Jenal2

I realize this video is just the opinion of one woman,  but she seems to have done her homework and deemed Princess to have the best COVID safety measures in place, mainly because of the Medallion program.  Pretty interesting and gives me some hope that I will still be be able to cruise on the Caribbean Princess on 6-26.

35 minutes ago, Kwaj girl said:

If masks work so well....why do case numbers keep going up?  🙄 NO, I will not wear a useless mask.  😡

 Because of selfish, ignorant people who refuse to wear them. 

We are obviously all cruisers here.  We love cruising.  My attitude toward whatever negative things might occur during a cruise (bad weather, cancellation of ports, unruly customers, even bad food), has always been that I refuse to let it ruin my cruise.  My vacation.  I’d still rather be on a cruise ship then sitting in my office.  
 

Would I like to be able to cruise without wearing a mask?  Of course.  But that is not the world we are living in right now.   I’d still much rather be on a cruise ship wearing a mask, then in my office without it.  

10 hours ago, Incognito1 said:

Do you think Dr. Fauci is an idiot?

Of course not, and he doesn’t say that

On 2/8/2021 at 3:22 AM, TechPotato said:

I just realized that I was off of the OP's question. But my answer is not yes or no. It is:

 

Yes I will sail if masks are required. I will NOT sail if masks are NOT required (while there is still a pandemic).

 

I just don't get the people who believe they have the "right" to put others (and themselves) at unnecessary risk because they don't want to limit themselves.

 

You do not have the "right" to drive 100 km/h (60 MPH) on a residential street because you think that usually nobody will get hurt either. It's the same thing.

Well said.  The degree of selfishness is unfathomable. 

On 2/7/2021 at 10:53 PM, cattolica said:

I am actually amazed that people are worried about cruising.    I was raised that vacations were a gift.    I am in my early 60’s.   My parents were raised during the depression.  There weren’t many vacations.

  The absolute furthest thing from my mind is when will I be able to take a vacation.  
It is time to sit back and ponder your life.   You may actually realize that a vacation is at the very bottom of that list.   I am very thankful that my husband and I have taken some unbelievable trips.    We are now sitting back and enjoying all those memories. 
Thanks for listening to my thoughts.  
 

You do realize this is a cruising website, right?

On 2/7/2021 at 8:07 AM, Castaway Cowgirl said:

Yes but I don’t like it and I agree with those who say masks are pointless 

Anyone who says that is an idiot

On 10/13/2019 at 11:55 AM, time4u2go said:

If I'm understand you correctly, you are occupying one chair and saving 3 unoccupied chairs for "a few hours".  Not to sound harsh, but it sounds like you are contributing to the problem.  I don't think that being there with the unoccupied chairs makes it OK.

They are not contributing to the problem, they are the problem

A plaintiff can bring allegations about anything they want. I can sue you and allege that you're a brain-eating alien from the planet Graznaxx if I want. The test is whether or not my claims are substantiated in court, and claiming that failing to monitor 800 cameras (I got that number from the case you cited, by the way) simultaneously 24/7 is negligence is no less ludicrous than me claiming you're from another world.

 

 

 

Oh, and the post you're looking for is 523 in which, by the way, I took the time to actually read the case you cited and pointed out where you're entirely wrong in your conclusions regarding it.

And with that nonsense I rest my case

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Not in the least, because as you (should?) know, the denial of a motion to dismiss says nothing about the merits of an argument, and tells you nothing about whether down the road the case will survive the inevitable motion by the cruise line, nor whether you would even be allowed that line of question by the judge in the unlikely event the case goes to trial. In fact, Tello doesn't tell us any more than the denial of the dismissal told us in the instant case, since it is the same procedural step in both cases. So using it to try to buttress your reasoning is inapt.

Thank you for further pointing out your complete lack of knowledge as to how court cases actually work. At a deposition, which is what I was talking about to begin with, I can question a witness about pretty much whatever I want. Tello is an example of how a plaintiff can bring allegations that failure to monitor cameras constitutes negligence. If I make that allegation then of course I can question their witnesses about it. And at trial, no judge would preclude you from questioning the witnesses about it, unless they had previously decided that as a matter of law it cannot constitute negligence, which is extremely unlikely because it is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I am judging you by my own extensive experience dealing with attorneys, and I see none of the writing skills, temperament, nor logical reasoning that I expect from someone that claims to be an attorney. Just my opinion, formed through the lens of decades of experience.

 

 

 

On the Internet anyone can claim to be anything.

And anyone can claim to have extensive experience that they don’t actually have

That was an interesting read. Thanks for the reference. The crux of that case, though, was the fact that the drunken victim actually did encounter crew and that they observed him staggering and disorientated, and they did nothing to address it. In fact, the crew even admitted "something was wrong." RCI later lied to the family and told them he committed suicide when in fact, he fell overboard from a service ladder that he attempted to climb down.

 

I believe the monitoring of cameras would have better standing in that case because the crew was aware of this person's condition and was aware he was wandering around unattended. The crew should have alerted security and they should have engaged the CCTV system to find him.

 

But like you said, the non monitoring of cameras was but 1 of numerous failures cited in the motion. In that case, I'm totally on the side of the plaintiff.

 

But what I'm curious of, is whether or not that particular piece was an element of the final decision. What I just read was a motion to dismiss.

I agree with you and was wondering the same. The point being that it would not be out of the question to cross examine RIC about it in this case either. I never said it was a slam dunk winning argument, but it’s an argument nonetheless. I’m guessing that case settled before a final decision was rendered

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Impressive legal insights from other bad cases. Google is awesome, not to mention working for law firms that specialize in suing cruise ships.

 

 

 

JC

It’s called Westlaw and I have never sued a cruise ship in my life. Any other profound insights?

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Yea. Been involved in court cases and lawyer arguments. It doesn’t have to be true or fact. You don’t have to argue the facts. It’s just like Fake News.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

You clearly don’t understand

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I read it the first few times you have posted it, Perry Mason, esquire.

 

 

 

Nobody is attacking you. However almost all cameras in public are not monitored so suddenly you are going to make hay in court attacking the concept that security cameras are not watched in real time? That makes me wonder if basic facts are so easily attacked in court that we should not be surprised when justice often fails to come from a verdict.

 

 

 

That and the fact that anyone can say they are a lawyer, doctor or Indian chief here, and it is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

 

 

So, let’s settle on healthy skepticism in stead of attacking you.:halo::evilsmile::')

 

 

 

JC

I couldn’t care less what you believe. But you might want to read my recent posts about the law.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

You say that, but then you said (when asked what you would use for precedence in order to "have a field day")...

 

 

 

 

 

THAT'S why I was prompting you to make up your mind. I wasn't referring to this particular case.

 

 

 

I'm guessing you (among others on this thread) THINK you know how security cameras work (or should work). I, and others, have pointed out how things work "in the real world".

 

 

 

I believe YOU brought up how you're friends with RCI's head of security. I think it would be good information to have on whether RCI monitors all security cameras (on board as well as on land). The head of security would surely have that information. If you don't think it's worth asking him, that's fine.

I will ask him when I see him but please read what I just posted about negligence. Nobody has to make up their mind but the jury. I have simply stated what I believe based on my personal and professional background. I don’t know how cameras work but I know how the law works. And if I am not mistaken this thread is about a court case.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I hear what you're saying and I'm trying to keep it civil, but I'm still curious what your argument would be if there is no law, policy or duty to real-time monitor one's own cameras, especially when applied to a ship of a foreign state when on the high seas. On what grounds would you have a field day?

Another one where the court refused to dismiss the case is Doe v RCI from 2011. It’s a similar situation, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted on a ship. Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that “the cameras were operable and continuously monitored but that the employees watching the cameras were not paying attention or were not properly trained to react to what they were seeing”.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I hear what you're saying and I'm trying to keep it civil, but I'm still curious what your argument would be if there is no law, policy or duty to real-time monitor one's own cameras, especially when applied to a ship of a foreign state when on the high seas. On what grounds would you have a field day?

No reason not to be civil.

First, let me say that I am not talking about arguing legal authority in court or winning the case, but rather cross examining someone who tells me that they think they are not responsible because even though they have security cameras they don’t have people watching them.

But what we are really talking about here is a claim for negligence, which can encompass millions of different actions. Just because there is not a specific law covering that specific action or non-action, doesn’t mean it doesn’t amount to actionable negligence.

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”. RCI’s Motion to Dismiss that count of the complaint was denied. Again, this does not mean that their actions definitely violated the law. That is ultimately for a jury to decide. But the point is that a reasonable argument can be made that they did, which brings me back to my point about cross-examine their rep.

Make sense?

Sent from my iPad using Forums

That’s what I thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

Some of you crack me up. You swear you know everything there is to know about everything. You got me, that law degree hanging from my wall must be fake...

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Why don’t you take this outside and once settled, come back and join us. You seem to have a quick tigger.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

No, I just don’t appreciate people telling me what to do. Why is everyone attacking me but nobody has a problem with another poster snidely telling me that I have to make up my mind? I don’t have to do anything.

I don’t start problems, but when attacked I will certainly defend myself. We have a bunch of people stating as a matter of fact what will or will not happen with the lawsuit, but nobody has a problem with it. My point was, and still is, that I were cross examining a corporate representative whose defense was, yes we have cameras but we don’t really monitor them, I would have a field day with them on cross-examination. I stand by that.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

You say you’re a lawyer and you would have a field day with this defense yet when asked, you don’t provide any reference or info on why not watching cameras is wrong. Exactly what kind of lawyer are you?

What kind of lawyer are you?

Sent from my iPad using Forums

By what legal analysis is this YOUR business but not the poster who questioned you? Are you SURE you are an attorney, because it sure isn't coming across that way in your posts.

 

 

 

Somehow I won't be surprised if you never 'get around' to checking this.

And you are judging me on what, your extensive knowledge about me, both personally and professionally? You are clearly just just trying out argue for the sake of arguing. If I say I will get around to it then I will.

If you were to take the time to read all of the posts you would see that I was responding to that person telling me that I had to “make up my mind”. Like I told them, I don’t have to do anything, but I certainly wont make up my mind until I am ready to.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Wow. Defensive much? It's a public message board. You don't want people commenting on what you post, don't post.

There you go again telling me what to do again. Comment all you want but don’t tell me that I have it make up my mind, or that I have to do anything really. Intelligent people do the research before making up their mind. That’s what I intend to do.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I would suggest making up your mind. Why not ask RCI's head of security what the cameras are for? Seems like an easy way to get the answer.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

My cases rarely go to trial but I've sat through more motions than I can count. I don't remember that specific argument being brought up regarding on-ship cases, but it's been raised numerous times in other land-based venues. Not once did I see a ruling that said the business owner had a duty to monitor security cameras.

 

But let me turn this around. You say you're a lawyer and you would "have a field day," so you should be able to find precedent or a bench decision ruling that the owner does have a duty to monitor. If you're going to have a field day, you have to be able to cite something to this affect. I'd like for you to share that with me so I can read it.

I don’t know whether I could or not, but I was curious as to your experience since you said you have been involved in cases like this. If I have time over the weekend I will check it out.

Sent from my iPad using Forums