Another man overboard (Freedom of the Seas)

[sweet angel]

This is ridiculous and has no basis in law whatsoever.

Of course it's ridiculous, but no moreso than expecting the cruiseline to pay a settlement on something they had no control over. And no moreso than expecting the cruiseline and insurance companies and ultimately the future passengers to eat the cost via increased fares.

 

Another poster said something along the lines of if a drunk driver kills someone, does the family sue the car maker? No. Same principle.

[SherriZ366]

Hummm .... Billing families is not fair because they are not responsible for the actions of another .... Then by the same logic, it should follow that families should not be able to sue the cruise line.

 

Unfortunately, they seem more than willing to cash in on the irresponsible actions of that same family member. I often wonder are they really that greedy that they are ready to play "Lawsuit Lotto" at the drop of a hat? Or, are they just so mortified that their loved one went out in public and behaved so reprehensibly that it resulted in their own death, and therefore they are trying to blame someone else so that the deceased doesn't appear to be such a miscreant?

However, maybe there should be a way to bar the familes from associating with the International Cruise Victims Association (tounge in cheek here so don't flame). It's my take that the Association may work on families to get them to take action -- e.g. the family of the 21 year old who fell off the Mariner was not intially going to sue after viewing the video tapes but they got active in ICVA and testified in DC. After that event, they filed the lawsuit.

 

Also, these incidents don't just happen on Cruise Ships. Two young, promising Univ. of SC students fell off a building. Their clothing was found on top of the building. Haven't seen anything in the news media about whether alcohol was a factor.

[sweet angel]

Hey, I just had a thought! Since families of smokers have been successful with suing the cigarette manufacturers, maybe the families of these people could sue Bacardi or Stoli or Budweiser or whomever. :rolleyes:

[MaryZ]

So the $200 per cabin credit that RCI issued...who should reimburse them for that? Or should RCI suck it up since it's their ship and they are responsible for the actions of a drunk man who couldn't be responsible for himself? :rolleyes: Personally, I think that's ridiculous. I think that cost should be passed on to the family.

 

Interesting. Would you feel the same if a 8 year old ran and climbed up on the railing and fell over? You could argue that a child would have no conception of consequences so therefore no responsibility lies with the parents for paying for the cost of the search and rescue, however the age of reason can be as low as 7 yrs of age. Plus someone who is contemplating suicide is usually not rational.

See the ruling would then have to be for all, not just those crazy 20 somethings who are drunk and happen to fall overboard. And then that would roll over into people on personal watercraft etc.

the coast guard is there for a reason. So if you want to now charge people for search and rescue service, you might land up with consumer driven services instead of the coast guard.

be careful what you wish for, it might come true.

 

Again I ask, when a person dies in the hospital after receiving medical treatment, is payment still expected or does that debt die with him?

 

It depends. If the person has medical insurance, that pays. If the person is indigent, the bill dies with the person in some cases. If you take the person into the hospital and sign on the dotted that you are responsible for the bill, you pay. If the person has an estate, the estate pays.

 

THe person who jumped/fell is responsible for his/her actions unless the cruiseline is CLEARLY negligent, which, in most of these cases is not the case. Therefore the person's estate should be barred from lawsuits and made to pay restitution for the expenses incurred for the search and rescue.

 

Again it is not as clear cut as you believe. There is always suspicion surrounding someone's death on a cruise ship. With no video perhaps available there is no way to be positive that someone didn't push the person.

I think what eventually will happen is the ships will be required to have video surveillance of all outside railings with monitoring. It would be in their best interest.

As far as the $200 obc, they are doing that because their remaining customers are inconvienced. Quite honestly, I, as passenger, would not expect that from the ship in the midst of such a tragedy. I can only hope I am not ever on a ship when something so tragic as this happens. On our first cruise a guy on his honeymoon died the first night. That was tragic enough.

He died from a heart attack. It was very sad for the family. As the couple had family sailing with them. We had seen her in her gown only a few short hours before. And watched as the medics ran to their room. They offloaded his body in cozumel.

[lilmisstramp]

Of course it's ridiculous, but no moreso than expecting the cruiseline to pay a settlement on something they had no control over. And no moreso than expecting the cruiseline and insurance companies and ultimately the future passengers to eat the cost via increased fares.

 

Another poster said something along the lines of if a drunk driver kills someone, does the family sue the car maker? No. Same principle.

 

No, it is completely ridiculous to bar anyone from access to the courts. And yes, there have been cases, drunk driving cases, where families have gone after the car manufacturers, even the tire manufacturers. Tort litigation is summed up as this-- go after the deepest pockets. Right or wrong, this is the American civil justice system and everyone, even people you think shouldn't have access to it, can have their day in court.

[sweet angel]

No, it is completely ridiculous to bar anyone from access to the courts. And yes, there have been cases, drunk driving cases, where families have gone after the car manufacturers, even the tire manufacturers. Tort litigation is summed up as this-- go after the deepest pockets. Right or wrong, this is the American civil justice system and everyone, even people you think shouldn't have access to it, can have their day in court.

Sure they can. People who are too stupid to realize that coffee might be hot, people whose relatives died from smoking, etc. And we, as taxpayers, get to eat the costs associated with those frivolous lawsuits.

 

All the while, we are moving toward the day when no one takes responsibility for their own actions and everything is someone else's fault. It disgusts me.

 

And as to the example of an 8yo who climbs up on the railing...where were the parents and why weren't they supervising?

[TRadle]

Another poster said something along the lines of if a drunk driver kills someone, does the family sue the car maker? No. Same principle.

 

 

There is litigation when that person was consuming alcohol at a bar or restaurant.

There is a case here where a prosecutor was at a power lunch, drove a county car while 3 times over the legal limit, had a head on accident and was killed. Her family is suing the restaurant that served her those drinks.

I’m not saying I agree with this practice….I’m just pointing out that this happens a lot.

[lilmisstramp]

Sure they can. People who are too stupid to realize that coffee might be hot, people whose relatives died from smoking, etc. And we, as taxpayers, get to eat the costs associated with those frivolous lawsuits.

 

All the while, we are moving toward the day when no one takes responsibility for their own actions and everything is someone else's fault. It disgusts me.

 

And as to the example of an 8yo who climbs up on the railing...where were the parents and why weren't they supervising?

 

Please do not invoke the McDonald's case unless you have read some background about it. Because it is really good tort law to those who have read about it. I am a lawyer and it irks the hell out of me when people throw that around like look how STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE that WOMAN was! Didn't that dumb lady know the coffee was hot???? Jeez, it wasn't anything like that at all.

 

Please, educate yourself. These are simple articles, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand them-

 

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

 

 

And if you're mad about your taxes and want tort reform, you should know most tort reform proposals limit damages, not access to courts to only "smart and responsible" people.

[TRadle]

And as to the example of an 8yo who climbs up on the railing...where were the parents and why weren't they supervising?

 

 

Wow, you are sure quick to condemn people.

I’ll play with this hypothetical 8 year old. After having raised 3 children I can think of lots of situations where an 8 year old could get into some danger:

Parents blink.

Parents turn to watch another child.

Parent turns towards stranger talking to another child.

Parent uses the bathroom.

Get my point here? :rolleyes: When a tragedy happens to a child it does not mean that child had neglectful parents.

[sweet angel]

Wow, you are sure quick to condemn people.

 

I’ll play with this hypothetical 8 year old. After having raised 3 children I can think of lots of situations where an 8 year old could get into some danger:

 

Parents blink.

Parents turn to watch another child.

Parent turns towards stranger talking to another child.

Parent uses the bathroom.

 

 

Get my point here? :rolleyes: When a tragedy happens to a child it does not mean that child had neglectful parents.

 

Exactly. And neither does it mean that the cruiseline was neglectful. They took all reasonable means to assure the safety of their passengers, but if said passenger goes out of his/her way to bypass those measures, why should the cruiseline be held responsible?

 

For the record, I have been a legal assistant for 20 years, so I'm not totally ignorant about what goes on.

 

I am raising my son to be responsible for his own actions. Unfortunately, I seem to be among the minority in doing so.

 

I'm going to bow out of this thread now because this is not what it was intended to be about. I do feel badly for the families, but I do not believe that they are entitled to restitution.

[TRadle]

Exactly. And neither does it mean that the cruiseline was neglectful. They took all reasonable means to assure the safety of their passengers, but if said passenger goes out of his/her way to bypass those measures, why should the cruiseline be held responsible?

 

For the record, I have been a legal assistant for 20 years, so I'm not totally ignorant about what goes on.

 

I am raising my son to be responsible for his own actions. Unfortunately, I seem to be among the minority in doing so.

 

I'm going to bow out of this thread now because this is not what it was intended to be about. I do feel badly for the families, but I do not believe that they are entitled to restitution.

 

I’m amazed at the number of people who have worked themselves over things assumed. We don’t know that this family is going to sue the cruise line. And so what if they do. If there is a basis for the suit I’m sure it will be settled. If RCI feels the need to take a case to court a jury decides which party is responsible and renders a verdict.

And just what makes you think that you are in the minority for good parenting? Keep in mind that the generalizations you are making are based on incidences so rare that they make the news.

[MaryZ]

I am raising my son to be responsible for his own actions. Unfortunately, I seem to be among the minority in doing so.

 

always a cop out answer. I believe ~most~ parents raise their children towards the goal of self responsibility. So you aren't wearing a halo here :rolleyes:

 

But what would be your reaction if your son at age 8,9 or 10 was playing with his younger cousin on the deck, you turned around for a second and your son decided his little cousin couldn't see over the railing and gave him a boost??? And the kid tumbled over the side?

I doubt your reaction to your child would be one of "it's all your fault your cousin is dead, don't you remember the lessons of personal responsibility I have taught you???"

And what will you say when the captain says, the private search and rescue organization wants your amex to charge $20,000 on it before they come out to start searching for the kid? And by the way since we no longer wish to inconvience the other passengers on this ship, we don't stop nor turn around to look for lost passengers. That all stopped when people lobbied for personal responsibility towards passengers who don't obey the rules and fall overboard, even if it is a kid. where the heck where you when your kid was trying to let his cousin get a better look at the waves??? Oh you couldn't sprint the 5 feet in that 2 second interval that the situation happened? And you don't have $20,000 worth of available credit? Well then I suggest you tell your son he killed his cousin. And furthermore definitely go over again with him on his lack of personal responsibilty towards rules. And don't expect anyone to have any sympathy for your loss. But I will toss a few life jackets and rings out onto the sea at a cost of $60 per life jacket and $150 for the rings, how many would you like to put on your sign and sail card? :eek:

[Nliedel]

I agree with Maryz. I think most parents do raise their kids to be responsible for their actions. I think there are parents out there who are raising their kids with a sense of entitlement and greed, but I honestly believe they are in the minority. Sadly, the minority is a loud one. We're all just doing the best we can.

[TRadle]

I agree with Maryz. I think most parents do raise their kids to be responsible for their actions. I think there are parents out there who are raising their kids with a sense of entitlement and greed, but I honestly believe they are in the minority. Sadly, the minority is a loud one. We're all just doing the best we can.

 

 

Well said.

[flagger]

There has NEVER been a case of an 8 year old falling overboard. You cannot just fall overboard on a ship to begin with.

 

AS far as tort reform, I just want a loser pays court costs scenario. File a lawsuit and lose, then you gots to pay.

[BeyondKen]

Loser pays court costs scenario. File a lawsuit and lose, then you gots to pay.

I agree with flagger. This will keep poor people from suing the rich.

[Ocean Boy]

No, it is completely ridiculous to bar anyone from access to the courts. And yes, there have been cases, drunk driving cases, where families have gone after the car manufacturers, even the tire manufacturers. Tort litigation is summed up as this-- go after the deepest pockets. Right or wrong, this is the American civil justice system and everyone, even people you think shouldn't have access to it, can have their day in court.

 

What a concept... deep pockets. Just get someone to pay up no matter what their lack of involvement is in the matter. The legal system seems to be much more about money than it is about justice. Of course, if money wasn't involved what, exactly, would the attorneys have to take 1/3 of? And, of course, the deeper the pocket the bigger the 1/3.

[zuscruiserz]

Again I ask, when a person dies in the hospital after receiving medical treatment, is payment still expected or does that debt die with him?

 

It depends. If the person has medical insurance, that pays. If the person is indigent, the bill dies with the person in some cases. If you take the person into the hospital and sign on the dotted that you are responsible for the bill, you pay. If the person has an estate, the estate pays.

 

 

 

This is not altogether true. The doctors I work with will waive their charges to the individual (not the insurance company) when they find out a person is deceased, and they know of many other doctors that do the same. But this is a personal decision of theirs not to collect money that is due them, and I have a great deal of respect for them and it shows their compassion in the face of grief.

 

Perhaps this is what the cruiselines are doing too when they don't pass on the costs to the family that is left.

[TRadle]

This is not altogether true. The doctors I work with will waive their charges to the individual (not the insurance company) when they find out a person is deceased, and they know of many other doctors that do the same. But this is a personal decision of theirs not to collect money that is due them, and I have a great deal of respect for them and it shows their compassion in the face of grief.

 

Perhaps this is what the cruiselines are doing too when they don't pass on the costs to the family that is left.

 

It is nice to know that there are still compassionate people left in this world. :)

[lilmisstramp]

What a concept... deep pockets. Just get someone to pay up no matter what their lack of involvement is in the matter. The legal system seems to be much more about money than it is about justice. Of course, if money wasn't involved what, exactly, would the attorneys have to take 1/3 of? And, of course, the deeper the pocket the bigger the 1/3.

 

Well, you know what your friendly neighborhood attorney gets if he loses the case? $0.00.

 

And I disagree, we are talking about civil law here and the tort part of civil law. If we were talking about constitutional law or criminal law, we wouldn't be dealing with dollars and cents, so you can't really condemn the whole legal system.

[lilmisstramp]

I agree with flagger. This will keep poor people from suing the rich.

 

You cannot be serious.

[obsessedsc]

I agree with Maryz. I think most parents do raise their kids to be responsible for their actions. I think there are parents out there who are raising their kids with a sense of entitlement and greed, but I honestly believe they are in the minority. Sadly, the minority is a loud one. We're all just doing the best we can.

 

 

"the goal of discipline is self discipline"

[Gonzo70]

But what would be your reaction if your son at age 8,9 or 10 was playing with his younger cousin on the deck, you turned around for a second and your son decided his little cousin couldn't see over the railing and gave him a boost??? And the kid tumbled over the side?

 

I don't think a child having an accident in an event that takes seconds to unfold is the same as an adult having an accident after voluntarily consuming large quantities of alcohol. Both are tragic, but you can not equate one with the other IMHO.

[Gonzo70]

AS far as tort reform, I just want a loser pays court costs scenario. File a lawsuit and lose, then you gots to pay.

 

Perhaps if the suit is deemed frivolous; I think some states actually may allow for a person bringing a frivolous suit to be fined and/or responsible for court costs. If a Judge agrees that a suit bears enough merit to go to trial, then I do not think it is fair to hold the losing party financially responsible; just becuase a suit is lost does not mean there was not a legitimate basis for it.

[MaryZ]

I don't think a child having an accident in an event that takes seconds to unfold is the same as an adult having an accident after voluntarily consuming large quantities of alcohol. Both are tragic, but you can not equate one with the other IMHO.

 

No you as a person can't equate it as the same. But should they decide that the family needs to pay for the cost of search and rescue it will be viewed exactly the same. An accidental fall overboard. It will not matter if the person in question is a child who was playing or an adult who was inebriated enough to do something stupid such as sit on the railing and fall off. Or even decide to commit suicide.

Like I said earlier, be careful what you wish for....it may come true.