NCL Disclaimer? Vessel not expected to be fit or seaworthy?

[tiredlady]

We booked a cruise with NCL and were checking in online. We saw the following: "5. Limitations and Disclaimers of Liability: (a) The Carrier and the Guest hereby agree there is no warranty, whether express or implied, as to the fitness, seaworthiness, or condition of the vessel....."

 

It seems like a no brainer - they should supply a seaworthy vessel for which we pay hundreds of dollars to cruise on. They want us to agree that their vessel may not be fit or seaworthy as a condition of us taking the cruise. After very long on hold, they told my husband that all of their agreements say this and that if he sailed with them before, he signed that as well. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but this is too stark.

 

Please, what do other people think?

[funat55]

I would call that a psychological disclaimer to discourage lawsuits. It is against public policy to insulate yourself from your own negligence or liability. You cannot create a dangerous condition and then say you are not responsible.

[Poipu04]

That provision would most likely not be enforceable based on public policy reasons but off hand I don't know under what law the contract is construed. I review contracts for a living and sometimes they say really ridiculous things that no court would uphold.

[garycarla]

Let me provide the condensed version of the contract.

 

....in summary, if you provide us payment, we will provide an undetermined amount of time onboard our vessel. Period. Done. Don't expect anything else. Ever. We can do whatever we freakin want to do.

 

Sign here.

[Illyria]

Celebrity has the same disclaimer in their guest contract.

[triptolemus]

They don't guarantee seaworthiness, but you'll be delighted to know they absolutely do guarantee feeworthiness. :cool:

[fishin' musician]

All carrier contracts are written in such a way as to infer that no matter what ever circumstances shall arise, you will have zero recourse. The documents are really not worth the paper they are printed on. But, challenging it pits your legal defense against theirs.

[fuzzel]

This is the same kind of 'legal' document that you have to sign for every thing you do out there, if it is downloading an app, using a playstation game, etc, they all basically state that you can't sue them at all, and as you want the service, you'll just have to say 'yes' and suck it up.

 

Best thing is to not read them at all, scroll to the end and click on it.

You are not a lawyer, and can't do anything about it any way.

 

Also note that in many countries (eg most of Europe) shrink wrap and single-click licenses are considered invalid anyway, especially when they are shown after a sale has already been made.

 

These kind of 'legal' documents are just not worth time fuzzing about.

 

The real law prevails when something goes wrong, and as stated above, it is legal resources then that actually count in the end, not the piece of paper/screen with many many odd words that are not enforceable.

[chengkp75]

All carrier contracts are written in such a way as to infer that no matter what ever circumstances shall arise' date=' you will have zero recourse. The documents are really not worth the paper they are printed on. But, challenging it pits your legal defense against theirs.[/quote']

 

While I'm not a lawyer, I think that those clauses (which every cruise line has in their contracts) are enforceable and upheld in court. They are there because things can go wrong on a ship, and be deemed unseaworthy, mid-cruise say, but unless you can show negligence or foreknowledge on the part of the company, you will not have a claim.

 

Just look at the class action suit against Carnival for the Triumph fire. Of 33 plaintiffs, 6 received no award, 24 averaged $3000, and only 3 received $15000. The 6 who received no award are being moved against by Carnival for costs. I think based on this ruling, that the remaining suits will be settled for little or no award to plaintiffs.

 

And the OP's title is misleading. The ships are "expected" to be seaworthy, but the cruise line does not "warranty" it.

Edited April 1, 2015 by chengkp75

[janpo]

They don't guarantee seaworthiness, but you'll be delighted to know they absolutely do guarantee feeworthiness. :cool:

 

 

Where's the like button????

[sparks1093]

While I'm not a lawyer, I think that those clauses (which every cruise line has in their contracts) are enforceable and upheld in court. They are there because things can go wrong on a ship, and be deemed unseaworthy, mid-cruise say, but unless you can show negligence or foreknowledge on the part of the company, you will not have a claim.

 

Just look at the class action suit against Carnival for the Triumph fire. Of 33 plaintiffs, 6 received no award, 24 averaged $3000, and only 3 received $15000. The 6 who received no award are being moved against by Carnival for costs. I think based on this ruling, that the remaining suits will be settled for little or no award to plaintiffs.

 

And the OP's title is misleading. The ships are "expected" to be seaworthy, but the cruise line does not "warranty" it.

 

Interesting info about the Triumph, I always wondered how that turned out (and it turned out about as I expected it would).

 

OP, the ships are maintained to rigorous standards established by US and International law. There is a big difference between providing a seaworthy vessel and gauranteeing a seaworthy vessel.

[LrgPizza]

It seems like a no brainer - they should supply a seaworthy vessel for which we pay hundreds of dollars to cruise on....

 

Please, what do other people think?

They do supply a seaworthy vessel. You spend hundreds of dollars, and they've spent millions. This is one of those times when I'd tell my young son, "Use your brain", although like you said, it is a no brainer.

[Oppalopa]

I would call that a psychological disclaimer to discourage lawsuits. It is against public policy to insulate yourself from your own negligence or liability. You cannot create a dangerous condition and then say you are not responsible.

Kinda like when you go to the hospital.To have surgery. You sign a wavier the hospital is not responsible, then a wavier the nursing staff and anesthesiologist are not responsible. You are unconscious who is responsible??? :D

[cliffd64]

We booked a cruise with NCL and were checking in online. We saw the following: "5. Limitations and Disclaimers of Liability: (a) The Carrier and the Guest hereby agree there is no warranty, whether express or implied, as to the fitness, seaworthiness, or condition of the vessel....."

 

It seems like a no brainer - they should supply a seaworthy vessel for which we pay hundreds of dollars to cruise on. They want us to agree that their vessel may not be fit or seaworthy as a condition of us taking the cruise. After very long on hold, they told my husband that all of their agreements say this and that if he sailed with them before, he signed that as well. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but this is too stark.

 

Please, what do other people think?

This is legalese that has been there for years and years.

[chengkp75]

I would call that a psychological disclaimer to discourage lawsuits. It is against public policy to insulate yourself from your own negligence or liability. You cannot create a dangerous condition and then say you are not responsible.

 

As I've stated in previous post, the lines are not insulating themselves from negligence. If they "create a dangerous condition", then you have every right to seek damages from them. This is more of the "act of god" disclaimer. The company cannot warranty that everything on a ship will always function as designed, things break, that no one had foreknowledge of, or that were maintained to manufacturer's or governmental standards, and had redundancy to governmental standards, that may make some services onboard (like flushing toilets, for instance) unavailable for a period of time. Does a hotel "warranty" that there will always be running water or air conditioning? No. But they just don't have you sign a disclaimer first. So when you go to the front desk and complain, they can just say "sorry, mechanical problem, we'll fix it soon", and it will be up to you to pursue any damages you claim.

 

There can also be damage to the ship from weather that renders the ship either unseaworthy or with limited facilities, that were not foreseeable. Again, using the hotel analogy, no hotel "warranties" that your room will never be destroyed in a hurricane. While you may get damages from their insurance, you certainly could not hold them negligent.

[shapatack0]

While I'm not a lawyer, I think that those clauses (which every cruise line has in their contracts) are enforceable and upheld in court. They are there because things can go wrong on a ship, and be deemed unseaworthy, mid-cruise say, but unless you can show negligence or foreknowledge on the part of the company, you will not have a claim.

 

Just look at the class action suit against Carnival for the Triumph fire. Of 33 plaintiffs, 6 received no award, 24 averaged $3000, and only 3 received $15000. The 6 who received no award are being moved against by Carnival for costs. I think based on this ruling, that the remaining suits will be settled for little or no award to plaintiffs.

 

And the OP's title is misleading. The ships are "expected" to be seaworthy, but the cruise line does not "warranty" it.

 

The carnival passengers didn't prevail and/or received so little because they had no real damages, not because they had no claim. If your cruise cost you $3,000, and all that really happened was that your cruise was ruined, it's hard to argue that you are entitled to more than $3,000. If that fire had caused deaths or serious injuries amongst passengers, it would be an entirely different story.

[chengkp75]

The carnival passengers didn't prevail and/or received so little because they had no real damages, not because they had no claim. If your cruise cost you $3,000, and all that really happened was that your cruise was ruined, it's hard to argue that you are entitled to more than $3,000. If that fire had caused deaths or serious injuries amongst passengers, it would be an entirely different story.

 

Never said they had no claim, just that their claims were found to be unfounded. Perhaps they were entitled to a refund of their cruise fare, and that was a portion of what Carnival offered as compensation at the time, but their claims for pain and suffering due to negligence on the part of Carnival were found to be baseless. Carnival offered more than the refund of fare, and these folks ended up with less than that, especially after the legal fees are taken out.

 

Absolutely, if there had been deaths or injuries, the people injured would be entitled to damages, but not everyone onboard. And the amount of damages would vary widely if the cruise line allowed that there was an "implied" warranty to the safety of the passenger. Maritime law allows that a passenger is entitled to reasonable assuredness of safe passage, but does not hold the carrier liable for all instances of injury or death onboard.

[sparks1093]

The carnival passengers didn't prevail and/or received so little because they had no real damages, not because they had no claim. If your cruise cost you $3,000, and all that really happened was that your cruise was ruined, it's hard to argue that you are entitled to more than $3,000. If that fire had caused deaths or serious injuries amongst passengers, it would be an entirely different story.

 

As I recall CCL offered those onboard a full refund of their cruise cost and credit for another cruise (and possibly reimbursing for changes in airfare). Seems to me by litigating the plaintiffs received less than they would have since they only got their actual costs and then had to pay their attorney on top of it. (The plaintiffs may have hoped for a large pain and suffering award, but it doesn't look like they got it.)

Edited April 1, 2015 by sparks1093

[Poipu04]

I am a lawyer and there are many, many factors in play: which law governs the contract, the superior bargaining power of the cruise line, is the claim being litigated or arbitrated, at what stage are the claims being challenged. In a class action there are certain provisions for attorneys to get their fees awarded. I'm sure the case was done on a contingency in any event. That means the attorney gets one third out of proceeds from settlement or a win. If you get nothing, they get nothing, but you may have to pay certain costs and expenses. I'm not a maritime lawyer or a FL lawyer so maybe someone can weigh in.

 

Long story short, don't let those provisions frighten you out of sailing!

Edited April 1, 2015 by Poipu04

[shapatack0]

Never said they had no claim, just that their claims were found to be unfounded. Perhaps they were entitled to a refund of their cruise fare, and that was a portion of what Carnival offered as compensation at the time, but their claims for pain and suffering due to negligence on the part of Carnival were found to be baseless. Carnival offered more than the refund of fare, and these folks ended up with less than that, especially after the legal fees are taken out.

 

Absolutely, if there had been deaths or injuries, the people injured would be entitled to damages, but not everyone onboard. And the amount of damages would vary widely if the cruise line allowed that there was an "implied" warranty to the safety of the passenger. Maritime law allows that a passenger is entitled to reasonable assuredness of safe passage, but does not hold the carrier liable for all instances of injury or death onboard.

 

We're saying the same thing. They had no real/significant damages.