Should They Sue?

[goldcatt]

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.

Please don't make up psychiatry as reasoning for damages. The people aboard the ship didn't see the fire. It sounds like they were told about it after it was controlled. EVEN IF someone had a fear of fire, by time they knew about it, it was already over. That means you're talking about anxiety provoked by knowing about something passing already. The very treatment for such a phobia is controlled exposure. You'd have a hard time making the psych case.

You've obviously not read the story nor do you have any background in the law, and your reading comprehension skills are in serious need of a remedial refresher course. Yet you open your yap anyway.

Anybody got a pin? 'Nuff said.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So I take your baseless rebuttal to mean you don't actually have any evidence to support what you're saying? The fact still remains that it would be exceedingly difficult to claim a "lasting effect" of phobia trauma because that's not how psychology works. Let me know if you have any specific thing you think is wrong.

 

[goldcatt]

So I take your baseless rebuttal to mean you don't actually have any evidence to support what you're saying? The fact still remains that it would be exceedingly difficult to claim a "lasting effect" of phobia trauma because that's not how psychology works. Let me know if you have any specific thing you think is wrong.

I mean you took a small snippet of a post out of context in which, IF you have the ability to read the entire post, I was putting forth a hypothetical. One taken from actual cases, successful cases I might add, in an attempt to explain a legal concept actually related to the thread topic. And then you completely mischaracterized it as an attempt on my part of giving some nameless, faceless person a psychiatric evaluation.

Either you really are that dishonest, you're really that functionally illiterate, or you're simply dumber than a tree stump. Either way, I'm not chasing my tail around your straw man. Do you have anything to say about the actual post as made and in context, or are you going to keep banging on a tangent you created from an out of context snippet because your single working brain cell can't handle your ego?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You forgot the other possibility: you suck at communication and you're blaming others for your shortcoming. You can replace my wording of "Please don't make up psychiatry as reasoning for damages." since you seemed to have taken it as too personal a response for your hypothetical and change it to "That hypothetical sounds like a psychiatric reason for damages". Either way, the reasoning is still poor, hypothetical or actually believed. You did however surprise me that actual cases have been won for such things. I am interested: do you have any examples?

also, see this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/135767-why-are-you-so-dishonest.html

 

[Madeline]

There is a prinicple in tort law that you cannot sue for emotional distress arising from an intentional tort (which the cruise ship fact pat is not; we dun know what happened but there's no reason to think anyone set the fire deliberately) unless there is a physical touching. The rule does not exist because there is a low value placed on mental health, but rather, because there is a skepticism that such claims may be no more than malingering. (BTW, this is a "rule" only in the sense that at one time, most common law cases adhered to it; the actual caselaw in any state may well be different and that is what controls.)

In the event that someone has a provable and quanitifable injury of a mental, emotional or psychiatric nature arising from this incident, I'm not sure whether they can collect or not. It may interest you to know, the manager of the BP Claims Facility believes the answer there is "no". BP's negligence or recklessness resulted in whole communities destroyed, local culture obliterated, lifelong work destroyed, wildlife killed, natural surroundings despoiled, etc.....and still, the attitude is, we do not compensate for any mental or emotional injury.

I can certainly see the proof problems and I recognize that malingering by a few plaintiffs will be a problem, but as I have said, if mental and emotional injuries can be proven and quantified, I see no reason to withhold compensation. If one of the cruise ship passengers has a severe panic disorder after getting to shore that he did not have before he boarded and as a result, he cannot work, why should Carnival get off the hook for his damages?

Unless you just subscribe to the rather backward notion that there just is no such thing as a mental illness or an emotional problem?

 

[goldcatt]

You forgot the other possibility: you suck at communication and you're blaming others for your shortcoming. You can replace my wording of "Please don't make up psychiatry as reasoning for damages." since you seemed to have taken it as too personal a response for your hypothetical and change it to "That hypothetical sounds like a psychiatric reason for damages". Either way, the reasoning is still poor, hypothetical or actually believed. You did however surprise me that actual cases have been won for such things. I am interested: do you have any examples?

also, see this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/135767-why-are-you-so-dishonest.html

So you can't address the post as a whole and have to chop it up to change the topic and context. Thought so.

In response to your straw man, from a tort law point of view you're starting in left field and leaving the stadium completely. An average passenger who signs up for a pleasure cruise is NOT doing so as part of any treatment for an unrelated phobia under the care of a competent professional (phobia being a word you placed in my mouth, BTW) but to partake of a service offered as a leisure activity by a common carrier. To claim otherwise is dishonest and disingenuous at best.

THE POINT you cannot seem to grasp nor do you wish to has nothing to do with a competent professional's treatment of a malady nobody ever claimed exists, but whether under the bargain struck and reasonable reliance created by the carrier's portrayal of the service offered there is a cause of action for harm suffered.

Yes, both tort and contract cases are routinely brought, tried and won where the harm is not physical in nature. See e.g.:


http://130.63.196.76/asapil/aboutpsylaw.html
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/460/460.US.766.81-2399.82-358.html
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.44.1177.pdf
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1830&context=alea
Negligently inflcted psychiatric harm
http://www.ejcl.org/133/art133-6.pdf (PDF alert)

I'm assuming you can read more than a cherry picked and out of context sentence or two of the evidence you requested, correct?

And yes, even taking your word for "treatment of a phobia" and assuming the passenger in question had such a phobia into consideration (and frankly there is no reason to do so) there is still a cause of action there. Why? Because of the duty, standard of care, foreseeability, benefit of the bargain and reasonable reliance factors. These are the barest basics of tort law. It's not exactly rocket science.

The specific question being addressed in the post you cherry-picked and chopped up involves the thin skull rule. The broader question centers around the duty created, the foreseeability of such an event occurring and standard of care required. You're jumping straight to an issue of credibility among dueling experts in a trial where the expert you back would have testimony that has no bearing whatsoever on the elements of law. Those elements being what determines whether a cause of action exists.

Obviously you cannot comprehend the entire point of the thread.

 

[goldcatt]

There is a prinicple in tort law that you cannot sue for emotional distress arising from an intentional tort (which the cruise ship fact pat is not; we dun know what happened but there's no reason to think anyone set the fire deliberately) unless there is a physical touching. The rule does not exist because there is a low value placed on mental health, but rather, because there is a skepticism that such claims may be no more than malingering. (BTW, this is a "rule" only in the sense that at one time, most common law cases adhered to it; the actual caselaw in any state may well be different and that is what controls.)

In the event that someone has a provable and quanitifable injury of a mental, emotional or psychiatric nature arising from this incident, I'm not sure whether they can collect or not. It may interest you to know, the manager of the BP Claims Facility believes the answer there is "no". BP's negligence or recklessness resulted in whole communities destroyed, local culture obliterated, lifelong work destroyed, wildlife killed, natural surroundings despoiled, etc.....and still, the attitude is, we do not compensate for any mental or emotional injury.

I can certainly see the proof problems and I recognize that malingering by a few plaintiffs will be a problem, but as I have said, if mental and emotional injuries can be proven and quantified, I see no reason to withhold compensation. If one of the cruise ship passengers has a severe panic disorder after getting to shore that he did not have before he boarded and as a result, he cannot work, why should Carnival get off the hook for his damages?

Unless you just subscribe to the rather backward notion that there just is no such thing as a mental illness or an emotional problem?

Whether it's quantifiable and causation established in the case of a thin skull plaintiff as described in the post in question is an evidentiary question. I think we've all been clear throughout the thread that a cause of action has to be based on a quantifiable harm. That's Rule #1, is it not?

 

[ConHog]

This whole argument is silly. Why in the hell is Madeline comparing this to a plane crash? No one was even injured here. Sure it's inconvenient not to have hot water or electricity for a few days, but it doesn't hurt anyone. Does Madeline sue her electric company when a snow storm knocks her power out for a few days? Why not, that shit causes injury.

I believe that unless neglect can be shown this will fall under Act of God, and no one is going to have a case.

As for arbitration, it can be a good thing if you have a fair and impartial arbitrator. I'm not 100% convinced that an individual should ever utilize it against a corporation though.

 

[Madeline]

Once again, I am just bumfuddled at the apparent hostility towards tort law. It's as if many here feel that suing to enforce your rights and seek damages, no matter how plain as day liability might be, is some sort of moral bankruptcy.

Do you overpay your taxes? Do you ask to have the value of your home reduced? Where else in your life are you willing to underwrite someone else's costs without any prior agreement to do so, and without any quid pro quo?

 

[ConHog]

Once again, I am just bumfuddled at the apparent hostility towards tort law. It's as if many here feel that suing to enforce your rights and seek damages, no matter how plain as day liability might be, is some sort of moral bankruptcy.

Do you overpay your taxes? Do you ask to have the value of your home reduced? Where else in your life are you willing to underwrite someone else's costs without any prior agreement to do so, and without any quid pro quo?

At this point you have ZERO evidence of culpability on Carnival's part and yet you are perfectly willing to sue, THAT is why people dislike and distrust lawyers for the most part. You're ready to sue despite not having any proof that anyone did anything wrong. If that is you actually are an attorney, which I doubt.

I hope my wife NEVER leaves the DA's office.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Unless you just subscribe to the rather backward notion that there just is no such thing as a mental illness or an emotional problem?

No not at all. I just don't see any example where a bad vacation or the thought of a fire that is already put out can cause or worsen a mental illness.

So you can't address the post as a whole and have to chop it up to change the topic and context. Thought so.

I did address the whole post. I only quoted the heart of the matter so as not to include unneeded pages of your ramblings. If you'd like, I can go back and paste in the entirety of the post, and you'll notice my response doesn't need to change to make the exact same point. In fact, you can't even point to any part of your post which I didn't quote which would in any way change either the part I did quote or my response. I just did the same to Maddie's quote above. Similarly, in the next quote from you, I'm going to remove all the garbage that doesn't add anything to the point. It doesn't mean I'm taking the quote out of context, or mangling it, or ignoring other things said in the post. It means I'm responding to the core of the issue. I don't see why you're so upset over quoting habits.

An average passenger who signs up for a pleasure cruise is NOT doing so as part of any treatment for an unrelated phobia under the care of a competent professional (phobia being a word you placed in my mouth, BTW) but to partake of a service offered as a leisure activity by a common carrier. To claim otherwise is dishonest and disingenuous at best.

You keep using that word dishonest. Did you read my thread about that? Do you need a relink? Adding on your poor communication skills is the idea that I put the word "phobia" in your mouth. I didn't. It came from my mouth, not yours, as a description of fearing something. Why does that upset you so much? Or are you just incapable of distinguishing my points from yours? Regardless, and seeing as you seemed to have overlooked the point to focus on victimizing yourself, I should restate what you missed: competent professional or not, phobias are alleviated with controlled exposure, and the fire was already out.

THE POINT you cannot seem to grasp nor do you wish to has nothing to do with a competent professional's treatment of a malady nobody ever claimed exists, but whether under the bargain struck and reasonable reliance created by the carrier's portrayal of the service offered there is a cause of action for harm suffered.

Something I've addressed in multiple posts in this thread: it it hard to make the claim that any harm or suffering befell the people of that trip. People have pointed to lost wages, not getting medical care, and eating spam, all of which had been later clarified as not applicable with facts that have been brought up. Similarly, your hypothetical psych suffering is baseless.

Yes, both tort and contract cases are routinely brought, tried and won where the harm is not physical in nature. See e.g.:

Negligently inflcted psychiatric harm
E LAW | A Remedy for Nervous Shock or Psychiatric Harm – Who Pays?
Nervous Shock and Psychiatric injury- How Far Compensatable?
http://www.ejcl.org/133/art133-6.pdf (PDF alert)

I'm sure there have been cases in the past when such a thing has happened, and I'm interested in seeing the circumstances. But you do realize the links you just provided are from Britain, Australia, and the Bahamas, right? You do realize we're in America and I was looking for American cases of psychiatric harm? I am genuinely interested in actual American cases, as I'm sure they've happened, but based on this response, my suspicions about your poor communication ability are growing.

And yes, even taking your word for "treatment of a phobia" and assuming the passenger in question had such a phobia into consideration (and frankly there is no reason to do so) there is still a cause of action there. Why? Because of the duty, standard of care, foreseeability, benefit of the bargain and reasonable reliance factors. These are the barest basics of tort law. It's not exactly rocket science.

So let's go through them. What duty did the company have? What was the standard of care? Was the incident foreseeable? As someone else mentioned, if there were any real emergencies, medical, psychiatric, or otherwise, people could have been flown from the ship. You have yet to show, in your hypothetical example, how someone with a fire phobia learning of a fire that was already put out would suffer.

This has been the question asked repeatedly, met with either ideas debunked by the facts of the case, or long stretches of hypothetical drivel.

And just to clarify for your communication hindrance: when I say drivel, it is I who is stating that word, not suggesting you said it. And when I responded to certain aspects of your post and not every single word, it's because I found the excess unneeded and unable to change the context of what I did quote. I'm sure you'll claim something else in this post is a straw man argument, victimize yourself further, and still have absolutely nothing to support it. I just figured I'd clarify for your sake here.

 

[Madeline]

SmarterThanHick wrote in part:

Quote: Originally Posted by Madeline

Unless you just subscribe to the rather backward notion that there just is no such thing as a mental illness or an emotional problem?

No not at all. I just don't see any example where a bad vacation or the thought of a fire that is already put out can cause or worsen a mental illness.

Fine by me if you think proof cannot be had on these facts, SmarterThanHick. That is an entirely different matter than declaring that even if a mental or emotional injury can be proven, you still oppose any recovery.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

no no, certainly not. attempted rape, for example, even if not successful, can still cause PTSD, among other things. I can certainly see some psych issue arising from situations, just not a sub-par vacation. Would you happen to know of any US case where damages were awarded based on emotional injury? I'd like to read the case.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

Sure, why not? I'm for supporting giving back what they lost ( cost of their time and monies from the promised trip that did not happen). Enough to put them back to 'even'. BUT, if they look to punish or go for jackpot justice, I hope the cruiseline is able to slap them back into getting nothing.

Compensation to make them 'whole', I support. Not to make them rich. THAT is bullshit. Disaster's happen, and it certainly sounds like this was a disaster for the line. They are lucky that this wasn't a "Morro Castle" style disaster.

SS Morro Castle (1930) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Middleman]

Once again, I am just bumfuddled at the apparent hostility towards tort law. It's as if many here feel that suing to enforce your rights and seek damages, no matter how plain as day liability might be, is some sort of moral bankruptcy.

Do you overpay your taxes? Do you ask to have the value of your home reduced? Where else in your life are you willing to underwrite someone else's costs without any prior agreement to do so, and without any quid pro quo?

People are sick of hearing about lawsuits about everything. Anytime anyone is inconvenienced, they want to claim emotional distress, because they are so incredibly histrionic and weak willed that they want to blame others for everything. Spill coffee on yourself because you were careless, then sue McDonalds. Trip over your own feet in the grocery store, then sue the store. The airplane has a mechanical problem and you miss your connecting flight, then sue the airline. Your childbirth has a complication, then sue the doctor.

 

[Madeline]

Once again, I am just bumfuddled at the apparent hostility towards tort law. It's as if many here feel that suing to enforce your rights and seek damages, no matter how plain as day liability might be, is some sort of moral bankruptcy.

Do you overpay your taxes? Do you ask to have the value of your home reduced? Where else in your life are you willing to underwrite someone else's costs without any prior agreement to do so, and without any quid pro quo?

People are sick of hearing about lawsuits about everything. Anytime anyone is inconvenienced, they want to claim emotional distress, because they are so incredibly histrionic and weak willed that they want to blame others for everything. Spill coffee on yourself because you were careless, then sue McDonalds. Trip over your own feet in the grocery store, then sue the store. The airplane has a mechanical problem and you miss your connecting flight, then sue the airline. Your childbirth has a complication, then sue the doctor.

Frivolous suits are a problem, Middleman. Federal courts even have a procedure to fine lawyers who file one such, and mayhaps we need more such rules. On the other hand, the law has to advance with science and technology. If we can prove today what we could not 10 years ago about the causation of an injury, the proof is now adequate and the case should not be rejected merely because it breaks new ground.

Baby, bathwater.....agreed?

 

[Madeline]

no no, certainly not. attempted rape, for example, even if not successful, can still cause PTSD, among other things. I can certainly see some psych issue arising from situations, just not a sub-par vacation. Would you happen to know of any US case where damages were awarded based on emotional injury? I'd like to read the case.

US cases where damages were awarded for intentional infliction of emotional distress without any allegations of touching, is that what you mean?

 

[Middleman]

I agree that people sometimes need legal recourse. However, the U.S. severely needs tort reform, especially in the area of medical malpractice.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Once again, I am just bumfuddled at the apparent hostility towards tort law. It's as if many here feel that suing to enforce your rights and seek damages, no matter how plain as day liability might be, is some sort of moral bankruptcy.

Do you overpay your taxes? Do you ask to have the value of your home reduced? Where else in your life are you willing to underwrite someone else's costs without any prior agreement to do so, and without any quid pro quo?

People are sick of hearing about lawsuits about everything. Anytime anyone is inconvenienced, they want to claim emotional distress, because they are so incredibly histrionic and weak willed that they want to blame others for everything. Spill coffee on yourself because you were careless, then sue McDonalds. Trip over your own feet in the grocery store, then sue the store. The airplane has a mechanical problem and you miss your connecting flight, then sue the airline. Your childbirth has a complication, then sue the doctor.

Well, it's that "give me somethin' for nothing" mentality that is rampant in this country. And there are many crooked lawyers out their that feed on it, and encourage it....Seriously, just look at what is being posted up here. No facts whatsoever, just baseless ASSUMPTIONS, but all be damned, SUE 'EM ANYWAY!

IT'S BEYONG DISGUSTING.

There is a need to for serious TORT reform, top to bottom. And these crooked lawyers need to be vociferously hunted down and tossed out of the profession on their ears.

 

[goldcatt]

I did address the whole post. I only quoted the heart of the matter so as not to include unneeded pages of your ramblings.

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.

If you'd like, I can go back and paste in the entirety of the post, and you'll notice my response doesn't need to change to make the exact same point. In fact, you can't even point to any part of your post which I didn't quote which would in any way change either the part I did quote or my response.

No, I can't. Because you would go off on your straw man whether you read and quoted the entirety of the post or not. I am not in control of your inability to comprehend or to stay on topic.

I just did the same to Maddie's quote above. Similarly, in the next quote from you, I'm going to remove all the garbage that doesn't add anything to the point. It doesn't mean I'm taking the quote out of context, or mangling it, or ignoring other things said in the post. It means I'm responding to the core of the issue. I don't see why you're so upset over quoting habits.

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

You keep using that word dishonest. Did you read my thread about that? Do you need a relink?

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.

Adding on your poor communication skills is the idea that I put the word "phobia" in your mouth. I didn't. It came from my mouth, not yours, as a description of fearing something.

"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. Thank you for being honest enough to admit it is something I never said, however if your idea of a phobia is any "fear" than perhaps I'm not the one who should be lectured on their knowledge of psychology.

Why does that upset you so much?

It doesn't. It merely cements my previous impression of you as an idiot. Que sera.

Or are you just incapable of distinguishing my points from yours?

Nice projection.

Regardless, and seeing as you seemed to have overlooked the point to focus on victimizing yourself, I should restate what you missed: competent professional or not, phobias are alleviated with controlled exposure, and the fire was already out.

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. The law does not decide treatment, the law takes into account quantifiable evidence then evaluates it according to defined legal elements in order to determine liability for quantifiable harms. You missed the boat on the entire purpose of the conversation.

Something I've addressed in multiple posts in this thread: it it hard to make the claim that any harm or suffering befell the people of that trip. People have pointed to lost wages, not getting medical care, and eating spam, all of which had been later clarified as not applicable with facts that have been brought up. Similarly, your hypothetical psych suffering is baseless.

Baseless according to what standard? The word of a person who claims fear = a phobia and has no concept of the rules and requirements of evidence?

I'm sure there have been cases in the past when such a thing has happened, and I'm interested in seeing the circumstances. But you do realize the links you just provided are from Britain, Australia, and the Bahamas, right? You do realize we're in America and I was looking for American cases of psychiatric harm?

You have a point here, since I was thinking three steps ahead of my audience. Prior to your post I made an edit - please see the new links added. The American Restatement was updated using the British and Commonwealth common law standards, since they are virtually identical to the majority rule in the US. An essay concerning this is one of the links posted. I also added a USSC case and a summary from an American respected professional association. In that regard, I did make an assumption you knew something about the common law legal system and basic information in the field of legal psychology which anyone who's dealt with the subject and/or the courts in recent years would have kept up with - and one I was remiss in making, obviously. Error corrected.

I am genuinely interested in actual American cases, as I'm sure they've happened, but based on this response, my suspicions about your poor communication ability are growing.

Then don't read my posts and confuse yourself. Problem solved!

So let's go through them. What duty did the company have?

First premises here. What do you know about the duty of care assigned to common carriers serving the public? I'm assuming from the rest of your posts not much.

Not having seen the contract to know if there is a choice of laws provision stating otherwise, I will assume CA has jurisdiction as the point of origin and disembarkment.

Under California law, common carriers are held to a higher standard of care than other transportation services or even other drivers. Civil Code §2100 states that common carriers "must use the utmost care and diligence for [passengers'] safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill."

As part of this heightened standard of care, common carriers owe many duties to their passengers, including:

The duty to safely transport passengers to their destinations
(snip)
The duty to provide safe vehicles and maintain the safety of those vehicles
(snip)
The duties common carriers owe to their passengers may begin before the passenger ever steps foot on the bus, plane or other mode of transportation. So long as the common carrier has accepted a person as a passenger and the passenger has placed himself or herself in the carrier's care, then the common carrier has a duty to take every reasonable step to ensure the safety of the passenger. Furthermore, the carrier's duties do not automatically end once a passenger leaves the vehicle. The common carrier must take the passenger to his or her intended destination and leave the passenger in a safe place.

When a common carrier fails to uphold its duties to its passengers are injured as a result, the common carrier can be held legally liable for these injuries.

California Public Transportation Accidents on the Rise

What was the standard of care?

Included in above.

Was the incident foreseeable?

Unknown. This is where my previous post concerning facts I would need to see before making a final determination comes into play, especially but not limited to as it concerns the actual cause of the fire. From the passenger's point of view, absolutely not. There is no contributory negligence here, eggshell plaintiff or not.

As someone else mentioned, if there were any real emergencies, medical, psychiatric, or otherwise, people could have been flown from the ship. You have yet to show, in your hypothetical example, how someone with a fire phobia learning of a fire that was already put out would suffer.

You have yet to prove otherwise, or to show any proof of the fact that the passengers were unaware of the fire until after it was put out - a fact that seems to be belied by the story linked in the OP, since passengers were evacuated to the deck immediately. Not that it matters as to the "point" you were making about the hypothetical given to illustrate an unrelated legal concept. Unless you have evidence that the eggshell plaintiff does not exist and/or is not entitled to compensation? I'm the only one offering any proof beyond my own hot air in this conversation. Methinks it's long past time for you to put up or shut up.

This has been the question asked repeatedly, met with either ideas debunked by the facts of the case, or long stretches of hypothetical drivel.

Again, you showcase your reading comprehension problems. 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. Literacy is a valuable skill to have.

And just to clarify for your communication hindrance: when I say drivel, it is I who is stating that word, not suggesting you said it. And when I responded to certain aspects of your post and not every single word, it's because I found the excess unneeded and unable to change the context of what I did quote. I'm sure you'll claim something else in this post is a straw man argument, victimize yourself further, and still have absolutely nothing to support it. I just figured I'd clarify for your sake here.

That would be because you're ignoring every point I made in every post on this thread including the one you butchered and substituting your own unrelated "point", then attacking it. In other words, building a straw man. You cannot address the points I actually did make, you simply dismiss them as "hypothetical".

No shit, sherlock. The entire point of the only piece of any of my posts you apparently read was as a hypothetical to illustrate a general legal concept - one you have yet to mention, let alone begin to grasp or have a rational and germane argument with. The hypothetical itself doesn't matter, it is only a teaching tool. The actual point it is given to illustrate is what matters. That's hypotheticals 101. Learn it, live it, love it.

I'll address your next post (and I know there will be one, you just can't help yourself from diving in with both feet in your mouth) only if you cut the crap and address my actual points rather than keep building straw men. Your logical fallacies are somewhat entertaining, but getting old fast.