The plaintiff was a passenger aboard the M/V Crown Odyssey, a cruise ship owned and operated by the defendant, and was allegedly injured during his cruise while using a treadmill in the ship's exercise room. Before the cruise, the plaintiff purchased a passenger ticket contract from the defendant through a travel agency that acted on his behalf. Paragraph 16 of the passage contract provided that '[i]n addition to all of the restrictions, exemptions and limitations of liability provided by this Contract, Carrier and the vessel shall have the benefit of any statutory limitation of liability or exoneration of liability available in the applicable forum, including but not limited to … the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea 1974' (Athens Convention 1974).

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for his loss. The defendant filed a motion for summary adjudication in order to enforce its limitation of liability under the Athens Convention 1974.

Held: Motion granted.

Although the United States was not a signatory nation, the damage limitations of the Athens Convention 1974 were enforceable in this case as a contractual term in the passage contract.

The defendant’s ticket contract reasonably communicated to the plaintiff that his legal rights were affected by para 16 of the passenger ticket. Paragraph 16 was not ambiguous and was only susceptible to one reasonable interpretation, namely that the defendant claimed the benefit of the limitations of liability set forth in the Athens Convention 1974. In addition, it was well-settled that a passage contract was not a contract of adhesion, particularly because the plaintiff could have availed himself of other modes of transport and was not required to contract with the defendant for any reason.

The Athens Convention itself did not require that a carrier notified each passenger of the precise number of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to which recovery for personal injury was limited. It would be impractical to state the precise USD limitation of the Athens Convention 1974 because the number of SDRs was susceptible to change at any time by the international community, and the exchange rate from SDRs to USDs changed on a daily basis. Thus, the defendant’s reference to a limitation under the Athens Convention 1974 was sufficient notice to the plaintiff and the limits set forth in the Convention were binding upon the plaintiff.