Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 2922 (Hammers' Law) amends 46 U.S.C. 30307 to authorize recovery of nonpecuniary damages arising from cruise ship voyages on the high seas. The bill defines "cruise ship" (≥250 passengers, onboard sleeping, embarks/disembarks in the U.S., not coastwise) and defines "nonpecuniary damages" as loss of care, comfort, and companionship.
Progressives emphasize victim compensation and accountability
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory amendment that clearly identifies its goal and integrates with an identified provision of title 46, but it leaves several practical drafting and implementation details unaddressed.
H.R. 2922 (Hammers' Law) amends 46 U.S.C. 30307 to authorize recovery of nonpecuniary damages arising from cruise ship voyages on the high seas.
The bill defines "cruise ship" (≥250 passengers, onboard sleeping, embarks/disembarks in the U.S., not coastwise) and defines "nonpecuniary damages" as loss of care, comfort, and companionship.
It inserts cruise-ship–related language into the section previously addressing limitations in certain cases, making nonpecuniary recovery available in covered cruise ship actions.
Narrow, low-cost statute with sympathetic beneficiaries but liable to industry opposition; modest hurdle in Senate and committee process.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory amendment that clearly identifies its goal and integrates with an identified provision of title 46, but it leaves several practical drafting and implementation details unaddressed.
Progressives emphasize victim compensation and accountability
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize victim compensation and accountability
This persona would likely view the bill favorably as expanding remedies for harm to cruise passengers and their families.
It restores a category of emotional-loss recovery for victims aboard large cruise ships that embark or disembark in the U.S. They would see it as improving accountability for cruise operators, especially foreign-flagged vessels serving U.S. passengers.
A centrist would weigh the bill's fairness to harmed passengers against potential economic and legal tradeoffs.
They would see a valid case for permitting emotional-loss recovery but want details about limits, evidentiary rules, and impacts on costs and litigation volume.
The centrist would favor measured safeguards to prevent excessive litigation while protecting victims.
A conservative would likely be skeptical, viewing the bill as expanding liability for commercial operators and increasing litigation exposure.
They would be concerned about federal law reaching foreign or international voyages and about upward pressure on costs and regulatory uncertainty for the cruise industry.
They would prefer narrower remedies or stronger limits on nonpecuniary awards.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost statute with sympathetic beneficiaries but liable to industry opposition; modest hurdle in Senate and committee process.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize victim compensation and accountability
Narrow, low-cost statute with sympathetic beneficiaries but liable to industry opposition; modest hurdle in Senate and committee process.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory amendment that clearly identifies its goal and integrates with an identified provision of title 46, but it leaves several practical d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.