Would you sue if you were on Triumph?

[Wildcatter]

Hey everyone! Sorry you got food poisoning at my restaurant and were miserable for two days. Here's your money back and a 25% coupon for the buffet when you feel better! Enjoy! How many people are going to redeem that coupon?

 

Think of this. Many folks work hard all year and get 2 weeks vacation. They burn a vacation week to relax and enjoy a cruise. Think they are going to be relaxed when they get back to work?

 

The boat was defective and they kept sending it out. Carnival made a business decision and thought the expense of fixing the boat was more expensive to them than the risk of it breaking down. How do you account for all the bad will, bean counters?

[joeyancho]

If it can be proven that CCL knowingly sent out a defective product and people can prove a loss, such as sickness, mental stress, lost wages/job, ruined property, of course you sue. That is what the civil legal system is for, to recover your loss and be made whole as far as humanly possible. That is why they have insurance, to cover these losses.

[imnance]

I've never sued anyone and there have been times in my life when a lawyer would have loved to represent me. Having said that, there are times when a company needs to be sued. Not for individual financial gain, but because they have a track record of putting profit before safety and the only way to teach them a lesson is to hit them where it hurts.

 

This may be one of those times.

[first,last and only]

fine print on the ticket gives them all the rights and you none...my attorney said we would have to file suit in south florida and my legal fees would probably exceed cost of cruise...they screwed up an inland passage cruise for me in 2005 and refused to refund any part of trip....they are a bunch of crooks and they (not the passengers) deserve all the black eyes they have gotten....

[songbird1329]

Sigh. No one seems to be paying attention to the legal eagles on this tgread. Shaking my head here.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[boaterette]

[quote name='mcgratru']Oh for heaven sake.....sometimes it seems like Americans only do things in life to get an opportunity to sue someone.....pathetic!![/quote]

So very true.

[BallFour4]

[quote name='paulgraff']Would you sue CCL if you were on the Triumph?

I would.

PG[/quote]

[COLOR="Black"]
Short Answer: [B]Yes[/B].

Long answer; none, and I mean none of us are aware of exactly what it's like aboard that ship right now. Based on that, I am amazed at those that say "well, they got their vacation and then the ship had problems, so they got a free cruise." To me a cruise ends with a day at sea relaxing and return to my home port. Not happening here.

Second, we pay for a cabin, a climate controlled cabin, separate from the other passengers, our own comfort zone. Not happening here.

Third, we assume things will go smoothly, and do sign a contract that frees up the cruise line of some unknown events of things out of their control. Was this the case? Did this ship have some recent problems? Might be.

Now, we sailed our 14th cruise aboard this ship last August, are platinum and booked on two more Carnival cruises. I am not a loyalist, cheerleader or anything other than one that knows a little about PTSD due to my career in the health care industry. Trust me, some of these people will have a serious problem once they return home. I'm talking about potential for long term impact.

When a commercial airliner strands passengers on a tarmac for hours with sewage problems we are ready to lynch the CEO of the company, but now we want to line up and praise the Carnival folks. Not me.

This will have a long term impact on Carnival's image, and you can bank on a full fledged PR campaign to bring trust back, or at least stop cruising from being headlines and the butt of jokes.

We took or first Carnival cruise aboard the Mardi Gras, and our next is on the Magic. I spent the night aboard the Magic when she came here to Galveston. It's spectacular. It wouldn't be so nice stuck in misery for 4 days.

Flame away, the OP asked for my answer to a question, and I gave the answer. Don't be so sure these lawsuits (and their will be hundreds) will all be dismissed. I sure wouldn't sign a release for $500 until I had a full physical exam with labs.


.[/COLOR]

[San_Antonio_Ex]

[quote name='sparks1093']What were your injuries and what damages did you sustain? CCL is making everyone whole by refunding their entire cruise fare. They are going over and above that by providing a credit toward another cruise. They are going over and above that by covering traveling expenses back to the states. What more do you think you would get in a court of law?[/QUOTE]

Concur!

[San_Antonio_Ex]

[quote name='rlkubi']Paul, I assume you are an "ambulance chasing lawyer"? No I would not sue but I think this is one of the many things wrong with our society today. People are too ready to sue. If I was a judge I would throw so many stupid lawsuits out of court. Like for example the lady who dropped hot McDonalds coffee in her lap. She wouldn't have gotten a penny. Ridiculous![/QUOTE]

I realize this is off topic, but you are so very misinformed regarding the McDonald's verdict and I get so tired of people who don't know what they are talking about spouting off. May I suggest you google it and spend a little time reading about the actions taken by McDonalds that ended in someone having third degree burns across her legs and genitals.

As for this thread, as far as we know, no one has been injured by this unfortunate accident. There was a fire, it was put out. People have been inconvenienced, that's true, however once Carnival has made them whole, there are no damages upon which to base a lawsuit.

[San_Antonio_Ex]

[quote name='rlkubi']Duck,

The McDonalds settlement. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Mrs. Liebeck, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, essentially as punishment of McDonald’s for its callous treatment of Mrs. Liebeck, and its years of ignoring hundreds of similar injuries. This amount was held to be reasonable given that it represented only two days’ worth of McDonalds’ revenue from coffee sales alone. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages, however, to $480,000. After further negotiation, Mrs. Liebeck ultimately received $640,000.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure the internal memos in which McDonald's acknowledged that their coffee was too hot, hotter than the industry standard, hot enough to cause third degree burns on contact, but chose not to lower the temperature of their coffee because to do so would cost more than they believed they would have to pay out if someone sued had absolutely nothing to do with the verdict and punitive damages. :rolleyes:

[nitro2448]

[quote name='songbird1329']Sigh. No one seems to be paying attention to the legal eagles on this tgread. Shaking my head here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say no one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nitro2448]

[quote name='mcgratru']Oh for heaven sake.....sometimes it seems like Americans only do things in life to get an opportunity to sue someone.....pathetic!![/QUOTE]

How about you don't throw a blanket statement over ALL Americans and I won't throw one over ALL Canadians ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BeagleOne]

Aquahound made a good point about possibly never getting the full story without formal legal discovery. I'm not a litigious person, but if it turns out that this was foreseeable and/or related to the other propulsion problems the Triumph has been having, then I would want to consider all of my legal options before accepting the current offer.

[San_Antonio_Ex]

[quote name='songbird1329']Sigh. No one seems to be paying attention to the legal eagles on this tgread. Shaking my head here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

I wish I could say that was unusual, but it isn't. You wouldn't believe the calls I get from people who just want to sue over the littlest things thinking they will get a windfall. People always talk about ambulance chasing lawyers but what they should be talking about are the people who hire the attorneys.

[samikitty]

In addition to a lawsuit, I would file a motion to obtain an order of attachment of a Carnival cruise ship (the Triumph). That way the US Marshall could come aboard and take custody of the ship as well.

Oh, wait... that happened already.

[San_Antonio_Ex]

[quote name='songbird1329']I am sitting here rolling my eyes that this thread is still going on, and that people are spouting "legal theory" as to what causes of action the passengers may have and what damages they may be able to collect. Most of the "experts" on this thread don't have a clue. They don't even know the difference between tort and contract.


The people on this thread who have had legal training are in agreement that there's little chance of a successful lawsuit by the passengers on this ship. What solidified it for me wasn't the 28 years I've spent practicing law, it was the commentary on that website, the one run by the attorney who makes his living suing the cruise lines. Right after this happened on the Splendor he explained why a suit against Carnival would not succeed. His reasoning is applicable to the Triumph situation. He's in the business of making money by suing Carnival. If the plaintiff's bar won't take the suit, you know it's a bad idea to try suing Carnival over this.[/QUOTE]

I haven't looked at contract law since first year, and haven't dealt with torts with the exception of a PI case or two for relatives since 2000, but even I, a family law attorney, agree the chance of success in a suit for damages based upon the facts as we know them today is relatively low.

But as most of us know from the calls we receive, case law and legal theory can't stop the crazies. :eek:

[tonit964]

[quote name='paulgraff']Would you sue CCL if you were on the Triumph?

I would.

PG[/QUOTE]

No.

[E-rok]

Just a quick question...

This whole thread got pretty amusing. To sue vs. not to sue, Americans vs. Canadians, etc.

I only read it until page 4 when our OP "Paul" got scared off.

Did he ever come back in the pages thereafter?

[arkjeweler]

"And read the other posts about this ship on CC, it had problems before this trip that caused it to miss ports on the sailing previous to this cruise.... that is called negligence which put put people at great risk.... fire at sea very very bad, CCL made (and I cruise CCL and love them) a decision to put off needed repairs to stay on schedule which put people at great risk."

They did not have to get on that ship. They knew the risks.

It makes me sick that we live in such a sue minded America. This is as bad as the sue case because McDonald's made someone fat! Ridiculous.

[beetle9]

[quote name='paulgraff']so sue me :)

And if you think people have no ground or reason to sue you have no clue.

PG[/quote]
you have no clue this whole line is what is wrong with america now greedy lawyers and clients screw everthing up:(

[Mississippian]

[quote name='San_Antonio_Ex']I realize this is off topic, but you are so very misinformed regarding the McDonald's verdict and I get so tired of people who don't know what they are talking about spouting off. May I suggest you google it and spend a little time reading about the actions taken by McDonalds that ended in someone having third degree burns across her legs and genitals.

As for this thread, as far as we know, no one has been injured by this unfortunate accident. There was a fire, it was put out. People have been inconvenienced, that's true, however once Carnival has made them whole, there are no damages upon which to base a lawsuit.[/QUOTE]
I am confused. An inconvenience is damage. But anyone who has trouble sleeping after all of this and goes to the doctor for a sleeping pill now has emotional distress which has required medical attention. They are no longer limited to special damages but may receive general damages. In other words, they can just demand money and lots of it.

The important thing is for anyone to successfully sue Carnival they are going to need to be able to show negligence. They need to show a breach of duty of care. But if they can show that, Molly bar the door, because based on what I've read there is not a person on that ship who has not suffered $20,000 in damages.

[paulgraff]

[quote name='E-rok']Just a quick question...

This whole thread got pretty amusing. To sue vs. not to sue, Americans vs. Canadians, etc.

I only read it until page 4 when our OP "Paul" got scared off.

Did he ever come back in the pages thereafter?[/QUOTE]

No I did not get scared off by people insulting me just because I asked a question. I think its very funny so many of you get offended by a simple question, "to sue or not." And lets face facts, law suits will be filed against CCL in this matter.


Also, I am not a lawyer nor a CCL hater. I have sailed CCL about 8 or 10 times and think they are a good value for the money.

But I just believe these people are being put through hell and deserve more than a comped cruise and a future free cruise that many will not take due to what they are going through today.

We will see if I am right or wrong, but I am betting the stories that come out of that ship won't be pretty.

PG

[seavoyager6]

Are you working on your new sleezy ambulance chaser 30 second TV spot currently, paul???

[bobnsons]

[quote name='San_Antonio_Ex'] People always talk about ambulance chasing lawyers but what they should be talking about are the people who hire the attorneys.[/quote]


OK, so these people are watching their TV's and here comes an ad from someone selling himself as The Texas Hammer telling you how much you can make.


Apolgies but for the most part the people who call always seem to be able to find and attorney that will take the case.

:(

[Hammer-STT]

Why? Just hope I am not on your jury