Court Opinion

ID: 9746278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:10:23.710614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:11.371538
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.
I concur in the result of the majority’s typically well-written opinion primarily for reasons recited in footnote 2 of that opinion. Because it was then an unpublished opinion I saw no reason to explain I did not agree wholeheartedly with the rationale on which it was based. Now that it is to be published, however, and although time does not permit a thorough exposition of my position, I feel compelled to briefly register some concerns, This is particularly so because the broad language used in the opinion might affect trial court decisions involving situations far more egregious than the one before this court.
In my view, Coma v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc.1 (discussed in the maj. opn., ante, at p. 560) represents the correct approach and should apply not just to last minute standby passengers, but to anyone who receives their ticket a short time before boarding the ship and subject to forfeiture if they decide to cancel. This is especially true when, unlike the instant case, the forum provided is Timbuktu, or its equivalent.
There also is an implication passengers can be held to have “become meaningfully informed” of the forum selection clause merely because the shipping company has posted its form contract or contracts on the Internet. There may come a time when it is fair to assume all prospective passengers are computer savvy and proficient Internet surfers. Especially given the *562average age of cruise line passengers, however, that is not yet a realistic assumption. Nor was there anything in the record of this particular case establishing appellants had either the ability to access those contracts on the Internet or had done so. Net2Phone, Inc. v. Superior Court2 (maj. opn., ante, at p. 559) on which the majority opinion relies for this point is not to the contrary. It deals with what can be reasonably expected of people who already are on the Internet, that is, to hyperlink to applicable contract terms. It says nothing about binding those who may lack computers or an Internet connection or who are computer illiterate to terms that are accessible only on a website.
I also am concerned the majority opinion elevates the holdings in a pair of unpublished U.S. District Court decisions to the status of binding California interpretations of federal maritime law as to certain critical issues. (See Ferketich v. Carnival Cruise Lines, discussed at maj. opn., ante, at pp. 559, 560-561 3 and Hicks v. Carnival Cruise lines, Inc., discussed at maj. opn., ante, at p. 560.)4 These cases appear to lay a fragile foundation for such an important and potentially influential California precedent.
On July 9, 2004, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 29, 2004. George, C. J., did not participate therein.

 Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc. (D.Hawaii 1992) 794 F.Supp. 1005.

 Net2Phone, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 583 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 149].

 Ferketich v. Carnival Cruise Lines (E.D.Pa. 2002) 2002 WL 3131977.

 Hicks v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (E.D.Pa. 1994) 1994 WL 388678.