Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
SeaHunt

Ovation of the Seas Pax Possibly Injured in Volcanic Eruption

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, dianajo67 said:

I don’t think cruise lines should stop offering excursions.  I do think they should emphasize that they are offering tours as a “convenience” only and that all excursion providers are outside agents.  Hiding it in the the small print is my issue.  I don’t care if RC makes a profit for providing marketing services etc.  Just be clear with the guests...taking advantage of the “typical” oblivious guest might be legal but it’s not really an ethical approach.

There is no such thing as offering excursions "as a convenience".  It is a profit center for cruise lines, otherwise they would not make the offers.  They become a part of the chain of liability just by making the offer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who decide to be adventurers and manage to get into danger also cause rescuers to be exposed to substantial danger. Their families don't give a hoot about any waivers that were signed when they demand helicopters to take off, or bodies be recovered from whatever fate some nitwit met off Yellowstone's, or Grand Canyon's, trails. Stupid people do things that result in decisions restricting others from having the opportunity to make the same mistakes  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SLSD said:

 They become a part of the chain of liability just by making the offer.  

 

Can you expand on this concept of the chain of liability since in New Zealand there may be no liability for tour operators? 

 

 

Edited by twangster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twangster said:

Can you expand on this concept of the chain of liability since in New Zealand there may be no liability for tour operators?

 

Yes, people seem to be forgetting about the NZ ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). This is a government entity which provides no-fault insurance coverage for everyone in NZ, including tourists. You cannot sue for injury in NZ, you apply for compensation. As such, tour operators have no liability.

 

However, there may or may not be criminal responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Yes, people seem to be forgetting about the NZ ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). This is a government entity which provides no-fault insurance coverage for everyone in NZ, including tourists. You cannot sue for injury in NZ, you apply for compensation. As such, tour operators have no liability.

 

However, there may or may not be criminal responsibility.

 

I think the laws in New Zealand are well represented here.

 

Criminal responsibility will always supercede preventing legal action against tour operators claiming a waiver of liability when the have done something that warrants it. 

 

Under NZ law, if a tour operator is deemed to have criminal exposure that supersedes the waiver of liability, does a 3rd party such as a cruise line selling a ticket on behalf of that tour company also have criminal exposure if the tour operator has done something that waives their right to no liability? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This person .? ....

We have ,on Ovation,  the sounds and Dudedin canceled due to weather and sea conditions never made the South island  , compensation we all alive ...🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twangster said:

Under NZ law, if a tour operator is deemed to have criminal exposure that supersedes the waiver of liability

 

Criminal and financial liability are two separate issues in NZ. The financial liability is taken on by the ACC. The criminal liability is determined by the court system.

 

At a guess I would say that a third party selling a tour in good faith would be unlikely to be liable to criminal charges. "Good faith" would have to be determined by either the coroner, the prosecutors and eventually if it comes to it, by a jury.

Edited by SinbadThePorter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SLSD said:

There is no such thing as offering excursions "as a convenience".  It is a profit center for cruise lines, otherwise they would not make the offers.  They become a part of the chain of liability just by making the offer.  

Yeah, just because of the mentality that "Ooh, there's been an accident, let's blame someone and make a claim".

It's about time people themselves were liable for their own actions.

This particular event is an absolute tragedy and we all feel for the victims. But in the end it is a matter of choice. It was known to be an active volcano some choose to explore, and others don't. 

Folks go on your vacations, do what YOU want to do. Take out adequate and appropriate insurance for what you are doing, and stop looking to blame someone when tragedy or accidents happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mayleeman said:

People who decide to be adventurers and manage to get into danger also cause rescuers to be exposed to substantial danger. Their families don't give a hoot about any waivers that were signed when they demand helicopters to take off, or bodies be recovered from whatever fate some nitwit met off Yellowstone's, or Grand Canyon's, trails. Stupid people do things that result in decisions restricting others from having the opportunity to make the same mistakes  


They were on a Ship-offered excursion. They were not doing anything that the cruiseline hadn’t sanctioned by virtue of offering it for purchase on the website prior or on the ship. Tacit consent that the activity is safe unless you have individual medical issues like mobility and which is warned about when booking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned (several pages back in this discussion) that the injured and families of the deceased will have options of where to file a claim.  They may even file in the United States since Royal Caribbean has a presence there.  There is also the issue that not all are citizens of NZ and will not be living there  for the rest of their lives.  Ongoing (and probably life long) treatment will be in their home countries.  It's unclear how the NZ law will provide for the lifelong treatment they need in a country (like the US) which does not guarantee medical care for its citizens.  The upshot is that there are a lot of unknowns.  The legal system does not always work like you may think it does.  You may say, these people assumed a risk and RC and others should not be held liable.  The legal system may see it differently.  And, as I said above, the injured/deceased (families) may seek other venues other than NZ for relief.  

 

One thing to remember about insurance policies is that they usually have limits.  The treatment for these grave injuries may well exceed the limits of the policies.  

 

 

Edited by SLSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Coralc said:

You don't need bear spray

You should carry pepper spray and have little bells so they are not surprised.  Also, if you see bear poop leave the area.  You can tell bear poop.  Smells like bear spray and has little bells in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SLSD said:

There is no such thing as offering excursions "as a convenience".  It is a profit center for cruise lines, otherwise they would not make the offers.  They become a part of the chain of liability just by making the offer.  

I love when businesses just offer things for "convenience".....BEWARE.   when you hear that.  Clearly this "convenience" is going to cost the cruise line in pr and money.  It has served as a clear reminder of the inherent risks in different experiences sold across the world...if you think it is worth the risk by all means go ahead but with eyes wide open.  I think there is much validity in the comments here on cruise critic of the false sense of security of so many cruisers...often cruisers are first time travelers and this is their  way of getting out there....a cocoon of sorts but really no ship is that...can have events right on board or on shore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pushka My mistake in not being clearer about the adventurers I was calling nitwits, but I thought the references to Yellowstone and Grand Canyon made it clear. I am talling about people who ignore trail signs, disregard guides, decide rules are too "nanny state"ish, or otherwise get into dangerous or fatal situations from which intrepid rangers or EMTs have to pull them at risk to themselves. Like the pair who tried to bathe in one of Yellowstone's hot mud springs last year or so.

 

Not at all like the poor souls on White Island, who likely simply believed their excursion was safe or it wouldn't be available.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 6:28 AM, twangster said:

I'm curious how the New Zealand government has allowed these tours to operate. 

 

When you begin to look at all excursions with a broader view

where else can safety be improved?

Nice post.

Pax have a right to risk.

If, and when, you are at an end, and in your bed,

in the USA you cannot be tied down.

You have a right to risk. 

You cannot be tied down.

 

Edited by $hip$hape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Seville2Cabo said:

You should carry pepper spray and have little bells so they are not surprised.  Also, if you see bear poop leave the area.  You can tell bear poop.  Smells like bear spray and has little bells in it.  

Since being attacked by a bear in Alaska in 2006 I think I have heard every bear joke known to man. At the time I didn't think it was a joke so now I don't carry bear spray or little bells. I now carry a 357.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SLSD said:

There is no such thing as offering excursions "as a convenience".  It is a profit center for cruise lines, otherwise they would not make the offers.  They become a part of the chain of liability just by making the offer.  

i don’t know how you cannot say that having the ability to book a shore excursion along with dinner reservations is not a “convenience” to passengers.  It might be a money maker for RCI as they pay for the marketing service etc.  It would be quite easy for the cruise line to emphasize the outside nature of the tours more strongly so that new travelers understand better.  That’s what I advocate.  As for the language cited above about operators being “third party verified...blah, blah, blah”...that sentence in caps is about as understandable as mud to most people.

 

Blaming the cruise line for natural disaster to me is akin to holding the weather channel financially responsible for deaths when the hurricane takes an unexpected turn.  Just my opinion.  It’s not about who’s right or wrong on this board.  There may be other factors and the courts can decide liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Zealand is an awesome place to visit if you wish to try adventure sports. The north and South Islands are so different and both offer tourists the chance to try a new adventure. Bungee jumping was invented in New Zealand. You have the majestic fox & Franz Josef glaciers as well as the Rotorua thermal areas

 

There are all types of tours you can do. Common sense needs to be taken into account. People should have the right to decide if the tours are safe and suitable for their own personal needs.

 

the government is not your mum and should only govern to a certain extent. P

 

that said I’m sure a full review of the incident will take place and changes made on advice of reviews to any tourism activity seen to be at risk to tourism 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SLSD said:

I mentioned (several pages back in this discussion) that the injured and families of the deceased will have options of where to file a claim.  They may even file in the United States since Royal Caribbean has a presence there.  There is also the issue that not all are citizens of NZ and will not be living there  for the rest of their lives.  Ongoing (and probably life long) treatment will be in their home countries.  It's unclear how the NZ law will provide for the lifelong treatment they need in a country (like the US) which does not guarantee medical care for its citizens.  The upshot is that there are a lot of unknowns.  The legal system does not always work like you may think it does.  You may say, these people assumed a risk and RC and others should not be held liable.  The legal system may see it differently.  And, as I said above, the injured/deceased (families) may seek other venues other than NZ for relief.  

 

One thing to remember about insurance policies is that they usually have limits.  The treatment for these grave injuries may well exceed the limits of the policies.  

 

 


The majority of the deceased and injured were Australian. Many have now been flown back to Australia for treatment and Australia has sent Medical people with expertise in burns over to NZ. 
 

We are travelling to Santorini, Sicily (Mt Etna) and Naples (Vesuvius) on Celebrity Edge next July. All of the Volcano tours that were bookable last week have all been withdrawn from the cruise planner. 

Edited by Pushka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dianajo67 said:

i don’t know how you cannot say that having the ability to book a shore excursion along with dinner reservations is not a “convenience” to passengers.  It might be a money maker for RCI as they pay for the marketing service etc.  It would be quite easy for the cruise line to emphasize the outside nature of the tours more strongly so that new travelers understand better.  That’s what I advocate.  As for the language cited above about operators being “third party verified...blah, blah, blah”...that sentence in caps is about as understandable as mud to most people.

 

Blaming the cruise line for natural disaster to me is akin to holding the weather channel financially responsible for deaths when the hurricane takes an unexpected turn.  Just my opinion.  It’s not about who’s right or wrong on this board.  There may be other factors and the courts can decide liability.

Legal issues will be decided in courts.  It's hard sometimes for those who do not regularly consider legal issues to process tragedies such as this one.  All of us are still so sad that so many have suffered.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two people still missing, one report of body in the ocean. Also another passed away in hospital. 

Rest In Peace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mayleeman said:

People who decide to be adventurers and manage to get into danger also cause rescuers to be exposed to substantial danger. Their families don't give a hoot about any waivers that were signed when they demand helicopters to take off, or bodies be recovered from whatever fate some nitwit met off Yellowstone's, or Grand Canyon's, trails. Stupid people do things that result in decisions restricting others from having the opportunity to make the same mistakes  

Your post is so offensive to me.  These cruise ship passengers were not stupid people.  They were people who did not realize the grave risk they were taking.  This is why there are liability laws.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people whom died all seem to have been very nice and very normal Australians and Americans whom worked hard and were enjoying a holiday prior to Christmas with their family and friends. Just like many of us on this forum do. They were the unfortunate ones but it could have been any of us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SLSD said:

Your post is so offensive to me.  These cruise ship passengers were not stupid people.  They were people who did not realize the grave risk they were taking.  This is why there are liability laws.  

Please read my post #338 where I made it very clear I was not talking about these people, but instead about people who disregard rules and endanger rescuers as well as themselves. You can be offended if you want, or you can read through a thread before getting bent out of shape.

Edited by mayleeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mayleeman said:

Please read my post #338 where I made it very clear I was not talking about these people, but instead about people who disregard rules and endanger rescuers as well as themselves. You can be offended if you want, or you can read through a thread before getting bent out of shape.

You need to make each of your posts clear as it is easy to miss specific posts--and i would not have connected your prior post to this one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pushka said:


The majority of the deceased and injured were Australian. Many have now been flown back to Australia for treatment and Australia has sent Medical people with expertise in burns over to NZ. 
 

 

The USA and UK have offered medical assistance wherever possible as well as scientific analysis ect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • SAIL-AWAY GIVEAWAY - Enter Now for a Chance to Win a 7-day Cruise for Two
      • Q&A with InsureMyTrip
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...