CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR NOT ENFORCEABLE WHERE PASSENGER PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT NOTICE THAT THE PASSENGER TICKET CONTAINED IMPORTANT CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS
DEBRA WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROSS SOUND FERRY, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 01-7502
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
273 F.3d 520; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26345
November 2, 2001, Argued
December 10, 2001, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Plaintiff-appellant Debra Ward appeals from the March 29, 2001 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Denis R. Hurley, District Judge) granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Cross Sound Ferry and dismissing Ward's complaint as time-barred.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff injured passenger sued defendant ferry operator for personal injuries from a slip and fall on the gangway as she was boarding the operator's boat. The passenger appealed from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting summary judgment to the operator and dismissing the complaint as time-barred.
OVERVIEW: The operator sought to enforce a contractual time limitation appearing on the back of the passage ticket that required suits to be filed within one year of an injury. The passenger's husband obtained her ticket just two to three minutes before boarding the ferry. On boarding, the operator collected the tickets. The operator did not dispute that it typically issued tickets just prior to boarding and collected them upon boarding. The court of appeals found that possession of the ticket for such a short period of time was insufficient to give the passenger reasonable notice that the ticket contained important contractual limitations. Indeed, the fact that the operator collected the tickets so quickly after providing them to the passenger tended to negate the idea that the tickets were important contractual documents. The district court improperly (1) confused the question of reasonable communication with the less important question whether it was possible to read the ticket in the time provided, and (2) shifted the burden to the passenger to learn, after the fact, if notice had been given, rather than determining whether the operator had given reasonable notice in the first place.
OUTCOME: The court of appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the operator, and remanded for further proceedings.
