Interesting article on USA Today; Re lawsuits

[Winedown2]

I will probably get flamed, but here goes...

 

I recently took the time to READ the actual CONTRACT that I enetered into when printing out my tickets for the Eclipse this weekend.. and it pretty much sums up that as passengers were are SOL in terms of recourse if something goes wrong.. and that we actually understand and AGREE to this by printing out our contract..

 

in a world of sue happy people, litigiousness abounds regardless...So i was inetrested what lawyers say.. and found this in USA Today today... http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2010/11/carnival-splendor-cruise-ship-fire-lawyer-lawsuit/131515/1

 

 

It pretty much agrees... We can argue all we want about what is right or wrong morally, or what is good service or not.. but this is very interesting. If folks on X thought they had a case .. might want to know that attorneys say the folks on Splendor, who endured far worse suffering, really have no damages to sue for in most cases......

*********

[cruie4ever]

That is sage advice. With what Carnival has & is doing for those stranded Splendor pax ,how could any one find falt .OMG some people are so greedy & it never works out & that is good .

[jackdiamond]

As a retired trial attorney, I agree with Mr. Walker's comments. These cases do not even fit into the genre of "intentional infliction of emotional stress".

[Winedown2]

It really is so interesting.. I am tempted to take a poll to see how many of us ever took the time to actually read the contract that we enter into each time we print our tickets.... But it really is quite clear.. and based on what the contract says, X is actually quite generous, contractually speaking anyway, when things go awry. As was Carnival..

[jackdiamond]

It really is so interesting.. I am tempted to take a poll to see how many of us ever took the time to actually read the contract that we enter into each time we print our tickets.... But it really is quite clear.. and based on what the contract says, X is actually quite generous, contractually speaking anyway, when things go awry. As was Carnival..

You are correct.

[NnJ2010]

As a retired trial attorney, I agree with Mr. Walker's comments. These cases do not even fit into the genre of "intentional infliction of emotional stress".

 

Precisely. I had this discussion with someone on the fall 2011 cruises that were changed and advised that they read their contract and that what celebrity was doing was above what they were required to do. I'm not an attorney but have read and negotiated probably hundreds of hospitality/ travel related contracts for my job, cruises included. It always amazes me how uninformed people are and what they think they are owed. I've mentioned it here at cc before, it's the 'entitlement attitude' today that annoys me 'well they owe me this and that's not good enough and....I deserve this I deserve that and how dare everyone not conform to what I want.'. If it wasn't so annoying it'd be downright depressing.

[mathgeek1978]

As a retired trial attorney, I agree with Mr. Walker's comments. These cases do not even fit into the genre of "intentional infliction of emotional stress".

Right, because it's not intentional. Just emotional distress is not enough.

[jackdiamond]

NJ2010-I agree with the aphorism-great minds think alike.

[jackdiamond]

Right, because it's not intentional. Just emotional distress is not enough.

Correct, but I am not aware of any reasonably minded court which has sanctioned a tort of simply "emotional distress". There may be a judge, or two, who is so overcome with the political correctness snyndrome, that he or she might so sanction this as a road to recovery, but I hope, and pray, that they are in the minority.

[biker1972]

It has been pointed out here on CC numerous times that the cruise line contract is what governs all aspects of the cruise. They can change the starting date, embarkation port, ports of call, etc. with no consequences. They book air as a convenience and do not guarantee getting someone to the ship. Shore excursions are with outside contractors and the cruise line is not responsible for anything that happens.The ship's doctor is an outside contractor whom you pay and do business with just as you would your own doctor. It certainly does pay to read what you are agreeing to just as you would read every page of your mortgage agreement :rolleyes:.

[Christine Frances]

It has been pointed out here on CC numerous times that the cruise line contract is what governs all aspects of the cruise. They can change the starting date, embarkation port, ports of call, etc. with no consequences. They book air as a convenience and do not guarantee getting someone to the ship. Shore excursions are with outside contractors and the cruise line is not responsible for anything that happens.The ship's doctor is an outside contractor whom you pay and do business with just as you would your own doctor. It certainly does pay to read what you are agreeing to just as you would read every page of your mortgage agreement :rolleyes:.

 

Totally agree! And you should have backup plans as well, starting with insurance -really good insurance! And read that carefully as well.

[majo7777]

What about the fact that these boilerplate contracts are completely non-negotiable? Doesn't this weaken them in a court of law?

[smeyer418]

What about the fact that these boilerplate contracts are completely non-negotiable? Doesn't this weaken them in a court of law?

 

 

generally no. While there is some issue of a contract of adhesion, most maritime contracts are an exception to that. BTW I pointed out in a posting before that US law allows cruise companies to effectively disclaim any liability except if there is a physical injury. Since US law specifically allows such a clause, it would never raise to the level of being a contract of adhesion. Some state laws disallow contracts clauses that limit liability in product liability cases but that is their individual public policy determination on that issue. US federal public policy allows cruise lines to disclaim any liability where there is no physical injury. Federal maritime law governs most contracts for US citizens on ships. It may be different for Canadians and its definitely different under European Union rules....

[smeyer418]

It has been pointed out here on CC numerous times that the cruise line contract is what governs all aspects of the cruise. They can change the starting date, embarkation port, ports of call, etc. with no consequences. They book air as a convenience and do not guarantee getting someone to the ship. Shore excursions are with outside contractors and the cruise line is not responsible for anything that happens.The ship's doctor is an outside contractor whom you pay and do business with just as you would your own doctor. It certainly does pay to read what you are agreeing to just as you would read every page of your mortgage agreement :rolleyes:.

 

I am aware of the Florida decision(most cruise contracts use Florida law for this) on doctors as independent contractors who the cruise line has no responsibility for. Frankly I have a problem with that. Its not like you have a choice of who to go to on a ship. The cruise line selects and credentials the doctor IMO they should have some responsibility for the selection. At the very least they should require malpractice insurance and that the doctor should be able to be sued through them(service of complaint).

The Cruise line association prides itself on setting standards for these physicians. The recent changes in US Federal law also sets standards for physicians on ships. Whether this will change the Florida law I don't know.

 

Its also true that the hospital you use, the doctors are IC's but in almost every state that does not relieve them of the responsibility of selecting suitable doctors.

 

But I think the decision that makes the Cruise lines immune from any responsibility for the doctors is just plain wrong....

 

http://www2.cruising.org/industry/medical_facilities.cfm

[Scotsnomad]

. It may be different for Canadians and its definitely different under European Union rules....

 

You are right in as regards EEU laws, however even under your own legislation I would think that you would a strong case. Indications are that Celebrity were aware of the problem prior to the 13/10 Cruise and It is my understanding that this would negate their security.

 

Further to that, since the vessel is Maltese registered a claim under Maltese law might also be an avenue. If it can be proved that the vessel sailed with defective steering then they would have put the passengers into danger, proof being that they were all removed at the first port of call.

 

Im still surprised that no one has yet arranged a mass picket of their Miami office to voice their displeasure - Bad press coverage is one thing that Celebrity/RCCL dont want

 

JMHO

 

:)

[nordski]

Totally agree! And you should have backup plans as well, starting with insurance -really good insurance! And read that carefully as well.

I agree 100%

 

But even "really good" insurance often has an escape clause(s) which provide wriggle room. For example, last spring when I contacted my insurance co. regarding a potential cancelled cruise precipitated because flight paths were blocked by the Iceland Volcano, the initial ruling was that I wasn't covered because I was flying to Heathrow not Iceland.

I have no idea if this ruling stood, since we were able to find an alternate flight.

 

My policy is also vague on cancellations re: mechanical failure. Looks like I'll have to rely on the "kindness of strangers". Regardless, I hope issues can be amicably resolved.

[derf5585]

So no lawyer will take the case? I find that hard to believe.

[derf5585]

So no lawyer will take the case? I find that hard to believe.

 

Any lawyers out there want to wade in?

[gmazzo]

I doubt any lawyer would take this case on a contingency basis and I dont know if its worth hiring a lawyer that bills $250-500/hr. Thats where the ins companies screw you. They know it would probably cost more to recover the lost funds.

[CrackerjackCruisers]

I have just read this tread. My comment is this; Celebrity, by contract legaleze owes nothing. However, as a service industry, dependent on repeat business and a positive reputation in a competitive market, it is short sighted not to immediately assist passengers and make them whole. I am not asking for "pain and suffering" compensation, nor would I. I am not interested in lawsuits, except as a last resort. I just don't want to be stuck with travel expenses (airfare, hotel, cruise cost, etc) associated with my being dumped in a foreign port, thousands of miles from home, through no fault of my own. My feelings (negative) do not have a price tag, and therefore I expect nothing, but please, hurry up and make me financially whole! I used to love cruising, and was loyal to RCI. I have passed up many great deals while awaiting a response to my requests for reimbursement. To date, I have sent numerous letters, and have heard nothing!