Hantavirus outbreak claims hinge on causation and jurisdiction

Serious shipboard incidents, such as the situation involving MV Hondius, remind us how quickly they can escalate into complex, high-value international claims.  Cases like this are rarely won or lost on the headline facts. The real issues often lie in the applicable law, jurisdiction, the quality and clarity of the carrier's evidence and documentation, and the analysis of causation.

The immediate pressure on practitioners is to identify the correct defendant, the applicable law, and the most defensible forum. This can be a difficult task when various factors point in different directions, all while fighting the presumption created by media interest that the operator must be liable because harm occurred during the voyage. 

The first question to consider is whether the claim falls within the scope of the Athens Convention. Athens provides the exclusive framework for passenger death and personal injury claims arising out of carriage by sea. It has its own rules on liability, limitation, and jurisdiction that differ from national laws governing travel claims. 

The next issue is whether the incident qualifies as a “shipping incident” under the Athens Convention. Shipping incidents typically include shipwrecks, capsizing, collisions, fires, explosions, or other defects in the ship. In those circumstances, strict liability applies. Any other incidents are considered “non-shipping incidents”. Previous outbreaks on board ships involving Norovirus have been treated by the courts as non-shipping incidents. In those scenarios, the burden of proof shifts to the Claimant, who must demonstrate the carrier's fault or negligence to succeed. The mere presence of illness, death or evacuation during the voyage does not, in itself, establish negligence. The Claimant must show that the carrier failed to take reasonable measures and that this failure caused or materially contributed to the injury. Any shortcomings in infection control, including isolation procedures, medical response, sanitation, ventilation, and contingency planning, should be considered. Consideration should also be given to the potential Claimant’s adherence to any advice given and to reporting procedures. Although the burden is on the Claimant to prove fault, in practice, the way the claims are run, it still ends up with the carrier trying to disprove the claim. 

Causation is therefore often the real battleground in claims of this nature. Exposure may have occurred before embarkation, during shore activities, through environmental contact, through close personal contact on board, or through an alleged failure of on-board systems. Defence practitioners need to be able to highlight these multiple plausible explanations where they exist and encourage the court to resist hindsight reasoning or to be swayed by media speculation and inflated public interest. 

Documentary evidence can determine whether a claim lives or dies. The key issue is whether the operator can demonstrate a clear, rational, and auditable response to the outbreak. Gathering thorough, clear documents that establish the medical timeline and symptom reporting, detail communications with public authorities, describe how passenger and crew movements were managed, and record any other containment steps taken, along with evidence of risk assessments and escalation processes, will be essential and form the basis of any defence. 

Jurisdiction is the next major consideration. Claims of this type are prone to forum disputes because the factors rarely align neatly within a single, overruling jurisdiction. Despite Athens setting out defined jurisdictional gateways, disputes frequently arise in practice. The ship may be flagged in one state, operated from another, marketed through agents in a third, and carry passengers from many more. Any treatment may have taken place in multiple countries, and any deaths may have occurred on board, after disembarkation, or in transit. The defence response must therefore be tactical and commercially realistic, carefully weighing each element and its importance in any jurisdiction challenge. Identifying where the contract was made, which entity contracted as the carrier, where the carrier is located, the ticket terms, and whether the Claimant has indicated a chosen forum all need to be scrutinised. A jurisdiction challenge is not necessarily mere procedural posturing but can go to the core of the defence strategy.

In addition to jurisdiction, careful attention must be paid to any applicable limitation periods. Claims brought under the Athens Convention may be subject to shorter time limits than those for domestic personal injury claims, which can significantly affect litigation strategy.

It is also important not to assume that all claims will be in the same legal boat. Passenger and crew claims may proceed on entirely different tracks, with crew claims potentially engaging employment, flag-state and maritime labour obligations rather than passenger-carriage rules. 

The broader lesson for practitioners from the situation aboard MV Hondius is to remember that these cases sit at the intersection of maritime, contract, tort, public health, and private international law. They are highly fact-sensitive, emotionally charged, and vulnerable to retrospective simplification. To ensure a defensible position, practitioners should focus on identifying the governing regime early, work with the operator to preserve documents, rigorously test causation, ensure appropriate experts can be engaged, and challenge the forum where appropriate. There is always some tragedy surrounding complex, catastrophic, or fatal cases, and it can shape the atmosphere of litigation, but it should not determine the result.

Alexandra Pearson is Senior Associate at Clyde & Co and Member of the Travel SFT for the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL).