Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's pretty much where most reasonable people have ended up. There have been reforms to the class action contingent fee schedule in federal court during my professional life, and many states have made various efforts as well. Every reform has the same goal: balancing the citizen's rights to access to courts with society's interest in avoiding unjust enrichment to lawyers.
Yet lthe left is arguing that contracts that require arbitration are unenforceable because they take away a persons "right to sue."
AMERICAblog News: AT&T fighting before Supreme Court to deny consumers class action lawsuits
Since the only people that benefit from class action law suits are lawyers, just who is it that the left is trying to protect?
Americablog is "THE LEFT"??? QW, I'm disappointed.
There are times when arbitration is appropriate. Much depends on the type of contract, whether the arbitration is binding, the choice of venue, whether other options are completely foreclosed....there are numerous questions depending on the contents and nature of the contract. To say "THE LEFT" is screaming to get rid of arbitration clauses in contracts because a blogger says so is missing on the details and subtleties (not to mention the friggin' basics) of a huge debate concerning alternative dispute resolution that's been going on for decades.
How do you figure?Rights do not come from governments, or pieces of paper, they are inherently a part of us as human beings.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Funny thing is, she states, "I have no idea whether the limitation on liability in the passengers tickets are enforcable"....Yeah, well, I'm sure Carnivals attorneys took that into consideration before it was added into the ticket contract because, well, THEY'RE ACTUAL ATTORNEYS who know what they are doing.Standard ticket contract signed by passengers when you buy the ticket. How many people actually read this stuff?
7(e) If the performance of the proposed voyage is hindered or prevented (or in the opinion of Carnival or the Master is likely to be hindered or prevented) by war, hostilities, blockage, ice, labor conflicts, strikes on board or ashore, restraint of Princes, Rulers or People, seizure under legal process, breakdown of the Vessel, congestion, docking difficulties or any other cause whatsoever or if Carnival or the Master considers that for any reason whatsoever, proceeding to, attempting to enter, or entering or remaining at the port of Guests destination may expose the Vessel to risk or loss or damage or be likely to delay her, the Guest and his baggage may be landed at the port of embarkation or at any port or place at which the Vessel may call, at which time the responsibility of Carnival shall cease and this contract shall be deemed to have been fully performed, or if the Guest has not embarked, Carnival may cancel the proposed voyage without liability to refund passage money or fares paid in advance.
Ticket Contract | Carnival Cruise Lines
It is highly unlikely this boat was based in the US, zzzz. It's home port is doubtless some tiny Carribean nation that has no regulatory power whatsoever. And though we have all been discussing US tort law, the fact is that events on the high seas involving Americans, insofar as the US would even have jurisdiction, are covered by Maritime Law -- the Jones Act -- which I never had occassion to learn.
I have no idea whether the limitation on liability in the passengers' tickets is enforceable. I do know anyone who would board a boat after being required to sign away all rights to sue in the event that boat breaks down is foolish and I doubt the passengers' knew and understood they were being asked to do so before they boarded.
Would you fly on a plane if the airline forced you to relinquish all rights to sue in the event of a crash? Would you ride on a train if the railroad had such a prerequisite?
Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
Quantum Windbag said:Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
Quantum Windbag said:Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
nice try... What country"s flag does the Splendor fly?
Yet lthe left is arguing that contracts that require arbitration are unenforceable because they take away a persons "right to sue."
AMERICAblog News: AT&T fighting before Supreme Court to deny consumers class action lawsuits
Since the only people that benefit from class action law suits are lawyers, just who is it that the left is trying to protect?
Americablog is "THE LEFT"??? QW, I'm disappointed.
There are times when arbitration is appropriate. Much depends on the type of contract, whether the arbitration is binding, the choice of venue, whether other options are completely foreclosed....there are numerous questions depending on the contents and nature of the contract. To say "THE LEFT" is screaming to get rid of arbitration clauses in contracts because a blogger says so is missing on the details and subtleties (not to mention the friggin' basics) of a huge debate concerning alternative dispute resolution that's been going on for decades.
Maybe not as left as MSNBC, but definitely left.
By phrasing the dispute as a right to sue, like you are here, they are the ones simplifying the debate. If you have a problem with that, rag them about it, not me.
Funny thing is, she states, "I have no idea whether the limitation on liability in the passengers tickets are enforcable"....Yeah, well, I'm sure Carnivals attorneys took that into consideration before it was added into the ticket contract because, well, THEY'RE ACTUAL ATTORNEYS who know what they are doing.It is highly unlikely this boat was based in the US, zzzz. It's home port is doubtless some tiny Carribean nation that has no regulatory power whatsoever. And though we have all been discussing US tort law, the fact is that events on the high seas involving Americans, insofar as the US would even have jurisdiction, are covered by Maritime Law -- the Jones Act -- which I never had occassion to learn.
I have no idea whether the limitation on liability in the passengers' tickets is enforceable. I do know anyone who would board a boat after being required to sign away all rights to sue in the event that boat breaks down is foolish and I doubt the passengers' knew and understood they were being asked to do so before they boarded.
Would you fly on a plane if the airline forced you to relinquish all rights to sue in the event of a crash? Would you ride on a train if the railroad had such a prerequisite?
Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
Gotta love these Perry Mason/Matlock addicts who come up here and try to talk a good game.....They are entertaining, amongst other things!
Loss of life and/or limb...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?
, or not being able to access the Internet to check your stocks. 
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......
No, if the cruise line offers passengers the full measure of damages I dun think the passengers should sue. They should accept the amount they could get at trial and be done with it. Question is, will Carnival offer the full measure or not?
And you know this how? I think most is pretty broad, I would be willing to bet less than 3% of these passengers truly suffered physically or mentally from this.....
Maybe you have a crystal ball.....
There will almost certainly be stress injuries, such as insomnia and PTSD. I'd expect some anxiety and panic disorders to emerge as well.
Suffering, please get real would you, just once, maybe?
Apparently it is worth something to you, I have always wondered, how do you justify the really stupid abuses you and your type pile on society? Based on what you have said in this forum, you have learned to convince yourself.....
Abuses such as what?
To begin with, there is no evidence that Carnival is or has any neglect in regards to their Safety procedures......
As for the latter, let's stick to the current issue, to our knowledge, no one has died as a result of this, your hype / spin is amazing, do they suck this up in a court room???
So the only type of damages you think anyone should be allowed to sue for are those that cause death? Dismemberment not severe enough for you? What about broken bones? Soft tissue injuries? Mental and emotional injuries?
Who has been injured from this event? Carnival has no history of neglect, no what Carnival has is deep pockets, that seems to always perk up the ears of scum bag attorney....
I dun know whether Carnival has a history of neglect. I suspect they do; investigative journalists do up black eye pieces on the various cruise lines all the time. Doesn't seem likely the cheapest cruises going would be free of a history of problems.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]Madeline said: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"?
No one suggested that we close all the court houses or that we bar a citizen the right to sue.....
What you need to ask yourself is how did you and the rest of your ilk become so detached......
Based on what I have read, the majority of the members here find your views sad and basless......
You can only speak for yourself. I dun know what you mean by "detached". If you find my POV "sad and baseless", I find that shocking. There is zero culpability on the part of the passengers for this event, and they have clearly been damaged. Yet in the face of these known facts you still insist, no one "should" sue -- though evidentially you do concede they have a right to do so.
What some tort reformers seem to me to really want is precisely to close the courthouse doors, and prohibit their fellow citizens from seeking compensation when they are injured by a business. Have you given much thought to how safe products or services would be if this actually happened?
The argument seems to find its most fertile ground when medical malpractice is discussed. "My doctor may leave medicine as he cannot afford his malpractice insurance rates." So you vote into law such nonsense as one year statutes of limitations for filing a claim for med mal, or requiring that the plaintiff find a second doctor to sign off on her claim before filing it, or eliminating punitive damages awards, etc.
The fact is, the single best way to depress the incidence of medical malpractice is to yank the license of bad doctors. This is so rarely done it's shocking. I have had applications on my desk to approve Medicare providers numbers for MDs with a string of negligent homicide convictions, rape convictions, etc. In every state (as best I know) a person's right to practice medicine is controlled by a board comprised only of other doctors -- and they are so notorious in their reluctance to discipline it's a nine days' wonder it ever happens.
Asking patients to absorb the expenses that flow from a doctor's bad acts may cut down on insurance rates but it is not justice, and it endangers us all. Asking these passengers to absorb the costs of the cruise line's negligence is equally unjust and unsafe for us all.
Quantum Windbag said:Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
nice try... What country"s flag does the Splendor fly?
Yep!Funny thing is, she states, "I have no idea whether the limitation on liability in the passengers tickets are enforcable"....Yeah, well, I'm sure Carnivals attorneys took that into consideration before it was added into the ticket contract because, well, THEY'RE ACTUAL ATTORNEYS who know what they are doing.Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
Gotta love these Perry Mason/Matlock addicts who come up here and try to talk a good game.....They are entertaining, amongst other things!
I know right, like Carnival, or any company , is going to ask its customers to sign an unenforceable contract. Also, I love how Madeline tried the old "well how many people actually read those when they buy tickets" line. That's irrelevant, it is YOUR problem if you agree to something without reading it.
Carnival Splendor ticket contracts may not allow passengers to su...Many agents and travel lawyers continue addressing the matter in the media, and most appear to agree that the ticket contract the passengers had to sign to take the trip is probably iron-clad, protecting the cruise line.
Quantum Windbag said:Nice try.
The Splendor is home ported in Long Beach, not the Caribbean. The only reason the US is not leading the investigation is that this particular cruise started in Mexico.
nice try... What country"s flag does the Splendor fly?
The Splendor is registered in Panama, and flies their flag. They will take lead on the investigation, but will of course ask the USA for help.
nice try... What country"s flag does the Splendor fly?
The Splendor is registered in Panama, and flies their flag. They will take lead on the investigation, but will of course ask the USA for help.
You're correct that she's registered in Panama. That creates huge jurisdictional issues. Additionally, there are treaties that limit liability for common carriers. It's not my area of practice, so I wouldn't have any idea specific limitations there would be here. But suing these types of companies isn't a simple task.
The Splendor is registered in Panama, and flies their flag. They will take lead on the investigation, but will of course ask the USA for help.
You're correct that she's registered in Panama. That creates huge jurisdictional issues. Additionally, there are treaties that limit liability for common carriers. It's not my area of practice, so I wouldn't have any idea specific limitations there would be here. But suing these types of companies isn't a simple task.
Not a lawyer, but I assume that since she's operating out of American ports, that anyone willing to waste their time filing suit could do it in the US court system.
The contract of carriage and treaty specifics will limit their award, if any.
Americablog is "THE LEFT"??? QW, I'm disappointed.
There are times when arbitration is appropriate. Much depends on the type of contract, whether the arbitration is binding, the choice of venue, whether other options are completely foreclosed....there are numerous questions depending on the contents and nature of the contract. To say "THE LEFT" is screaming to get rid of arbitration clauses in contracts because a blogger says so is missing on the details and subtleties (not to mention the friggin' basics) of a huge debate concerning alternative dispute resolution that's been going on for decades.
Maybe not as left as MSNBC, but definitely left.
By phrasing the dispute as a right to sue, like you are here, they are the ones simplifying the debate. If you have a problem with that, rag them about it, not me.
The problem I have isn't with media and/or blogs oversimplifying complex concepts to the point of being flat out wrong. I mean, I have a problem with it but they all do it and they aren't going to listen to me.
But please don't imply all of the "Left" agrees with these sloppy bloggers. Ugh.
Judge Andrew Napolitano read the contract on a radio program yesterday. There will not be any lawsuits.....In fact, as he stated, Carnival has actually gone beyond what they should have in offering compensation.You're correct that she's registered in Panama. That creates huge jurisdictional issues. Additionally, there are treaties that limit liability for common carriers. It's not my area of practice, so I wouldn't have any idea specific limitations there would be here. But suing these types of companies isn't a simple task.
Not a lawyer, but I assume that since she's operating out of American ports, that anyone willing to waste their time filing suit could do it in the US court system.
The contract of carriage and treaty specifics will limit their award, if any.
The contract is everything. Which is why without having a copy of it, everything is speculation and assumption. There's a ton we don't know.
