Should They Sue?

[mudwhistle]

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?

First off, they were not fed Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

They have the right to sue. I have the right to sue as per the constitution even though I wasn't there.

I however cannot prove damages. They must prove damages as well I believe.

 

[Mini 14]

I'm with dilloduck on this one. You don't really care about these people, or you'd already be down there taking their money.

Have you thought of suing Quantas and Rolls Royce as well? Did those people get the trip they paid for? Weren't they inconvenienced as well?

Listen, TALKING about suing people for an easy, fast dollar is all fine and good. But if you're going to be a really successful lawyer, you better get your ass out of bed and start screwing people and cashing checks.

 

[Madeline]

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......

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?

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

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.

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"?

[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
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.

 

[Mini 14]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system? Maybe if you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you don't get to practice law anymore?

VERY interesting concept.

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

 

[mudwhistle]

Personally I wouldn't get on a ship because I spent too much time on one and I know what can happen out at sea. But I also think that if somebody doesn't sue the balls off of these cruise-liners this kind of crap is gonna continue and soon people are gonna get killed. They have to be scared into assuring the safety of their passengers or go out of business.

 

[Madeline]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system?

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

Lawyers are regulated by state bar associations and yes, the disciplinary boards are all full of other lawyers. But lawyers dun hang together. We aren't like doctors. Almost all lawyers see almost all other lawyers as competition they'd be delighted to ruin. Every month when my newsletter comes, there's pages and pages of suspensions, warnings and disbarments.

I'm not going to say we're perfect -- we need to do better on disciplining lawyers who subourn perjury, for starters IMO -- but trust me, if the state bar learns your lawyer stole money from you, he or she is toast. Most states will also tag a lawyer for solicitation (ambulance chasing) and personally, I think allowing lawyers to advertise was a ginormous mistake and should be disallowed again.

If you are ever injured by your own lawyer or think the other guy's has acted unethically, dun hesitate to report them to the bar association. Those complaints are taken very seriously by everyone involved, as they should be.

 

[Madeline]

Um..no.

This isn't a product you can simply return.

They were stuck on that ship for quite some time..and had to suffer for it.

Suffer? How did they suffer? If suffering actually took place, they would have excellent grounds on which to sue. But it sounds like what happened was simply that they didn't get what they paid for. The fee includes food, lodging, and entertainment. They got all three, just crappier than expected. It's not a product you can return. It's a service. If you go out to a restaurant and get crap service, you can't sue the restaurant. I mean, you could technically sue, for any reason, but it wouldn't win.

They can sue. Anybody can sue anyone.

But if I were on the jury, they would win the equivalent of the wages they may have lost for the extra time they were gone. This isn't a golden payday.

And that's completely reasonable. If the boat kept them past the allotted time and wages were lost, then they should be equally compensated. For some reason people in this country have this idea that if they lose X amount of money, they can sue and will win 100X back. That's not actually how it works.

I completely agree, SmarterThanHick. The damage award is meant to put the plaintiff back in the position he was in before the bad thing happened, not to enrich the plaintiff. I disagree that you and Radioman have identified all the various components of any passenger's actual damages, but I agree the concept is compensation and not enrichment.

I would be willing to discuss tort reform to punitive damages awards....for example, driving whatever dollars are awarded into a government-run philanthropic thingie rather than giving them to the plaintiff. I'd even be willing to discuss insulating certain defendants from punitive damages altogether -- but IMO, compensatory damages should be freely available when liability can be proven.

 

[Mini 14]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system?

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

Lawyers are regulated by state bar associations and yes, the disciplinary boards are all full of other lawyers. But lawyers dun hang together. We aren't like doctors. Almost all lawyers see almost all other lawyers as competition they'd be delighted to ruin. Every month when my newsletter comes, there's pages and pages of suspensions, warnings and disbarments.

I'm not going to say we're perfect -- we need to do better on disciplining lawyers who subourn perjury, for starters IMO -- but trust me, if the state bar learns your lawyer stole money from you, he or she is toast. Most states will also tag a lawyer for solicitation (ambulance chasing) and personally, I think allowing lawyers to advertise was a ginormous mistake and should be disallowed again.

If you are ever injured by your own lawyer or think the other guy's has acted unethically, dun hesitate to report them to the bar association. Those complaints are taken very seriously by everyone involved, as they should be.

Maybe all those bad lawyers are bad because they spend more time on message boards fishing for lawsuits than they actually spend practicing law?

I don't know....I don't run into a lot of physicians dominating messageboard discussions on a daily basis. But find a messagebopard about ANY topic, and you'll soon find a lawyer with a post count higher than Lady GagGa's cold sores.

Odd, given that the average surgery or consultation takes a LOT less time than even the simplest of trials.

Maybe doctors care more about the quality of care for their patients than where the next patient is coming from?

 

[mudwhistle]

Um..no.

This isn't a product you can simply return.

They were stuck on that ship for quite some time..and had to suffer for it.

Suffer? How did they suffer? If suffering actually took place, they would have excellent grounds on which to sue. But it sounds like what happened was simply that they didn't get what they paid for. The fee includes food, lodging, and entertainment. They got all three, just crappier than expected. It's not a product you can return. It's a service. If you go out to a restaurant and get crap service, you can't sue the restaurant. I mean, you could technically sue, for any reason, but it wouldn't win.

They can sue. Anybody can sue anyone.

But if I were on the jury, they would win the equivalent of the wages they may have lost for the extra time they were gone. This isn't a golden payday.

And that's completely reasonable. If the boat kept them past the allotted time and wages were lost, then they should be equally compensated. For some reason people in this country have this idea that if they lose X amount of money, they can sue and will win 100X back. That's not actually how it works.

You're forgetting punitive damages.

 

[Madeline]

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?

First off, they were not fed Spam.

According to media reports, that's what they are eating -- cold Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

I wasn't on the boat so of course I have no right to sue. Or did you mean the passengers have no such rights? If so, I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

They did not sign up for this cruise in hopes of getting "the story of a lifetime". I'm gonna guess the average cruise passenger has zero interest in "survival style" vacations.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

There's been discussion scattered all through this thread about the potential for additional damages. Lost wages. Lasting emotional or psychiatric injuries. Possible damage to the body from insulin deprivation. Lost window of time to enjoy the company of a certain group that cannot be reassembled. Lost honeymoon. Etc.

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

How is it that "only the lawyers benefit"? There's a cap on the percent of an award a plaintiff's lawyer can demand as a contingency fee -- usually one-third plus costs. The other two thirds (or whatever) goes to the plaintiff. Are you suggesting that the contingent fee system itself is the evil in our courts?

If so, how do you suggest we reform it and still allow middle class and poor people access to courts?

 

[goldcatt]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system? Maybe if you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you don't get to practice law anymore?

VERY interesting concept.

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

If you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you'll be out of business long before anybody could touch your license.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in most cases work on contingency. They put out the resources, effort and time up front and only get compensation if they win. The system isn't perfect, but can you imagine a business with this kind of compensation structure where the rainmakers are going out looking for bogus cases to throw away their time and resources on hoping to get lucky?

You may think all lawyers are inherently evil, subhuman and not worth the effort it would take to piss on them if they were on fire - but "suicidal" doesn't usually apply.

 

[Middleman]

Some people have no emotional fortitude whatsoever. They have a preexisting mental/psychological disorder that makes them prone to hysteria. I'm not sure the cruise line should be responsible for their negative psychological reactions to not having air conditioning and cell service, and having their vacation ruined.

I personally would have found the whole thing interesting and an adventure. I'm sure the cruise line will more than compensate folks for their trouble. Yes, they are entitled to a new trip, lost wages, etc.

 

[Madeline]

Some people have no emotional fortitude whatsoever. They have a preexisting mental/psychological disorder that makes them prone to hysteria. I'm not sure the cruise line should be responsible for their negative psychological reactions to not having air conditioning and cell service, and having their vacation ruined.

I personally would have found the whole thing interesting and an adventure. I'm sure the cruise line will more than compensate folks for their trouble. Yes, they are entitled to a new trip, lost wages, etc.

There is some law on the ultra-sensitive plaintiff, Middleman, but in general the defendant takes the plaintiff as he finds him. You create a tripping hazard on your business premises and the guy who falls has brittle bone disease and dies, you cannot claim "most people would have just been bruised".

 

[Madeline]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system? Maybe if you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you don't get to practice law anymore?

VERY interesting concept.

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

If you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you'll be out of business long before anybody could touch your license.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in most cases work on contingency. They put out the resources, effort and time up front and only get compensation if they win. The system isn't perfect, but can you imagine a business with this kind of compensation structure where the rainmakers are going out looking for bogus cases to throw away their time and resources on hoping to get lucky?

You may think all lawyers are inherently evil, subhuman and not worth the effort it would take to piss on them if they were on fire - but "suicidal" doesn't usually apply.

Amen, mah more articulate sista!

 

[Madeline]

The boat isn't even back in port, and you're already looking for the angles to sue.

And you wonder why regular people think lawyers are scum?

The People rest, your Honor.

What will I know the day it docks that is essential to determining whether Carnival is liable, Mini? What nugget of data am I now missing that makes analysis of this story premature?

And since when are lawyers less than "regular people"?

at least since Shakespeare's day.

"First thing we do, let's shoot all the lawyers" is spoken by a character who is an anarchist, dilloduck. The meaning is, that without lawyers lawlessness and injustice run rampant and so, to aid in achieving this evil goal, they must all be killed.

Apparently Shakespeare admired lawyers.

Go figure.

 

[zzzz]

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?

Madie, Madie, Madie. These people paid for a service and I am sure that before they boarded they had to sign some type of disclaimer about possible damages or some such item.

These people suffered no harm just some discomfort and the discomfort they endured is something that people suffer in the US everday. Do you sue when the sewer system goes down for repairs? When there is a blackout? Sure their vacation has not turned out like they planned but does your vacations always work out when you visit relatives? Stuff happens, it is a part of life. It sounds like you are a person who beleives it is right to sue for every imagined hurt. This is part of what ails the American buisness world and society. People see it as a way to a free lunch or a way to get rich and the lawyers are the enablers.

Sure there are times when it is right to sue but this is not one of them. It will will be tried of course, maybe as a class action, and may be settled out of court because it is cheaper to do so, not because of right or wrong. The lawyer fees cost more than it is worth and that is where part of the problem exists, the high lawyer fees. The only people who will make a lot of money here is the lawyers and I bet you that there will be 20 or so on the dock waiting. like vultures over rotting meat, for the passengers to get off.

 

[Madeline]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system?

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

Lawyers are regulated by state bar associations and yes, the disciplinary boards are all full of other lawyers. But lawyers dun hang together. We aren't like doctors. Almost all lawyers see almost all other lawyers as competition they'd be delighted to ruin. Every month when my newsletter comes, there's pages and pages of suspensions, warnings and disbarments.

I'm not going to say we're perfect -- we need to do better on disciplining lawyers who subourn perjury, for starters IMO -- but trust me, if the state bar learns your lawyer stole money from you, he or she is toast. Most states will also tag a lawyer for solicitation (ambulance chasing) and personally, I think allowing lawyers to advertise was a ginormous mistake and should be disallowed again.

If you are ever injured by your own lawyer or think the other guy's has acted unethically, dun hesitate to report them to the bar association. Those complaints are taken very seriously by everyone involved, as they should be.

Maybe all those bad lawyers are bad because they spend more time on message boards fishing for lawsuits than they actually spend practicing law?

I don't know....I don't run into a lot of physicians dominating messageboard discussions on a daily basis. But find a messagebopard about ANY topic, and you'll soon find a lawyer with a post count higher than Lady GagGa's cold sores.

Odd, given that the average surgery or consultation takes a LOT less time than even the simplest of trials.

Maybe doctors care more about the quality of care for their patients than where the next patient is coming from?

I'm retired, dufus. What is your theory...that I decided to solicit clients on that ship by posting on USMB?

Jesus H. Christ, you can be dense.

 

[goldcatt]

What will I know the day it docks that is essential to determining whether Carnival is liable, Mini? What nugget of data am I now missing that makes analysis of this story premature?

And since when are lawyers less than "regular people"?

at least since Shakespeare's day.

"First thing we do, let's shoot all the lawyers" is spoken by a character who is an anarchist, dilloduck. The meaning is, that without lawyers lawlessness and injustice run rampant and so, to aid in achieving this evil goal, they must all be killed.

Apparently Shakespeare admired lawyers.

Go figure.

Context really does matter.

 

[HUGGY]

Lawyers are regulated by state bar associations and yes, the disciplinary boards are all full of other lawyers. But lawyers dun hang together. We aren't like doctors. Almost all lawyers see almost all other lawyers as competition they'd be delighted to ruin. Every month when my newsletter comes, there's pages and pages of suspensions, warnings and disbarments.

I'm not going to say we're perfect -- we need to do better on disciplining lawyers who subourn perjury, for starters IMO -- but trust me, if the state bar learns your lawyer stole money from you, he or she is toast. Most states will also tag a lawyer for solicitation (ambulance chasing) and personally, I think allowing lawyers to advertise was a ginormous mistake and should be disallowed again.

If you are ever injured by your own lawyer or think the other guy's has acted unethically, dun hesitate to report them to the bar association. Those complaints are taken very seriously by everyone involved, as they should be.

Maybe all those bad lawyers are bad because they spend more time on message boards fishing for lawsuits than they actually spend practicing law?

I don't know....I don't run into a lot of physicians dominating messageboard discussions on a daily basis. But find a messagebopard about ANY topic, and you'll soon find a lawyer with a post count higher than Lady GagGa's cold sores.

Odd, given that the average surgery or consultation takes a LOT less time than even the simplest of trials.

Maybe doctors care more about the quality of care for their patients than where the next patient is coming from?

I'm retired, dufus. What is your theory...that I decided to solicit clients on that ship by posting on USMB?

Jesus H. Christ, you can be dense.

How the fuck does a lawyer retire? You run outta problems to solve? Your brain go fuckety fuck?

 

[goldcatt]

Some people have no emotional fortitude whatsoever. They have a preexisting mental/psychological disorder that makes them prone to hysteria. I'm not sure the cruise line should be responsible for their negative psychological reactions to not having air conditioning and cell service, and having their vacation ruined.

I personally would have found the whole thing interesting and an adventure. I'm sure the cruise line will more than compensate folks for their trouble. Yes, they are entitled to a new trip, lost wages, etc.

The principle is that tort laws exist to make the victim whole. They exist in fairness to the victim, not the tortfeasor. So let's say a person went on that cruise who has a fear of fire, for example. Being stuck in the middle of the ocean, confined to a ship that is on fire will be more traumatic for that person than others, sure. Trauma that can have lasting effects.

But that person didn't cause the fire, he didn't put himself out there to experience a fire, he had no way of anticipating it at all. He was doing something that was perfectly reasonable for his situation.

So if there is lasting harm that comes about as a result should he be obligated to carry the entire burden of the cost of dealing with any treatment, counseling, or any other costs that are incurred to return him to the state he enjoyed before the event? He didn't do it to himself.