Apex crew member sues X for COVID-19

[39august]

Very interesting. Thanks, chengkp75. I have always enjoyed your comments over the past few years, since you know what you are talking about concerning ships and sailing.

[LMaxwell]

31 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.

 

Yes, they misquote things.  So does the CDC, who after removing and reviewing their orders, still ascribes the Coral Princess to Celebrity.  

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

Yes, they misquote things.  So does the CDC, who after removing and reviewing their orders, still ascribes the Coral Princess to Celebrity.  

Quite a difference between a mistake in a policy statement and claims for jurisdiction in a court of law.  They are not "misquoting" things, they are making claims of jurisdiction and negligence in situations that they probably know do not apply.

[GeorgesGal]

I absolutely love the way Chengkp always lays out a case so precisely!  Perhaps X should hire him to defend this marginal - if that  - case.  Or is he already of counsel to them...... .

 

Donna

[C-Dragons]

55 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Thanks so much, I agree with you. 😊

 

While reading, I kept wondering why, if the plaintiff was so concerned about her health and well being, did she not address this issue with the Captain? Why didn’t she ask to go home, rather than staying onboard and risking contracting the virus once crew members were found to be ill. Surely her health was more important than her contract with X? Don’t people have a personal responsibility to safeguard their own well being? No one was holding her hostage on the ship. Or was the local French government not allowing crew members to disembark?

[chengkp75]

36 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

Thanks so much, I agree with you. 😊

 

While reading, I kept wondering why, if the plaintiff was so concerned about her health and well being, did she not address this issue with the Captain? Why didn’t she ask to go home, rather than staying onboard and risking contracting the virus once crew members were found to be ill. Surely her health was more important than her contract with X? Don’t people have a personal responsibility to safeguard their own well being? No one was holding her hostage on the ship. Or was the local French government not allowing crew members to disembark?

Another funny thing is that the ISM code that all shipowners must meet, requires that there be a "designated person ashore", who when a crew member has a complaint, that has not been addressed adequately onboard via the crew member's chain of command, will take the anonymous complaint and act upon it.  There is no mention in the filing regarding the company's failure to address this issue via the DPA.  So, no, the plaintiff did not obviously bring this to the ship's management.

[steamboats]

16 hours ago, twins_to_alaska said:

157 Apex crew members had tested positive by 1 April with more tests to go... didn't hear after that...

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/blog/2020-04-01-coronavirus-news-n1173686/ncrd1174181#blogHeader

 

scroll down a little in that link

 

 

The last I´ve found was April 7th and 217 people onboard tested positive.

 

https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/saint-nazaire_44184/coronavirus-217-personnes-positives-sur-celebrity-apex-saint-nazaire_32861126.ht

 

The Celebrity Apex BTW might leave the shipyard on April 30th according to local media.

 

steamboats

[yorky]

15 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

Thanks so much, I agree with you. 😊

 

While reading, I kept wondering why, if the plaintiff was so concerned about her health and well being, did she not address this issue with the Captain? Why didn’t she ask to go home, rather than staying onboard and risking contracting the virus once crew members were found to be ill. Surely her health was more important than her contract with X? Don’t people have a personal responsibility to safeguard their own well being? No one was holding her hostage on the ship. Or was the local French government not allowing crew members to disembark?

Something I feel I point out more and more “ personal responsibility”. Many  people on here are going to be making their own judgements on when and if they cruise again based on the situation at the time and the level of risk they are comfortable with. Our health comes before any monitory calculation, it’s of little help if you are dead. Maybe the crew on ship don’t have the same options but again there was surely an option not to travel in the first place given the pandemic was well underway when they boarded.

Edited April 16, 2020 by yorky

[twins_to_alaska]

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article242005711.html

 

[Georgia_Peaches]

This is not surprising.  It was just a matter of time before the law suits came as a result of the virus.  And it's not just the cruise industry...these suits have the potential to bubble up in any industry that remains open to provide essential services.  Ambulance chaser's dream...IMO

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/coronavirus-cruise-ship-crew-lawsuit.html

This is as it should be. The cruise lines were insanely reckless in dispatching the final round of cruises, and in leaving long-itinerary ships to keep sailing. They should now pay a price.

 

Kudos to the attorneys. God knows, this industry has proven unable to police itself ... again and again and again.

[lvz2cruz]

I think it's a slippery slope.  A person in my husband's company has a wife hospitalized with covid.  I cannot imagine his coworkers suing they company if they catch it.  

Celebrity has done reckless things in past weeks, but I don't understand them being sued over this.  Who knows who passed it.

[C-Dragons]

28 minutes ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

This is as it should be. The cruise lines were insanely reckless in dispatching the final round of cruises, and in leaving long-itinerary ships to keep sailing. They should now pay a price.

Be careful what you wish for.

The price that X pays could be bankruptcy.
Then all of their thousands of employees would lose their jobs.

Would that be equitable in your estimation?

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

54 minutes ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/coronavirus-cruise-ship-crew-lawsuit.html

This is as it should be. The cruise lines were insanely reckless in dispatching the final round of cruises, and in leaving long-itinerary ships to keep sailing. They should now pay a price.

 

Kudos to the attorneys. God knows, this industry has proven unable to police itself ... again and again and again.

There is no indication that anyone other than the original plaintiff has signed on to this class action suit, so many of Celebrity's crew may not want to sue over this, and the original plaintiff was never on an active cruise with passengers.

[C-Dragons]

37 minutes ago, lvz2cruz said:

I think it's a slippery slope.  A person in my husband's company has a wife hospitalized with covid.  I cannot imagine his coworkers suing they company if they catch it.  

Celebrity has done reckless things in past weeks, but I don't understand them being sued over this.  Who knows who passed it.

That's the crux of the matter. Since so many people who have the virus are contagious, yet asymptomatic, and may even initially test negative, it would be hard to determine who brought it onboard, including the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

[DaveSJ711]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

There is no indication that anyone other than the original plaintiff has signed on to this class action suit, so many of Celebrity's crew may not want to sue over this, and the original plaintiff was never on an active cruise with passengers.

 

A single plaintiff is sufficient for a class action complaint.  At some point, she and her counsel will move to certify a class under Federal Rule 23.  All of the requirements under the rule must be met before certification can occur.  Whether other crew members ever "sign on" to the case is irrelevant to the certification process.  

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

A single plaintiff is sufficient for a class action complaint.  At some point, she and her counsel will move to certify a class under Federal Rule 23.  All of the requirements under the rule must be met before certification can occur.  Whether other crew members ever "sign on" to the case is irrelevant to the certification process.  

Thanks.  Looked up Rule 23, looks like legal jargon to me, so I'm not going to try to dissect it.  But with a non-US plaintiff (and not sure how many potential US citizens would be in the class), a non-US corporation, non-US owned vessel, and the original plaintiffs "injuries" sustained in a non-US port, they would have to prove that some members of the class were injured in US waters, for the court to take "general and maritime law" jurisdiction (I believe), rather than requiring the suit to be placed in France.

[DaveSJ711]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Thanks.  Looked up Rule 23, looks like legal jargon to me, so I'm not going to try to dissect it.  But with a non-US plaintiff (and not sure how many potential US citizens would be in the class), a non-US corporation, non-US owned vessel, and the original plaintiffs "injuries" sustained in a non-US port, they would have to prove that some members of the class were injured in US waters, for the court to take "general and maritime law" jurisdiction (I believe), rather than requiring the suit to be placed in France.

 

You may call it legal jargon, but the law is the law.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

You may call it legal jargon, but the law is the law.

Understand that, it's just not something I can easily decipher.

[C-Dragons]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Understand that, it's just not something I can easily decipher.

I caught your drift... 😉

[dkjretired]

1 hour ago, C-Dragons said:

Be careful what you wish for.

The price that X pays could be bankruptcy.
Then all of their thousands of employees would lose their jobs.

Would that be equitable in your estimation?

 

 

 

Not a lawyer but can Celebrity file for bankruptcy, wouldn’t it have to be Royal.

[C-Dragons]

26 minutes ago, dkjretired said:

Not a lawyer but can Celebrity file for bankruptcy, wouldn’t it have to be Royal.

Not a lawyer either. 😊 

But X is a subsidiary of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. They operate independently with  their own CEO, and officers, ships, operating budget, etc.. It was my assumption that they might file separately.   I'm praying it doesn’t come to this.

Edited April 16, 2020 by C-Dragons

[dkjretired]

12 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

Not a lawyer either. 😊 

But X is a subsidiary of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. They operate independently with  their own CEO, and officers, ships, operating budget, etc.. It was my assumption that they might file separately.   I'm praying it doesn’t come to this.

 

Don't know either way, just curious....

[DaveSJ711]

49 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Understand that, it's just not something I can easily decipher.

 

"The law is an ass."  (Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

2 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

Be careful what you wish for.

The price that X pays could be bankruptcy.
Then all of their thousands of employees would lose their jobs.

Would that be equitable in your estimation?

 

 

 

X may be headed to the scrapyard in any event. RCL dumped 26 percent of its workforce, so the jobs may be going too. 

None of that is the issue; if X was negligent/reckless, it might have to pay. Good. That's what the law is for.

 

Saw someone on another thread sneering about ambulance chasers. Well, this time the cruise lines created lots and lots of customers for ambulances.