Should They Sue?

[The Infidel]

Every time something "unfortunate" happens.... someone wants to sue.

This is exactly why everything is so expensive and there are so many regulations on everything.

I say what Carnival is offering is good enough.

The folks knew getting on that big boat, that ANYTHING is possible.... exactly why I wont chance it.


No.... they shouldnt sue.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Another question should be. Did they face more danger floating around the ocean for a couple o' days or, would they have faced more danger by being americans at their ports o' call in MEXICO?

Perhaps those passengers should be sued for being abjectly stupid enough to visit that violent shithole of a backwards country in the first place!

 

[The Infidel]

Another question should be. Did they face more danger floating around the ocean for a couple o' days or, would they have faced more danger by being americans at their ports o' call in MEXICO?

Perhaps those passengers should be sued for being abjectly stupid enough to visit that violent shithole of a backwards country in the first place!

Now there's an "idear"

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I just don't see grounds to sue here. There are no damages. At all. You can't sue on the idea of a bad vacation, and that's really what it comes down to. You can't even sue on the idea that time from work was lost! Regarding assembly of family: it was done. The vacation might have sucked but the desired people were still spending time with each other. There's nothing to sue over so long as a refund is granted. People paid for a specific thing. They didn't get it, and so they got their money back.

 

[Sallow]

Me?

If I wasn't hurt..and am satisfied with the compensation..I don't see a reason to sue.

But they should definitely have the right to sue.

 

[Sallow]

I just don't see grounds to sue here. There are no damages. At all. You can't sue on the idea of a bad vacation, and that's really what it comes down to. You can't even sue on the idea that time from work was lost! Regarding assembly of family: it was done. The vacation might have sucked but the desired people were still spending time with each other. There's nothing to sue over so long as a refund is granted. People paid for a specific thing. They didn't get it, and so they got their money back.

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.

 

[ConHog]

I just don't see grounds to sue here. There are no damages. At all. You can't sue on the idea of a bad vacation, and that's really what it comes down to. You can't even sue on the idea that time from work was lost! Regarding assembly of family: it was done. The vacation might have sucked but the desired people were still spending time with each other. There's nothing to sue over so long as a refund is granted. People paid for a specific thing. They didn't get it, and so they got their money back.

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.

How fucking pampered do you have to be to consider being stuck in a luxury suite with only cold water and spam for 3 days to be suffering?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

 

[ConHog]

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.

If I were on the jury, they would win LESS than what Carnival is offering now, I guarantee you that.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

 

[Bootneck]

So, why would you be advocating for lawsuits when you have zero facts and only (big surprise here) ASSUMPTIONS?

BTW, You coudn't spank a donkeys ass if it was a foot in front of your face. That's been proven repeatedly up here, by you, time and time again!

And yet, spanked you be WJ. Yanno, grown ups can disagree on a subject without making the disagreement personal.

Just a thought.

BTW, do you have an opinion on the topic or are you just posting here to try and flame me?

You are NOT a grown up. Not by any means.

Coming from a baby like you, that's fucking hilarious. Do you come into these threads just to have a go at women you don't like! Fucking pussy!

 

[judyd]

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.

You're right. That's fair. And they should also be reimbursed for any additional airline fees they may have incurred. And as far as the "free cruise" Carnival is offering--I think they should be able to choose the cruise or the cash value (or even 1/2 in cash) of the trip. I think it's quite possible that many of this people will never want to step foot on another ship again, which is why I believe they should at least receive some cash value instead.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

You're right. That's fair. And they should also be reimbursed for any additional airline fees they may have incurred. And as far as the "free cruise" Carnival is offering--I think they should be able to choose the cruise or the cash value (or even 1/2 in cash) of the trip. I think it's quite possible that many of this people will never want to step foot on another ship again, which is why I believe they should at least receive some cash value instead.

The cruise line has offered full refunds, and a free cruise on top of it, or cash value. They are footing the bill for hotel stays until flights leave. The airlines are working with the line to accomodate re-booked flights at no expense to the passengers.

Carnival has done their part......Time for the ambulance chasing type attorneys to go home and try to find another entity to fleece.

 

[martybegan]

A crankshaft failure is isolated from the fuel injection system. The fire would have been lubricating oil and packing grease igniting and burning off.

I had this happen with one of my machines, and it took 15 minutes to burn off. I would imagine one of these engines would have considerably more oil and grease, and would have burned for a longer time. The engine crew would have evacuated, and waited for the suppression systems to handle it. By the time it was put out, repair in place would not be possible due to fire damage, and a major removal and rebuild would be the only option.

Just wondering how the fire would happen as lube oil and diesel, while flammable are kinda hard to ignite. My concept would be the shaft failed, ripping the pistions out of the block, and that would lead to whatever fuel is in the block exiting with the oil. I did miss the fact that the fuel injection would stop once the engine fell apart, on that I agree.

Will have to wait until the report I guess.

When the crankshaft broke, the load would have come off and the RPM's on the remaining stub would have skyrocketed. The lube oil and grease would have ignited when the friction of the runaway shaft raised temperatures to the ignition point. The failure was in the crankcase, not in the engine itself, so the pistons, rods, rings and block would not have been affected.

Why do i have a feeling you are an Engineer? (I am a ChemE). everyone else talks about the passengers and the lawsuits. Engineers want to know what broke.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Just wondering how the fire would happen as lube oil and diesel, while flammable are kinda hard to ignite. My concept would be the shaft failed, ripping the pistions out of the block, and that would lead to whatever fuel is in the block exiting with the oil. I did miss the fact that the fuel injection would stop once the engine fell apart, on that I agree.

Will have to wait until the report I guess.

When the crankshaft broke, the load would have come off and the RPM's on the remaining stub would have skyrocketed. The lube oil and grease would have ignited when the friction of the runaway shaft raised temperatures to the ignition point. The failure was in the crankcase, not in the engine itself, so the pistons, rods, rings and block would not have been affected.

Why do i have a feeling you are an Engineer? (I am a ChemE). everyone else talks about the passengers and the lawsuits. Engineers want to know what broke.

No, not an engineer, just someone who works with heavy lift equipment. You learn a lot when you have to go to your bosses to explain why the power take-off burned out because of a shaft break from the PTO to the transmission.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[judyd]

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.

Not that I'm for suing in this instance, but your second point is clearly wrong--you can always sue--you just may have a completely weak case that won't stand up in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not that I'm for suing in this instance, but your second point is clearly wrong--you can always sue--you just may have a completely weak case that won't stand up in court.

Rights do not come from governments. In fact, we need to be vigilant to ensure that the government does not abridge our rights. Suing, on the other hand, can only happen if the government gets involved. This proves we do not have a right to sue, we may, however, have a "right" to sue. I just do not support it under the current tort structure in the US.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Just heard on the local news . . . . they're also getting air fare refund.

 

[Madeline]

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.

You're right. That's fair. And they should also be reimbursed for any additional airline fees they may have incurred. And as far as the "free cruise" Carnival is offering--I think they should be able to choose the cruise or the cash value (or even 1/2 in cash) of the trip. I think it's quite possible that many of this people will never want to step foot on another ship again, which is why I believe they should at least receive some cash value instead.

The whole purpose of tort law is to put the injured person back into the position he was in before the bad thing some defendant did caused him harm, as far as money can do. The ginormous awards you hear of occassionally are punitive damages. Juries can award these extra funds, in some case, if they feel the defendant's conduct was so blame-worthy it should never be repeated, and so they want to punish the defendant.

I'd agree, lost wages for time away from work due to being trapped on that boat would be a measure of damages. But so would the costs of the trip, since it was not as advertised. Any costs associated with care for physical or emotional problems arising from the boat ride would also be awarded.

Awarding some sort of "pain and suffering" amount is common in cases like traffic accidents. I dun know what would be customary for being trapped on a cruise ship....I rather doubt there's another case just like this one. If it were an auto case, "pain and suffering" would usually run to about a third or a half of the damages to the car. Seems reasonable to add such an amount to these claims.

What about the cost of an irreplaceable window of time to enjoy one's family or friends? Suppose someone on that ship had assembled all the grandkids so their grandma could see them one more time, as she was dying? (I know...why would a terminally ill, elderly woman be on a cruise? But still, I'd expect at least a few such fact patterns to emerge.) What about the couples on their honeymoons, whose celebration of their new marriages was made hellish?

It seems to me that in some cases it is possible -- not likely, just possible -- the passengers' damages could be much higher than the straightforward wages plus cruise tickets costs.

If Carnival offers full payment of all these damages, I see no reason any passenger should sue. If they don't, I imagine they'll be sued in a New York minute. Carnival'd be foolish to risk trial, as then the plaintiffs might could make out a case for punitive damages.

Might.

Carnival's liability is clear as a bell and I do expect them to settle with everyone, but it is interesting to me how much hostility exists towards plaintiffs in such suits and how protective many of you are of Big Business. I'm not sure exactly how anyone here came to the conclusion that suing for damages from someone else's negligence is an immoral thing to do if the defendant is a Big Business, but clearly some of you have done.