Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Would you sue if you were on Triumph?

paulgraff

By paulgraff,
in Carnival Cruise Lines

Recommended Posts

truecruiser

truecruiser

Posted
Posted
Watching TV and they are talking to people on the ship since they are along side the pier now. They are saying they never felt their lives were in jeopardy and they had lobster TWICE today. They are very happy with the way it was handled given the situation.

 

I saw that guy -- 13 Carnival Cruises. He had a cabin on Lido. He did say the lower decks were flooded when the sprinkler systems went off and that is why all of those people in the aft cabins had to pile up the mattresses on deck (they were all wet).

 

They all seem to be in good shape. Even the woman who was medi vac'd out for dialysis has zero damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
liveccam

liveccam

Posted
Posted

Yes I would and more. Carnival is obviously operating dangerous, unsafe ships that are putting the lives of thousands of people in jeopardy. I think it would be appropriate to require Carnival and all Carnival owned lines to stand down from all cruise activity for a period of time during which fleetwide safety inspections and modifications to their ships and policies could be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
truecruiser

truecruiser

Posted
Posted

Gerry's going on board to apologize. :)

 

 

I dunno... There are some pretty dumb lawyers out there. Fwiw.. Paralegal credentials mean nuttin... That's like comparing a fry cook to chef Ramsay. (But I could make the same argument about some lawyers...).

 

Yes. You seem quite the Academian, lmao :p Waitress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Angela61280

Angela61280

Posted
Posted

Ha. Lawyers are usually a witty bunch! Maybe I think too much of those in the legal profession. But hey, it happens everywhere. I'm sure there are always a few duds in the group. Slow? Probably.

 

Okay enough is enough for me... I've got a valentine to get to.. Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nitro2448

nitro2448

Posted
Posted
Yes I would and more. Carnival is obviously operating dangerous, unsafe ships that are putting the lives of thousands of people in jeopardy. I think it would be appropriate to require Carnival and all Carnival owned lines to stand down from all cruise activity for a period of time during which fleetwide safety inspections and modifications to their ships and policies could be made.

 

ROFL. great first post. We needed a laugh

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sargent_Schultz

Sargent_Schultz

Posted
Posted
Yes I would and more. Carnival is obviously operating dangerous, unsafe ships that are putting the lives of thousands of people in jeopardy. I think it would be appropriate to require Carnival and all Carnival owned lines to stand down from all cruise activity for a period of time during which fleetwide safety inspections and modifications to their ships and policies could be made.

 

 

This post is suspiciously similar to one posted by a different username earlier today. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JPEvans

JPEvans

Posted
Posted
Yes I would and more. Carnival is obviously operating dangerous, unsafe ships that are putting the lives of thousands of people in jeopardy. I think it would be appropriate to require Carnival and all Carnival owned lines to stand down from all cruise activity for a period of time during which fleetwide safety inspections and modifications to their ships and policies could be made.

 

Who are you? Good grief! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
San_Antonio_Ex

San_Antonio_Ex

Posted
Posted
oh no I always thought he was right on that one but the agreement to agree form I routinely use Texaco would have won

 

just in case you don't know what this about Texaco had signed a letter of intent...an agreement to agree actually that identified the property to be sold and the amount of the sale but the letter was called an agreement to agree that required a formal contract to be signed by x date. when x date passed Texaco signed a contract with a different party. pennzoil sued. The judge held that the letter was sufficient on its face to be a contract and was to be enforced. Texaco so so sure of its position that it didn't put on an expert to contest Pennzoil valuation of the property in question. My agrement to agree even before that provided that if no formal contract was signed by x date the letter was nul and void ad initio.(from the beginning)

 

Joe took cases he thought he could win. No money but lost money in losing a case. Damn good lawyer!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mississippian

Mississippian

Posted
Posted
There will' date=' no doubt, be lawsuits.

 

However, proving emotional distress is next to impossible. How do you *show* the damages? Now, keep in mind I am not saying there is NOT emotional distress, but believing it to be true and showing it in a court of law? Those are two totally different things...[/quote']

Go to the doctor and get some sleeping pills or tranks. They will not deny them under these circumstances, and the fact that you had to seek medical treatment as a result of your emotional distress is "proof" enough.

 

There may be other problems with recovery: must show negligence, admiralty law, contract of carriage, and so forth. But "proving" emotional distress should not be a legal obstacle to many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cruisin'Doc

Cruisin'Doc

Posted
Posted
Go to the doctor and get some sleeping pills or tranks. They will not deny them under these circumstances, and the fact that you had to seek medical treatment as a result of your emotional distress is "proof" enough.

 

There may be other problems with recovery: must show negligence, admiralty law, contract of carriage, and so forth. But "proving" emotional distress should not be a legal obstacle to many.

 

The issue is proving the cruise is the cause of the need for the medication. Sleeping meds and anti-anxiety meds are passed out like candy - so you're correct, they won't be denied - but that doesn't prove anything. If the person has ever taken either one of these just one time...their claim (of emotional distress being the reason for the meds) will be invalid, as there will be a claim of a pre-existing condition. As well, although it seems common sense that the need for the medication would come from negative experience, common sense is not the same as hard evidence/proof. Unless the person goes before an exceedingly sympathetic judge, they would likely be required to go for a mental health evaluation, and an ethical clinician will not just 'sign off' and put their credentials on the line without doing a full scale evaluation and filing an official report with the court system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Set Sail on Sun Princess®
      • Hurricane Zone 2024
      • Cruise Insurance Q&A w/ Steve Dasseos of Tripinsurancestore.com June 2024
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...