Home > Legal Library > Article

Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected

South Carolina Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Carnival Cruise Lines

Ronald E. Cardwell
Nexsen Pruet, LLC - Greenville Office

January 30, 2014

Previously published on January 23, 2014

On January 22, 2014, the South Carolina Supreme Court granted Carnival Corporation d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by several citizen groups in Charleston, South Carolina. The Court held the citizen groups lacked standing to assert their nuisance and zoning claims related to the cruise ship Fantasy’s operation at the Union Pier Terminal near Charleston’s Old and Historic District.

To possess standing, the citizens groups needed to satisfy three elements, one of which is the citizen groups must have suffered an injury-in-fact which is a “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest.” The Court concluded the citizen groups failed to allege a concrete, particularized harm to a legally protected interest and therefore lacked standing.

Instead of any particularized harm, the citizens groups alleged only generalized grievances which could be made by the public as a whole since the Fantasy began operating at the Terminal in 2010. Allegations of increased crowds caused by passengers and crew; noise pollution caused by broadcast announcements and music; street closures caused by embarkation and debarkation; visual disruption of Charleston’s historic skyline; and pollution by soot and other contaminants, among other allegations, were not particularized injuries either to the citizen groups or their members.

The Court reasoned all members of the public suffer from and are inconvenienced by traffic congestion, pollution emissions, road closures, large crowds, loud noises, and obstructed views. The citizen groups did not allege they suffered any harms in any personal, individual way.

Since the Court held the citizen groups lacked standing which is a fundamental prerequisite for instituting a legal action, the Court did not consider the remaining legal issues raised in the citizen group’s lawsuit.


The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

View More Library Documents By...

Nexsen Pruet, LLC
Greenville Office
Greenville Office
Nexsen Pruet, LLC Overview