Should They Sue?

[WillowTree]

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......

because she is an asshole. It's just that simple.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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......

because she is an asshole. It's just that simple.

On top of the fact that she's just your average everyday loony liberal corporation hater...It has nothing to do with the passengers. She doesn't give a shit about them. It's all about making the "evil" corporation pay........FACTS BE DAMNED!


I mean seriously. This is the same person who advocates boycotting WALMART for offering free shipping for the holidays. Regardless of the fact that it would harm the jobs of many of her fellow americans....Once again, screw the employees, MAKE THE "EVIL" CORPORATION PAY, DAMMIT!....It's disgusting.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And in doing so conveniently ignored the entire purpose and topic of the post so that you could change the subject and the direction of the thread away from a subject you know nothing about and to another subject that, considering your definition of a phobia, you also know nothing about. Thanks for playing.

You continue to say things like this, and have yet to cite any specifics to support it. You may want to change your tact if you want to convince anyone besides yourself of anything.

The importance of context simply eludes people with poor literacy skills. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

And yet in your previous post you outright admitted that me adding in other parts of her or your post wouldn't actually change anything. Once again you suggest I took something out of context yet are incapable of pointing out where. Maybe you should call it a straw man, seeing as you use that term for everything else.

No, and no. I have no interest in your self-serving twist on what is and is not dishonest, reasonable people can discern this for themselves.

Are you sure? Because you're failing at it.

Repeatedly.

I mean, you've even stated that you can't tell whether it's dishonesty or something else. Really just let me know if you want me to relink. It's no trouble.

"Fearing something" =/= a phobia. Yet you addressed my point as though I were describing a person with a phobia who in addition to having a phobia was undertaking a pleasure cruise with the express purpose of exposure to the subject of said phobia.

Oh I did? Would you be a dear and go back where I suggested your hypothetical person undertook a pleasure cruise with the express purpose of exposure and cite it here? Maybe if we have you point out your communication problems, we can address the root cause of the issue. My guess is that you'll decline actually providing such evidence to the things you're saying.

Your point, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with either the post you partially quoted nor the topic of the thread. We are discussing legal causes of action after the fact, you are speculating on what pre-existing treatment may be given to a person who was not described in the hypothetical advanced.

False. You say things like "your point, whatever it may be", indicating you don't actually know what it is. And yet you continue to comment as if you do possess such understanding, which begs the question: why? Ask if I've been unclear. But I recommend you either figure out the point, or stop commenting on it, because it has nothing to do with your idea of "speculation on what pre-existing treatment may be given to a person". And no, quoting part of your sentence like that is still not a straw man.

It has been made clear all along in multiple posts that analyzing a potential case - a hypothetical - is based on the evidence establishing there is a quantifiable harm. Facts that we do not know and in the case of this specific hypothetical may not know for some period of time due to the requirements of proving psychological harm.

Facts you do not know about a hypothetical situation you yourself fabricated? Did I just miss something or are you making imaginary missing information for your imaginary story?

Let's revisit your original post to see if we can establish a point within it somewhere. I'll quote the whole thing so you don't get all upset if I leave anything out.

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.

Actually now that I look back over it, what you described is a phobia, for the specific reason that it is in excess compared to others and causes more hypothetical trauma. But let's put that aside. You're saying he should be compensated to return himself to the state he was in before the fire, which was by your setup, having fear of fire in excess of others, which is the exact same spot he is in after a fire occurs.

But as I said, which you didn't believe, they didn't tell people until after things had happened. They in fact lied to people, constantly reassuring them everything was fine.
Carnival Splendor Fire: Passengers Finally Step Foot on Land
Smoke screen: Carnival passengers say crew lied about extent of fire
If this weren't the case, and the fire was everywhere, and panic broke out, then you may have a point. The passengers remained calm, and could be removed from the ship in an emergency as others have mentioned.

 

[ConHog]

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......

because she is an asshole. It's just that simple.

On top of the fact that she's just your average everyday loony liberal corporation hater...It has nothing to do with the passengers. She doesn't give a shit about them. It's all about making the "evil" corporation pay........FACTS BE DAMNED!


I mean seriously. This is the same person who advocates boycotting WALMART for offering free shipping for the holidays. Regardless of the fact that it would harm the jobs of many of her fellow americans....Once again, screw the employees, MAKE THE "EVIL" CORPORATION PAY, DAMMIT!....It's disgusting.

Wait, what? Can I have a link to the Wal Mart thing?

 

[Wicked Jester]

because she is an asshole. It's just that simple.

On top of the fact that she's just your average everyday loony liberal corporation hater...It has nothing to do with the passengers. She doesn't give a shit about them. It's all about making the "evil" corporation pay........FACTS BE DAMNED!


I mean seriously. This is the same person who advocates boycotting WALMART for offering free shipping for the holidays. Regardless of the fact that it would harm the jobs of many of her fellow americans....Once again, screw the employees, MAKE THE "EVIL" CORPORATION PAY, DAMMIT!....It's disgusting.

Wait, what? Can I have a link to the Wal Mart thing?

It's up here Con. I'll go and try to find it....She started the thread just this week. Tells everybody to boycott Walmart because they are offering free shipping, and sells chinese made goods.......She's nuts!

 

[Wicked Jester]

because she is an asshole. It's just that simple.

On top of the fact that she's just your average everyday loony liberal corporation hater...It has nothing to do with the passengers. She doesn't give a shit about them. It's all about making the "evil" corporation pay........FACTS BE DAMNED!


I mean seriously. This is the same person who advocates boycotting WALMART for offering free shipping for the holidays. Regardless of the fact that it would harm the jobs of many of her fellow americans....Once again, screw the employees, MAKE THE "EVIL" CORPORATION PAY, DAMMIT!....It's disgusting.

Wait, what? Can I have a link to the Wal Mart thing?

It's under "economy". Just look for the "I hate Walmart" thread.

Seriously, read that shit. It's mind boggling.......She tries to play the child labor card, yada yada yada....Guilt ya' into screwing over her fellow americans employed at Walmart.

 

[Sofus]

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?

Loss of life and/or limb...

 

[Sofus]

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.

Especially not with Sarah on board, her voice on the intercom, I would jump and take a chance swimming for it! Pretty face, ugly voice! Screech, screech!

 

[Sofus]

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?

Rape traumatizes, a bad vacation, unless you are injured would be a silly thing to be traumatized over...in my humble opinion.

 

[Sofus]

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.

this is the way I see it, Madeline, I hope you are never seriously ill!

 

[Sofus]

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?

Should I sue Gunny because I am fed spam all the time here?

ahahahaha, but it isn't the wiener kind or is it?

 

[Sofus]

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......

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.....



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.....



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???

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 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......

Were they still allowed to drink?


If so, no suffering!

 

[Sofus]

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......

because she is an asshole. It's just that simple.

On top of the fact that she's just your average everyday loony liberal corporation hater...It has nothing to do with the passengers. She doesn't give a shit about them. It's all about making the "evil" corporation pay........FACTS BE DAMNED!


I mean seriously. This is the same person who advocates boycotting WALMART for offering free shipping for the holidays. Regardless of the fact that it would harm the jobs of many of her fellow americans....Once again, screw the employees, MAKE THE "EVIL" CORPORATION PAY, DAMMIT!....It's disgusting.

I am a looney liberal Plutocracy hater, too! I am so glad to feel the love!

 

[Sofus]

The alcohol isn't exactly spoiling.

My kind of guy!

 

[Sofus]

Would you get on if a release was demanded of you before boarding?

Free cruise should be enough for Splendor passengers

...They gave us our money back. They gave us free beer. The crew was in good spirits and helped us with whatever we needed,” he said. “They’re giving us a free cruise at a later date. I’m grateful for that. I’m not the kind of person who’s going to go sue, sue, sue. Not me or my wife.”

Good thing, say travel agents and travel lawyers, because the ticket contracts signed by Carnival Splendor passengers almost assuredly protect the cruise line from future legal action. The vacationers had been living on the 13-story vessel without electricity since Monday when a fire erupted onboard. The lights went out. Food spoiled. And for 14 hours, the toilets didn’t work.

Splendor passengers get free cruise, no recourse - Travel - News - msnbc.com

By this reasoning, an airline could escape liability for a crash by offering to fly the passengers' corpses home.

They probably did, I will have to ask my friend who defended Alaska Airlines when their plane crashed into the Pacific...

 

[Sofus]

Smoking doobies in the engine room!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Arbitration is not "access to courts", Quantum Windbag. American Arbitration Association rules call for a levy of the costs of the arbitrator(s) on the losing party. The rules of evidence are very wide open -- and there are sound reasons why a court will not admit hearsay evidence, etc. AAA matters result in no written opinion and cannot be appealed.

One company notorious for using arbitration to foreclose consumer rights is Gateway. If you buy a pc from them and it breaks under warranty and they refuse to honor their obligation, you cannot go to court to seek a remedy. Instead, you have to risk thousands of dollars in arbitrator fees if you wish to pursue the matter at all. Considering the pc likely cost less than $1,000 it will almost always be irrational to do this. It's an illusory right and one that a Big Business should not be able to force a consumer to accept, IMO.

Arbitration has value and should be encouraged but only between parties of somewhat equal resources -- it should not be a "gotcha" Big Business uses to insulate itself from liability for bad products or breach of warranty, etc.

Change the arbitration rules, don't support a system that doesn't work.

 

[Sofus]

And somebody who ends up having panic attacks from the experience should have to pay for their own treatment? I think not. There's a reasonable place in here between demanding a gazillion over having to eat canned crab and telling people to suck it up for actual harms they may suffer. I'd wait to see what happens, but I can guarantee at least some of these passengers will have legitimate claims.

A panic attack, give them a paper bag and tell them to shut up!

 

[Sofus]

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?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_eYSuPKP3Y[/ame]

Love the Python!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 Guest’s 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.