Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
WNcruiser

Apex crew member sues X for COVID-19

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The lawyer claims that possibly 10 thousand X crew members across the fleet are infected with Covid19... Really?

 


 

Edited by C-Dragons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

The lawyer claims that possibly 10 thousand X crew members across the fleet are infected with Covid19... Really?

 


 

Not exactly,  the lawyer is estimating there would be approximately 10,000 members in the class, for his proposed class-action law suit.  Celebrity currently has 11 ships, excluding the Galapagos fleet, and including Apex, so 10,000 crew members sounds about right.  Even the lawyer isn't claiming all of them are "possibly infected", but he'd like to allege al of them have suffered damages - compensable by Celebrity of course. 

 

Harris

Denver, CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, omeinv said:

Not exactly,  the lawyer is estimating there would be approximately 10,000 members in the class, for his proposed class-action law suit.  Celebrity currently has 11 ships, excluding the Galapagos fleet, and including Apex, so 10,000 crew members sounds about right.  Even the lawyer isn't claiming all of them are "possibly infected", but he'd like to allege al of them have suffered damages - compensable by Celebrity of course. 

 

Harris

Denver, CO

Seems to me they would they have to prove that a predominant number of those 10,000 are actually infected. Good luck with that since tests for Covid 19 are hard to come by. And If they’re not infected how could they claim to have “suffered”? Alleging a premise is one thing, they would have to prove it to win the case. I really wonder how many crew members would actually want to participate in this scheme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've hit on the issue.  Attorney Winkleman is fairly well known here on Cruise Critic from his website designed to troll up suits against the cruise lines. 

 

You're right to wonder how many crew members would be willing to join in this effort.  Most need their job and income, and would not be willing to join in this endeavor.  Like any class actionsuit, the individual class members are very unlikely to get much, if anything.

 

Harris

Denver, CO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Apex hasn't even sailed yet, right? How did so many crew members get infected?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the cruise line should sue the crew. Can't blame this one on the passengers but I'm sure they'll try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

The Apex hasn't even sailed yet, right? How did so many crew members get infected?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

According to the article, 1400 crew came on board in one day at the shipyard. Any one of them could have brought it on as well as the many contractors still on board working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same attorney who represents the parents of the baby dropped out the window on the RCI ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

The Apex hasn't even sailed yet, right? How did so many crew members get infected?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

 

image.thumb.png.0a1fa5acf8b6e093495d7b29773590af.png

Edited by hcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when the battle is over, and the smoke has cleared,

then come the lawyers... to bayonet the wounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Celebrity's version of "social distancing" during COVID-19.  Impressive!

Photo was actually posted 3/19.....so could have been taken earlier than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winkleman was just on Fox Business, says he filed class action on behalf of all crew members. Claims there was no distancing, held buffets, crew drills that were mandatory and held parties with free drinks.   This lawsuit is on behalf of all crew members on all ships.

Share this post


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

If it weren't being represented by this lawyer I'd be more inclined to believe it had merit.

 

The filing has been published online; you can read it and decide after overcoming your bias 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dkjretired said:

Winkleman was just on Fox Business, says he filed class action on behalf of all crew members. Claims there was no distancing, held buffets, crew drills that were mandatory and held parties with free drinks.   This lawsuit is on behalf of all crew members on all ships.

Well, can't speak about the other conditions, but crew drills are statutory, so, while there might have been remediation measures taken, the drill had to be held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

The filing has been published online; you can read it and decide after overcoming your bias 

I find it amusing that all of these maritime injury lawyers continue to use the Jones Act when listing the jurisdiction of the court:  "U.S. General Maritime Law and/or the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104.", when they know full well that the only part of that statement that holds true is "U.S. General Maritime Law".  They try to include the Jones Act because it has a lower burden of proof for negligence than General Maritime Law, even though for decades the courts have ruled that to apply the Jones Act, either the ship must be owned in the US (not just headquartered or primary business concluded there) (Celebrity does not meet this), the plaintiff must be a US citizen injured in a foreign port (plaintiff does not qualify), or a foreign citizen must be injured in a US port (last I checked, St. Nazaire isn't in the US).  Therefore, the court has jurisdiction if it is considered to be an Admiralty Court (which this US District court is), but the continued mention of the business done in the state of Florida is irrelevant.  Admiralty Courts typically have a lot of leeway in how they apply maritime law, and whether the case has merit, is completely up to the court in question. The suit claims that the plaintiffs were "injured" on or about March 2, when in fact, the principal plaintiff was on a ship that was not even owned by Celebrity, until 27 March.  The claims to unseaworthyness are worthless, especially as pertains to the principal plaintiff, since even if the entire crew were ill, the ship was not ready for sea until delivery at the earliest, and even then was not "ready for its intended purpose" for some time after.  Most ships in the world have not applied the CDC guidelines, even US flag merchant ships, as they are completely unworkable on a ship, so to say that the cruise ships were "unseaworthy" due to eating in mess halls is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I find it amusing that all of these maritime injury lawyers continue to use the Jones Act when listing the jurisdiction of the court:  "U.S. General Maritime Law and/or the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104.", when they know full well that the only part of that statement that holds true is "U.S. General Maritime Law".  They try to include the Jones Act because it has a lower burden of proof for negligence than General Maritime Law, even though for decades the courts have ruled that to apply the Jones Act, either the ship must be owned in the US (not just headquartered or primary business concluded there) (Celebrity does not meet this), the plaintiff must be a US citizen injured in a foreign port (plaintiff does not qualify), or a foreign citizen must be injured in a US port (last I checked, St. Nazaire isn't in the US).  Therefore, the court has jurisdiction if it is considered to be an Admiralty Court (which this US District court is), but the continued mention of the business done in the state of Florida is irrelevant.  Admiralty Courts typically have a lot of leeway in how they apply maritime law, and whether the case has merit, is completely up to the court in question. The suit claims that the plaintiffs were "injured" on or about March 2, when in fact, the principal plaintiff was on a ship that was not even owned by Celebrity, until 27 March.  The claims to unseaworthyness are worthless, especially as pertains to the principal plaintiff, since even if the entire crew were ill, the ship was not ready for sea until delivery at the earliest, and even then was not "ready for its intended purpose" for some time after.  Most ships in the world have not applied the CDC guidelines, even US flag merchant ships, as they are completely unworkable on a ship, so to say that the cruise ships were "unseaworthy" due to eating in mess halls is ludicrous.

 

Thank you for always bringing and sharing your actual knowledge of this stuff!! I always appreciate your input! 🙂

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
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...