Sheehan v. Viking River Cruises, Inc.

Background

Timothy Sheehan and Mary Sheehan sued Viking River Cruises, Inc. (VRC) and Viking Ocean Cruises II LTD (VOC) over injuries allegedly sustained during a transatlantic cruise. The complaint alleges that Timothy Sheehan tripped over a basket in the ship’s lounge in March 2019. It claims that the defendants negligently failed to maintain and safeguard the premises and failed to warn about a dangerous condition. Mary Sheehan also claims that she lost Timothy Sheehan’s services and companionship.

VRC is a California corporation that markets and sells European cruises but does not operate vessels. VOC is a Bermuda corporation that operated the Viking Star, the vessel involved here. The defendants’ operational headquarters is in Basel, Switzerland.

The Sheehans received VRC’s Ticket Sale Contract and the Passenger Ticket Contract. Those documents stated that VRC acted only as a sales agent and that the passenger contract governed passage on the vessel operated by VOC. Section 24 selected Swiss law for most contract-related issues and required disputes to be decided by the civil court in the Canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. It also provided for immediate dismissal or transfer if an action was filed elsewhere, subject to an exception for certain Quebec residents.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to decline to hear a case when another forum is more appropriate. They argued that the forum-selection clause required the dispute to be handled in Switzerland.

The court explained that a valid forum-selection clause generally receives controlling weight. The court first considered whether the clause was valid under general contract principles and then whether it should be enforced. The opinion states that the Sheehans did not argue that the clause resulted from fraud, overreaching, or another defect making it invalid. Their arguments concerned enforcement.

Enforceability Analysis

The Sheehans argued that litigation in Switzerland would be so difficult and inconvenient that they would be deprived of their day in court. They noted that Swiss courts require the parties to be physically present and submitted that Timothy Sheehan’s physician said he could not travel internationally for the foreseeable future. The court treated this as an argument about the parties’ private interests. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Marine, the court held that such private-interest arguments generally cannot overcome a valid forum-selection clause.

The Sheehans also argued that the clause was unenforceable because it appeared in an adhesion contract, meaning a take-it-or-leave-it agreement, and violated Minnesota public policy. The court explained that an adhesion-contract argument requires more than a lack of negotiation; the party must show greatly unequal bargaining power, no opportunity to negotiate, and that the service could not be obtained elsewhere. The court concluded that a cruise was not a necessary service and that the Sheehans could have obtained a cruise vacation elsewhere.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning that forum clauses in cruise-ticket contracts can help cruise lines limit the places where they may be sued, avoid disputes over the proper forum, conserve judicial resources, and potentially reduce fares. The court concluded that the clause was valid and that the Sheehans had not identified public-interest factors that overwhelmingly disfavored enforcement.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court denied as moot the defendants’ motion to reopen the record. The order addressed the proper forum and enforcement of the contractual clause; it did not decide the negligence claims’ merits. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order on November 10, 2020.