Jump to content

Princess may sue passengers?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I think, unfortunately, that Princess is in panic mode!  Lets consider that they have to deal with an ongoing murder investigation in Australia linked to the Rudy Princess fiasco. 

It is NOT a "Murder" investigation into the Ruby Princess. The police have said it is a "criminal" investigation but that term is used rather loosely (in my opinion). The inquiry is trying to find out of Princess revealed the extent of illness on board before the ship docked. I hope they also investigate the irresponsible decision by NSW Health to clear the passengers to disembark before the tests for COVID on several passengers were completed.

 

Please do not start using the word "Murder" and making this incident even worse than it is. Even if someone made a mistake, or was negligent, it is not "Murder" - the deliberate and pre-planned killing of another person.

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

It's called Lawyer Speak.  Princess is going to use such language, not because they truly expect to sue any passengers, but to protect themselves from sick persons boarding and causing others to get sick.  It helps them not be responsible for other's insincerity or bad luck...whenever someone gets sick...because it will happen.  In the same vain, if the wording prevents even 1 sick person from risking getting on board, it's worth it. 

Agreed. 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to remember, as does Princess, that viruses like COVID-19 can and are acquired after embarkation.  USS Theodore Roosevelt's crew, now over 800 infections out of 4800 crew persons, was picked up during its port visit to Da Nang, Vietnam.  Its a very highly communicable disease which can show no outward symptoms until it "breaks."  Princess's (Carnival Corp) declaration is meaningless and designed only to scare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This virus is a moving target. Each day, information good or bad seems to come to light on how this disease operates and what to learn from it. As it is ever changing it would be foolish to think about what possible new requirements could be implemented for passengers and crew before departing at this time. It is an extremely stressful time for the cruise lines and they are trying to look forward and address how they might get back to business while protecting both passengers and crew. Until science has a really good understanding of Covid 19 and what is needed to manage it effectively without infecting people, I don't see any need to have speculative requirements put forth. I think we can all agree that there will be changes of some kind implemented post COVID. We all look for that glimmer of hope to cruise again and I believe it will come at some point in the future once a vaccine or other remedy is available.       

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with any of this is it would be next to impossible to prove that a person bought the infection onboard the ship as unlike sexually transmitted illness, I doubt you can identify corona infectors via DNA so again it would be very very difficult to prove anything and unfair in many cases to attempt to do so.

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

It is NOT a "Murder" investigation into the Ruby Princess. The police have said it is a "criminal" investigation but that term is used rather loosely (in my opinion). The inquiry is trying to find out of Princess revealed the extent of illness on board before the ship docked. 

Good catch!  Often times, law enforcement agencies will open a 'criminal investigation' into an event solely for the purpose of establishing that the matter was looked into and found to not have resulted from criminal activity.  Standard practice.  A good example is when police investigate an 'unattended death.'  (An unattended death is one where a person passes away and medical personnel are not present to certify it was caused by natural causes.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I think, unfortunately, that Princess is in panic mode!  Lets consider that they have to deal with an ongoing murder investigation in Australia linked to the Rudy Princess fiasco.  The Diamond Princess mess was badly handled, caused worldwide bad publicity, and will likely result in numerous lawsuits filed by passengers and some crew who were on that ill-fated voyage.  The Grand Princess turned into another fiasco and will also generate numerous lawsuits with many claiming that Princess was not only negligent, but grossly negligent.   And now Princess thinks a good approach is to threaten future customers as well as adding additional hassles for cruisers?  And then we also have the current Princess mess with how they are handling refunds and cancellations where folks are waiting for months to get refunds, FCCs, etc.  In our case, we cancelled a cruise more then a week ago (this was done through an excellent cruise agency) but Princess has yet to update our online account to reflect the cancellation.  This kind of thing would normally be done within minutes.

 

So yes, Princess's scare tactics have been effective.  Last week we cancelled an August Princess cruise (weeks before final pmt) because we no longer trust Princess to handle a last minute cancellation and do not want to give the line any more of our money.  And we are now giving lots of consideration to cancelling an October Princess cruise because we are concerned about possibly having to cancel this cruise near final payment (whenever that is) and having Princess botch-up the cancellation.  So yes, Princess is certainly doing an excellent job scaring us away from both current and future bookings.   There are many other places we can put our future travel dollars without having to deal with extra hassles regarding forms, medical exams, botched cancellations, inability to access ports, etc.

 

Instead of Princess giving us more and more reasons to avoid doing business with the company they need to be giving us assurances that they are a company worthy of our continuing business.

 

Hank

When a cruise line starts losing passengers like you, they are really in trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

We have to remember, as does Princess, that viruses like COVID-19 can and are acquired after embarkation.  USS Theodore Roosevelt's crew, now over 800 infections out of 4800 crew persons, was picked up during its port visit to Da Nang, Vietnam. 

 

Although that was the original thought, the Navy now believes it did not come on the ship from the port stop, but from an infected person who delivered supplies to the ship while at sea.

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

 

 

On the other hand, what do you do with somebody like the couple who got off the Grand by lying and saying they were tested and were negative when in actuality, their test results had not come back yet?  They both ended up with symptoms on the flight home.  (I don't remember if they were flying home or to a military base for a 14 day quarantine.)

 

They were not exactly lying. They had assumed since it had been several days since the samples were taken and they had not been told they were positive, that they were negative. Basically, "no news is good news."

 

So they were guessing, not deliberately lying.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bluesea321 said:

 

I don't see how Princess could check everyone's medical background.  Where would they get the details, it would be a violation of HIPAA laws.

IF this outbreak continues possibly they could require people to be vaccinated and issue shot cards to prove it. (just speculation on my part)  

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

 

Although that was the original thought, the Navy now believes it did not come on the ship from the port stop, but from an infected person who delivered supplies to the ship while at sea.

Under replenishments at sea on aircraft carriers are accomplished via helicopters, not person-to-person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Under replenishments at sea on aircraft carriers are accomplished via helicopters, not person-to-person.

Just for information purposes, most passengers and supplies taken to US Aircraft Carriers arrive via Grummen C2 Greyhounds.  These are medium size twin prop airplanes which are rugged enough to handle routine carrier landings and catapult takeoffs.

 

Hank

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, caribill said:

 

They were not exactly lying. They had assumed since it had been several days since the samples were taken and they had not been told they were positive, that they were negative. Basically, "no news is good news."

 

So they were guessing, not deliberately lying.

 

 

That wasn't how I heard the story when it was on the news, but either way, it was a lie by omission.  They should have been accurate and stated that the results weren't back yet.  The consequences of their misleading response made it more than a little white lie.  How many other Grand PAX got infected by them on the flight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MissP22 said:

IF this outbreak continues possibly they could require people to be vaccinated and issue shot cards to prove it. (just speculation on my part)  

I expect the companies to enforce people to go through vaccination and doctor visits. All these doctor papers they were talking about all these times. Trust me, the first ship to go on a cruise will require all its passangers to wear masks and gloves. Elderly people will not be welcomed and buffet wont be working. I hope it wont happen but while listening to how they discuss this matter on TV, I am afraid this is the new reality we will live in after this nonsence is over

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many people would be amenable to wearing masks and gloves - especially on cruises to hot countries.

 

Not me for sure.  But then I am "elderly" so would be unwanted anyway.

 

My hands were sweating when I took off my gloves after shopping yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see what shakes out once the CDC allows ships to start cruising again.  It seems for now every cruise line has different requirements for allowing people on their ships.  Some people may choose a cruise line who has the path of least resistance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 1:26 AM, Loreni said:

Princess just emailed me information about how they will handle things in the future, including having passengers sign a declaration.  This document can then be used to take legal action.

 

“false responses on pre- boarding documents will result in immediate disembarkation at the next opportunity. Individuals who do not disclose symptoms of illness may also face additional legal consequences.”

 


 Overall I agree with this concept.  however, I can envision a problem with this too.  How would Princess know that a passenger made false responses and/or failed to disclose symptoms.  It is also possible a passenger could become ill soon after boarding.  Passengers may be afraid to go to the infirmary if they fear they will be falsely accused of failing to disclose symptoms and making false responses on their declaration.  How could you ever prove your innocence? How could you prove you became ill after boarding?  Maybe Princess will disembark them and then sue them...or maybe even pursue criminal charges.  Princess would probably rather assume an ill passenger lied and boarded their ship rather than assume that a crew member without any symptoms is actually carrying and spreading the disease.  
 

without knowing details about how this could be implemented, I am very reluctant to sail...well that is not the only reason I’m reluctant to sail.  Like I mentioned, someone without symptoms or a temperature can spread Coronavirus.

 

Also, I wonder what Princess means by denying boarding to those with severe underlying disease.  What about controlled high blood pressure or controlled diabetes

 

 

Just a scare tactic and most likely required legalese that demonstrates a specific level of seriousness and due diligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2020 at 10:26 PM, Loreni said:

Princess just emailed me information about how they will handle things in the future, including having passengers sign a declaration.  This document can then be used to take legal action.

 

“false responses on pre- boarding documents will result in immediate disembarkation at the next opportunity. Individuals who do not disclose symptoms of illness may also face additional legal consequences.”

 


 Overall I agree with this concept.  however, I can envision a problem with this too.  How would Princess know that a passenger made false responses and/or failed to disclose symptoms.

 

 

Same way an insurance company would do when it comes to investigating an undeclared preexisting condition. It is also what the discovery process is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had chronic kidney disease for 15 years which is not contagious. I have been in 34 cruises and never been sick once but always take out insurance just in case. Would I be refused to cruise since I have a chronic disease?

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
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • 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...