Carnival Spirit - Cyclone Pam Class Action

Front page from today's Hobart Mercury newspaper.

http://www.themercury.com.au/carnival-spirit-passengers-bound-for-new-caledonia-sue-after-being-taken-to-hobart/story-fnj3twbb-1227513092621

Will be interesting to see where this goes. I would have been devastated being a Hobartian if I was on that cruise as well, but taking 2,000 passengers into an cyclone zone would have been irresponsible.

If my memory serves me correctly, I think there was an also a cyclone off far north Queensland as well, that limited other diversionary options.

Personally I don't think they have much hope of success, but I'm no lawyer.

I imagine Carnival will throw some pretty hefty legal types to defend this.

Imagine how many law suits there would have been if the Captain had knowingly taken the passengers under his care , into a cyclone.

It happens all the time from Fort Lauderdale in their cyclone season. Any cruises from there , at that time , can be a mystery cruise as they play dodgems with the hurricanes.:D

I think the passenger cruise contract says, in effect, that they can take you anywhere. Obviously, itineraries are not changed unless there is a good reason, and in this case, there was a very good reason. I cannot see the legal action getting anywhere, but maybe this 'event' was not handled well by the cruiseline or the captain at the time.

Personally I agree with a change for safety reasons, but in this case knowledge of the situation was available well prior to sailing, so there may be a case to answer.

wasnt the passengers offered a full refund with the change of itinerary and if they didnt take up that option they dont have a leg to stand on because it would be in the t&c

some greedy lawyer wants to take Carnival to court

wasnt the passengers offered a full refund with the change of itinerary and if they didnt take up that option they dont have a leg to stand on because it would be in the t&c

some greedy lawyer wants to take Carnival to court

They have to update their cars somehow..:D:D

Personally I agree with a change for safety reasons, but in this case knowledge of the situation was available well prior to sailing, so there may be a case to answer.

Wasn't the cyclone forecast to travel in a south east direction (away from Vanuatu & New Caledonia) then it changed direction toward Vanuatu. Are you saying that knowledge of it changing direction was available well before sailing? If so when was this known?

Personally I agree with a change for safety reasons, but in this case knowledge of the situation was available well prior to sailing, so there may be a case to answer.

were the passengers offered a full refund if they didnt cruise and if so they dont have a case to answer

Article also in NSW Daily Telegraph today. Pax were notified 3 hours after the cruise commenced. Good luck to them, but at the end of the day I think the only winners will be the Lawyers for both sides.

Looking at our Passage Contract for an upcoming Princess cruise (I imagine contracts would be very similar as Princess & Carnival both have same parent company), I reckon the litigants are relying on para 3 of the Ship & itinerary changes clause.

If the change was made only 3 hours after departure, then it may be argued that Carnival would have known that a significant change to the itinerary was more than likely going to be made prior to departure. These decisions would not be made lightly, and to organise the logistics required in Hobart & Melbourne (wharf availability etc) would take some time.

Copy of passage contract:

Ship & itinerary changes

We will do everything we reasonably can to make sure everything goes according to plan; however, sometimes changes can happen that may affect your holiday experience. This could include weather, mechanical difficulties, civil unrest or any other unforeseen circumstances.

In addition, we may charter all or part of the ship, or remove the ship from service where this becomes necessary. We may change the itinerary, ship or cancel the cruise due to operational or commercial requirements.

We will notify you of these changes as soon as we can. Where we cancel a cruise or make a significant change to the ports in your itinerary prior to departure, you will have the choice of:

the new itinerary:

an alternative cruise of comparable standard, if available; or

cancelling the cruise for a full refund of your fare paid.

Once your cruise has commenced, if we are required to change the itinerary or cancel the cruise due to safety, maritime law, severe weather or to protect human life or health, we are not required to provide any compensation, unless consumer laws provide otherwise. With this in mind, please do not make any important arrangements or meetings based on the proposed itinerary.

Article also in NSW Daily Telegraph today. Pax were notified 3 hours after the cruise commenced. Good luck to them, but at the end of the day I think the only winners will be the Lawyers for both sides.

Well at least a story with a happy ending

But

I suspect the plaintiff's lawyers will be on no win no fee.

I'll go on record right now.

This will never see the inside of a Court room.

It will settle on terms not to be disclosed.

wasnt the passengers offered a full refund with the change of itinerary and if they didnt take up that option they dont have a leg to stand on because it would be in the t&c

 

some greedy lawyer wants to take Carnival to court

Would this still be your opinion if it was to happen to you?:)

On both ships and aircraft -- I DON'T WANT TO GO ANYWHERE THAT THE CAPTAIN DOESN'T WANT TO GO!!!

Barry

I suspect the plaintiff's lawyers will be on no win no fee.

Good call!

Very poor reporting interpretation: "IN a case that could benefit all cruise-lovers"

Voyager of the seas also redirected all the way to Hobart, from its Fiji destination, for the same reason. Though perhaps some opportunistic types think that was just for malicious reasons as well, rather than due to the conditions.

Cyclones change direction and intensity continually and predictions even hours before are not 100% reliable. Their case is apparently entirely based on a claim that Carnival knew days before the announcement that they would be unable to travel to the South pacific, and therefore the passengers would be entitled to a full refund based on the terms.

Given the uncertainty in predictions, and the fact changes to all cruise lines were made on those very days of sailing or before arrival - and not before then - there aren't any apparent grounds for this claim.

I suspect, as gut commented above, the lawyers hope is the line settles to avoid the cost and publicity of the case. If so, that's a poor ethical tactic.

The line still tried to deliver the best holiday it could. While the weather is not the passenger's fault, nor is it the cruise lines.

this is a copy & paste from else where so if this is true do they have a case?

This is what Carnival posted at the time in response to a post by one of those affected.......... "We appreciate and acknowledge that the itinerary was very different to what you had planned for your holiday, We endeavour at all times to create a fun and memorable holiday for our guests and strive to not make changes to plans unless the safety and security of our guests and crew is impacted.

When Carnival Spirit departed last week, Cyclone Pam was forecast to track East (avoiding our intended destinations) and we therefore still fully intended to head to the South Pacific as planned. We continued to carefully watch the forecast closely. However, Mother Nature decided to not work with us, and the forecast unexpectedly changed, and Cyclone Pam started to veer West. At this point, we could no longer safely deliver the intended itinerary. So, the decision was taken to change the itinerary to Tasmania/Melbourne and guests were informed as soon as this decision was made.

We thank you for your understanding that these were very exceptional circumstances. We understand that you were not able to prepare for the change in destination or pack adequately for the differing climate, but for the safety of you and our crew, this was the best decision at the time."

On both ships and aircraft -- I DON'T WANT TO GO ANYWHERE THAT THE CAPTAIN DOESN'T WANT TO GO!!!

 

Barry

I'll drink to that Barry.

On both ships and aircraft -- I DON'T WANT TO GO ANYWHERE THAT THE CAPTAIN DOESN'T WANT TO GO!!!

 

Barry

Ditto!

Might pack an animal onesie, just in case the cruise diverts to somewhere cold!

A few people on here seem to be mischievously ignoring the message about the reason for the action these people are taking.

They are annoyed that the ship left port in the first place ....... because it is highly suspected that the departure occurred to prevent the need to fully refund the passenger fares.

I think they have a very good point.

this is a copy & paste from else where so if this is true do they have a case?

 

This is what Carnival posted at the time in response to a post by one of those affected.......... "We appreciate and acknowledge that the itinerary was very different to what you had planned for your holiday, We endeavour at all times to create a fun and memorable holiday for our guests and strive to not make changes to plans unless the safety and security of our guests and crew is impacted.

 

When Carnival Spirit departed last week, Cyclone Pam was forecast to track East (avoiding our intended destinations) and we therefore still fully intended to head to the South Pacific as planned. We continued to carefully watch the forecast closely. However, Mother Nature decided to not work with us, and the forecast unexpectedly changed, and Cyclone Pam started to veer West. At this point, we could no longer safely deliver the intended itinerary. So, the decision was taken to change the itinerary to Tasmania/Melbourne and guests were informed as soon as this decision was made.

 

We thank you for your understanding that these were very exceptional circumstances. We understand that you were not able to prepare for the change in destination or pack adequately for the differing climate, but for the safety of you and our crew, this was the best decision at the time."

In my opinion no.

But as previously stated I see settlement.

this is a copy & paste from else where so if this is true do they have a case?

 

This is what Carnival posted at the time in response to a post by one of those affected.......... "We appreciate and acknowledge that the itinerary was very different to what you had planned for your holiday, We endeavour at all times to create a fun and memorable holiday for our guests and strive to not make changes to plans unless the safety and security of our guests and crew is impacted.

 

When Carnival Spirit departed last week, Cyclone Pam was forecast to track East (avoiding our intended destinations) and we therefore still fully intended to head to the South Pacific as planned. We continued to carefully watch the forecast closely. However, Mother Nature decided to not work with us, and the forecast unexpectedly changed, and Cyclone Pam started to veer West. At this point, we could no longer safely deliver the intended itinerary. So, the decision was taken to change the itinerary to Tasmania/Melbourne and guests were informed as soon as this decision was made.

 

We thank you for your understanding that these were very exceptional circumstances. We understand that you were not able to prepare for the change in destination or pack adequately for the differing climate, but for the safety of you and our crew, this was the best decision at the time."

A few people on here seem to be mischievously ignoring the message about the reason for the action these people are taking.

 

They are annoyed that the ship left port in the first place ....... because it is highly suspected that the departure occurred to prevent the need to fully refund the passenger fares.

 

I think they have a very good point.

Well if the first part posted is what was distributed, they've got their work cut out proving that the change was decided before the ship departed and I expect the predictions for the Cyclone would be resdily available.

I didn't see any mischievous avoidance, and gave a number of reasons why they don't appear to have a case. And agree with gut's assessment that it's a play to coerce a settlement.