Royal gets sued

[mo&fran]

Local news Item today

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sns-bc-us--zip-line-death-royal-caribbean-20181212-story.html

[sh2738]

Ridiculous. Very sad that someone died but that is absolutely not RCCLs fault. The person to sue is the tour company if they did something negligent. Unfortunately zip lining can be dangerous sometimes, especially if one isn’t aware or hasn’t done a lot of research on the company that operates it. 

 

Maybe its just me but I was under the impression that everyone knows that the cruise line doesn’t operate these excursions? Thought everyone knew that. Not a lot of details available to determine what actually happened on if it was an accident or if the company that did the tour did something negligent. No matter it isn’t RCCLs fault though. But sure her them go ahead and sure the bigger company 🤨

 

i dis zip lining once and won’t likely ever do it again. A little too out there for me and far too many accidents like this one.

 

Hopefully RCCL maintains their ground and doesn’t allow themselves to give out any money for this and now hopefully the family understands how cruises and excursions work. It’s still very sad though. 

[Biker19]

2 minutes ago, sh2738 said:

 Not a lot of details available to determine what actually happened on if it was an accident or if the company that did the tour did something negligent.

In usual CC fashion, there was a lengthy thread about this at the time of the incident.

[bouhunter]

49 minutes ago, sh2738 said:

Ridiculous. Very sad that someone died but that is absolutely not RCCLs fault. The person to sue is the tour company if they did something negligent. Unfortunately zip lining can be dangerous sometimes, especially if one isn’t aware or hasn’t done a lot of research on the company that operates it. 

 

Maybe its just me but I was under the impression that everyone knows that the cruise line doesn’t operate these excursions? Thought everyone knew that. Not a lot of details available to determine what actually happened on if it was an accident or if the company that did the tour did something negligent. No matter it isn’t RCCLs fault though. But sure her them go ahead and sure the bigger company 🤨

 

i dis zip lining once and won’t likely ever do it again. A little too out there for me and far too many accidents like this one.

 

Hopefully RCCL maintains their ground and doesn’t allow themselves to give out any money for this and now hopefully the family understands how cruises and excursions work. It’s still very sad though. 

They and their attorney probably know quite well that a tour company is the operator, no reason for you to assume they don't.  RCCL was still involved and that's why they're party to the suit, whatever anyone's opinion.

[not-enough-cruising]

Not even news worthy. Like any other multi billion international company, I’m sure RCI is named in multiple lawsuits every year. 

[klfrodo]

I can see where Royal has some liability. Maybe not 100%, but a percentage depending on the contract between Royal and the operator. 

Royal does sell this excursion and they do profit from selling this excursion.

 

How many times have we on CC advised people to use local vendors only because the cruise lines excursions are so expensive. They are expensive for a reason and not just because of the extra revenue. The cruise lines negotiate guaranteed space, timely returns, safety and equipment practices, liabilty insurance, and yes PROFIT margin.

 

So, Yes, Royal has a dog in this fight and should be part of the litigation.

[KimPossible1]

1 hour ago, sh2738 said:

Ridiculous. Very sad that someone died but that is absolutely not RCCLs fault.

 

Maybe its just me but I was under the impression that everyone knows that the cruise line doesn’t operate these excursions? Thought everyone knew that. Not a lot of details available to determine what actually happened 

 

Hopefully RCCL maintains their ground and doesn’t allow themselves to give out any money for this and now hopefully the family understands how cruises and excursions work. 

Not everyone knows everything... and "not a lot of details" so why be so mean and add your "two cents"  Not very nice and not helpful.  I don't post often because of this kind of negativity.  It isn't our business to debate who was at fault or whether or not someone deserves money...a simple "oh that is an awful experience for someone" would suffice if you felt you needed to say something.  I hope everyone tries to be nicer to one another.

[mo&fran]

57 minutes ago, klfrodo said:

I can see where Royal has some liability. Maybe not 100%, but a percentage depending on the contract between Royal and the operator. 

Royal does sell this excursion and they do profit from selling this excursion.

 

How many times have we on CC advised people to use local vendors only because the cruise lines excursions are so expensive. They are expensive for a reason and not just because of the extra revenue. The cruise lines negotiate guaranteed space, timely returns, safety and equipment practices, liabilty insurance, and yes PROFIT margin.

 

So, Yes, Royal has a dog in this fight and should be part of the litigation.

I  read the original thread, and I think that you hit the nail on the head.  It would appear that Royal bears some responsibility  in this case. We have been assured by Royal that the vendors have been vetted when they sell these excursions.

[davekathy]

...The suit says the excursion was operated by an independent contractor, but guests were misled to believe it was operated by Royal Caribbean. ...😏 

Edited December 13, 2018 by davekathy

[sh2738]

16 minutes ago, KimPossible1 said:

Not everyone knows everything... and "not a lot of details" so why be so mean and add your "two cents"  Not very nice and not helpful.  I don't post often because of this kind of negativity.  It isn't our business to debate who was at fault or whether or not someone deserves money...a simple "oh that is an awful experience for someone" would suffice if you felt you needed to say something.  I hope everyone tries to be nicer to one another.

 

I am sorry that you feel that way, being negative and/or coming across as mean was not my intention at all as I have a zero tolerance for that kind of behavior and I wasn't aware that was how my posting could have been interpreted. So thank you for alerting me that my posting could be misinterpreted as something negative. I definitely could have worded it differently. I was just commenting on the lack of details on the specific website linked to, how if one would only read that one article one might jump to conclusions about the specifics about what happened and who would be at fault and thinking about whether RCL was the appropriate company to sue and sharing my own experience on the potential dangers of zip lining. I was also expressing sympathy for the grief that this family is experiencing. I don't believe that I specifically made any comments that could be misconstrued as negative as I didn't say anything negative about the loss or what the family is going through, but if that is what someone interpreted it as then I apologize as that wasn't my intention. 

 

I 100% agree with you and applaud you for pointing it out on the negativity on boards like this one, I have been seeing a lot more negative and insensitive remarks on various threads more recently than I recall seeing before several years ago when I was last cruising. Hopefully we can keep up the positivity especially with the holiday season approaching and all agree at a minimum of what a tragedy this is about what happened out of what should have been a wonderful vacation. 

 

Events like this always remind me to be particularly careful about excursions and about safety concerns and ensuring to do thorough research before partaking in such activities to fully prepare myself and my family for any potential danger that there might be. 

 

Peace and compassion to all fellow cruisers. 

[sh2738]

13 minutes ago, mo&fran said:

I  read the original thread, and I think that you hit the nail on the head.  It would appear that Royal bears some responsibility  in this case. We have been assured by Royal that the vendors have been vetted when they sell these excursions.

 

Ah that is an excellent point there that I hadn't considered yet. Yes in that case I can see how Royal could have some responsibility especially if they didn't properly vet this company enough and could have prevented something like this from happening. 

[asalligo]

Yes, Royal cannot absolve themselves of responsibility here. Although I am not sure I have ever met anyone who thought that the cruise line runs these tours, there is a certain expectation that the tours are vetted and provide some level of security and safety. Shortly after this accident there were videos of this company on ytube that cruisers had posted and their safety measures were lacking. In the video they would send a person down a zip line that they did not appear to be able to see the other end of and with no audible or visible communication would then send another. Any good attorney in this case is probably in possession of that video also. Shame for RCCL though, they really can only do so much to police an excursion. 

[memoak]

I have been on numerous zip line tours with cruise lines and on every one I have had to sign a "waiver" before going.  How are they going to get around the fact that they signed this form and knew there were dangers

[ryano]

She is likely suing RC because thats where the big money is.    It didnt happen on Allures zip line so I would expect RC attorneys to fight this one tooth and nail but they will probably just write her a check to keep it out of court and hush her up.

[Joseph2017China]

If I go to the grocery store.  Go all the time.  I trust it is always safe.  One day, I slip on a banana peel that the customer in front of me just tossed on the ground.  Who do I sue?  The store, because they did not have someone to clean it immediately.  The person that was careless.  But also the Packager of the Banana company because they did not seal the banana in such a way to prevent it from being eaten in the store.  I'm also going to sue the shipping company because I found out, they delivered the banana 2 hours early. 

 

RCCL is being sued because they played a part in the whole picture.  Can they have done anything different?  Maybe, but that is why everyone gets sued.  It's just a part of doing business.  You go after the company with the biggest bucks.

[Merion_Mom]

4 hours ago, mo&fran said:

Royal gets sued...…………..

 

……………..several times a month.

[mo&fran]

31 minutes ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

……………..several times a month.

Over someone dying?

[gerif]

Rule of thumb for any negligence lawsuit - sue everyone who is even remotely involved whether they personally appear to have any liability. Especially go after the ones with the deep pockets. You never know what a jury will decide. Any attorney worth his license knows this. 

[KiwiGal117]

5 hours ago, memoak said:

I have been on numerous zip line tours with cruise lines and on every one I have had to sign a "waiver" before going.  How are they going to get around the fact that they signed this form and knew there were dangers

Negligence in the part of the provider typically can’t be waived.

[skiierx131]

6 hours ago, ryano said:

She is likely suing RC because thats where the big money is.    It didnt happen on Allures zip line so I would expect RC attorneys to fight this one tooth and nail but they will probably just write her a check to keep it out of court and hush her up.

Yup! Sue the random small zip line company making only $ a year, or sue the huge corporation making $$$$$$$ a year.

[emdia43]

11 hours ago, sh2738 said:

Ridiculous. Very sad that someone died but that is absolutely not RCCLs fault. The person to sue is the tour company if they did something negligent. Unfortunately zip lining can be dangerous sometimes, especially if one isn’t aware or hasn’t done a lot of research on the company that operates it. 

 

Maybe its just me but I was under the impression that everyone knows that the cruise line doesn’t operate these excursions? Thought everyone knew that. Not a lot of details available to determine what actually happened on if it was an accident or if the company that did the tour did something negligent. No matter it isn’t RCCLs fault though. But sure her them go ahead and sure the bigger company 🤨

 

i dis zip lining once and won’t likely ever do it again. A little too out there for me and far too many accidents like this one.

 

Hopefully RCCL maintains their ground and doesn’t allow themselves to give out any money for this and now hopefully the family understands how cruises and excursions work. It’s still very sad though. 

 

 

If they bought the excursion through RCCL then it seems to me that they share liabilit with the operators.

[Banana Benders]

11 hours ago, memoak said:

I have been on numerous zip line tours with cruise lines and on every one I have had to sign a "waiver" before going.  How are they going to get around the fact that they signed this form and knew there were dangers

Waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on , if the operator was negligent.

[waterbug123]

16 hours ago, bouhunter said:

 

 

15 hours ago, davekathy said:

...The suit says the excursion was operated by an independent contractor, but guests were misled to believe it was operated by Royal Caribbean. ...😏 

 

Or, that is a "convenient" way to describe that the victims paid no attention to the obvious clues that it was not actually run by RC.

 

14 hours ago, memoak said:

I have been on numerous zip line tours with cruise lines and on every one I have had to sign a "waiver" before going.  How are they going to get around the fact that they signed this form and knew there were dangers

 

Waivers go out the window when there is negligence involved.

 

14 hours ago, Joseph2017China said:

RCCL is being sued because they played a part in the whole picture..... You go after the company with the biggest bucks.

 

Exactly.  The victim knows there is little chance of recovering any money from the operator.  They don't have deep pockets, they operate in another country etc.  But RC?  Different story!

[sparks1093]

3 hours ago, Banana Benders said:

Waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on , if the operator was negligent.

 

9 hours ago, KiwiGal117 said:

Negligence in the part of the provider typically can’t be waived.

This. Waivers are signed to cut down on the number of "nuisance" suits that get filed. Lawyers are also trained to name anyone remotely connected to the incident in the suit and let the matter of ultimate culpability be decided by the court. 

[davekathy]

3 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

 

 

Or, that is a "convenient" way to describe that the victims paid no attention to the obvious clues that it was not actually run by RC.

Exactly.