The plaintiff’s husband drowned off the coast of Greece after falling in an undetermined manner from the vessel Grand Princess owned/operated by the defendants (collectively Princess). The lower Court granted Princess’s motion for summary judgment limiting its liability pursuant to the Athens Convention 1974 as incorporated into the tickets/contract of passage. The plaintiff appealed.

Held: The Ninth Circuit reversed under the two-prong 'reasonable communicativeness' test for limitation of liability provisions in passenger contracts.

The Court held under the first prong ('physical characteristics') that the limitation provision incorporating the Athens Convention was sufficiently conspicuous - even though it was 'buried' six sentences in, in 1/16 size type - because it was legible and set off by the heading '16. LIMITATIONS ON CARRIER'S LIABILITY; INDEMNIFICATION' as well as an 'IMPORTANT NOTICE' warning headline reminding the passenger at least five times to read 'SECTIONS 15 THROUGH 18'.

However, the Court held that the second prong ('surrounding circumstances'/'extrinsic factors') was not satisfied because: (1) the provision did not specify any actual monetary limitation; and (2) used contingent language for application of the Athens Convention or US law (to the extent it was applicable). As such, the Court held, a passenger would have to do extensive research to find and analyse: (1) the Athens Convention as signed in 1974; and then (b) the 1976 Protocol to the Athens Convention; and then (c) determine the conversion rate for Special Drawing Rights; but then (d) would have no way of knowing the 'date of judgment' when the limitation conversion would be determined. The Court held that this complex series of steps constituted a 'disincentive' to 'study the provisions of the ticket' that rendered the provision unenforceable. In sum, the Court concluded: 'a passage contract clause that merely references the "'Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea' of 1976 ('Athens Convention')" without providing an approximate monetary limitation does not meaningfully inform a passenger of a liability limitation, and is therefore unenforceable'.

Additionally, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress fell within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction because the claim satisfied the two-part 'location' and 'connection' test, because: (1) the alleged tort occurred on a vessel; and (2) the alleged tort had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce. However, the Court dismissed the claim on the merits, relying on the Restatement (Second) of Torts for the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under maritime law. Specifically, although the vessel captain (somewhat callously) stated within earshot of the decedent's family that Mr Wallis was dead and would probably be sucked under the ship, chopped up by the propeller, and never recovered, this did not constitute 'extreme and outrageous conduct [that] intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress'.