Foster v. Cunard White Star, Ltd.

121 F.2d 12, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4572, 1941 A.M.C. 1205
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 1941
Docket348
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 121 F.2d 12 (Foster v. Cunard White Star, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foster v. Cunard White Star, Ltd., 121 F.2d 12, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4572, 1941 A.M.C. 1205 (2d Cir. 1941).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district court dismissed this passenger’s action for injuries sustained on shipboard because it was brought 25 months .after the event, notwithstanding a provision of the ticket limiting suits to a year. Plaintiff relies on The Kungsholm, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 703, where the contract proper was in a box or blocked form on the left face •of the ticket and the limiting condition, which was not upheld, appeared only on the back of the ticket, and not over the carrier’s signature. But we agree with the •district court that Baron v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 21, is more nearly analogous and controls here. For we find a direct reference in the box on the face of the ticket to the terms and conditions of the contract, these were carried on the ticket’s face and back into the box itself, so that the final condition is .actually found there, and the signature for the carrier appears immediately thereafter. Thus the limitation is directly made a part •of the contract of carriage. Plaintiff is ■charged with notice of the limitation, since her brother, who purchased the ticket for her (as well as for himself, as he was also a passenger), had it in his possession for some 17 days before the voyage commenced. See also Murray v. Cunard S. S. Co., Ltd., 235 N.Y. 162, 139 N.E. 226, 26 A.L. R. 1371; Dunklee v. Cunard S. S. Co., Ltd., 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 1003, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 563, 55 S.Ct. 74, 79 L.Ed. 663.

Plaintiff asserts further that this provision is inextricably tied to, and made dependent upon, a provision for notice of claim within 40 days after termination of the voyage (“such notice having been given, the suit * * * is commenced within one year after the termination of the voyage,” etc.) ; and since all requirements for notice of less than six months are specifically invalidated by 46 U.S.C.A. § 183b (a), enacted in 1935, this provision, too, should fall. But it seems clear that the intent was to emphasize the necessity of compliance with both requirements, rather than to make one dependent on the other, as in Van Horn v. Kittitas County, C.C. Wash., 112 F. 1, and therefore the illegality of one was not intended to, and should not, invalidate the other. Hessler v. North German Lloyd, 2 Cir., 55 F.2d 927; W. R. Grace & Co. v. Panama R. Co., 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 338, certiorari denied 273 U.S. 715, 47 S.Ct. 108, 71 L.Ed. 855.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ibrahim v. Nassau County
E.D. New York, 2025
Palmer v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE & NORWEGIAN SPIRIT
741 F. Supp. 2d 405 (E.D. New York, 2010)
Lurie v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd.
305 F. Supp. 2d 352 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Golden v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.
4 Misc. 3d 33 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lunday v. Carnival Corp.
431 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D. Texas, 2004)
Debra Ward v. Cross Sound Ferry
273 F.3d 520 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Schaff v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc.
999 F. Supp. 924 (S.D. Texas, 1998)
Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Lines, Ltd.
897 F. Supp. 740 (S.D. New York, 1995)
Lemoine v. Carnival Cruise Lines
854 F. Supp. 447 (E.D. Louisiana, 1994)
Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro
858 F.2d 905 (Third Circuit, 1988)
Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione
858 F.2d 905 (Third Circuit, 1988)
Euland v. M/V DOLPHIN IV
685 F. Supp. 942 (D. South Carolina, 1988)
Muratore v. M/S Scotia Prince
656 F. Supp. 471 (D. Maine, 1987)
Robinson v. Compania De Vapores Realma, S.A.
491 So. 2d 343 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Claire Denicola v. Cunard Line Limited
642 F.2d 5 (First Circuit, 1981)
DeCarlo v. Italian Line
416 F. Supp. 1136 (S.D. New York, 1976)
McQuillan v. " ITALIA" SOCIETA PER AZIONE DI NAVIGAZIONE
386 F. Supp. 462 (S.D. New York, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 F.2d 12, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4572, 1941 A.M.C. 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-cunard-white-star-ltd-ca2-1941.