Man Sues Celebrity

I don't have neuropathy, but on the Summit to Bermuda the deck is incredibly hot. I had to stand on a towel if i did not have on sandles. But i agree that with that type of disorder he should have kept his sandles on until he got to the pool. That is why there is always a pile of them by the pool entrance.

As for the McDonalds case. They lost due to prior warnings about the temperature of the coffee. She would have gotten a much larger payout if she had been burned without the stupidity of putting the cup between her legs. Of course without that stupidity she probably never burns herself in the first place.

Seems to me there are two guilty parties here.

The poor gentlemen and wife in my opinion both used incredibly poor judgement.

Celebrity owes due diligence where there are issues of danger. For example wet floor signs.

Since the deck floor temperatures can soar to be a danger, post signs or wet the deck to cool or both.

When approaching turbulent weather there are supposed to be announcements. I have witnessed some instances where they "forgot". Anyone can burn their feet on a hot deck not realizing just how hot they become. Wet floor signs means the precedent is set to notice when at risk.

Hope they drained the pool after he got out with his skin floating around in there.

:D Good one.

I hope I’ll soon be your hucklebearer! :)

He's suing the wrong party! The hot deck was caused by the sun, not Celebrity. Who created the sun? Therefore, he should be suing the Creator of the sun for creating an item that could potentially cause injury. Simply a case of product liability.

Lol!

When was the last time you were at a beach and saw a sign "caution....hot sand"...or on that same beach saw a caution sign about getting sunburned/sunstroke....or....you rented a car that's sitting in the hot sun and you get in to find a sign "caution...steering wheel may be hot"? And let's not forget all the times we have seen warning signs that we have to READ....but how about those who don't hear anything so a visually impaired person would not have received a warning.

It's good that in the USA one doesn't have to take responsibility for common sense.....keeps the legal system well oiled so that when they retire, the lawyers and judges can book suites on celebrity ships :)

We were on Silhouette in March and I do recall seeing what amounted to "Slippery when Wet" signs on upper decks. It didn't seriously register other than "Well yeah - any idiot would know that." Some idiots are more idiotic than others I guess.

But I still wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be his retirement plan.

When was the last time you were at a beach and saw a sign "caution....hot sand"...or on that same beach saw a caution sign about getting sunburned/sunstroke....or....you rented a car that's sitting in the hot sun and you get in to find a sign "caution...steering wheel may be hot"? And let's not forget all the times we have seen warning signs that we have to READ....but how about those who don't hear anything so a visually impaired person would not have received a warning.

 

It's good that in the USA one doesn't have to take responsibility for common sense.....keeps the legal system well oiled so that when they retire, the lawyers and judges can book suites on celebrity ships :)

Lack of common sense, so true....

When was the last time you were at a beach and saw a sign "caution....hot sand"...or on that same beach saw a caution sign about getting sunburned/sunstroke....or....you rented a car that's sitting in the hot sun and you get in to find a sign "caution...steering wheel may be hot"? And let's not forget all the times we have seen warning signs that we have to READ....but how about those who don't hear anything so a visually impaired person would not have received a warning.

 

It's good that in the USA one doesn't have to take responsibility for common sense.....keeps the legal system well oiled so that when they retire, the lawyers and judges can book suites on celebrity ships :)

Your points are all valid. The civil courts are flooded with many similar claims that go absolutely nowhere. I think this action is just the first step, perhaps, and the court will order settlement meetings, etc. On the surface (hot as it was :)) it appears the plaintiff may not have taken appropriate steps (with covered soles) to prevent any injury. But again, I'm not a lawyer or judge, even though I will be on a cruise ship soon.

As for the McDonalds case. They lost due to prior warnings about the temperature of the coffee. She would have gotten a much larger payout if she had been burned without the stupidity of putting the cup between her legs. Of course without that stupidity she probably never burns herself in the first place.

Just adding that originally, the woman just asked for her medical bills to be covered from several things I've read about the case. McDonald's refused, so she sued. And yes, they had settle other lawsuits about their coffee. They served it hotter then most places, so a spill caused more serious burns faster.

When was the last time you were at a beach and saw a sign "caution....hot sand"...or on that same beach saw a caution sign about getting sunburned/sunstroke....or....you rented a car that's sitting in the hot sun and you get in to find a sign "caution...steering wheel may be hot"? And let's not forget all the times we have seen warning signs that we have to READ....but how about those who don't hear anything so a visually impaired person would not have received a warning.

 

It's good that in the USA one doesn't have to take responsibility for common sense.....keeps the legal system well oiled so that when they retire, the lawyers and judges can book suites on celebrity ships :)

I do recall seeing lots of warning signs in California - hotels warning you they use dangerous chemicals on the premises

I do recall seeing lots of warning signs in California - hotels warning you they use dangerous chemicals on the premises

Prop 65 warnings in California: If you were visiting a paint thinner plant in California there would be signs informing you of the vapors you would be inhaling and so on. It does go to the point of chemicals believed to cause cancer, such as the products of the Maillard reaction (which makes food brown and tasty when it is cooked). I have mixed feelings about it.

There is a doctrine in law, which my layman's understanding is that if you know that you are exposed to damage due to the actions of another party, you still have to prevent the damage as best you can. I can see a few arguments either way. Will they start water-cooling the pool deck someday? :)

How dumb can you be.

Well no reasons to even look at the merits of the case, or if the line did anything wrong.... Becasue this case is already dead...... it can go nowhere and will end with nothing.

Many others here have given me flames for having agreement in place with a Admiralty Law Attorney. But from that I know that these lawsuits must be filed within one year and that by the contract the Federal Court is the Southern District of Florida. So this guys lawyer filed in the wrong court and years to late. The case will be dismissed. The Cruise Line will not need to pay him anything.

Well no reasons to even look at the merits of the case, or if the line did anything wrong.... Becasue this case is already dead...... it can go nowhere and will end with nothing.

 

Many others here have given me flames for having agreement in place with a Admiralty Law Attorney. But from that I know that these lawsuits must be filed within one year and that by the contract the Federal Court is the Southern District of Florida. So this guys lawyer filed in the wrong court and years to late. The case will be dismissed. The Cruise Line will not need to pay him anything.

The ambulance chaser representing him may be hoping that enough negative publicity will prompt the line to make an offer just to shut them up. But so far I've only seen a couple of stories so that strategy might not work - hopefully.

In this case, this plaintiff isn't well off and Celebrity would gain nothing by suing him. That's why this will get settled. It's not worth it for either party to move forward with this case.

hmmm... I think I just found a way to supplement my retirement income!

Prop 65 warnings in California: If you were visiting a paint thinner plant in California there would be signs informing you of the vapors you would be inhaling and so on. It does go to the point of chemicals believed to cause cancer, such as the products of the Maillard reaction (which makes food brown and tasty when it is cooked). I have mixed feelings about it.

 

There is a doctrine in law, which my layman's understanding is that if you know that you are exposed to damage due to the actions of another party, you still have to prevent the damage as best you can. I can see a few arguments either way. Will they start water-cooling the pool deck someday? :)

I think you are referring to the 'last clear chance' defense in basic civil law (from a class in business law I took hundreds of years ago). In this case the plaintiff had a 'last clear chance' to drive his scooter to the pool's edge, then remove his shoes and socks, put down a soaked towel and then step into the pool. The story says he got off the ship and then returned because it was too hot. The reasonable, prudent person would normally then be able to deduce that the very same sun heating off ship would be baring down on the very surfaces of the ship, including the pool deck. Just my opinion, of course.:cool:

Well cruise lines based in Florida Carnival, NCL, & Royal all have in the contracts that cases must be filed in Federal Court Southern District of Florida. And this cannot be questioned as already went to the US Supreme Court and they ruled, that it is Southern District. That case Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991).

The reply from Celebrity is due in less than 2 weeks. I would be shocked if they offer any settlement, and the court will end it.

It's good that in the USA one doesn't have to take responsibility for common sense.....keeps the legal system well oiled so that when they retire, the lawyers and judges can book suites on celebrity ships?

Just wonder who advised them to sue?

Lawyer

Doctor?

Just wonder who advised them to sue?

Lawyer

Doctor?

Retirement Planner? :)

This guy was on a ship docked in Greece. Where would he file a law suit? He also refused treatment, ie, transportation to a facility ashore.

Same thing - they should have filed overseas.

US courts should not even hear it.

Might be able to get a Go Fund Me account going for sympathy. I don't see how they can win.

Same thing - they should have filed overseas.

 

US courts should not even hear it.

That's the point. The only court of jurisdiction is the Southern District court in U.S. Federal court in Florida.

No place overseas has jurisdiction. From the Legal Information page for Celebrity Cruises:

"You consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts in, and agree that any action at law or in equity arising out of or relating to these terms shall be filed only in, the state or federal courts located in Dade County, Florida. You hereby consent and submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of litigating any such action"

This is what a passenger agrees to when they book and pay for their trip. Just so you know.

Same thing - they should have filed overseas.

 

US courts should not even hear it.

As I stated a few post back all these cases for the big three must be filed in Southern District U.S. Federal Court. The US Supreme court confirmed and upheld this in a 1991 case. So no longer court can change this. Also by the same contract cases must be filed within one year. So this case is a loser across the boards.

The only thing that could even be in play here is if the lawyer believes the 1991 case is wrong and could be overturned by the Supreme Court. But that would take years if they would even hear it and then it would go back to start again,. Somehow I don't think a 83 year old plus guest has the time to do this. And if he has the time, what about the cost, somewhere around a million dollars.

Sorry this case is already dead.

That's the point. The only court of jurisdiction is the Southern District court in U.S. Federal court in Florida.

 

 

No place overseas has jurisdiction. From the Legal Information page for Celebrity Cruises:

"You consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts in, and agree that any action at law or in equity arising out of or relating to these terms shall be filed only in, the state or federal courts located in Dade County, Florida. You hereby consent and submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of litigating any such action"

 

This is what a passenger agrees to when they book and pay for their trip. Just so you know.

When I see things like this I do wonder how words written on a piece of paper (even signed) can cover all legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world., no matter how complex or byzantine :Dthey might be. For example, in the UK you can not sign away certain protections you have in law (e.g. allowing yourself to be assaulted or for employment law not to apply to you) .

Additionally, if I book my cruise directly with Celebrity or a TA in the UK I'm pretty sure I don't have to go to Dade county in all circumstances for action against Celebrity, UK t&c's clearly bring in ABTA (Association of British Travel Agents) in matters of dispute? Within Europe don't things like The Athens Convention ( relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea)

and its various protocols and regulations also play a part?

Maybe this is why it's more expensive to book in the UK

I