The plaintiff took a cruise aboard the MSC Musica, beginning and ending in Venice, Italy, with intermediate stops in Italy, Greece and Montenegro. While on the cruise, the plaintiff fell and resulted in serious injuries. She was medically disembarked to an Italian hospital and then flown to a US hospital where she continued to receive treatment.

The booking confirmation of the cruise that was issued by the defendant carrier contained a passenger contract which incorporated a forum selection clause stating that all claims arising out of this contract should be brought in and be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Naples, Italy. In addition, in the passenger contract, the defendant expressly incorporated the provisions of the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea 1974 (Athens Convention 1974) and noted that 'the liability of the Carrier for death, personal injury or illness to the Passenger shall not exceed 46,666 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) as provided and defined in the Athens Convention'.

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and forum non conveniens. The District Court granted the motion and held that the forum selection clause required the plaintiff to bring her lawsuit in Italy. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the District Court erred in concluding that the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable on the ground that she had incurred approximately USD 750,000 in damages, and due to the defendant's invocation of the Athens Convention 1974 and its liability limitations, Italian courts would offer essentially no remedy. Thus, the invocation of the Athens Convention 1974 contravened public policy and would effectively deprive her of a remedy.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

If the Court assumed that the Italian court would apply the Athens Convention 1974, it would appear to limit the plaintiff's recovery to 46,666 SDRs, or approximately USD 64,000, well short of the USD 750,000 in damages that the plaintiff claimed to have incurred. However, the potential for decreased recovery was not the same as no remedy. The Court would not invalidate a forum selection clause simply because the remedies available in the contractually chosen forum were less favourable than those available in the US courts. The Court acknowledged that there might be a point at which a reduced recovery dictated by the law of a chosen forum was so low relative to the plaintiff's damages as to render the choice of forum fundamentally unfair. However, in this case, the possibility of reduced recovery did not amount to fundamental unfairness, and the potential application of the Athens Convention 1974 could not justify the forum selection clause's invalidation. Thus, the Court found that the defendant's forum selection clause was valid and enforceable.