Should They Sue?

[Madeline]

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.

I have been a lawyer a long, long time, zzzz. I can assure you most people are extremely reluctant to sue and that even those who do are anxious as hell to settle. Are there baseless claims filed by shady lawyers? Of course there are. The premise behind the "Erin Brockovich" movie is widely considered an instance where a business was unfairly bent over a chair, as there is no hard science to back up the anxiety she created over the possible ill effects of whatever that business released into the environment. There are most certainly questionable cases.

However....

High fees are rarely a problem outside of class action suits. If I sue on your behalf because your neighbor ran into your car and you have $6,500 in vehicle repair costs as well as $3,500 in medical costs, and I do not spend one dime on costs to prepare the case, I cannot settle it for more than $10,000 and my fee cannot exceed $3,333. Granted, that depresses your award to less than you would have received had the neighbor's insurance company paid your damages voluntarially but presumably you had tried and failed to get them to do so. If I have 10 hours into your case, I'm being paid $333 an hour. If I have 100 hours in, I'm being paid $33 an hour. And from your fee, I have to fund every losing case I accepted during that period from which I reaped no fee at all nor any costs reimbursement. Is $333 an hour too much to pay to get at least some of what is owed to you? Seems fair to me, especially if that vehicle and your good health is essential to you. (It is not uncommon for a plaintiff's lawyer to arrange care for a client on a contingent fee basis -- care they could not otherwise afford unless and until the case settled or is judged final.)

Big cases such as the tobacco litigation, where the damages can run into the billions, do create a possibility for undue enrichment of the plaintiffs' lawyers. But they also take up all the time of everyone in each law firm for several years and if the plaintiff's lawyers had not been successful, they would have not gotten a dime, not even their costs paid. BTW, the plaintiffs in the tobacco litigation were several states, and they could have paid the lawyers an hourly fee if they chose. The governors decided to roll the dice instead....but they certainly had the resources to pay if they chose to.

There are most assuredly problems in tort law, but IMO, blaming them all on plaintiffs' lawyers is unfair. After all, we'd have far fewer such decisions if the defense bar advised their clients to pay up when they damage someone without being compelled to do the right thing by some court.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

and they didn't do it to him intentionally either.
Shit happens.

 

[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.

and they didn't do it to him intentionally either.
Shit happens.

Intent matters not, not for compensatory damages. If you're talking about a big punitive windfall that's a different story.

 

[dilloduck]

"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.

I have been a lawyer a long, long time, zzzz. I can assure you most people are extremely reluctant to sue and that even those who do are anxious as hell to settle. Are there baseless claims filed by shady lawyers? Of course there are. The premise behind the "Erin Brockovich" movie is widely considered an instance where a business was unfairly bent over a chair, as there is no hard science to back up the anxiety she created over the possible ill effects of whatever that business released into the environment. There are most certainly questionable cases.

However....

High fees are rarely a problem outside of class action suits. If I sue on your behalf because your neighbor ran into your car and you have $6,500 in vehicle repair costs as well as $3,500 in medical costs, and I do not spend one dime on costs to prepare the case, I cannot settle it for more than $10,000 and my fee cannot exceed $3,333. Granted, that depresses your award to less than you would have received had the neighbor's insurance company paid your damages voluntarially but presumably you had tried and failed to get them to do so. If I have 10 hours into your case, I'm being paid $333 an hour. If I have 100 hours in, I'm being paid $33 an hour. And from your fee, I have to fund every losing case I accepted during that period from which I reaped no fee at all nor any costs reimbursement. Is $333 an hour too much to pay to get at least some of what is owed to you? Seems fair to me, especially if that vehicle and your good health is essential to you. (It is not uncommon for a plaintiff's lawyer to arrange care for a client on a contingent fee basis -- care they could not otherwise afford unless and until the case settled or is judged final.)

Big cases such as the tobacco litigation, where the damages can run into the billions, do create a possibility for undue enrichment of the plaintiffs' lawyers. But they also take up all the time of everyone in each law firm for several years and if the plaintiff's lawyers had not been successful, they would have not gotten a dime, not even their costs paid. BTW, the plaintiffs in the tobacco litigation were several states, and they could have paid the lawyers an hourly fee if they chose. The governors decided to roll the dice instead....but they certainly had the resources to pay if they chose to.

There are most assuredly problems in tort law, but IMO, blaming them all on plaintiffs' lawyers is unfair. After all, we'd have far fewer such decisions if the defense bar advised their clients to pay up when they damage someone without being compelled to do the right thing by some court.

Yes $333 an hour is fucking ridiculous.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

and they didn't do it to him intentionally either.
Shit happens.

Intent matters not, not for compensatory damages. If you're talking about a big punitive windfall that's a different story.

it should

 

[goldcatt]

and they didn't do it to him intentionally either.
Shit happens.

Intent matters not, not for compensatory damages. If you're talking about a big punitive windfall that's a different story.

it should

Why?

 

[dilloduck]

Intent matters not, not for compensatory damages. If you're talking about a big punitive windfall that's a different story.

it should

Why?

Because shit happens. People should not be forced to compensate someone who had an accident.

 

[goldcatt]

it should

Why?

Because shit happens. People should not be forced to compensate someone who had an accident.

We're not talking about some random person being held up to compensate somebody for an accident here. We're talking about a common carrier being asked to compensate one of its passengers who has quantifiable harm due to an accident that happened as a direct result of employing the carrier's services. A customer, I may add, who did not deviate from his own standard of care or take any foreseeable risks. Why do you feel the customer should suck it up?

 

[dilloduck]

Why?

Because shit happens. People should not be forced to compensate someone who had an accident.

We're not talking about some random person being held up to compensate somebody for an accident here. We're talking about a common carrier being asked to compensate one of its passengers who has quantifiable harm due to an accident that happened as a direct result of employing the carrier's services. A customer, I may add, who did not deviate from his own standard of care or take any foreseeable risks. Why do you feel the customer should suck it up?

The accident isn't something the carrier intended to happen. In fact I'm willing to wager that they spent tons of money to create a product that didn't break. Lawyers are bent on making accidents someone's fault and are tickled to death if that "someone" has big pockets.

 

[goldcatt]

Because shit happens. People should not be forced to compensate someone who had an accident.

We're not talking about some random person being held up to compensate somebody for an accident here. We're talking about a common carrier being asked to compensate one of its passengers who has quantifiable harm due to an accident that happened as a direct result of employing the carrier's services. A customer, I may add, who did not deviate from his own standard of care or take any foreseeable risks. Why do you feel the customer should suck it up?

The accident isn't something the carrier intended to happen. In fact I'm willing to wager that they spent tons of money to create a product that didn't break. Lawyers are bent on making accidents someone's fault and are tickled to death if that "someone" has big pockets.

This is a mischaracterization. Tort isn't always about "fault", nor is it usually about intent. In this case it's about basic fairness to an individual who reasonably relied on the portrayal of a service as safe and became harmed due the purveyor of that service, with or without intent.

We're not talking about some of the idiots' absurditiies on this thread arguing about millions in punitive damages over having to eat spam. That's preposterous and nobody who has the slightest idea what they're talking about would credit it with a moment's thought. But what about compensation for real, demonstrable and quantifiable harms and actual expenses incurred by the passengers?

 

[Madeline]

Somali Pirates Refuse to Board Carnival Cruise Ships
Cite ‘Unsafe Working Conditions’​

MOGADISHU (The Borowitz Report) – In yet another public relations setback for the beleaguered cruise ship company, Somali pirates today said they would no longer board Carnival Cruise ships, citing “unsafe working conditions.”

“If Carnival thinks that it’s going to be business as usual between them and the Somali pirates, they need to have their heads examined,” said Somali pirate spokesman Sugule. “We Somali pirates may be bold, but we’re not crazy.”

The pirate said that the recent fire that crippled the giant cruise ship Carnival Splendor “has sent a shiver through the pirate community.”

“We Somali pirates face enough risks without dealing with decks bursting into flames,” he said. “And don’t get me started on the nonfunctioning toilets.”

When asked if the Somali pirates might attempt to board Carnival ships in the future, he responded, “I am telling me hearties that if they were thinking of pillaging a Carnival ship of its booty over the holidays, they should make alternative plans.”

Carol Foyler, a spokesperson for Carnival Cruises, said that the company “would be working overtime to win back the pirates’ trust.”

In the meantime, Ms. Foyler said, Carnival would be unveiling a new slogan in the weeks to come: “Come for the fun, stay for the raging inferno.”

LMAO!

Borowitz Report

 

[Madeline]

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.

I have been a lawyer a long, long time, zzzz. I can assure you most people are extremely reluctant to sue and that even those who do are anxious as hell to settle. Are there baseless claims filed by shady lawyers? Of course there are. The premise behind the "Erin Brockovich" movie is widely considered an instance where a business was unfairly bent over a chair, as there is no hard science to back up the anxiety she created over the possible ill effects of whatever that business released into the environment. There are most certainly questionable cases.

However....

High fees are rarely a problem outside of class action suits. If I sue on your behalf because your neighbor ran into your car and you have $6,500 in vehicle repair costs as well as $3,500 in medical costs, and I do not spend one dime on costs to prepare the case, I cannot settle it for more than $10,000 and my fee cannot exceed $3,333. Granted, that depresses your award to less than you would have received had the neighbor's insurance company paid your damages voluntarially but presumably you had tried and failed to get them to do so. If I have 10 hours into your case, I'm being paid $333 an hour. If I have 100 hours in, I'm being paid $33 an hour. And from your fee, I have to fund every losing case I accepted during that period from which I reaped no fee at all nor any costs reimbursement. Is $333 an hour too much to pay to get at least some of what is owed to you? Seems fair to me, especially if that vehicle and your good health is essential to you. (It is not uncommon for a plaintiff's lawyer to arrange care for a client on a contingent fee basis -- care they could not otherwise afford unless and until the case settled or is judged final.)

Big cases such as the tobacco litigation, where the damages can run into the billions, do create a possibility for undue enrichment of the plaintiffs' lawyers. But they also take up all the time of everyone in each law firm for several years and if the plaintiff's lawyers had not been successful, they would have not gotten a dime, not even their costs paid. BTW, the plaintiffs in the tobacco litigation were several states, and they could have paid the lawyers an hourly fee if they chose. The governors decided to roll the dice instead....but they certainly had the resources to pay if they chose to.

There are most assuredly problems in tort law, but IMO, blaming them all on plaintiffs' lawyers is unfair. After all, we'd have far fewer such decisions if the defense bar advised their clients to pay up when they damage someone without being compelled to do the right thing by some court.

Yes $333 an hour is fucking ridiculous.

So is $33 an hour -- or nothing.

 

[dilloduck]

We're not talking about some random person being held up to compensate somebody for an accident here. We're talking about a common carrier being asked to compensate one of its passengers who has quantifiable harm due to an accident that happened as a direct result of employing the carrier's services. A customer, I may add, who did not deviate from his own standard of care or take any foreseeable risks. Why do you feel the customer should suck it up?

The accident isn't something the carrier intended to happen. In fact I'm willing to wager that they spent tons of money to create a product that didn't break. Lawyers are bent on making accidents someone's fault and are tickled to death if that "someone" has big pockets.

This is a mischaracterization. Tort isn't always about "fault", nor is it usually about intent. In this case it's about basic fairness to an individual who reasonably relied on the portrayal of a service as safe and became harmed due the purveyor of that service, with or without intent.

We're not talking about some of the idiots' absurditiies on this thread arguing about millions in punitive damages over having to eat spam. That's preposterous and nobody who has the slightest idea what they're talking about would credit it with a moment's thought. But what about compensation for real, demonstrable and quantifiable harms and actual expenses incurred by the passengers?

Our tort laws are fucked. Who fights to keep them as they are ?
It's a huge waste of money that Americans can't afford to be wasting.
nuff said.

 

[Madeline]

The accident isn't something the carrier intended to happen. In fact I'm willing to wager that they spent tons of money to create a product that didn't break. Lawyers are bent on making accidents someone's fault and are tickled to death if that "someone" has big pockets.

This is a mischaracterization. Tort isn't always about "fault", nor is it usually about intent. In this case it's about basic fairness to an individual who reasonably relied on the portrayal of a service as safe and became harmed due the purveyor of that service, with or without intent.

We're not talking about some of the idiots' absurditiies on this thread arguing about millions in punitive damages over having to eat spam. That's preposterous and nobody who has the slightest idea what they're talking about would credit it with a moment's thought. But what about compensation for real, demonstrable and quantifiable harms and actual expenses incurred by the passengers?

Our tort laws are fucked. Who fights to keep them as they are ?
It's a huge waste of money that Americans can't afford to be wasting.
nuff said.

All opinion, no rational or fact? So you just object to tort law on general principles?

 

[goldcatt]

Another thing that's apparent in this thread is the idea that highly publicized, multimillion dollar awards are the norm rather than the rare exception. If every case had that many zeros in an award I'd still be practicing...and wouldn't have wasted my time doing so in appeals. So-called bread and butter, every day tort cases average somewhere between seven and ten thousand in total damages, depending on where you are. And most of that is to reimburse or compensate for actual out of pocket expenses. Nobody's getting rich from the vast majority of tort cases.

The other thing that seems to be a widespread misconception is that damage awards come from nowhere. If a case actually goes to trial rather than settling in any of the pre-trial phases, then the award is not arbitrary but determined by a jury that has seen the evidence. Often, these awards are reduced by the court after the fact. They can be further reduced or even eliminated on appeal. And if it does settle prior to trial, the amount for which it is settled is a mutually agreed upon number the parties both choose to accept - voluntarily. Hardly diabolical.

 

[goldcatt]

The accident isn't something the carrier intended to happen. In fact I'm willing to wager that they spent tons of money to create a product that didn't break. Lawyers are bent on making accidents someone's fault and are tickled to death if that "someone" has big pockets.

This is a mischaracterization. Tort isn't always about "fault", nor is it usually about intent. In this case it's about basic fairness to an individual who reasonably relied on the portrayal of a service as safe and became harmed due the purveyor of that service, with or without intent.

We're not talking about some of the idiots' absurditiies on this thread arguing about millions in punitive damages over having to eat spam. That's preposterous and nobody who has the slightest idea what they're talking about would credit it with a moment's thought. But what about compensation for real, demonstrable and quantifiable harms and actual expenses incurred by the passengers?

Our tort laws are fucked. Who fights to keep them as they are ?
It's a huge waste of money that Americans can't afford to be wasting.
nuff said.

How exactly are they "fucked" and how is "it" a waste of money?

I would agree there are problems with tort law and am on the record as backing some of the reforms floating around out there, but the basic idea of compensation for quantifiable harm is not one of them.

 

[jillian]

it should

Why?

Because shit happens. People should not be forced to compensate someone who had an accident.

They sure as hell should if the "accident" happens because you were negligent or did something reckless.

You have a basic problem with people being compensated for their injuries/damages.

My response to that is basically, too bad. *shrug*

 

[Madeline]

The Anti-Justice League positively amaze me. Where else do you see Americans begging to have their rights eliminated?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well, one thing is for sure. After reading through all these so-called "lawyers" posts up here, it becomes quite clear that one shouldn't hire an attorney through the USMB....Christ, you'll head to civil court and suddenly find yourself in criminal court awaiting a death sentence with these people representin' ya'!

Sorry GC, couldn't help myself. You're the real deal.....That other clown?.....Oh hell fuckin' no!...It's only too obvious!


Fuckin' LMAO!

 

[goldcatt]

Well, one thing is for sure. After reading through all these so-called "lawyers" posts up here, it becomes quite clear that one shouldn't hire an attorney through the USMB....Christ, you'll head to civil court and suddenly find yourself in criminal court awaiting a death sentence with these people representin' ya'!

Sorry GC, couldn't help myself. You're the real deal.....That other clown?.....Oh hell fuckin' no!...It's only too obvious!


Fuckin' LMAO!

Anyone dumb enough to hire an attorney through the USMB deserves whatever they get, chef.

Don't be dissin' Maddy though. I don't agree with her positions all the time but reasonable people can do that. Like the lady said, lawyers all come from different places and points of view. We're not going to advocate for the same things or have the same opinion on everything because of it. Doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

Unless of course they disagree with me.

Kidding!