime law.

Based on her arguments, the plaintiff is attempting to conflate separate sections of the ticket contract in the hopes of creating ambiguity where none otherwise exists. The plaintiff's arguments, while colourful, are not persuasive. By contrast, Azamara has shown that the terms of the ticket contract are not ambiguous. As such, the Court finds that the ticket contract unambiguously communicated the shore excursion waiver to the plaintiff.