Non-Royal excursion related lawsuit

[lovesthebeach2]

I feel so bad for the family, especially the children. Shame on the lawyers though, to allude to the wife (or whole family) that money will make them feel better is terrible.
 

What will money do to make the pain go away? Nothing….It won’t, and dragging them into court and depositions and meetings on and on will only be good for the lawyer, not the family.

They will re-live the event over and over and prevent the family the time to heal.

It’s so sad. 

[not-enough-cruising]

1 hour ago, Ocean Boy said:

Why should RCI settle?

Exactly 

Royal did not settle the Wiegand suit (and that happened on the ship); they certainly wouldn’t settle this. 

[Ocean Boy]

46 minutes ago, lovesthebeach2 said:

I feel so bad for the family, especially the children. Shame on the lawyers though, to allude to the wife (or whole family) that money will make them feel better is terrible.
 

What will money do to make the pain go away? Nothing….It won’t, and dragging them into court and depositions and meetings on and on will only be good for the lawyer, not the family.

They will re-live the event over and over and prevent the family the time to heal.

It’s so sad. 

Welcome to the U.S. legal system where money makes everything better. At least that is what they say on those TV commercials.

[chengkp75]

I agree that the lawsuit is completely without standing.  RCI's "duty of care" to the passengers ends when the passenger leaves the ship, as the choice to leave the ship to go ashore in a port and participate in an excursion, is the passenger's choice.  The arguments put forward by the lawyer are completely specious.

[xtremegk]

1 hour ago, Ocean Boy said:

Why should RCI settle?

 

100% they shouldn't, and I don't think they will. But there are unfortunately a lot of companies that settle just about everything that comes their way (without admitting fault) to just make stuff go away. It contributes significantly to the litigious society we live in because there are companies that will settle lawsuits they should fight.

 

I worked for physicians previously...the number who were advised by their malpractice insurance companies to allow negotiated settlements that don't admit fault for every suit against them was insane to me.

[Thisguylikestocruise]

Not unique to Roatan. Wait times in the U.S. are just as bad sometimes. A person can wait hours in an ER waiting room or for ambulance transport. 

[lovesthebeach2]

On 3/7/2024 at 10:02 AM, Ocean Boy said:

Welcome to the U.S. legal system where money makes everything better. At least that is what they say on those TV commercials.

And as in many situations , you don’t truly understand the total effects until you experience them yourself.

[toxicfairy]

On 3/7/2024 at 9:14 AM, lovesthebeach2 said:

I feel so bad for the family, especially the children. Shame on the lawyers though, to allude to the wife (or whole family) that money will make them feel better is terrible.
 

What will money do to make the pain go away? Nothing….It won’t, and dragging them into court and depositions and meetings on and on will only be good for the lawyer, not the family.

They will re-live the event over and over and prevent the family the time to heal.

It’s so sad. 

It's not about the family. The lawyers get a huge percentage of the settlement.  I got in a car accident,  a 26 yr old went through a stop sign from a side road and slammed into my truck pushing me off the road. I broke my hip,femur, and shattered my heel. 3 surgeries, 9 months to be able to walk. I got a settlement but the lawyer took 33.3%. It wasn't a big settlement but dang he took a lot of it. So it's about how much the lawyers can make.

For me i was left with enough to buy a used car ...couldn't even afford to replace what I had.

[lovesthebeach2]

14 minutes ago, toxicfairy said:

It's not about the family. The lawyers get a huge percentage of the settlement.  I got in a car accident,  a 26 yr old went through a stop sign from a side road and slammed into my truck pushing me off the road. I broke my hip,femur, and shattered my heel. 3 surgeries, 9 months to be able to walk. I got a settlement but the lawyer took 33.3%. It wasn't a big settlement but dang he took a lot of it. So it's about how much the lawyers can make.

For me i was left with enough to buy a used car ...couldn't even afford to replace what I had.

I know it’s not about the family, that’s why I said shame on the lawyers. I’ll bet they approached the family. Lawyers here in Florida typically get 40%, I know from experience.

[Mum2Mercury]

If I'm understanding this correctly: 

 

- It's not about Royal Caribbean. 

- It's not about any excursion /tour operator. 

- It's not about medical response time.  

 

- It IS about an adult making a bad decision to dive into shallow water.  

[smokeybandit]

On 3/7/2024 at 8:12 AM, chengkp75 said:

I agree that the lawsuit is completely without standing.  RCI's "duty of care" to the passengers ends when the passenger leaves the ship, as the choice to leave the ship to go ashore in a port and participate in an excursion, is the passenger's choice.  The arguments put forward by the lawyer are completely specious.

Like many of these lawsuits, the plaintiff's lawyer is just hoping for a quick few bucks in a settlement from RC thinking they'll want to make it go away fast.

[jimdalva]

How would Royal know of a strike. When a strike is called ,  who , if anyone is advised. Was this strike days old or hours old? There is much we dont know.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, jimdalva said:

How would Royal know of a strike. When a strike is called ,  who , if anyone is advised. Was this strike days old or hours old? There is much we dont know.

Whether or not RCI knew about a strike is completely irrelevant.  Do they have a requirement to notify passengers if the NYC police are having "blue flue"?  As I've said, RCI's "duty of care" is limited to the ship, not the ports of call.  The passenger decides to make a voyage from port A to port B, RCI did not force them to do so.  It is the responsibility of the passenger to make a determination whether visiting that port is advisable or not.

[toxicfairy]

6 hours ago, lovesthebeach2 said:

I know it’s not about the family, that’s why I said shame on the lawyers. I’ll bet they approached the family. Lawyers here in Florida typically get 40%, I know from experience.

Wow and I thought I got taken for a ride. Only reason I even had a lawyer is because when I was in the hospital a family member contacted a lawyer. I wouldn't even known to do that. I was in too bad of shape to think about it.

[toxicfairy]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Whether or not RCI knew about a strike is completely irrelevant.  Do they have a requirement to notify passengers if the NYC police are having "blue flue"?  As I've said, RCI's "duty of care" is limited to the ship, not the ports of call.  The passenger decides to make a voyage from port A to port B, RCI did not force them to do so.  It is the responsibility of the passenger to make a determination whether visiting that port is advisable or not.

Exactly. I feel as though they have a responsibility to warn me of things that they know of as in hey there is a travel advisory for this area. But not hey here is a list of everything that could possibly go wrong in every place you go. Some things have to be chalked up as use your own sense. 

Pretty soon you'll have to sign a disclaimer every time you leave the ship. 

It's sad anytime there is an accident but you can't sue over every bad decision you make that goes ..well...bad.

 

[smokeybandit]

The only time I've gotten onboard warnings about non-RC excursions was a few years ago when Cozumel ferries were being targeted. RC canceled all excursions that required a ferry and strongly advised that no passengers go to the mainland.

[lovescats5]

I read or heard some where that to be able to collect from your insurance you had to sue the larger insurance company, which in this case would be Royal.  Maybe they are suing so they can collect from their own when the one against Royal is dismissed.

 

[ATG]

Recently I looked at excursions RC offers for several Caribbean ports.  Paraphrasing, they say this is not the US and conditions and laws are different.  I had never noticed this before.

[FamilyCruiserUK]

8 hours ago, Mum2Mercury said:

If I'm understanding this correctly: 

 

- It's not about Royal Caribbean. 

- It's not about any excursion /tour operator. 

- It's not about medical response time.  

 

- It IS about an adult making a bad decision to dive into shallow water.  

Totally agree. Modern society..." Its always someone elses fault".

People should take responsibility for their actions and own them. Hold your hands up and say its my fault and use that as a lesson to others. 

 

[jcc1025]

Anybody can file a lawsuit. Many have no status and are dismissed but the only the first post will be publized. Many are filed because their lawyer has convinced them that the ship will settle rather than spend the money to fight it and so they will be some payment. Is"s a sleazy move but then some people don't care. 

[chengkp75]

No more than a bus company is obligated to tell a passenger that they are at high risk of getting struck by a car when they get off the bus, as I've said, RCI's duty of care ends at the gangway.  And, if you were to construe the excursion as being part of the carriage by RCI, then it falls under the DOHSA (Death on High Seas Act), which specifically does not allow awards for "pain and suffering or loss of companionship".  I would say there is a very, very small chance RCI will settle this, nor will they be found liable.

[alfaeric]

1 hour ago, FamilyCruiserUK said:

Totally agree. Modern society..." Its always someone elses fault".

People should take responsibility for their actions and own them. Hold your hands up and say its my fault and use that as a lesson to others. 

 

If by "modern society" you mean at least the last 50 years, if not more, sure.  This kind of action is hardly new.  And I doubt you can actually date the time that people didn't blame someone else- heck, I'm pretty sure many people blamed Eve for the apple.

 

And we can see that Shakespeare even complained about lawyers. 

[BirdTravels]

2 hours ago, toxicfairy said:

Exactly. I feel as though they have a responsibility to warn me of things that they know of as in hey there is a travel advisory for this area. But not hey here is a list of everything that could possibly go wrong in every place you go. Some things have to be chalked up as use your own sense. 

Pretty soon you'll have to sign a disclaimer every time you leave the ship. 

It's sad anytime there is an accident but you can't sue over every bad decision you make that goes ..well...bad.

 

Warning: Coffee is hot and if you drop it in your lap, you may get burned. 

[smokeybandit]

1 hour ago, FamilyCruiserUK said:

Totally agree. Modern society..." Its always someone elses fault".

 

While true, lawsuits against big companies have turned into "surely they'll pay to make this headache go away. What's a couple hundred thousand or a million to a billion dollar company?"

[alfaeric]

22 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

While true, lawsuits against big companies have turned into "surely they'll pay to make this headache go away. What's a couple hundred thousand or a million to a billion dollar company?"

And that news always drowns out legitimate law suits that are done because some companies are genuinely negligent.  

 

Not this time, but that does happen.