Celebrity dumps disabled man on island.

[kitkat9438]

I am confused lol. The way the CC story reads is that he fell off a toilet. It didnt say it was in his room necisarily. So I just assumed they meant he fell off a toilet in a public restroom. Otherwise how did passengers help him up? Did Celebrity call passengers to help him up? This whole thing is very confusing lol.

 

 

Ok I didnt think I saw a response to why he didnt hire the nurse. Wouldnt that have been cheaper than flying himself all the way home from a foriegn country?

 

Good point!! I hadn't even thought about that, but assumed he was in his cabin when he fell off the toliet and yes I'm sure it would have been much cheaper to hire a nurse for a few days (since he was on day 7 out of 10) rather than the expense of hotels and airfare to get home. Somehow I think if this had happened in a public restroom, more people would have been talking about the situation on the boards.

 

Just more holes in the story with things that were left out, leaving more questions.

[NLH Arizona]

Good point!! I hadn't even thought about that, but assumed he was in his cabin when he fell off the toliet and yes I'm sure it would have been much cheaper to hire a nurse for a few days (since he was on day 7 out of 10) rather than the expense of hotels and airfare to get home. Somehow I think if this had happened in a public restroom, more people would have been talking about the situation on the boards.

 

Just more holes in the story with things that were left out, leaving more questions.

 

If he hired a nurse, then he would not have had a lawsuit.

[Jobeth66]

If he hired a nurse, then he would not have had a lawsuit.

 

Got it in one.

[SG81]

wait. this was a nude cruise? they have those?

[Immebsmom]

Sounds like this guy expects everyone to be a caregiver to him...he sued Northwest Airlines in 2008 for very similar reasons:

 

http://www.callsam.com/bernstein-media-center/richard-bernstein-news-fighting-for-justice/disabled-travelers-file-lawsuit-for-access-to-airlines/wheelchair-user-alleges-bias-in-suit-against-airport-and-carrier

 

Now, my mom was physically limited, and in a wheelchair, and there is no way we would have let her fly or cruise by herself (in her 60's) even if she had wanted to. She needed help with basic items too, getting dressed, hygiene, etc..., she still had the capacity to enjoy things, but could not do for herself anymore. I would never in a million years expect my butler or stateroom attendant to take care of these things for her. That is why you have a companion. Also, why would this person think that a butler would even be able to lift him up? Carrying and caring for someone with physical disabilities requires training so that you do not hurt yourself or the person you are caring for. What if the butler was older and/or had a bad back? Was it now the cruise line's responsibility to bring on another butler just for this passenger? Also the butler was not 'his', he was the butler for multiple staterooms. I think this passenger made a whole lot of assumptions, and was not very forthcoming with either the booking agent or the cruise line. My mom didn't want to admit that she was as disabled as she was, but based on this passengers history, it appears he thinks that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE should be able and available to service him as a trained professional health worker, whether qualified or not.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

wait. this was a nude cruise? they have those?

 

Yep, they sure do. Check out this thread for more info, or do a search for "nude cruise"-- http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1254993

[dmwnc1959]

This has got to be a Cruise Critic record or something: 12 pages, 230 posts and almost 12,680 views in under 3 days, 1 hour, and 40 minutes! ;)

[wvufan]

Given the reports of other cruisers, this one "accessible" Sky-Suite on the Century appears to not be truly accessible. One must ask the question, if he had been given an appropriate room would any of this have happened. Many of your are making an illogical leap that wheel chair bound and being self sufficient are mutually exclusive. With appropriate accommodations, many people in wheel chairs can be self-sufficient.

 

I can't imagine that someone who presents themself as a knowledgeable supporter in this case would use such an archaic term as "wheelchair bound" that is considered highly insulting to those who use wheelchairs. With very few exceptions involving multiple disabilities, those folks really are not bound, tied in, or restrained in wheelchairs.

 

In fact, it is this very kind of language that the guy on the cruise is supposed to be advocating against.

 

The slogan "people first" means that people with disabilities are first and foremost people and the fact that they have a disability is secondary. So, the proper reference would be person who is blind, or person who uses a wheelchair.

 

Incidentally, we were on a cruise on the Enchantment last December, and there were a lot of folks from a group home who sailed through the Make a Wish program. Many of them, as well as others not in the home, used wheelchairs, including Miss Wheelchair America (title may not be exact).. I took the opportunity to talk to many of them and their aides, and there was not one complaint.

 

OOOEEE :D:D Bob and Phyl

[cnote100]

LOL! LMAO! ROTFLMAO!:D:D:D

 

Oh, lord, I just couldn't resist!

 

I know. I didn't think about it when I wrote it, but noticed it before I posted, thought I'd leave it anyways.

[h20cruzer]

I will not comment on this guys situation. However I will comment on my own experiences on RCCL as well as Celebrity.

The crew has always in my opinion gone out of there way to help disabled and seniors. I travelled with a cousin in a wheelchair with MS, she was treated with the utmost respect.

My best friend had a broken foot on one trip and the crew was fantastic. both room stewards were fantastic always willing to do what we asked. No lifting was involved with the stewards though. My friend in the wheelchair did fall on another cruise while in the buffet line and about 5 ot 6 restaurant people came and swooped her up. No one said I am not going to touch you.

Not all experiences are like this guys. This will not stop me from sailing RCCL and Celebrity.

Between RCCL and Celebrity I have done about 40 cruises so I do feel I have some basis to make coments on how the crew reacts.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

This has got to be a Cruise Critic record or something: 12 pages, 230 posts and almost 12,680 views in under 3 days, 1 hour, and 40 minutes! ;)

 

Like someone said, it's more entertaining than what's on TV.:rolleyes::cool:

[dmwnc1959]

Like someone said, it's more entertaining than what's on TV.:rolleyes::cool:

 

That coming from someone living in Wisconsin's current newsworthy (political) climate says a lot! But we won't open that can of worms here... ;)

 

P.S. Agree about Post #178. Quite superb!

[cnote100]

This has got to be a Cruise Critic record or something: 12 pages, 230 posts and almost 12,680 views in under 3 days, 1 hour, and 40 minutes! ;)

 

I guess the OP, also a sort of activist and client of Bernstein, did his job my starting it.

[NLH Arizona]

Given the reports of other cruisers, this one "accessible" Sky-Suite on the Century appears to not be truly accessible. One must ask the question, if he had been given an appropriate room would any of this have happened. Many of your are making an illogical leap that wheel chair bound and being self sufficient are mutually exclusive. With appropriate accommodations, many people in wheel chairs can be self-sufficient.

 

I don't think it is the posters on here that are making an illogical leap, I think it is in fact the gentleman who said: “I was in shock and couldn’t believe it,” he said. “Before I got onboard nobody raised any issue about my disability.”, leading all to believe that Celebrity should have made the deduction that he needed caregiver help (which they don't supply) based on him being in a wheelchair. This gentleman is also under the assumption that Celebrity should assume that everyone who purchases a suite (with a butler) needs additional help.

[ISABELLA]

A lot of logical questions this situation raises. Put them all together make me think that this was all planned scam - to sue the cruise line.

[detroitcruiser]

I can't imagine that someone who presents themself as a knowledgeable supporter in this case would use such an archaic term as "wheelchair bound" that is considered highly insulting to those who use wheelchairs. With very few exceptions involving multiple disabilities, those folks really are not bound, tied in, or restrained in wheelchairs.

 

In fact, it is this very kind of language that the guy on the cruise is supposed to be advocating against.

 

The slogan "people first" means that people with disabilities are first and foremost people and the fact that they have a disability is secondary. So, the proper reference would be person who is blind, or person who uses a wheelchair.

 

Incidentally, we were on a cruise on the Enchantment last December, and there were a lot of folks from a group home who sailed through the Make a Wish program. Many of them, as well as others not in the home, used wheelchairs, including Miss Wheelchair America (title may not be exact).. I took the opportunity to talk to many of them and their aides, and there was not one complaint.

 

OOOEEE :D:D Bob and Phyl

 

I am sorry if it offended you, I truly am. I know that labels can be hurtful but honestly, as a blind person, I know that it is a person's intent that matters most and here my intent has been crystal clear -- I want access for everyone. I do not care what people refer to me as, they can call me the blind guy, the disabled guy, etc..... all I am focusing on is the facts and they are emerging quite clearly. The cruise line apparently converted a non-accessible room into an "accessible one" leaving a lip between the bedroom and bathroom making it impossible for the chair user to navigate on his own.

[fungo]

... all I am focusing on is the facts and they are emerging quite clearly. The cruise line apparently converted a non-accessible room into an "accessible one" leaving a lip between the bedroom and bathroom making it impossible for the chair user to navigate on his own.

 

How can you say the facts are quite clear, then use the word "apparently" in the next sentence.

 

The only thing that's clear is that thanks to there being a single slanted source, nothing is clear.

[fungo]

And if getting in and out of his stateroom bathroom was so problematic then how did he make it 7 out of 10 days with nobody helping him get in and out of it? How did he fall off the toilet if he couldn't get into the bathroom in the first place?

[fungo]

Facts:

 

1) This passenger entered into a contract with Celebrity

2) This passenger had an expectation of service that was not guaranteed explicitly or implicitly within this contract.

3) Celebrity was forced to exercise their contractual right to disembark the passenger after all other remedies offered within the contract had failed to prove satisfactory to both parties

4) The bathroom either had no lip, had an ADA compliant lip (by way of exemption) or had an ADA non-compliant lip, but nobody here knows that for certain.

 

Did I miss any?

 

From a legal standpoint, isn't all of this "I asked for this and was told that" stuff just here-say?

[Jobeth66]

I am sorry if it offended you, I truly am. I know that labels can be hurtful but honestly, as a blind person, I know that it is a person's intent that matters most and here my intent has been crystal clear -- I want access for everyone. I do not care what people refer to me as, they can call me the blind guy, the disabled guy, etc..... all I am focusing on is the facts and they are emerging quite clearly. The cruise line apparently converted a non-accessible room into an "accessible one" leaving a lip between the bedroom and bathroom making it impossible for the chair user to navigate on his own.

 

Your refusal to respond to questions of merit is duly noted.

 

As was mentioned - he made it through 7 of 10 days, so CLEARLY 'access' wasn't an issue. Or are you intimating that he did not use the facilities in his cabin for the first week of his cruise? I did not see that mentioned in the article, and given the hyperbole in the article, I must therefore draw the conclusion that he had no problems with the accessibility of his stateroom.

 

However, what is clear is that he fell in a bathroom. Likely, given the fact that other passengers assisted, it was NOT the bathroom in his stateroom, but rather a public facility somewhere on the ship. Unless we are to believe that other passengers heard him screaming for help in his stateroom - but that isn't mentioned in the article, and I'm cynical enough to think that if that WERE the case, it would definitely have been brought up.

 

So. AFTER he fell, likely in a public facility, it became clear that he was not 100% self-sufficient, and he was given the option of either bringing aboard an aide for the remainder of the cruise (again - one was found for him, and accommodations rearranged to provide for the aide) or to leave the ship.

 

He /chose/ to leave the ship.

 

There's no other way around it.

 

He CHOSE to leave the ship with a few days left in his vacation, and make his OWN WAY home. Now he wants the cruise line, which was chartered by a tour group - his trip was not booked directly with Celebrity - to reimburse him 100% of his cruise AND the cost of his trip home.

 

What about that seems 'reasonable' to you? It would almost certainly have cost him less to pay for the aide for a few days and to be assured of being taken care of - so why did he refuse that option?

 

And why no action against/mention of the tour group he actually booked the trip through? Surely he feels THEY owed him a duty that was somehow breached?

[PartyAllDaTyme]

The cruise line apparently converted a non-accessible room into an "accessible one" leaving a lip between the bedroom and bathroom making it impossible for the chair user to navigate on his own.

 

Moot point. If he falls off a toilet and can't get up by himself, he is not self-sufficient. The presence or absence of a lip that is difficult (but not impossible) to navigate is immaterial.

 

I give you credit for continuing to respond, but I'm afraid your arguments just don't hold up.

[kitkat9438]

And if getting in and out of his stateroom bathroom was so problematic then how did he make it 7 out of 10 days with nobody helping him get in and out of it? How did he fall off the toilet if he couldn't get into the bathroom in the first place?

 

You are right and these are "clear" questions that the OP has refused to answer if he wants to be so "clear".

 

If this is such a problem, where are all the other instances of someone having problems navigating into the bathroom from the bedroom?

 

So OP if you want to be clear answer the following questions:

 

1. Why did this man not bring someone with him to help when his wife could not accompany him?

 

2. Are you going to tell us that he did not know if he fell off the toliet or bed or whatever, that he would not be able to get himself up without assistance?

 

3. How did he get into the restroom for 7 out of the 10 days by himself?

 

4. How did he get into the stateroom by himself? Wouldn't that have a "lip" like all other cabins, even though it is wider than the normal cabin door to allow for wheelchair access?

 

3. Why did he not accept the offer of a nurse when provisions were made for him?

 

The bottom line that is clear to me is that this man had no business whatsoever traveling alone when he needed help taking care of himself (not self-sufficient) and should never have expected anyone else to do it for him except for his own travelling companion or nurse.

[98Charlie]

Good point, he may not have been in his cabin. But the public bathrooms have accessible stalls. If he fell and could not get up without assistance, it could have happened just as easily in the cabin bathroom, lip or no lip. I think this incident makes the issue of the accessibility of the bathroom moot.

 

BTW, Jobeth66, post #178 was excellent!

 

 

 

I agree with your post.

 

If the complainant ``fell off the toilet'' and needed assistance, a lip on a handicapped access cabin has nothing to do with his fall. Even if his fall from the throne happend in a handicap stall within a public access toilet he had managed to get into the WC, get on the toilet and then had problems.

 

No where has it been stated in news releases that his fall from the ``terlit'' had anything to do with the lip to the entry of his ``access'' cabin, only that the complainant and his attorney feel that the lip to the cabin's WC was non compliant with handicapp access.

 

Had the complainant actually fell on his face in front of the toilet due to the lip on the bathroom door, then the lip of the bathroom may have been a true factor in his fall from the grace of the porcelain throne to the floor.

 

Sounds to me that this gentleman booked a great cruise with great expectations with his wife as his caregiver. When his wife could not go, for whatever reason, he figured the cruise line would give him the care he needed because he had booked a suite and the suite came with a ``butler.''

 

When he found he wasn't as self sufficient as he thought he was he first blamed the butler. When that didn't work he blamed the lip on the bathroom entrance. When that didn't work he lashed out at the cruiseline because he didn't really want to blame the one main factor that spoiled his dream vacation -- himself.

 

If we're all playing ``Clue'' here with this story, my guess is that the Butler didn't do it.:D

 

Dianne

[boo214]

Your refusal to respond to questions of merit is duly noted.

 

As was mentioned - he made it through 7 of 10 days, so CLEARLY 'access' wasn't an issue. Or are you intimating that he did not use the facilities in his cabin for the first week of his cruise? I did not see that mentioned in the article, and given the hyperbole in the article, I must therefore draw the conclusion that he had no problems with the accessibility of his stateroom.

 

However, what is clear is that he fell in a bathroom. Likely, given the fact that other passengers assisted, it was NOT the bathroom in his stateroom, but rather a public facility somewhere on the ship. Unless we are to believe that other passengers heard him screaming for help in his stateroom - but that isn't mentioned in the article, and I'm cynical enough to think that if that WERE the case, it would definitely have been brought up.

 

So. AFTER he fell, likely in a public facility, it became clear that he was not 100% self-sufficient, and he was given the option of either bringing aboard an aide for the remainder of the cruise (again - one was found for him, and accommodations rearranged to provide for the aide) or to leave the ship.

 

He /chose/ to leave the ship.

 

There's no other way around it.

 

He CHOSE to leave the ship with a few days left in his vacation, and make his OWN WAY home. Now he wants the cruise line, which was chartered by a tour group - his trip was not booked directly with Celebrity - to reimburse him 100% of his cruise AND the cost of his trip home.

 

What about that seems 'reasonable' to you? It would almost certainly have cost him less to pay for the aide for a few days and to be assured of being taken care of - so why did he refuse that option?

 

And why no action against/mention of the tour group he actually booked the trip through? Surely he feels THEY owed him a duty that was somehow breached?

I think this is incorrect. according to the cc article he was debarked at the second port of call which means he was probably on for 3 days.

[kitkat9438]

Your refusal to respond to questions of merit is duly noted.

 

As was mentioned - he made it through 7 of 10 days, so CLEARLY 'access' wasn't an issue. Or are you intimating that he did not use the facilities in his cabin for the first week of his cruise? I did not see that mentioned in the article, and given the hyperbole in the article, I must therefore draw the conclusion that he had no problems with the accessibility of his stateroom.

 

However, what is clear is that he fell in a bathroom. Likely, given the fact that other passengers assisted, it was NOT the bathroom in his stateroom, but rather a public facility somewhere on the ship. Unless we are to believe that other passengers heard him screaming for help in his stateroom - but that isn't mentioned in the article, and I'm cynical enough to think that if that WERE the case, it would definitely have been brought up.

 

So. AFTER he fell, likely in a public facility, it became clear that he was not 100% self-sufficient, and he was given the option of either bringing aboard an aide for the remainder of the cruise (again - one was found for him, and accommodations rearranged to provide for the aide) or to leave the ship.

 

He /chose/ to leave the ship.

 

There's no other way around it.

 

He CHOSE to leave the ship with a few days left in his vacation, and make his OWN WAY home. Now he wants the cruise line, which was chartered by a tour group - his trip was not booked directly with Celebrity - to reimburse him 100% of his cruise AND the cost of his trip home.

 

What about that seems 'reasonable' to you? It would almost certainly have cost him less to pay for the aide for a few days and to be assured of being taken care of - so why did he refuse that option?

 

And why no action against/mention of the tour group he actually booked the trip through? Surely he feels THEY owed him a duty that was somehow breached?

 

You are right about OP's obvious avoidance of answering the questions.

 

There's really no way to know for sure where this man fell off the toliet, I agree. He could have had friends over in his stateroom, but the more likely scenario is that it happened in a public restroom since he expected Celebrity to come to his aid, unless his butler was in the room and when he didn't aid him, he (the butler) went to get help. There are all kinds of possibilities and since no questions are being answered, it's hard to know the facts. I just figured since they were making such a big production about the bathroom not being compliant for the wheelchair that it happened in his own cabin. Obviously he didn't go the whole 7 days without using the facilities.