Fiduccia v. Princess Cruise Lines
Appellant John Fiduccia appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the demurrer of respondent Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (Princess) was sustained without leave to amend. He also appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted the motion to quash service of summons brought by respondent Cruise Solutions Belize, Ltd., (Cruise Solutions). Appellant, a passenger on a Princess cruise ship, sued both entities for injuries suffered during a shore excursion while touring a park in Belize City, Belize, claiming that each entity was negligent in failing to warn him of the dangerous condition of a boardwalk in the park. We conclude that as appellant failed to allege facts showing actual or constructive knowledge of any unreasonable risk or danger, no duty to warn arose, and no cause of action for negligence was stated against Princess.
Court also conclude that appellant failed to meet his initial burden to make a prima facie showing that the exercise of jurisdiction over Cruise Solutions was justified. Appellant relied upon forum selection clauses in two contracts appellants cruise contract and Cruise Solutionss contract with Princess but he did not establish that Cruise Solutions consented to the former contract, or that he was an intended beneficiary of the latter. Court reject appellants contention that he should have been permitted to obtain discovery from Cruise Solutions, as he has not shown the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for discovery. Court therefore affirm both judgments.
Comments on Fiduccia v. Princess Cruise Lines