499 U.S. 585 (1991)
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., a Florida corporation, sold passage tickets for a seven-day cruise aboard its ship the Tropicale to Eulala and Russel Shute, who resided in Washington.1 The Shutes purchased the tickets through a travel agent in Arlington, Washington.2 The agent forwarded the payment to Carnival's headquarters in Miami, Florida.3 Carnival then prepared the tickets and mailed them to the Shutes in Washington.4
The face of each ticket directed passengers to read the terms and conditions on the last pages.5 Contract page 1 stated that acceptance of the ticket constituted agreement to all terms and conditions.6 This included a provision that all disputes arising under or in connection with the contract would be litigated, if at all, in a court located in the State of Florida to the exclusion of the courts of any other state or country.7
The Shutes boarded the Tropicale in Los Angeles, California.8 The ship sailed to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and then returned to Los Angeles.9 While the vessel was in international waters off the Mexican coast, Eulala Shute slipped on a deck mat during a guided tour of the ship's galley and was injured.10
The Shutes filed a negligence suit against Carnival in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.11 Carnival moved for summary judgment.12 It contended that the forum-selection clause required the suit to be brought in Florida or, alternatively, that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because Carnival's contacts with Washington were insubstantial.13 The district court granted the motion on personal jurisdiction grounds.14
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.15 It first concluded that Carnival's solicitation of business in Washington established sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction.16 It then held that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable because it was not freely bargained for and because the Shutes were physically and financially incapable of litigating in Florida.17 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.18
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly refused to enforce the forum-selection clause contained in the passage contract tickets?19
In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1 (1972), this Court held that forum-selection clauses are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless the party challenging enforcement can show that enforcement would be unreasonable under the circumstances.20 When applied to form passage contracts, reasonableness turns on whether the cruise line has a special interest in limiting the fora in which it may be sued, whether the clause dispels confusion about where suits must be brought, and whether passengers benefit from reduced fares reflecting the cruise line's savings.21 The clause is unenforceable only upon a strong showing of bad faith, fraud, overreaching, or serious inconvenience that meets a heavy burden of proof.22
No. The forum-selection clause satisfies each element of the reasonableness test when applied to the established facts of this routine form contract.23 Carnival maintains its principal place of business in Florida and conducts many cruises that depart from and return to Florida ports, giving it a legitimate interest in concentrating litigation there.24 The clause eliminates uncertainty over the proper forum for disputes arising from a cruise that may involve passengers from multiple states and an accident occurring in international waters.25 Passengers receive the benefit of lower fares because Carnival avoids the expense of defending suits in distant courts.26
The Shutes received the tickets containing the clause, and the record contains no evidence that Carnival inserted the Florida forum to discourage legitimate claims or obtained agreement through fraud.27 Florida is not a remote alien forum for an accident off the Mexican coast, and the Shutes have not carried the heavy burden of proving that enforcement would deprive them of their day in court.28 The Court of Appeals therefore erred by refusing enforcement solely because the clause appeared in a non-negotiated form ticket.29
The forum-selection clause is enforceable, and the Court of Appeals should have directed that the action proceed in Florida.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the forum-selection clause constituted an unenforceable contract of adhesion extracted through disparate bargaining power.31 Enforcement would undermine the strong public policy against exculpatory provisions in passenger tickets.32 He further concluded that the clause violated 46 U.S.C. App.
§ 183c because it lessened the passengers' practical ability to obtain a trial by forcing them to litigate thousands of miles from the scene of the accident and the location of witnesses.33
Whether the forum-selection clause violates 46 U.S.C. App. § 183c?34
Section 183c declares null and void any provision in a passenger ticket that purports to relieve the vessel owner from liability for negligence or to lessen, weaken, or avoid the claimant's right to a trial by a court of competent jurisdiction on the question of liability or damages.35 A forum-selection clause that designates a competent court within the United States does not relieve the owner of liability or remove the case from judicial scrutiny.36 It merely designates the location of an otherwise competent court.37
No. The clause at issue requires litigation in a court located in the State of Florida, which is a court of competent jurisdiction under the statute.38 It does not purport to cap damages, eliminate liability for negligence, or substitute arbitration for judicial resolution.39 The statute's legislative history shows that Congress targeted provisions that either limited the amount of recovery or removed liability questions entirely from any court.40 Nothing in the text or history indicates an intent to prohibit reasonable forum selection among competent domestic courts.41
Because the Florida forum remains a court of competent jurisdiction, the clause does not violate § 183c.42
The forum-selection clause does not violate 46 U.S.C. App. § 183c.43
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the forum-selection clause constituted an unenforceable contract of adhesion extracted through disparate bargaining power. Enforcement would undermine the strong public policy against exculpatory provisions in passenger tickets. He further concluded that the clause violated 46 U.S.C. App.
§ 183c because it lessened the passengers' practical ability to obtain a trial by forcing them to litigate thousands of miles from the scene of the accident and the location of witnesses.