Concordia customers suing for all of this money, be happy your alive!!!

[TriciaEMTB]

I made the reference only to say that the lady knew the coffee was hot and was perhaps careless which caused her situation. Yet she still got more than a half a million dollars.

 

The passengers of the Concordia were not careless. Their captain was. And as such, they should be fairly compensated. 14k seems like a slap in the face for living a nightmare in comparison to the McD's settlement. That's all I am saying. :-)

 

If you read all the details not just the ones the news reported...

 

The coffee was found to be served at a scalding temp. The woman suffered third degree burns and required skin grafts.

 

McDonald's was negligent, selling their coffee beyond a temp safe for human consumption.

 

I don't drink coffee but I do drink hot chocolate. I expect it to be hot, but I don't expect it to be so hot that it leaves me with life threatening burns.

 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Zoedokey]

Absolutely, it was wrong. But at the same time, they made it so hot because people that added a lot of cream it would become cold, or people that had a commute into work, by the time they got there it would be hot. They make it too hot and someone gets burnt and sues, yet if you spilled boiling water on yourself at home it would be your fault...

 

Someone is going to complain about coffee being too hot and they get burned or someone is going to complain about it being too cold and they couldn't drink it. This is just society and there is NOTHING that we can do to make something right for everyone. And yes, I have spilled hot tea on myself from DD(which almost still has bubbles in it from being boiled) and burned myself and still have a scar, but I didn't sue, I spilled it, not them.

 

Im sure your injuries were not grievous like hers. She had burns on 24% of her body, she had to have skin grafts in her groin, spent days in the hospital. She only initially asked for $20,000 to cover her actual out of pocket losses, McDonalds offered 800. I don't blame her for the lawsuit either.

[5waldos]

And it is just that, an informed opnion. An opinion different from yours does not make you any more right than them.

 

lI was responding to someone who said that they didn't want to read anything that it wouldn't change their opinion. My question was simply that if you don't base your opinion on the facts, which you learn by reading about it, then on what do you base your opnion. Yes- it is quite possible to know the facts and come to a different opinion. I have no problem with that at all. But if you don't want to know the facts, and I know the facts, yes I do think I have a more informed opinion then you.

[tracyanns]

You weren't implying this, but others were. And I agree- how to determine what is a reasonable settlement is not easy and juries can be swayed. I don't know of any other way it can be done though- especially in punitive cases. Which I guess is why the company starts at $14,000 and the lawyers start at $100 million, or whatever. I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV. but I do think that videos of what was happening do play a role- certainly disputes any notion that a calm cool and organized abandon ship was going on.

 

One thing that does play a role, I believe, is what amount of money will cause the company to go "Ouch". And unless that happens, things won't change. The company would rather take those hits and continue doing things that are dangerous. Like movie stars who get hit with $1,000 fine for doing something wrong- petty cash to them. Why change their behaviour?

 

Do you honestly believe that the people that operate Costa do not feel bad about this ? I think, aside from that Captain, there isn't one person that looks at this and doesn't feel bad. I don't think it will matter what the lawsuits are for, they have already lost a signifigant amount without them, more than enough to learn their lesson. And when corporations have insurance that is $5,000,000, it doesn't matter how much they are sued for above that amount, once they pay that deductible, it is no longer their liability.

 

But here is 2 questions...and I am not calling you out on these, I am just trying to see what others say about this...

 

1. How many of you have ever skipped the muster drill or would not go to it given the opportunity...and I am not talking about now...I am talking about before this happened and be honest... Once I went to one, I would have skipped everyone after that, and honestly, I still would. As long as I know where my muster station is, that is all I need to know once I have seen it done once...I am just being honest.

 

2. What do you think that Costa could have done to "change their behavior"? May on here think that the corporation could have done something differently...If the captain we steering the ship, if the captain was giving the orders and ordered the chaos that ensued, what could COSTA have done to change that, besides from never hiring this captain, which at the time, he was qualified and has sailed how many times without incident? (And I am not saying that Costa is not liable, but I don't think the corporation could have changed the outcome of this, it isn't like they told him what to do, HE is what caused all of this and I am just trying to see what people think a corporation can do in the future to keep it from happening again)

[luvtheships]

I do work you know :D

:D..huh? What kind of job do you have?

[5waldos]

Do you honestly believe that the people that operate Costa do not feel bad about this ? Of course they feel terrible. But it is the corporation and its bottom line that will make the difference- not people. I think, aside from that Captain, there isn't one person that looks at this and doesn't feel bad. I don't think it will matter what the lawsuits are for, they have already lost a signifigant amount without them, more than enough to learn their lesson. And when corporations have insurance that is $5,000,000, it doesn't matter how much they are sued for above that amount, once they pay that deductible, it is no longer their liability.Ah, but their insurance rates will go up. And this will "hit them where it hurts"- a saying that has great meaning here.

 

But here is 2 questions...and I am not calling you out on these, I am just trying to see what others say about this...

 

1. How many of you have ever skipped the muster drill or would not go to it given the opportunity...and I am not talking about now...I am talking about before this happened and be honest... Once I went to one, I would have skipped everyone after that, and honestly, I still would. As long as I know where my muster station is, that is all I need to know once I have seen it done once...I am just being honest. Never. And wouldn't. I still listen to the canned airline things and ALWAYS check to see where the exits are. And I have flown millions of miles.

 

2. What do you think that Costa could have done to "change their behavior"? May on here think that the corporation could have done something differently...If the captain we steering the ship, if the captain was giving the orders and ordered the chaos that ensued, what could COSTA have done to change that, besides from never hiring this captain, which at the time, he was qualified and has sailed how many times without incident? Not allowed deviations from the course? Possibly, and I don't know what the facts are about this, if he has done this before they had to have know in which case he should have been seriously reprimanded or fired(And I am not saying that Costa is not liable, but I don't think the corporation could have changed the outcome of this, it isn't like they told him what to do, HE is what caused all of this and I am just trying to see what people think a corporation can do in the future to keep it from happening again)Better training of the staff, more oversight, perhaps adding a safety officer of some sort with real power

 

What do I think. Those are my informed opinions, but there are many people with far more facts that I have who I am sure will be looking into what changes need to be made to keep this kind of thing from happening again. And there will be an investigation as to what role Costa played in it. What they knew, what they allowed, what else they should have been doing. Perhaps automatic warning systems that tell a central office when the ship goes off course immediately. Perhaps a system that alerts the coast guard automatically.

[greg-nc]

Well, considering Americans made up a very small percentage of the passengers on this cruise, I'd say you really can't blame us this time, now can you?

 

Just saying...

Andy

 

Over 80% of the people who are using US legal firms to sue over the Concordia incident are from outside the United States.

[peptobysmol]

Being scared?

 

This is NOT going to see a horror film at your local theater!!

 

Money off future cruising? I would bet my house that no one who survived that disaster would went to step foot on a cruise ship again, let alone a Costa ship.

 

I'm not even going to go through your post word for word because I honestly think you're joking at this point. I'm done.

 

No matter the condition of your house... I'll take u up on that bet.

[Smithkids5521]

2. What do you think that Costa could have done to "change their behavior"? May on here think that the corporation could have done something differently...If the captain we steering the ship, if the captain was giving the orders and ordered the chaos that ensued, what could COSTA have done to change that, besides from never hiring this captain, which at the time, he was qualified and has sailed how many times without incident? (And I am not saying that Costa is not liable, but I don't think the corporation could have changed the outcome of this, it isn't like they told him what to do, HE is what caused all of this and I am just trying to see what people think a corporation can do in the future to keep it from happening again)

 

Hi Tracyanns,

I think an interesting thing to note about your question #2- is that "supposedly" Costa knew that the Captain took this altered route (close to the rocks) in the past and actually encouraged it. Ok, maybe "encouraged" is a strong word- but they did not condone it...maybe that is better wording. LOL!!:)

Anyway- he had done this in the past and actually received a letter honoring him from the goverment of the island and thanking him and Costa for it.

 

Maybe if after the first time he steered off the planned route- he should have been officially reprimanded instead of congratulated. Perhaps he would not have tried it again on that fateful night with the now disasterous results. But of course- hindsight, right...:(

 

And in answer to question #1- personally I would not skip muster drill but I think the thing to remember is that the passengers didn't have the option to skip or to attend...sadly, the drill wasn't even offered...:mad:

 

Take care,

Diana :)

[ilionite65]

I do work you know :D

 

Don't know and don't particularly care. What is the answer to my question?

[ilionite65]

:d..huh? What kind of job do you have?

 

lol!

[Room Service!]

post #339.

[LittleMiss]

I agree and while I think many lawsuits are frivolous, this one I do not.

 

 

 

You talk about your opinion, but can't understand how others may come to their own opnions? :confused:

 

Yes! Yes! Finally someone who can accept people and their opinions attacks back. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!

[italianfemmy]

If you read all the details not just the ones the news reported...

 

The coffee was found to be served at a scalding temp. The woman suffered third degree burns and required skin grafts.

 

McDonald's was negligent, selling their coffee beyond a temp safe for human consumption.

 

I don't drink coffee but I do drink hot chocolate. I expect it to be hot, but I don't expect it to be so hot that it leaves me with life threatening burns.

 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

 

I have read all the details and I do know all of the facts. I have for a long time. It doesn't change the fact that I would never put hot coffee or tea or chocolate inbetween my legs and open the lid to try and put sugar in. And if I did and burned myself, I would not sue the company that sold it to me.

 

If the employee spilled it on me, that's a different story. But if I spilled it on myself, I would blame myself for being clumsy or for not taking the proper precautions to make sure that I didn't burn myself. When I boil water to pour into something, I ALWAYS pour it over the sink so that if it spills, it goes into the contained sink. If I were to pour it over the stove and it spilled and splashed on to me, I know it would burn. We all know what the difference is between something that is hot and cold. The woman should have been able to feel that the coffee was hot just from holding it in her hand and should have known better than to put it between her legs. (Again... I am saying this based on the thought process that she's not mentally impaired).

 

If I go to a restaurant and my food comes out piping hot and I see the steam rising off the top of it, I am going to be sensible enough not to touch the plate. Furthermore, I am going to be sensible enough not to put the food in my mouth without first blowing on it or allowing it time to sit and cool a bit. When fajitas are served on the iron skillet at any restaurant, the black skillet is scorching hot. The steam is rising off of it. There's not a sign on it that says not to touch it. It is common sense not to touch it. And certainly you wouldn't put it in your lap. Coffee, unless ordered as an ice coffee is hot... everyone knows this. Common sense goes a long way. Even if their coffee was a bit hotter than it should have been, I still think the 3rd degree burns would have happened regardless.

 

I ate pizza rolls straight out of the microwave once and it burned a couple layers of skin off the roof of my mouth. I had to see a dr. because it was pretty bad. The box didn't say to let stand and cool but I didn't sue them. I picked the pizza rolls up and could tell they were hot. Shame on me. Not shame on the pizza roll company.

 

Nobody at McDonalds spilled the coffee on this woman or served it to her in a damaged cup. She spilled it on herself.

 

Tricia, I'd like to think you and I are friends so this isn't aimed at you. (hugs) but is just aimed at my perspective and my opinion of the situation.

 

In my opinion, the people on the Concordia deserve more than a woman who burned herself. And it seems laughable what they're being offered when you compare the two. One was direct negligence by the company while the other was negligence of the individual (the consumer.)

[tracyanns]

Im sure your injuries were not grievous like hers. She had burns on 24% of her body, she had to have skin grafts in her groin, spent days in the hospital. She only initially asked for $20,000 to cover her actual out of pocket losses, McDonalds offered 800. I don't blame her for the lawsuit either.

 

No, they weren't because I was in a position that I could get the clothing off instead of it sitting on my skin. And I was quick enough to jump up and out of the way and did no end up wearing the entire cup and also lucky that my daughter had some cold milk tha I poured on it rather quickly to cool it down...it was bad enough that it cooked enough of my skin that a week or so after I could peel it off like a fruit rollup. I did go to the dr and get some burn cream as it was open. I have a decent idea of what she went through...but I still would not have sued had I worn the entire cup...it was my fault that I spilled it and it is pretty obvious that coffee is meant to be hot and tea is made with boiling water...

[tracyanns]

This is definately one of those things we can't see the outcome of nor can we speculate until we have all of the facts. And right now we have news reports and victim reports but not everything we need.

 

I find it amusing that each time he is questioned he blames someone else...he fell into the life boat, Costa ordered him to take thi route and he was being nice by doing so and now the newest is he forgot his reading glasses and wa having someone else check the radar so I guess he is blaming this person now. He is a joke and the fact that someone else actually had to order the evacuation before the captain is horrible. The captain is supposed to command that boat and give orders and for him to wait and hold off was purely so he could cover his own rear end and get off of that ship...

 

Another poster mentioned about a muster drill not being offered. It was not required of any cruise over there prior to sailing, they have up until 24 hours to give the muster, many ships follow this rule. How unfortunate that it took this incident for them to change that law.

 

There is no doubt that these people deserve to be compensated, but I needs to be on a case by case basis and give each one what they are deemed to deserve...

[Di Princess]

I wonder how this reputation began? Facts seem to contradict it, not that they have made a difference.

 

In many countries, I know for sure the U.K., their Barristers do not accept contingency cases and the plaintiffs must put up the cash to start suit. This tends to cut down on suits with little or no precedent and therefore a risk of coming out ahead.

[LittleMiss]

In many countries, I know for sure the U.K., their Barristers do not accept contingency cases and the plaintiffs must put up the cash to start suit. This tends to cut down on suits with little or no precedent and therefore a risk of coming out ahead.

 

Which is very smart. See here in the US they are so quick to sue sometimes that they say sue now pay later. It's ran by greedy lawyers of course. But I wonder how many lawsuits are happening in the UK?

[Tranquil Waters]

In many countries, I know for sure the U.K., their Barristers do not accept contingency cases and the plaintiffs must put up the cash to start suit. This tends to cut down on suits with little or no precedent and therefore a risk of coming out ahead.

 

It would also cut down on the idea of justice for all..... I would think. Those with money can sue for justice. The poor are just left to suffer the loss? Ouch!

[LittleMiss]

It would also cut down on the idea of justice for all..... I would think. Those with money can sue for justice. The poor are just left to suffer the loss? Ouch!

 

No, pay as you go reasonable payment plans. Poor people do it all the time for many of their bills. And don't forget about legal aid. In some cases these state funded legal aid programs lend the money and you pay it back via a plan. There would definitely be ways around this. It's just like poor people are getting homes now because of certain aid that they get etc. but bottom line is it would really cut back on frivolous suits. Especially if you had to work hard to get the money (wait in lines, fill out apps, etc)

[Keel Haul]

In many countries, I know for sure the U.K., their Barristers do not accept contingency cases and the plaintiffs must put up the cash to start suit. This tends to cut down on suits with little or no precedent and therefore a risk of coming out ahead.

I'm afraid you a incorrect. A barrister has to be instructed by a Solicitor. The solicitor may accept certain cases on a No win No fee basis and instruct Barristers. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/payingforservices/nowinnofee.law

[zqvol]

Yikes! The Concordia capsizing was a huge deal. There was gross negligance, major incompetence, everyone who lived can absolulely say their lives were in grave danger. I believe all passengers on that ship are entitled to more than just their money back. Cruise ships have a responsibility to keep their passengers safe at all times.

 

 

Could not disagree more. It was not a huge deal and most of the passneger have been offered more than they are entitled to receive, including replacement of all lost goods, return of fare, return home paid for plus $15,000 on top of that.

 

For anyone to claim that their lives were in gross danger is laughable.

 

The only people who are going to get anything out of this incident are the attorneys, who by the time it is over in about 15 years will take well over half of what is awarded to the passengers.

[5waldos]

Could not disagree more. It was not a huge deal and most of the passneger have been offered more than they are entitled to receive, including replacement of all lost goods, return of fare, return home paid for plus $15,000 on top of that.

 

For anyone to claim that their lives were in gross danger is laughable.

 

The only people who are going to get anything out of this incident are the attorneys, who by the time it is over in about 15 years will take well over half of what is awarded to the passengers.

 

You are kidding-right? Their lives were NOT in gross danger? Tell that to the people who died. If that doesn't constitute gross danger I don't know what does.

[CruiserChloe]

Could not disagree more. It was not a huge deal and most of the passneger have been offered more than they are entitled to receive, including replacement of all lost goods, return of fare, return home paid for plus $15,000 on top of that.

 

For anyone to claim that their lives were in gross danger is laughable.

 

The only people who are going to get anything out of this incident are the attorneys, who by the time it is over in about 15 years will take well over half of what is awarded to the passengers.

 

Are you kidding me??!! A cruise ship runs aground, gets a 160 ft gash in its hull, loses power, rolls over and sinks, and you're saying their lives weren't in gross danger and it wasn't a huge deal?

 

Wow. :eek:

[Room Service!]

Fanning the flames. ;)