Would you sue if you were on Triumph?

[gtalum]

Wouldn't you have to have cause to sue?

 

This is the USA, brother. You don't need damages or cause to sue. :D

[RazorbackBelle08]

Just FYI, since I got flamed so hard for admitting I'm a paralegal and saying there's no basis for suing unless you have a physical injury--

 

Two lawyers have now confirmed that to be true, including one who was contacted by family of the passengers-- and my own boss who practices personal injury. He confirmed that you basically sign away your rights when you agree to that cruise contract and that if you don't experience bodily harm (INTENTIONAL bodily harm by Carnival) you just can't sue Carnival. He was very clear about it. He did say that people can make claims against Carnival and their insurance company for lost wages, etc. if they felt like it (but they may not get it) and that it'd be best for Carnival to just offer everyone on board a settlement beyond the free cruise and other aforementioned compensation, to be done with it. He suspects that's exactly what'll happen.

 

And how did I know this before asking him? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because I've been in the field for years, have a Master's Degree, and am a few months away from my J.D.? But let's have some more people talk down to me, flame me, say I am the "one doing all the popping" (whatever the heck that means) and that I'm "playing lawyer on CC"; that was FUN! :)

 

Once again, I'm outta here; y'all enjoy the thread.

[Cruisegirl6]

OMG this takes the cake! :eek:

 

Temple1 I was giving you a sarcasism joke relating to the fact that many people would find any excuse to sue for money. My sister would find any excuse to sue, the funniest thing she looses them all but one that was legit.

[temple1]

Unless you are injured from the incident, I'm not sure what damages you could legitimately claim. Carnival is refunding all expenses and offering a free cruise in the future.

 

That logic, of course, won't stop Americans from suing.

 

Why do people keep writing that? Please tell us about all the people you know who have sued a major corporation, or even sued a local business. I keep reading about how suit happy Americans are but I see little or no evidence. Yes NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox love to report where someone sues for little or no reason. Yes, they loved repeating ad nauseum about the woman who was scalded by hot coffee from McD's but always leaves out the part about the company being warned about the temperature of the coffee and the woman ending up with skin grafts.

 

So, my take is - The story that Americans love of filing suit against companies is largely created up by large law firms who make their money from retainers paid by large corporations who are now in fear of being sued for damages they have caused from bad products. Funny thing - when they are sued instead of taking it to court and having it thrown out because they are frequently frivolous suits the attorneys have the corporations convinced it is in their best interest to settle out of court. So the corporation is out some money, the big firm gets paid for settling the claim and the networks can publish an incomplete story about someone sueing the corporation for millions but never finishing the story that the guy got his attorney fees and $50. Then the big law firms have lots of staff attorneys sitting around drawing up new rules and restrictions for their clients to implement against their big bad customers because the law firms need to show the corporations that they are earning those big retainers they are receiving. Do we see a theme here?

 

It gets better. The big corps and their associations have lobbyists they pay to go to the local state houses and to DC to convince (wine and dine and offer jobs) lawmakers that Americans are sue happy and we should put limitations on Americans right to seek redress for wrongs in the court system. They take their case to the media because we know media just loves a story about "reform" and now they can talk about "tort reform". We don't want to mention that these so called news outlets are controlled by large corporations who are paying lobbyists for tort reform.

 

Now, other than the frequently maligned ACLU is there to go to bat for the little guys in this scenario which is life as we know it today?

[MMastell]

Not unless I was physically injured. I would submit my expenses, lost wages and other out of pocket expenses incurred due to the incident to Carnival and see if they reimbursed me.

 

If they did not I would make a legal claim for that amount. I don't know if I would get it because when you check the cruise contract you are basically giving away most of your rights.

 

When we hit a fishing net and lost one propeller on Carnival Liberty. Carnival stepped up and reimbursed me for my airline change fees, hotel and an additional $150 for other expenses with no issue other than one additional request for documentation. They did a great job of making it right.

 

Take care,

Mike

[temple1]

OMG this takes the cake! :eek:

 

Temple1 I was giving you a sarcasism joke relating to the fact that many people would find any excuse to sue for money. My sister would find any excuse to sue, the funniest thing she looses them all but one that was legit.

 

LOL - Poor thing - to have the exception in your family. :eek:

 

I don't know what damages I would try to claim for scalding my tongue! I am more of a complaint filer. It really is too difficult to even find a lawyer in my neck of the woods to take a legitimate case. Of course in some states i guess you could go to small claims court.

[gtalum]

Why do people keep writing that? Please tell us about all the people you know who have sued a major corporation, or even sued a local business.

 

As a small business owner, I've defended several frivolous lawsuits myself. I know of what I speak. Some people see a business and will pretty much reflexively sue anytime something goes less than ideally. Obviously I was hyperbolic to imply that that is true of all Americans, but it is true moreso here than anywhere else in the world.

 

I am not great defender of huge corporations. I do, however, know how the American legal system is absolutely broken and adds a lot of unnecessary overhead to doing business in the USA.

 

I'm also not sure why you threw the ACLU in here. I'm not a detractor of their work.

[ducklite]

As for transferring the passengers to another ship at sea, the Coast Guard isn't going to allow that unless people's lives are in imminent danger.

 

I'm not sure that they could legally prevent someone from leaving the ship if that person had summoned their own "ride" independently via satellite phone or while the other ships were alongside.

[ripjerry95]

Don't even feed into this post!

[gtalum]

I'm not sure that they could legally prevent someone from leaving the ship if that person had summoned their own "ride" independently via satellite phone or while the other ships were alongside.

 

While in international waters, technically you're right that Carnival could at that moment ignore the Coast Guard and start transferring passengers if they wanted to and the Coast Guard couldn't stop it. That said, The Coast Guard might have something to say about it the next time Carnival tried to board passengers in a US port, and the USCG absolutely does have authority to prevent that.

 

In the meantime, how is it better to risk the passengers' lives to transfer them to another ship? On Triumph they're certainly uncomfortable but they're not in physical danger.

[temple1]

As a small business owner, I've defended several frivolous lawsuits myself. I know of what I speak. Some people see a business and will pretty much reflexively sue anytime something goes less than ideally. Obviously I was hyperbolic to imply that that is true of all Americans, but it is true moreso here than anywhere else in the world.

 

I am not great defender of huge corporations. I do, however, know how the American legal system is absolutely broken and adds a lot of unnecessary overhead to doing business in the USA.

 

I'm also not sure why you threw the ACLU in here. I'm not a detractor of their work.

 

I put the ACLU in because they are the only ones who seem concerned at a National level that our rights are being stolen with our consent. Something should be done to correct abuses of the system but removing our access to the courts as is happening every day is not the best answer.

[ducklite]

Why do people keep writing that? Please tell us about all the people you know who have sued a major corporation, or even sued a local business. I keep reading about how suit happy Americans are but I see little or no evidence. Yes NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox love to report where someone sues for little or no reason. Yes, they loved repeating ad nauseum about the woman who was scalded by hot coffee from McD's but always leaves out the part about the company being warned about the temperature of the coffee and the woman ending up with skin grafts.

 

I sued a government entity that was allegedly "immune" and got a settlement for the very reasonable amount of money I was demanding. I was only asking for my specific and provable out of pocket costs incurred due to their admitted negligence. Once they got the discovery demands, they decided it would be much cheaper to give me a check for the $1200 I was requesting.

 

When you have a legitimate claim with modest provable costs, they are pretty happy to give you what you want to avoid costly litigation.

 

By the way, I represented myself.

[ducklite]

I put the ACLU in because they are the only ones who seem concerned at a National level that our rights are being stolen with our consent. Something should be done to correct abuses of the system but removing our access to the courts as is happening every day is not the best answer.

 

I'd also toss the Southern Poverty Law Center in, although they have a very narrow scope of focus.

[Aquahound]

I'm not sure that they could legally prevent someone from leaving the ship if that person had summoned their own "ride" independently via satellite phone or while the other ships were alongside.

 

This is a thought provoking post because it's a scenario I have never been encountered with. My initial thought is, yes, the USCG can legally stop passengers from individually embarking privately hired boats if for no other reason, Customs and Immigrations laws that prevent passengers from disembarking prior to ship's clearance.

[temple1]

I'd also toss the Southern Poverty Law Center in, although they have a very narrow scope of focus.

 

I thought about them also, but they are more limited in the area and scope. Great people though.

 

 

I sued a government entity that was allegedly "immune" and got a settlement for the very reasonable amount of money I was demanding. I was only asking for my specific and provable out of pocket costs incurred due to their admitted negligence. Once they got the discovery demands, they decided it would be much cheaper to give me a check for the $1200 I was requesting.

 

When you have a legitimate claim with modest provable costs, they are pretty happy to give you what you want to avoid costly litigation.

 

By the way, I represented myself.

 

Exactly, you sued for a specific cause that was accepted by the other party. You had to take it to the courts because no one would listen until it reached that point, or no one was empowered to reimburse you.

 

Unfortunately if it was a private company - you might have at the time of the original transaction unknowingly signed away your rights to sue and would be forced to pay to take it to an arbitrator selected by the private company. :eek:

[KPGirl]

It is nice to see the majority wouldn't sue because the impression Canadians have of American's is their first solution to everything is to Sue. In Canada we don't sue everytime we have a problem.. So my faith is restored that not all Americans are so quick to call a lawyer.

[Aquahound]

While in international waters, technically you're right that Carnival could at that moment ignore the Coast Guard and start transferring passengers if they wanted to and the Coast Guard couldn't stop it. That said, The Coast Guard might have something to say about it the next time Carnival tried to board passengers in a US port, and the USCG absolutely does have authority to prevent that.

 

If they are transferring passengers on to other boats that intend on going to the U.S., it would only be done with the consent of the USCG.

 

International waters or not...it doesn't matter. This is a ship that begins and ends in the U.S., and the U.S. is the current destination. The USCG is the authority right now and yes, they do have jurisdiction over this ship.

[garycarla]

This is a thought provoking post because it's a scenario I have never been encountered with. My initial thought is, yes, the USCG can legally stop passengers from individually embarking privately hired boats if for no other reason, Customs and Immigrations laws that prevent passengers from disembarking prior to ship's clearance.

 

 

If the ship is in INTERNATIONAL waters, the U.S. Coast Guard, or any other U.S. entity has no authority at all.

 

Customs might have some laws, but not until the ship reaches the United States.

[ducklite]

This is a thought provoking post because it's a scenario I have never been encountered with. My initial thought is, yes, the USCG can legally stop passengers from individually embarking privately hired boats if for no other reason, Customs and Immigrations laws that prevent passengers from disembarking prior to ship's clearance.

 

The passenger would still be technically obligated to report to the appropriate authorities for repatriation, however that would be the passengers responsibility, not that of the USCG or the cruise line.

 

It would be no different than a passenger who is left behind in a foreign port because they miss the ship or are taken off for medical care or are put off for behavior problems. There is no obligation of that passenger to even return to the US, and certainly no rule as to the mode of transportation they are required to use.

[ducklite]

I thought about them also, but they are more limited in the area and scope. Great people though.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, you sued for a specific cause that was accepted by the other party. You had to take it to the courts because no one would listen until it reached that point, or no one was empowered to reimburse you.

 

Unfortunately if it was a private company - you might have at the time of the original transaction unknowingly signed away your rights to sue and would be forced to pay to take it to an arbitrator selected by the private company. :eek:

 

However that contract excludes immunity when there is negligence. Carnival could be compelled to allow an independent expert to investigate and determine the cause of the fire, and if it can be proved that there was negligence (be it employee error, deferred maintenance, or anything else) they are no longer off the hook.

[Aquahound]

If the ship is in INTERNATIONAL waters, the U.S. Coast Guard, or any other U.S. entity has no authority at all.

 

Customs might have some laws, but not until the ship reaches the United States.

 

You are wrong. This is my line of work, so I know what I am talking about.

 

18USC7, Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction (SMTJ), covers "any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival to the U.S."

 

Note the word "during." I don't care if that ship is down in the middle of the Caribbean. The U.S. still has certain jurisdictions over that ship.

[temple1]

You are wrong. This is my line of work, so I know what I am talking about.

 

:D I was glad to see our voice of reason stop in.

[michelle1836]

I wouldnt sue but I would like some extra days to get me closer to Diamond status :D

[Beachdude]

The conditions would have to be really bad to risk transfering passengers from one ship to another on the open sea. How many threads have been posted here of ships skipping ports just because the waters are too rough for transfer.

 

Burt

[gtalum]

I put the ACLU in because they are the only ones who seem concerned at a National level that our rights are being stolen with our consent. Something should be done to correct abuses of the system but removing our access to the courts as is happening every day is not the best answer.

 

I can't argue with that, to be honest. I don't think access should be taken away, but there must be some way to make people less likely to file frivolous suits.