Crown: Sue first-ask questions later

[drjohn4]

Saw this on the Crown Incident thread and thought it better to start a new one about it: July 21, 2006 12:38:49 (ET)

 

NEW YORK, Jul 21, 2006 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) -- Parker & Waichman, LLP (www.yourlawyer.com) announced that it has been retained by five passengers on the Crown Princess cruise ship who were injured after the vessel listed between 15 and 38 degrees to the right. On July 19 the ship departed from Canaveral, Florida for New York on the final leg of a nine-day Caribbean voyage. Parker & Waichman, LLP intends to file the required notice of claim to Carnival Corp. (CCL, Trade), the owner of the Crown Princess, on behalf of these injured victims later today. The firm intends to file suit against Carnival Corp. and the relevant component manufacturers, including the manufacturers of the ship's autopilot and steering systems, by the end of July 2006. Parker & Waichman, LLP is currently investigating additional claims from passengers and crew members. Passengers can request a free lawsuit case consultation at.........

 

Why have many people’s perception of our legal system in the country become so distorted that they seem to look at it like a lottery? The proper use of the courts is to settle disputes peacefully that cannot be settled by the parties through negotiation. There is know way anyone on this trip could possibly know yet what the extent of their injuries are – even simple cuts and bruises have not had a chance to heal. Certainly even if someone had contacted Princess about compensation for an injury, there is no way they would have heard anything back yet. So why are they already talking about filing a lawsuit? I have no problem with people consulting with lawyers when they have been injured if they are concerned that they may not get fair compensation, but this type of a statement being issued by a law firm seems like people running around with dollar signs in their eyes trying to hit the jury jackpot.

[smeyer418]

I agree there is plenty of time to sue. I think in class actions lawsit the first filed gets some prioity....for the lawyers...

 

tort reform should remove such incentives..

 

other tort reforms

1. limit lawsuits where there is no physical injury to reimbursement for expenses or lost income only(no pain and suffereing)

2. reform the collateral source rule(the rule where if you get a recovery from your insurance it is not deducted from the award)

3. since tort awards are tax free reduce the amount of the award for taxes that will not be paid

4. No punitive damages except in egregious cases and puntive damages awards would not be paid to plaintiffs but to some fund for general public good.

[Jimsgirl]

Some people just automatically sue no matter what the event or even they are to blame. The only thing in their lives is "I am going to sue YYYYYY etc"

 

I live in a condo complex, the "house" has 40 units, one of the residents (a renter not an owner) sues every body about every thing. To date he has sued approx 100 times. At present time he has 2 law suits against the "house board and its members" One because he was not allowed to erect a radio mast on the roof (dangerous during a hurricane of which we have had a great many) and one case is because he kicked a door with his bare foot and hurt his toe - he want $5000 compensation for "pain and suffering"!! The event happened last year but he went to court last week seated in a wheel !

 

Can you imagine his reaction if he had been on the Crown last week.

 

The failure of a piece of machinery or soft ware is not somtheing a business can control (unless routine maintenance was not done - in this case the parts are new). Providing the passengers who suffered medically have their bills paid in full, those who needed help getting home receive that help, then the cruise line did its best.

For others, two days costs refunds, and discounts for future cruise would seem to be suitable.

 

I just think it was a miracle that no one was killed, or swept overboard

[Navy_Chief]

Sue Definition A way for fat cat lawyers to get more money at the expence of the cost of a cruise going up for everyone else.

 

I say we post a warning on the front of every cruise ticket that says "Ships can and do move in and through a hostle environment, sail at your own risk!" and be done with all this sillyness!

[emdia43]

I don't think it would take a smart lawyer long to figure out that what probably happened is that someone pushed the wrong button and caused the whole problem..... if it was a mechanical fault wouldn't they be repairing it now rather than scurrying right back to NY?

Human errors= $$$ in Lawyerspeak. :(

[Ethel5]

Doesn't take the bottom feeders long to emerge. The people with injuries should and will be compensated-the "pain and suffering" crowd should be told by their ethical lawyers that they don't have a case and get on with it. BUT, the way the legal system is set up everyone will sue and most will get money with the lawyers getting the lion's share. Juries see big companies as deep pockets with unlimited money resources and grant huge settlements because "the insurance company will pay for it".

 

I'm off my soapbox now.

[Navy_Chief]

....... Juries see big companies as deep pockets with unlimited money resources and grant huge settlements because "the insurance company will pay for it"......

 

Which means, we pay for it.

[Dena]

After the Star fire, DH and I were very impressed at how quickly Princess responded by increasing the bridge watches and especially by installing sprinklers on balconies fleet wide. This leads me to generally believe that if Princess understands what is causing a problem, they don't wait for the official report before rectifying the situation. That's why I was not overly concerned about the first listing accident - luckily no one was very badly hurt and it could be viewed as a wake-up call. Yet as a shareholder in CCL and someone who has enjoyed some of her best vacations on a Princess ship, this last incident gives me pause.

 

I guess the merit of any law suit would partially depend upon the degree of the injuries as well as how foreseeable the accident was. If the accident was foreseeable and no actions were taken to prevent it, that might be negligence. For example if both the Grand list and the Crown list were caused by the same problem (even if is so-called human error) this could indicate negligence with regard to the second occurrence. After the first incident, the crew should be trained to understand that certain course changes can cause severe listing - and one would think software safe guards would also be in place to prevent this from happening simply because someone presses a wrong button. Of course the 2 events might be totally unrelated.

 

During the first list I read that someone was injured by a falling TV - so injuries of this kind are clearly foreseeable. Given the speed at which the sprinklers were installed, I would have thought TVs would have been bolted down by now. Of course sprinklers are more important and I guess maintenance issues need to be prioritized.

[fathercop]

Many lawyers, and I guess many people as well, do lots of crazy things simply and solely to look out for themselves in hopes of winning a huge monetary settlement. In the process, the law and the facts get twisted in so many ways. I once arrested an individual who I saw buglarize a particular place. I found a complainant who pressed charges. We went to court and the public defender want the case dismissed because I did not have a warrant to arrest the burglar as I on-viewed him committing a crime. The burglar wanted to sue the complainant because the bad guy said that the complainant was infringing upon his right to free expression!!!! WOW!!

 

It is sad about litigating something just to make a fast dollar because in the end we cruisers will be paying the price of a settlement. There are no easy answers or quick fixes to life's persistent problems. Of course we should minimize problems as best as we can, but they will never be eliminated. We therefore have to decide on how much of a risk we want to take in living life.

 

Of course everyone who cruises would like to know what happened and we all want to be assurred of safety, but this is not the Garden of Eden and though we want assurances about life, the fact is that there are very few of them. So, I am ready to book my next 2007 cruise on the Crown.:p I just pray I won't get hit by a meteor before then. :rolleyes: *LOL*

 

Rich a.k.a.

[SingerEsq]

Everyone hates lawyers .... until they need one.:rolleyes:

 

And I have had many a fad cat about to be skinned, downtrodden women with no one to help them, and just the plain in need as clients. Like I said .... until you need one.

 

My newest case ... daughter is being sued by her Dad. Seems Mom made her the beneficiary of a life insurance policy. She's dead; Dad's not happy. Oh, BTW, Dad also wants visitation with his grandchildren.

 

We don't make the cases, they're made by our clients.

 

Just food for thought.

[KLLund]

I say let the Crown passengers sue ... and as part of the settlement the judge says Of course "You may never cruise again on any cruise ship line"

[chasetf]

Doesn't take the bottom feeders long to emerge. The people with injuries should and will be compensated-the "pain and suffering" crowd should be told by their ethical lawyers that they don't have a case and get on with it. BUT, the way the legal system is set up everyone will sue and most will get money with the lawyers getting the lion's share. Juries see big companies as deep pockets with unlimited money resources and grant huge settlements because "the insurance company will pay for it".

 

I'm off my soapbox now.

And that is what is wrong with the system. Juries should be limited in how far they can dig into those deep pockets ......Because the insurance company doesn't pay it, we all do. :mad:

[spongerob]

I say we post a warning on the front of every cruise ticket that says "Ships can and do move in and through a hostle environment, sail at your own risk!" and be done with all this sillyness!

Chief, you might be amused to learn that the same Captain Andy Proctor said almost exactly those words (well, not the "at your own risk" part) in his pre-castoff announcement to the passengers. It seems they'd had some complaints on a previous cruise that the ship was bobbing a little. He warned us that the ship does indeed move. :)

[Navy_Chief]

Chief, you might be amused to learn that the same Captain Andy Proctor said almost exactly those words (well, not the "at your own risk" part) in his pre-castoff announcement to the passengers. It seems they'd had some complaints on a previous cruise that the ship was bobbing a little. He warned us that the ship does indeed move.

Ironic isn't it? Believe me, I'm not trying to belittle anyones experiance here (despite earlier accusations), but Captain Proctor speaks the truth. I've been through this very manuver both in sea trials and in actual practice. For the average person who is not a professional sailor, I know it could raise the hairs on the back of one's neck. You have got to be prepaired for any eventuallity at sea, it is as I said, a harsh environment, not a weekend at the Waldorf.

[spongerob]

What amazes me in all of this is why almost everyone is so concerned about how far the ship rolled. The roll wasn't the issue, the course change at a speed unsafe for the people and loose objects on board is.

 

Thanks for all your comments, Chief, and more importantly, your years of service. :)

[tejmar]

Ironic isn't it? Believe me, I'm not trying to belittle anyones experiance here (despite earlier accusations), but Captain Proctor speaks the truth. I've been through this very manuver both in sea trials and in actual practice. For the average person who is not a professional sailor, I know it could raise the hairs on the back of one's neck. You have got to be prepaired for any eventuallity at sea, it is as I said, a harsh environment, not a weekend at the Waldorf.

 

You're right it isn't a weekend at the Waldorf, but it isn't a tour on a naval ship either. The Navy doesn't have senior citizens, disabled, or children on their ships. If cruise lines used catch phrases like the Navy uses, then I'm sure they wouldn't get as many passengers. Cruise lines like to dipict cruises as relaxing vacations in a luxury hotel (like the Waldorf) and put the disclaimers in fine print so people don't notice them. If cruise lines expect passengers to prepare for any eventuality at sea, then they should put that at the front of the brochures. No matter where you are bad things can happen. If all you did was prepare for any eventuality you wouldn't enjoy life very much.

[Navy_Chief]

You're right it isn't a weekend at the Waldorf, but it isn't a tour on a naval ship either. The Navy doesn't have senior citizens, disabled, or children on their ships. If cruise lines used catch phrases like the Navy uses, then I'm sure they wouldn't get as many passengers. Cruise lines like to dipict cruises as relaxing vacations in a luxury hotel (like the Waldorf) and put the disclaimers in fine print so people don't notice them. If cruise lines expect passengers to prepare for any eventuality at sea, then they should put that at the front of the brochures. No matter where you are bad things can happen. If all you did was prepare for any eventuality you wouldn't enjoy life very much.

 

Hmm....I believe I said this earlier on:

I say we post a warning on the front of every cruise ticket that says "Ships can and do move in and through a hostle environment, sail at your own risk!"

 

I also said in my postings that there is no way to secure a cruise ship for sea by the very nature of it's existance, BUT you can put that cam corder away when your not using it least it become airborn in the middle of the night when that ship has to make a sudden course correction to avoid a navigational hazzard and bean a passenger (perhaps yourself) on the head. You can secure your own space AND if you inspect your stateroom and find that the TV or anything else isn't secure, get the Steward to fix the problem. The ship could have at least bolted the display cabinets (topheavy by nature) to the floor in that shop.

 

As for civilians on a US Warship, we have them at sea all the time. The Navy Term here is "Tiger Cruise" or perhaps people forget about that little mishap between a sub and a Japaneese fishing boat. There were civilians (brothers, fathers, grand Fathers and the like) aboard when that happened. Fortunately, they are well briefed about the hazzards at sea before we even leave the pier.

 

I'm not citisizing your oppinion shipmate, I'm mearly pointing out things we should all do at sea. I hope everyone could come away with some food for thought from my experiance dealing with the sea. Alas, some will not. Sorry if you feel otherwise.

[tejmar]

I wasn't criticising you either Chief, but I suggested putting the disclaimer on the front of all advertisements not just the tickets. We both know neither of those suggestions will see the light of day.

 

What surprised me was that the ship didn't seem to be very secure. You would think that a cruise ship company would have done a better job of preparing the ship for a situation like this. I know that it is not a normal maneuver, but as you stated previously, they should have been prepared for this type of situation. The problem is that these ships keep getting higher which exagerates the movement from a list.

[Navy_Chief]

I agree. The crews do secure when heavy weather is predicted to cross the ship's path, i.e. put away deck chairs, empty and safety net the pool, ect. But as you and I said, they should have bolted things down where things need to be bolted down. Fankly, I was amazed (along with everyone else) to see the images of toppled display cases which dumped broken glass everywhere. I wasn't surprized with water being dumped from the pool and deck chairs tossed about. Then there was some report of a TV not bolted down in a stateroom, very unusual. That fortunately, has not been something I had seen in my limited cruise ship experiance, though I would have had the ship's engineers up there putting bolts in had I found it that way. :D

[tejmar]

Yes, there seemed to be more injuries (many from falling objects) than happened on other ships that had similar lists. Maybe Princess is starting to forget that ships move.

[Sea and Me]

We were on a cruise and had the transformer blow. We were without ac for about 8 hours. WELL some passengers first words were "We are going to own this ship". Imagine not worried about anything else but themselves and their inconvience. Come on do you think the Captain wants these things to happen?? I'm sure these passengers will be compensated somehow from Princess cruise line just as we were when we had been inconvienced. We were given shipboard credits and 25% off our next booking (which we used).

 

I was on a jury where the guy was suing because as a meter reader he fell into a hole. Wanted $300,000, we gave him 0. I loved that case. It was his second try and he probably is still trying. Never lost a dime in wages all the time he was off. Some people!! They make the world go round. Have a great day.

[fathercop]

Chief, thanks for your insights and sharing from your dedicated experience. When I take the kids on a cruise, I remind them over and over again that this is a moving vessel and that they should be prepared to feel the seas acting upon her.

 

There is no way that any cruise line can make any cruise 100% fool-proof from any type of event. I know that with each sad, dramatic, or traumatic event, the best cruise lines learn from the experience and make corrections.

 

The only way I see events like this never happening is if the cruise takes place in some land based simulation.

 

Life includes inherent risks. Just remember as an old Lutheran pastor friend once said to me, "Ain't none of us getting out of this life alive."

 

Rich a.k.a

[johninwpa]

Hey Chief, I think the lawyer has a bug up his backside, because someone else beat him to representing the cruisers.

[fathercop]

Carol

 

I can recount story after story of frivolous legal lawsuits. A funny one was of a career criminal civilly suing a police officer because when the police officer put the handcuffs on him, it made him "appear to be a criminal to onlookers and neighbors" who were watching him be placed into the squad car. DUH!!!! There was nothing more to the story. The bad guy was handcuffed and led to the vehicle without incident, but he felt his civil rights were violated for being handcuffed. Or the case of an armed criminal's family suing the police because their son was killed as he was shooting at the police and who already had wound two police officers in a shootout.

 

If a cruiseliner is guilty of negligence or willful and wanton conduct, then, yes, legal action should take place. My experience is that cover-ups never work and eventually come to light. Filing a lawsuit without the pertinent facts is simply too easy to do in our legal system. Tort reform is necessary, but I doubt if it will ever come.

 

In the meantime, we as mature adults have to realize that our actions involve risks, sometimes substantial and unfortunate risks. It is never a light thing when we fall victim to such events, but sadly, griviously and most traumatically, it will happen.

 

But I am still going to take my chances and keep on cruising and like the Chief said, I will be on the look out for those "Missle Hazards" in my stateroom.:)

 

Rich a.k.a.

[senatorgirth]

Lawsuits filed by individuals who have been injured as he result of preventable human error are not, prima facie, “frivolous.”

 

Fortunately, the constitution of the U.S. guarantees individuals to the right to a trial by jury to consider the facts of cases, and to make determinations about responsibility and restitution. Such decisions are not, thankfully, decided by cruise message board posters who have very fervent opinions about lawyers and courts, but know virtually nothing about the specific facts surrounding individual cases. That’s what courts and juries are for.

 

Trials require lawyers--through the retention of legal counsel, individuals may be able to assert all of the rights and privileges they are entitled to under the law. If you don’t want to assert your rights under the law, you are not obliged to do so. Others, however, may make a different decision and are free to do so.