The 'Jumper'. - A Serious Question

Forgetting the how's and the 'whys', is it possible for NCL and the passengers to sue her? She's British, the ship is foreign and she fell in European waters. Could it prove too complex?

Serious thoughts and answers please.

Sue her for what?

no she cannot be sued. HOWEVER she can be billed for the costs incurred rescuing her if it is determined it was a deliberate jump.

no she cannot be sued. HOWEVER she can be billed for the costs incurred rescuing her if it is determined it was a deliberate jump.

I would love to see the legal theory behind this assertion, especially the choice of law that it would be based on.

Also, I was under the impression that she 'fell' (perhaps, sitting up on the back railing) overboard which is a pretty good drop too the sea. I did the picture of the area where she might have fell /jumped from ? But never did hear if there were any witnesses and if not, how did anyone know she went overboard ?. Sooo, I suppose this might sbe said/cruise said case IF they wanted her to reinburse the Croation Coast Guard if they send NCL a bill. Just an observation:p

Mac

Also, I was under the impression that she 'fell' (perhaps, sitting up on the back railing) overboard which is a pretty good drop too the sea. I did the picture of the area where she might have fell /jumped from ? But never did hear if there were any witnesses and if not, how did anyone know she went overboard ?. Sooo, I suppose this might sbe said/cruise said case IF they wanted her to reinburse the Croation Coast Guard if they send NCL a bill. Just an observation:p

 

Mac

NCL has reportedly said they have footage of her going overboard, so presumably they can tell whether she jumped or "fell".

According to latest reports, she was drunk and had been arguing with her boyfriend for most of the day. The Captain has also been quoted as saying that there had been 'a jumper' .

Sue her for what?

* For the cost of extra fuel and operational costs for the cruise line.

* For the cost of the rescue operation by the Coast Guard.

* For the cost of missed flights or a missed day in Venice for the rest of the 2,300 passengers (they arrived at their final destination 7 hours late).

* For the inconvenience and lost cruise time for all the 2,300 new passengers waiting to board the next cruise.

* For the cost incurred due to the disruption in replenishing the ship for the next cruise.

.....just to name a few valid reasons.

I wonder if NCL (and possibly other lines) might place her on a “may not cruise” list. I have heard of other troublemakers being barred,

A fine legal question, and while not an Admiralty lawyer, here's my practical seaman's take on it.

While the cruise ship can sue a passenger for damages or losses that occurred while the passenger was on the ship, these costs were made while the person was not onboard.

Once the person is not onboard, and is at peril in the sea, regardless of how or why, the ship has the obligation to render assistance to that person, and could be sued by that person if they did not render all possible assistance. So, the cruise line couldn't say, we won't look for you if you jump overboard, 'cause it costs us a butt load of money, 'cause it will cost them more if they don't (either a survivor, or a family member suing).

The cost of the Croatian Coast Guard is irrelevant, as this is covered by an international convention where SAR services are provided free of charge.

Then there is the cost/reward view of the whole thing. Let's say that the suggested costs by Sloopsailor come to several hundred thousand dollars (maybe a million). So, NCL sues the person for these costs, how much do you really think they will ever recover? Could many of us fork over even a couple of hundred thousand, even over the rest of our life, in addition to basic living costs (which are always segregated from what a debtor pays)? So what's the point of suing this person for money you'll never get?

Could the passengers sue this person? Don't know, but it would most certainly be in the country where the ship is flagged, and under their laws of liability and compensation. Would it be worth the cost? Probably not.

And yes, this person will be placed on a "no sail" list.

A fine legal question, and while not an Admiralty lawyer, here's my practical seaman's take on it.

 

While the cruise ship can sue a passenger for damages or losses that occurred while the passenger was on the ship, these costs were made while the person was not onboard.

 

Once the person is not onboard, and is at peril in the sea, regardless of how or why, the ship has the obligation to render assistance to that person, and could be sued by that person if they did not render all possible assistance. So, the cruise line couldn't say, we won't look for you if you jump overboard, 'cause it costs us a butt load of money, 'cause it will cost them more if they don't (either a survivor, or a family member suing).

 

The cost of the Croatian Coast Guard is irrelevant, as this is covered by an international convention where SAR services are provided free of charge.

 

Then there is the cost/reward view of the whole thing. Let's say that the suggested costs by Sloopsailor come to several hundred thousand dollars (maybe a million). So, NCL sues the person for these costs, how much do you really think they will ever recover? Could many of us fork over even a couple of hundred thousand, even over the rest of our life, in addition to basic living costs (which are always segregated from what a debtor pays)? So what's the point of suing this person for money you'll never get?

 

Could the passengers sue this person? Don't know, but it would most certainly be in the country where the ship is flagged, and under their laws of liability and compensation. Would it be worth the cost? Probably not.

 

And yes, this person will be placed on a "no sail" list.

Should be placed on a "no travel by any method" list including even buses and uber cars.

DON

A fine legal question, and while not an Admiralty lawyer, here's my practical seaman's take on it.

 

While the cruise ship can sue a passenger for damages or losses that occurred while the passenger was on the ship, these costs were made while the person was not onboard.

 

Once the person is not onboard, and is at peril in the sea, regardless of how or why, the ship has the obligation to render assistance to that person, and could be sued by that person if they did not render all possible assistance. So, the cruise line couldn't say, we won't look for you if you jump overboard, 'cause it costs us a butt load of money, 'cause it will cost them more if they don't (either a survivor, or a family member suing).

 

The cost of the Croatian Coast Guard is irrelevant, as this is covered by an international convention where SAR services are provided free of charge.

 

Then there is the cost/reward view of the whole thing. Let's say that the suggested costs by Sloopsailor come to several hundred thousand dollars (maybe a million). So, NCL sues the person for these costs, how much do you really think they will ever recover? Could many of us fork over even a couple of hundred thousand, even over the rest of our life, in addition to basic living costs (which are always segregated from what a debtor pays)? So what's the point of suing this person for money you'll never get?

 

Could the passengers sue this person? Don't know, but it would most certainly be in the country where the ship is flagged, and under their laws of liability and compensation. Would it be worth the cost? Probably not.

 

And yes, this person will be placed on a "no sail" list.

Thanks for your answer .

Would the 'no-sail' list be just for NCL or (hopefully) all cruise lines?

Thanks for your answer .

 

Would the 'no-sail' list be just for NCL or (hopefully) all cruise lines?

Shipping companies have an asset called the "Mariner's Index" that lists crew who have had accidents or illnesses that required a lot of care and cost, just to see if/when someone has the same "illness" several times. The shipping companies can then deny that person a job.

Whether the cruise lines have a similar asset within CLIA for passengers, I don't know, but my experience has been that any "no sail" list is only company wide.

* For the cost of extra fuel and operational costs for the cruise line.

* For the cost of the rescue operation by the Coast Guard.

* For the cost of missed flights or a missed day in Venice for the rest of the 2,300 passengers (they arrived at their final destination 7 hours late).

* For the inconvenience and lost cruise time for all the 2,300 new passengers waiting to board the next cruise.

* For the cost incurred due to the disruption in replenishing the ship for the next cruise.

 

.....just to name a few valid reasons.

I mean under what legal principle they may want to sue her.

There needs to be an established Trt, or breach of contract etc to sue

Similar to Chengkp75, I am but a simple mariner and not an Admiralty Lawyer.

As a Captain, we have a legal requirement to provide assistance to anyone in distress at sea, regardless of their circumstances. Any Captain failing to provide assistance, with out good reason, is liable to be charged and could lose a certificate of competency.

On being notified of a man-overboard you exercise a manoeuvre known as a Williamson turn, which should return you to your original track, in the opposite direction. On reaching the potential area you initiate a grid search based on predicted drift. The Captain remains on-scene commander (OSC) of the search until Coast Guard/SAR assets arrive on scene. I couldn't leave until released by the Coast Guard OSC, or the Rescue Coordination Centre by radio.

I have had the misfortune of experiencing 2 jumpers from my ships, always at night, and have spent many hours searching until relieved by the Coast Guard. My costs of additional fuel and crew overtime were substantial. My vessel or the company had no way of recouping these costs, especially since nobody was rescued. I have seen figures quoted that NCL incurred costs of $600K, which are probably reasonably close.

On another company ship, a pax jumped while transiting a narrow channel - about 2 cables from the beach. He swam ashore and was picked up by the RCMP. He was formally charged - sorry can't recall the exact charges.

With respect to lawsuits against the passenger. I believe NCL could sue, but the costs involved and low probability of recouping any money make this highly unlikely. Could other passengers sue her, I believe it could be possible, but in what jurisdiction, I don't know and again the low probability of getting anything makes it unlikely.

Will she be banned from NCL - most definitely yes, just don't know if it will be lifetime or for a defined period.

BTW - while I don't believe it has hit mainstream media, I read in one of my marine journals this morning that HAL lost a crew member overboard in Alaska last week. Apparently no video, so they must have known the camera coverages to go over unseen.

The reality of this case; She wanted to kill herself but was rescued before she drowned. Embarrassed that she was rescued instead,she said she fell overboard. But given the harsh criticism that she's received on this forum she now says that the rescuers interrupted her plan to kill herself and now plans to sue the Queen and O'bama.

I googled Eileen Dover, but nothing came up.

just kidding.

"Eileen Dover"

:D:D:D:D:D

What monetary damages did fellow pax suffer for whidh they would be suing? What did it cost them of dollar value?

What monetary damages did fellow pax suffer for whidh they would be suing? What did it cost them of dollar value?

Of course it would depend on a number of factors, but having reached port several hours late, a number of them would have missed onward travel connections - possibly costing re-booking expenses as well as hotel and meal costs not anticipated.

One family is quoted in the papers today as saying they are £5000 ($6,456) out of pocket because of an overnight stay in a hotel plus change of flight. Three members will also lose a day's work pay.

They also say that they have been informed by their travel insurers that they are not covered for these expenses!!