Judge dismisses lawsuit brought against RCCL

[A&L_Ont]

9 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

And RCCL released the video to do the same thing.  Ever see the TV ads where corportions basically say how good and safe they are?  If you looked you would most likely find a case going to trial in that area.  My point is that defendants do the same thing,

 

I agree, they both do it.  That said, in regards to this case, if memory serves me correctly they did not release the video until a fair period of time after the actual incident occurred.

 

9 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I do not like either.

 

I 100% agree with you.

Edited July 14, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[Orsino]

34 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

So if you are injured, you should only be able to file a suit if you have as much money as the other party has to spend on attorneys?  If you are hit while stopped at a stoplight, juries return verdicts against the person that was just stopped all the time.  This basically closes the courts to everyone except the extremely wealthy.

Uh yeah. Exactly. You know I’m here agreeing with you, right?

[Ocean Boy]

29 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Uh yeah. Exactly. You know I’m here agreeing with you, right?

So a plaintiff can basically file suit risk free while a defendant gets named in a suit and bears all the financial responsibility of a defense. Doesn't seem right somehow.

[njkruzer]

20 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

So a plaintiff can basically file suit risk free while a defendant gets named in a suit and bears all the financial responsibility of a defense. Doesn't seem right somehow.

In many countries in Europe loser pays costs for winner.  In 0the US that only happens in limited circumstances.  Probably not in this case.  Remember this attorney is looking for a big payout, hopefullywithout trial.   Signed up the plaintiffs early on before the responsible party pled guilty or video was made available or before they went onboard and saw the actual situation.  Costs so far are filing fees.  Not sure if they've actually hired an expert or if they have one on staff since they routinely sue cruise ships.

[RobInMN]

4 hours ago, MrMarc said:

So if you are injured, you should only be able to file a suit if you have as much money as the other party has to spend on attorneys?  If you are hit while stopped at a stoplight, juries return verdicts against the person that was just stopped all the time.  This basically closes the courts to everyone except the extremely wealthy.

Strongly disagree. If you've got a valid claim, a competent attorney should win regardless of how much the other party has to spend on their defense. 

Forcing the looser to pay both sides should be a strong deterrent against filing these types of ridiculous claims. 

 

[RobInMN]

Dupe

Edited July 14, 2023 by RobInMN

[dahirsh]

36 minutes ago, RobInMN said:

Strongly disagree. If you've got a valid claim, a competent attorney should win regardless of how much the other party has to spend on their defense. 

Forcing the looser to pay both sides should be a strong deterrent against filing these types of ridiculous claims. 

 

most people would not dare bring suit against a corporation if losing would put them in debt for the rest of their lives.  No matter how strong their case was

 

[RobInMN]

4 hours ago, dahirsh said:

most people would not dare bring suit against a corporation if losing would put them in debt for the rest of their lives.  No matter how strong their case was

 

"Loser" could very well mean the loser's attorney (or their law firm). How many cases does the plaintiff actually foot the bill today? Aren't a large number of them covered by the attorney for a percentage of the payout? It's no different than gambling, and playing the odds. It just shifts the payout schedule. If they had to cover the legal fees of defendant if they lost, they'd be more willing to just take the winnable cases, and decline the BS ones. They way it works today, they are only out their own costs. If they put very little into it, and theirs a 20% chance they'll win, they can file claims all day long and if they get lucky on one, the payout can more than cover the rest, and none of their clients are out anything. If they have to pay the defendant's costs also, They may only take the 70% change of winning cases, because they'll need a lot more payouts to cover the ones they loose. The actual client doesn't really enter into the equation.

[BND]

9 hours ago, RobInMN said:

"Loser" could very well mean the loser's attorney (or their law firm). How many cases does the plaintiff actually foot the bill today? Aren't a large number of them covered by the attorney for a percentage of the payout? It's no different than gambling, and playing the odds. It just shifts the payout schedule. If they had to cover the legal fees of defendant if they lost, they'd be more willing to just take the winnable cases, and decline the BS ones. They way it works today, they are only out their own costs. If they put very little into it, and theirs a 20% chance they'll win, they can file claims all day long and if they get lucky on one, the payout can more than cover the rest, and none of their clients are out anything. If they have to pay the defendant's costs also, They may only take the 70% change of winning cases, because they'll need a lot more payouts to cover the ones they loose. The actual client doesn't really enter into the equation.

Most lawsuits are settled out of court not necessarily with a "winner".  Just because one party settles money on the other does not mean they are accepting any blame.  They're basically just making them go away.

[A&L_Ont]

I agree.  For many businesses it is easier to just have them go away with no acceptance of fault. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[toxicfairy]

The biggest problem I see here is God forbid they get anything out of this lawsuit it then opens the door for EVERY IDIOT out there. I fell drunk in the pool ...I'll sue. I tripped over my heel ...I'll sue. My 98 yr old grandma died of natural causes while cruising ...I'll sue. 

There will be literally no end to the law suits over things that were not the fault of the cruise company. 

I remember back when it happened reading there was video of him , He leaned over the rail put his hand out the window BEFORE he picked her up and held her out the window. Which is why they knew that he was aware the window was open. 

Plus the railing is there for a reason!

[mjkacmom]

9 minutes ago, toxicfairy said:

The biggest problem I see here is God forbid they get anything out of this lawsuit it then opens the door for EVERY IDIOT out there. I fell drunk in the pool ...I'll sue. I tripped over my heel ...I'll sue. My 98 yr old grandma died of natural causes while cruising ...I'll sue. 

There will be literally no end to the law suits over things that were not the fault of the cruise company. 

I remember back when it happened reading there was video of him , He leaned over the rail put his hand out the window BEFORE he picked her up and held her out the window. Which is why they knew that he was aware the window was open. 

Plus the railing is there for a reason!

Do you think the vast majority of people follow this case? Do you not think that there aren’t more frivolous lawsuits out there that have no publicity? Most people have no interest in these matters.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

11 hours ago, RobInMN said:

"Loser" could very well mean the loser's attorney (or their law firm). How many cases does the plaintiff actually foot the bill today? Aren't a large number of them covered by the attorney for a percentage of the payout? It's no different than gambling, and playing the odds. It just shifts the payout schedule. If they had to cover the legal fees of defendant if they lost, they'd be more willing to just take the winnable cases, and decline the BS ones. They way it works today, they are only out their own costs. If they put very little into it, and theirs a 20% chance they'll win, they can file claims all day long and if they get lucky on one, the payout can more than cover the rest, and none of their clients are out anything. If they have to pay the defendant's costs also, They may only take the 70% change of winning cases, because they'll need a lot more payouts to cover the ones they loose. The actual client doesn't really enter into the equation.

How do you force the loser's attorney/law firm to foot the bill and they don't turn it around to the clients? 

 

Now, I can see a provision where if the "winners" can show it's a frivolous case, THEN the losers have to pay for their attorney fees.  But, you'd need to define what's "frivolous".   

[Another_Critic]

1 hour ago, mjkacmom said:

Do you think the vast majority of people follow this case? Do you not think that there aren’t more frivolous lawsuits out there that have no publicity? Most people have no interest in these matters.

However, the cruise ship (aka ambulance) chaser lawyers are well aware of these cases, and will be the first on the scene soliciting clients.

[Tree_skier]

22 hours ago, njkruzer said:

Signed up the plaintiffs early on before the responsible party pled guilty or video was made available or before they went onboard and saw the actual situation

Winkelman would have signed them up regardless of the responsible party.  He is bottom feeding scum.

[RobInMN]

6 hours ago, BND said:

Most lawsuits are settled out of court not necessarily with a "winner".  Just because one party settles money on the other does not mean they are accepting any blame.  They're basically just making them go away.

 

Correct. If they settle, they each pay their own. I would say that most of the time, it's because the cost of defending themselves is more than what it costs to make the other party "go away". If the loser pays, and they feel strongly that they will win and willing to take that risk, then it could be worth it to not settle and go to court. It raises the threshold for the people trying to get a payout. 

 

4 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

How do you force the loser's attorney/law firm to foot the bill and they don't turn it around to the clients? 

They wouldn't. Do you think even today all attorney fees are paid for by the clients? No. Attorneys take on cases all the time with no cost to the client hoping for a large settlement or payout that they will take a cut of, no costs on the client. This is what I am getting at. Right now, unscrupulous attorneys file all kinds of lawsuits hoping for a payout. They put in little effort and hope that what they are asking for is worth being bought off for, or they are willing to gamble with a jury, because again, they aren't risking much. As long as they settle or win enough, they can afford to loose some that they just write off, not passing any of it on to the "client". Now, if loser pays, that dynamic shifts drastically. It's no longer worth it to file most of these. Sure, they aren't billing much, but the defendants are. If they had to cove that also, they will be much pickier as to which cases they take, because if it's not strong enough, and the defendant is willing to go the distance, they have to decide if they are also willing.

 

These kind of go together, and while it should make the crap cases go away, it actually helps the stronger cases, as their settlements should actually go up. The only things that should go to court are the ones where both sides legitimately feel that they have a sold case.

[toxicfairy]

9 hours ago, mjkacmom said:

Do you think the vast majority of people follow this case? Do you not think that there aren’t more frivolous lawsuits out there that have no publicity? Most people have no interest in these matters.

But there are still way too many people sueing over things that are their own fault. As a result we pay more. We have idiot labels on everything. And when one idiot sees another get away with something then all the idiots want in.

[Sunshine3601]

On 7/14/2023 at 12:26 PM, Ocean Boy said:

Of you re-read what I wrote I didn't say the system changed, I said opinion changed. Personally, I think all the lawyers with 800 numbers advertising on TV has a big role to play in today's perception of the system along with things you mentioned.

Better call Saul🤣

[time4u2go]

1 hour ago, Sunshine3601 said:

Better call Saul🤣

? 

[Seville2Cabo]

A point of view from someone on the other end.  After 30 years in petrochemicals, I needed to keep busy for a few years before I retired.  So I started a construction business,  (Insulation, solar, roofing, carpentry). After a few years and time to sell and retire, the company was sued 2 times.  Both 7 figures.  One was easy.  Covered by my general liability insurance.  I talked to the lawyer one time and never heard about it again until they settled.  I had to pay the $5K deductible.  Still have no idea what they paid and don't care.

 

The second was not covered by GL and it went on for 2 years.  The answers from plaintif during disclosure were lies and I told me lawyer.  Went to court 6 times and the plaintiff never showed.  The Plaintiff's lawyer always asked for a continuance. And it was granted, with our objection. After 2 years,  and $70K of legal fees, the other lawyer admitted they had not seen or heard from their client since the original claim.  The Case was finally dismissed and I wanted to sue the other attorney for my fees.  I was advised it would cost more than I would  get and not worth it.  Our legal system sucks!

[BND]

Problem is, anyone can sue over anything for any reason and most just hope to settle for some cash.  My MIL, who was almost legally blind at the time tripped over a curb in a hospital parking garage as she was approaching a stairwell with my FIL.  They decided to sue because the curb wasn't painted.  I can't remember her injuries, but they weren't severe.  My BIL had his divorce lawyer  represent them.  They came to a fairly quick settlement (medical bills and about 65K in cash).  My FIL had threatened to sue several Dr's over the years but this was the first time he actually did.  Some people have that mentality.  I figure if I trip over a curb it's because I wasn't paying attention.

[Tatka]

On 7/15/2023 at 8:22 AM, mjkacmom said:

Do you think the vast majority of people follow this case? Do you not think that there aren’t more frivolous lawsuits out there that have no publicity? Most people have no interest in these matters.

You don’t need majority … you need certain number which will demand huge amounts