The Legal Impacts of COVID-19 in the Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Industry

allowed to stop at its next scheduled port, in Antigua, on 9 th March, it proceeded to sail across the Atlantic for seven days, with passengers effectively trapped. These passengers were not isolated in their rooms until 15 th March, the day after the ship learned that the Italian lady who disembarked in Puerto Rico had tested positive. The rest of the passengers eventually disembarked in France, where 36 people tested positive. A Californian couple has reportedly sued Princess Cruises for $1 million, for the operator’s – they say – gross negligence in handling customers’ exposure to coronavirus on its ship the Grand Princess. There had been a considerable outbreak on the ship during an earlier voyage, which allegedly should have caused the operator to take extra precautions with new passengers. Most importantly, given their knowledge of prior instances of infection on-board and thus exposure of the crew to the virus, the Claimants allege that the cruise operator should have implemented proper screening protocols. There was also an abject failure to adequately alert them of the risks. Indeed, they say that had they known of the extent of the exposure they would not have boarded the ship. An Australian law firm has reportedly been considering a further class action, also against Princess Cruises, in respect of the Ruby Princess cruise ship and specifically the 400 passengers who disembarked on 19 th March who contracted the disease. The action could extend to the authorities who were responsible for handling these passengers after they disembarked. There was a suggestion that the cruise ship staff misled the health and border authorities , and the New South Wales police is also investigating the matter. There is no reason why similar class actions should not be brought within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. If it can be shown that a cruise operator knew or ought to have known that its cruise liner might be infected with the virus, it ought to be a fairly straightforward matter to show that it ought to have taken the necessary steps to eliminate the contagion, before allowing any further cruises aboard that vessel to take place. UK holidaymakers have been bringing similar claims against cruise operators in relation to outbreaks of norovirus for some years, with mixed success; in order for any such claim to succeed it must be shown that the cruise operator knew or ought to have known that there was a risk of infection and that it failed to take adequate steps to eradicate this risk. Typically, on the first affected cruise, this would not be possible because the cruise operator could not have known that a contagious passenger would be likely to come aboard. However, if adequate steps were not taken to isolate passengers or to deep clean the vessel between cruises, liability could attach because any subsequent outbreak could be linked to the failure to limit other passengers’ exposure. There is no apparent reason why similar reasoning could not be brought to bear on COVID-19 cases, save that in the case of COVID-19 the virus is even more virulent and the danger posed by it has been even better publicised.