Celebrity dumps disabled man on island.

[dmwnc1959]

Just a gentle 'time-line' reminder for those keeping score: the Celebrity CENTURY was on the following 10-night cruise in which the passenger disembarked in Guadaloupe - not that it changes anything, but he didn't make through 7 of the 10 days, actually only 4?

 

Day 1 - Miami

Day 2 - At sea

Day 3 - At sea

Day 4 - St Barts (where he was suppose to disembark)

Day 5 - Guadeloupe (where he did disembark)

Day 6 - Martinique

Day 7 - St Maarten

Day 8 - At sea

Day 9 - At sea

Day 10 - CoCo Cay

 

Ending in Miami

[kitkat9438]

Okay apparently the ship left the port on February 14 and he left the ship on February 18 in Guadalupe. So he was only onboard for 5 days, not 7. Still.....

[Jobeth66]

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.

 

He was actually debarked on day 5, I just checked the itinerary for that cruise. So he made it through 4 nights, and was halfway through the cruise when it was discovered he was not self-sufficient and he refused the aide and chose to leave the ship.

 

Clearly, if it was a problem with the accessibility in his stateroom, he would've said something sooner, don't you think?

 

I think that's simply a smokescreen in a search for sympathy and/or a reason to sue.

[Jobeth66]

Okay apparently the ship left the port on February 14 and he left the ship on February 18 in Guadalupe. So he was only onboard for 5 days, not 7. Still.....

 

Mea culpa on that - but clearly, if the accessibility of the cabin was a problem, it would've been a problem from day 1. I don't think that's the real issue at all.

[kitkat9438]

Mea culpa on that - but clearly, if the accessibility of the cabin was a problem, it would've been a problem from day 1. I don't think that's the real issue at all.

 

Nope it's not the issue at all. Celebrity said he had to have help getting into and out of bed, going to the bathroom and taking a bath (shower).

 

Here's the paragraph from the cruise contract about leaving the cruise:

 

Passenger warrants that he and those traveling with him are fit for travel and that such travel will not endanger themselves or others. Carrier reserves the right to terminate a Passenger's cruise or RCT Land Tour or both at any time, at the risk and expense of the Passenger disembarked, when in the opinion of Carrier, Passenger is believed to be a danger to himself or a disturbance or danger to others.

 

Obviously if he is going to fall off the toliet and not be able to get up by himself, there are all kinds of other dangers he could get himself into, so he could very well be a danger to himself.

 

Celebrity and the tour company went above and beyond what was required by offering to get him a nurse and move people around to accomodate the nurse.

[cnote100]

To play a little devil's advocate....

 

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to demonize the guy. Perhaps - 1) He was put in a tough situation when his wife was unable to join him at the last minute. 2) He really wanted to go on the cruise, as it was present to himself (just about all of us should understand that); 3) Maybe he is mostly self sufficient, and at least thought he'd be able to get by for the duration of the cruise; 4) He wrongly, but somewhat understandably thought that in a pinch or an emergency the butler or other staff would be able to help him; 5) is a proud person who doesn't or doesn't think he needs full time help just an occasional assist; 6) a couple of times he became overwhelmed, possibly embarrased when he needed some help, and therefore more embarassed when passangers had to come in and help because the crew wouldn't and were likely prohibited from helping; 7) was angered that he had the choice of leaving or paying a bunch for a nurse which he thought he didn;t really need; 8) was pissed that he got tossed in random place and forced to take a random way home.

 

Just because he is an activist doesn't necessarily mean he was out for litigation from the start. I'm sure the reports/interviews from all sides have already been through their internal spin machines so we'll likely never know exactly how everything went down. It's not impossible that there were over-reactions by celebrity and the passanger.

 

This is not necessarily my belief from everything we;ve heard and learned so far, but it's not that far-fetched.

[fungo]

To play a little devil's advocate....

 

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to demonize the guy. Perhaps - 1) He was put in a tough situation when his wife was unable to join him at the last minute. 2) He really wanted to go on the cruise, as it was present to himself (just about all of us should understand that); 3) Maybe he is mostly self sufficient, and at least thought he'd be able to get by for the duration of the cruise; 4) He wrongly, but somewhat understandably thought that in a pinch or an emergency the butler or other staff would be able to help him; 5) is a proud person who doesn't or doesn't think he needs full time help just an occasional assist; 6) a couple of times he became overwhelmed, possibly embarrased when he needed some help, and therefore more embarassed when passangers had to come in and help because the crew wouldn't and were likely prohibited from helping; 7) was angered that he had the choice of leaving or paying a bunch for a nurse which he thought he didn;t really need; 8) was pissed that he got tossed in random place and forced to take a random way home.

 

Just because he is an activist doesn't necessarily mean he was out for litigation from the start. I'm sure the reports/interviews from all sides have already been through their internal spin machines so we'll likely never know exactly how everything went down. It's not impossible that there were over-reactions by celebrity and the passanger.

 

This is not necessarily my belief from everything we;ve heard and learned so far, but it's not that far-fetched.

 

I know you're playing devil's advocate, so I am not arguing with *you*, but in terms of the legal argument, and where the liability lies for the points you raised:

 

1) Not X's fault

2) Not X's fault

3) Not X's fault

4) Not X's fault

5) Not X's fault

6) Not X's fault

7) Not X's fault

8) Not really X's fault. The location was not "random". It was one of the scheduled ports of call.

 

Nobody's arguing that this guy didn't have a sucky experience. I think perhaps if this thread hadn't started with a belligerent passenger quoted in a slanted article, he might find a little more sympathy among we CC members.

 

But this isn't about whether a person's vacation wound up being lousy. It's about whether he was done material and undue harm for which Celebrity was liable. More specifically, it is a matter of whether Celebrity was in breech of contract when they disembarked him.

 

The answer is simply: no.

 

It's unfortunate that someone's vacation was ruined, whether it be on purpose for the sake of raising a stink, or intentionally because they "thought" they'd be ok without help. It is *still* not.....Celebrity's......fault.

[wanderlust402]

To play a little devil's advocate....

 

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to demonize the guy. Perhaps - 1) He was put in a tough situation when his wife was unable to join him at the last minute. 2) He really wanted to go on the cruise, as it was present to himself (just about all of us should understand that); 3) Maybe he is mostly self sufficient, and at least thought he'd be able to get by for the duration of the cruise; 4) He wrongly, but somewhat understandably thought that in a pinch or an emergency the butler or other staff would be able to help him; 5) is a proud person who doesn't or doesn't think he needs full time help just an occasional assist; 6) a couple of times he became overwhelmed, possibly embarrased when he needed some help, and therefore more embarassed when passangers had to come in and help because the crew wouldn't and were likely prohibited from helping; 7) was angered that he had the choice of leaving or paying a bunch for a nurse which he thought he didn;t really need; 8) was pissed that he got tossed in random place and forced to take a random way home.

 

Just because he is an activist doesn't necessarily mean he was out for litigation from the start. I'm sure the reports/interviews from all sides have already been through their internal spin machines so we'll likely never know exactly how everything went down. It's not impossible that there were over-reactions by celebrity and the passanger.

 

This is not necessarily my belief from everything we;ve heard and learned so far, but it's not that far-fetched.

 

Even stipulating the above. The key fact is this:

 

Management learned that he could not take care of himself. (Not Self-Sufficient.)

Options were presented of 1.) Hire an aide or 2.) Leave

 

The passenger chose to leave.

 

I think that summarizes the situation. Everything else is just a distraction (nude cruise, lip on the bathroom door, what was said or not said, etc.)

[ISABELLA]

Same reason some people go on a cruise to hear Perry Grant. To each their own, vive la différence, etc.

 

I guess for some watching nude people is entertaining.........

[fungo]

I guess for some watching nude people is entertaining.........

 

I'm not a naturalist myself, but I think the point is about being nude oneself, not gawking at other nude people. My guess would be that naturalists mind their own business as much (or as little) as the rest of the population.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: good for them for being comfortable in their own skin. We should all be so lucky.

[PS90]

Just because he is an activist doesn't necessarily mean he was out for litigation from the start. I'm sure the reports/interviews from all sides have already been through their internal spin machines so we'll likely never know exactly how everything went down. It's not impossible that there were over-reactions by celebrity and the passanger.

 

Well, you may be right in that he may not have been out for litigation from the outset, but as the Horizon Air lawsuit proves, he is eager and willing to go to those lengths. I don't know about anyone else, but this kind of lawsuit-happy person is the very person I DON'T want as a client.

[legaljen1969]

I agree Bundles. I was wondering about his hiring a blind attorney. Sounds like he wants to be sure that all handicapped people are "outraged" at Celebrity. This story is very sensational and melodramatic.

[Eurobikefan]

This has no bearing on the merits/nonmerits of the passenger's claim, but I thought it was interesting.

 

This article reports the passenger remained clothed: http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/13/disabled-man-claims-he-was-kicked-off-cruise/

 

Not what I was thinking, given the charter company, but I guess it was "clothing optional" !

[YOW]

I'm not a naturalist, but I certainly don't judge anyone who makes that lifestyle choice. I don't think most of us are disparaging Mr. Kiskeny for making a lifestyle choice -- that part is moot. And I think most of us are generally sympathetic to his physical condition (obviously not a choice), and wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

 

The amount of interest generated by this story has to do with the other choices that this gentleman has made, as documented by fungo, Jobeth66, wanderlust402, PartyAllDaTyme, and many others (no offense if I've left you out) -- he made a bad choice to cruise solo, and followed it up with subsequent poor choices. Some might argue that they were premeditated choices. Others would say that he chose to let a bad situation get worse.

 

Having worked in the travel industry, I've seen this type of scenario play out countless times. It begins with an unfortunate situation. Then the traveller takes it upon themselves to make assumptions and proceed in an overzealous manner. And when things don't pan out, they look for someone to blame. I'm on several recordings somewhere in the ether, having made decisions as a manager to deny compensation to travellers who chose not to act prudently (I even 'made' a few folks cry, which became a bit of a running joke around our office). While it's not something I'd boast to my mother about, I feel this was and is the right course of action to protect the greater interests of the shareholders and the travelling public.

[fungo]

This has no bearing on the merits/nonmerits of the passenger's claim, but I thought it was interesting.

 

This article reports the passenger remained clothed: http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/04/13/disabled-man-claims-he-was-kicked-off-cruise/

 

Not what I was thinking, given the charter company, but I guess it was "clothing optional" !

 

Ha ha, there's a typo in that article. Gotta love AOL :rolleyes:

[fungo]

In all seriousness, kudos to AOL for doing a little research and providing an actual piece of journalism, not just a sensational spin piece.

 

I still think the nude aspect of it is irrelevant, but what are you going to do? Makes for better headlines.

[M5M]

read the article!

[PS90]

read the article!

 

Ummmm...What? The incident was on Celebrity Century, which is owned by RCI. Or are you referring to something else?

[Jobeth66]

I guess for some watching nude people is entertaining.........

 

Um, what?

 

Being a naturalist is not about 'watching' anything. It's about being comfortable with yourself and your own skin.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

Ummmm...What? The incident was on Celebrity Century, which is owned by RCI. Or are you referring to something else?

 

Nitpicky point-- Royal Caribbean International (the cruise line) and Celebrity Cruises are both owned by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. But your point that it happened on Celebrity Century is valid. I didn't read the article, but it probably makes reference to RCCL, which would include Celebrity.

[PS90]

Nitpicky point-- Royal Caribbean International (the cruise line) and Celebrity Cruises are both owned by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. But your point that it happened on Celebrity Century is valid. I didn't read the article, but it probably makes reference to RCCL, which would include Celebrity.

 

Are you sure it's not the other way around? I honestly don't know - but the article at the center of this debate states that Mr. Keskeny is suing RCI, not RCCL.

[CruiseDawg2001]

All I can say is the cruise lines must be desparate for money to have a nude cruise for heaven sake. That's revolting. If this guy chose this cruise its no wonder no one wanted to sail with him. In fact, was he nude in his cabin? That might be why the cabin steward refused to help. What a picture this paints!

 

Do your own search of Nude cruise on Celebrity Century and there it is in black and white. This was a nude cruise that was chartered by a group. The only way this man could have known about it was thru this group. If he dealt with this group and not the ship directly then its the charter that he needs to go after. Not the cruise line. I am ashamed of Celebrity for this behavior. How they can allow their crew to be treated this way is astonishing. This is so uncivilized and I don't know who these people are that want to prance around in the nude. Its gross.

 

Hey the 1600's called when you were out; they want their values back.

[oncruisecontrol]

I disagree. My remarks are strongly worded and for that I apologize. It was my opinion. Not everyone would agree with my stance. I am certainly not worried about this nude cruising just mystified that people would want to be in close quarters standing elbow to elbow at the buffet in the buff. To me is sounds awful. I was just surprised given that Celebrity is a mainstream cruise line that they would subject their crew to this indignity. That's how I feel but I understand that there are others that think this behavior is normal. I'm just not one of them... also, this man is trying to garner sympathy and it is relevant that this was a nude cruise and perhaps he didn't use sound judgement because he wanted so badly to participate in this type of cruise. I wouldn't chose him as the poster boy for the ADA.

 

 

You have every right to your opinion about nude cruises, and I respect your opinion. Those of us who have quoted you in this thread have only done so because opinions of nude cruises (whether for or against) are not relevant to the discussion of what happened to this man.

[oncruisecontrol]

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?

 

No doubt, he never dreamed they'd actually put him off the ship.

[Kellie Poodle]

This is exactly what I was getting at: CRUISE LAW NEWS has named Celebrity Cruises the Worst Cruise Line in the World, simply based off this ONE opinion piece. :mad:

 

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/articles/worst-cruise-line-in-the-world/

 

 

That site is definitely not "news" It's just a bunch of rants on the web site of a self-proclaimed maritime lawyer trawling for clients.