Should They Sue?

Madeline

Rookie
Apr 20, 2010
18,505
1,866
0
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
SAN DIEGO -- The nearly 4,500 passengers and crew of the Carnival Splendor have no air conditioning or hot water. Running low on food, they have to eat canned crab meat and Spam dropped in by helicopters. And it will be a long, slow ride before they're home.
What began as a seven-day cruise to the picturesque Mexican Riviera stopped around sunrise Monday when an engine-room fire cut power to the 952-foot vessel and set it adrift off Mexico's Pacific coast.

The 3,299 passengers and 1,167 crew members were not hurt, and the fire was put out in the generator's compartment, but the ship had no air conditioning, hot water, cell phone or Internet service.

After the fire, passengers were first asked to move from their cabins to the ship's upper deck, but eventually allowed to go back. The ship's auxiliary power allowed for toilets and cold running water.

Bottled water and cold food were provided, the company said.

The ship began moving again Tuesday night after the first of several Mexican tugboats en route to the stricken liner began pulling it toward San Diego, where it was expected to arrive Thursday night, Carnival Cruise Lines said in a statement.

Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
They're being offered a refund, and a free trip. Carnival would be idiots not to demand a signed release in exchange for that.

WTF wants to get on one of this company's boats ever again?

As for "offered a refund" -- seriously? Do you think these passengers got the benefit of the bargain they struck? What compensation is being offered people who cannot take another vacation or who lost an opportunity they cannot replace to spend time relaxing with family?
 
I have no desire to be crammed into essentially a floating hotel with over 4,000 other people for a week or so.

Not even if Sarah Palin was onboard.
 
SAN DIEGO -- The nearly 4,500 passengers and crew of the Carnival Splendor have no air conditioning or hot water. Running low on food, they have to eat canned crab meat and Spam dropped in by helicopters. And it will be a long, slow ride before they're home.
What began as a seven-day cruise to the picturesque Mexican Riviera stopped around sunrise Monday when an engine-room fire cut power to the 952-foot vessel and set it adrift off Mexico's Pacific coast.

The 3,299 passengers and 1,167 crew members were not hurt, and the fire was put out in the generator's compartment, but the ship had no air conditioning, hot water, cell phone or Internet service.

After the fire, passengers were first asked to move from their cabins to the ship's upper deck, but eventually allowed to go back. The ship's auxiliary power allowed for toilets and cold running water.

Bottled water and cold food were provided, the company said.

The ship began moving again Tuesday night after the first of several Mexican tugboats en route to the stricken liner began pulling it toward San Diego, where it was expected to arrive Thursday night, Carnival Cruise Lines said in a statement.

Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?

Why sue? If Carnival has offered a full refund and free trip in the future, why do you or for that matter anyone think the passengers should line the pockets of lawyers? And we wonder why we pay so much for everything......
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
SAN DIEGO -- The nearly 4,500 passengers and crew of the Carnival Splendor have no air conditioning or hot water. Running low on food, they have to eat canned crab meat and Spam dropped in by helicopters. And it will be a long, slow ride before they're home.
What began as a seven-day cruise to the picturesque Mexican Riviera stopped around sunrise Monday when an engine-room fire cut power to the 952-foot vessel and set it adrift off Mexico's Pacific coast.

The 3,299 passengers and 1,167 crew members were not hurt, and the fire was put out in the generator's compartment, but the ship had no air conditioning, hot water, cell phone or Internet service.

After the fire, passengers were first asked to move from their cabins to the ship's upper deck, but eventually allowed to go back. The ship's auxiliary power allowed for toilets and cold running water.

Bottled water and cold food were provided, the company said.

The ship began moving again Tuesday night after the first of several Mexican tugboats en route to the stricken liner began pulling it toward San Diego, where it was expected to arrive Thursday night, Carnival Cruise Lines said in a statement.

Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?

Why sue? If Carnival has offered a full refund and free trip in the future, why do you or for that matter anyone think the passengers should line the pockets of lawyers? And we wonder why we pay so much for everything......

The passengers are already entitled to a refund, as they did not get what they paid for. An offer of a free cruise in future will not make most of them whole -- they may not wish to take another cruise, or they may not be able to reassemble the family they had with them, or they may not be able to get time off work.

They had no toilets at first. They still have not hot water. They've been fed spam all this time. Is their suffering worth nothing to you?

As for "driving up costs", what if no one sues and this company makes no effort to correct its safety procedures? What if this happens again and next time, someone dies?

Tort law holds a common carrier to the highest possible standard, because you are essentially entrusting your well-being to them completely.

I wonder, GWV5903, if you could explain to me a situation where you think it would be best to sue or should we just close all the courthouses and allow big corporations to mistreat us however they wish in a hope that "prices will not go up"?
 
Last edited:
They will sue, and they will settle. Carnival has done the right thing all along here, and assumed full and complete responsibility. They will offer more and more as restitution to the passengers, but there will be those who try to grab the brass ring.

The majority will accept Carnival's various offers and be satisfied, but there will be those who hold out for a trial. Carnival will likely settle before trial, as they have already admitted to their responsibility and offered to make it right however they can.
 
Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?

Why sue? If Carnival has offered a full refund and free trip in the future, why do you or for that matter anyone think the passengers should line the pockets of lawyers? And we wonder why we pay so much for everything......

The passengers are already entitled to a refund, as they did not get what they paid for. An offer of a free cruise in future will not make most of them whole -- they may not wish to take another cruise, or they may not be able to reassemble the family they had with them, or they may not be able to get time off work.

They had no toilets at first. They still have not hot water. They've been fed spam all this time. Is their suffering worth nothing to you?

As for "driving up costs", what if no one sues and this company makes no effort to correct its safety procedures? What if this happens again and next time, someone dies?

Tort law holds a common carrier to the highest possible standard, because you are essentially entrusting your well-being to them completely.

I wonder, GWV5903, if you could explain to me a situation where you think it would be best to sue or should we just close all the courthouses and allow big corporations to mistreat us however they wish in a hope that "prices will not go up"?

If your definition of "suffering" is what is the norm now then we are freaking doomed as a species. No one was injured, No one died. There was a malfunction on the ship which did not affect its watertightness one whit.

The company is offering compensation, and a free trip. Most people who take cruises take more than one in thier lifetime. While the incident sucks, it is not something that elevates to the level of negligence, unless you find a lack of maintenance or something.

If the company continues to have a bad track record, the market will take care of things, as people will stop using the cruise line.
 
I think I would ask for a full refund and the cash value of the free trip. I would want the option to NOT travel with this line again. Carnival seems to have a lot of problems.
 
They will sue, and they will settle. Carnival has done the right thing all along here, and assumed full and complete responsibility. They will offer more and more as restitution to the passengers, but there will be those who try to grab the brass ring.

The majority will accept Carnival's various offers and be satisfied, but there will be those who hold out for a trial. Carnival will likely settle before trial, as they have already admitted to their responsibility and offered to make it right however they can.

"Brass ring"? So IYO, only greedy people sue? What about those who have been injured and cannot be healed. I know this would traumatize me. Have you stopped to consider what these passengers are going through? What happens to people with diabetes, whose insulin could not be kept cool? Without electricity, what medical care is possible?

I am just amazed at the hostility towards your neighbor and shameless corporate worship that seems to motivate those of you who are hostile to tort law suits. Apparently IYO, the corporations should NEVER be held responsible and a good American just absorbs the consequences of their greed, incompetence or error, no matter how badly he may be injured?
 
They will sue, and they will settle. Carnival has done the right thing all along here, and assumed full and complete responsibility. They will offer more and more as restitution to the passengers, but there will be those who try to grab the brass ring.

The majority will accept Carnival's various offers and be satisfied, but there will be those who hold out for a trial. Carnival will likely settle before trial, as they have already admitted to their responsibility and offered to make it right however they can.

"Brass ring"? So IYO, only greedy people sue? What about those who have been injured and cannot be healed. I know this would traumatize me. Have you stopped to consider what these passengers are going through? What happens to people with diabetes, whose insulin could not be kept cool? Without electricity, what medical care is possible?

I am just amazed at the hostility towards your neighbor and shameless corporate worship that seems to motivate those of you who are hostile to tort law suits. Apparently IYO, the corporations should NEVER be held responsible and a good American just absorbs the consequences of their greed, incompetence or error, no matter how badly he may be injured?
It also occurred to me that there must have been people with strict dietary concerns because of diabetes or high blood pressure or kidney problems, who wouldn't have been able to eat spam or pop tarts, and who needed fruits and vegetables.
 
They will sue, and they will settle. Carnival has done the right thing all along here, and assumed full and complete responsibility. They will offer more and more as restitution to the passengers, but there will be those who try to grab the brass ring.

The majority will accept Carnival's various offers and be satisfied, but there will be those who hold out for a trial. Carnival will likely settle before trial, as they have already admitted to their responsibility and offered to make it right however they can.

"Brass ring"? So IYO, only greedy people sue? What about those who have been injured and cannot be healed. I know this would traumatize me. Have you stopped to consider what these passengers are going through? What happens to people with diabetes, whose insulin could not be kept cool? Without electricity, what medical care is possible?

I am just amazed at the hostility towards your neighbor and shameless corporate worship that seems to motivate those of you who are hostile to tort law suits. Apparently IYO, the corporations should NEVER be held responsible and a good American just absorbs the consequences of their greed, incompetence or error, no matter how badly he may be injured?

And how many have died/been injured as a result?

Are you speculating, salivating for a death so someone will have a real payday?

Death or not, there will be no lawsuits from this. That is because Carnival is stepping up and assuming responsibility. If/when someone dies from a lack of insulin, Carnival will mediate and pay. Sure, some lawyer scum is going to make a buck off of it, most probably more than what the true damages are, but your salivating desire to see legal carnage come from this isn't going to happen. No matter how much you wish the "evil corporation" responsible would act like Torquemada, they have done nothing but the right thing from the start, and have shown nothing but a willingness to make this right by their customers.

Sure, lawyers will file suits.

Carnival is smarter than the lawyers (aren't we all?) so they will settle without a verdict.
 
They will sue, and they will settle. Carnival has done the right thing all along here, and assumed full and complete responsibility. They will offer more and more as restitution to the passengers, but there will be those who try to grab the brass ring.

The majority will accept Carnival's various offers and be satisfied, but there will be those who hold out for a trial. Carnival will likely settle before trial, as they have already admitted to their responsibility and offered to make it right however they can.

"Brass ring"? So IYO, only greedy people sue? What about those who have been injured and cannot be healed. I know this would traumatize me. Have you stopped to consider what these passengers are going through? What happens to people with diabetes, whose insulin could not be kept cool? Without electricity, what medical care is possible?

I am just amazed at the hostility towards your neighbor and shameless corporate worship that seems to motivate those of you who are hostile to tort law suits. Apparently IYO, the corporations should NEVER be held responsible and a good American just absorbs the consequences of their greed, incompetence or error, no matter how badly he may be injured?

And how many have died/been injured as a result?

Are you speculating, salivating for a death so someone will have a real payday?

Death or not, there will be no lawsuits from this. That is because Carnival is stepping up and assuming responsibility. If/when someone dies from a lack of insulin, Carnival will mediate and pay. Sure, some lawyer scum is going to make a buck off of it, most probably more than what the true damages are, but your salivating desire to see legal carnage come from this isn't going to happen. No matter how much you wish the "evil corporation" responsible would act like Torquemada, they have done nothing but the right thing from the start, and have shown nothing but a willingness to make this right by their customers.

Sure, lawyers will file suits.

Carnival is smarter than the lawyers (aren't we all?) so they will settle without a verdict.

I dun know what you do for a living Mini, but I daresay if I described all the members of your profession as "scum" you'd be offended. This cruise line bought a poorly-designed boat and offered berths for sale to the public, who is in no way equipped to measure a boat's safety and trusted the corporation to have done right by its customers. That trust has been abused. People have suffered -- at a minimum, because they did not get what they bargained for and because they have been subjected to extremely harsh conditions.

It is annoying and dishonest to suggest I hope a passenger dies, when I was pointing out they are at risk due to Carnival's failures. I hope everyone makes it back to shore safely, just as I am sure you do. The difference between you and I seems to be, I crave Justice while you prefer the American public underwrite the total costs of Big Business's fuck ups which cause injuries to us, regardless of how patently obvious it may be that Big Business is at fault.
 
We put down a deposit on a house in Cape May, NJ this past summer. We stayed there once before, great house, great location. A few days before our scheduled vacation we get an e-mail from the owners. The first floor of the house flooded because the water heater broke. They offered us a duplex in North Wildwood for $300 less. We decided to take their offer, as it was too late to get anything else. The duplex was small, uncomfortable, not as clean as the other place and not in the location we wanted. So, we should sue because our vacation wasn't what we expected? Please. They offered a compensation and even though it wasn't what we had originally planned and we didn't have as good a time this year, it certainly didn't ruin our life. And the situation wasn't anything the owner's could remedy within the time frame given.

You know, sometimes shits happens - - - things beyond our control, shit breaks. That's life. Doesn't mean go off and sue someone.

An offer of a free cruise in future will not make most of them whole -- they may not wish to take another cruise, or they may not be able to reassemble the family they had with them, or they may not be able to get time off work.

wtf? Carnival offer a refund and another cruise. The ship broke in the middle of the ocean and couldn't be fixed until towed back in. What exactly were they suppose to do? Like I said, sometimes shit happens. Ruin their life? Give me a break.
 
You crave "more justice" than what is just. Carnival is offering left and right. You're rallying for your potential clients to hold out for more.

There is a difference between what is right, what is fair, and what is legal. Those of us who aren't lawyers don't lose sight of "right and fair."

If someone dies, Carnival is possibly culpable, to some extent. I believe they'll assume that responsibility forthright, based on their response so far, without a lawyer having to jump into the fray and make herself a buck on someone else's misfortunes. You assume they won't, which does nothing but aggravate the situation before it has had a chance to work to its own conclusion. What are the damages so far? Didn't get to your destination? Had to eat SPAM instead of popcorn shrimp for 4 days? Couldn't let Calgon take you away? No one has died (to my knowledge). No one has been maimed. The fire wasn't intentional.....shouldn't you be suing the manufacturer of the component that caught fire as well, and the labor union that assembled the component? (see.....I'm as smart as a lawyer!)

All lawyers aren't scum.

Just 98% of them.

I sell guns. We're all scum (to the lawyers, and other lefties). I'm good with it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top