Parents, please note -a serious issue- almost a big problem on Dawn 12/19

[stbmom]

Okay, I am going to be flamed for this one, but here goes: maybe people with teenagers should chose a cruise that does cater to them as opposed to one that does not. Blaming the cruise line for not having activities to entertain your kids seems a bit odd. Isn't a family vacation about being with family? There are several cruise lines that cater to teenagers - RCCL for instance (rock walls, in-line skating, miniature golf, movie theatre, etc.). The reason NCL may not have teen activities is because they would rather not be a "teen" ship. I for one would love to see a cruise line that was reasonably priced, but limited the number of kids on board. To try to force all cruise lines to cater to teenagers and small children leave no choice for adults who don't want that atmosphere.
Also, obsene phone calls is not a result of kids not having a teen program. That is not the first time those girls did something like that.
Then the whole incident with the child being hit in the eye - by a total stranger. That is beyond acceptable. How in the world can anyone justify that as "kids being kids", that is a violent person who needs counseling, not to be sailing the seas with 3,000 innocent potential victims. Times really are changing, I never thought this would happen on a cruise. Wow.

[bUU]

[quote name='DocJohnB']I would tend to agree with you except for the fact that I believe that maritime law gives more flexibility to the Captain of a vessel.[/QUOTE]Maritime law may have little bearing on [b]civil[/b] lawsuits against a cruise line. When you sue someone, it is a matter for civil courts not criminal courts, and jurisdiction is either specified by the contract for the service provided or implicitly the location where the service provider maintains a business domicile within the country (whereas for criminal matters, different jurisdictions can independently say that the other has jurisdiction).

[QUOTE]If he [b]thinks [/b]that the actions of a individual are so irresponsible that he orders them off the ship (doesn't even have to prove they are irresponsible), courts would have a most difficult time overruling his decision.[/QUOTE]I disagree. Civil courts would have only limited concern and possibly no respect for what the Captain [i]thought[/i]. The judgement will be based on the evidence presented, and in the light of domestic civil law (not Maritime law), as biased or incomplete as that evidence may be.

Also, as you did grant, Maritime law has no bearing on the impact of an effort by the transgressor or the transgressor's parents to impune the reputation of the cruise line publicly. While it sounds nice in theory to say that the master of the ship is his own law, it isn't true in reality in a consumer-oriented market scenario.

[joeyancho]

Moral of the Story..............Never, ever, take a cruise when school is out of session. Most parents don't parent anymore, especially on a cruise. Second Moral of the Story.........send your kid to karate class.........

[emcemt]

[quote name='karfest']Emcemt- I should have known you would show up with an insightful comment.
I am assuming your cruise was okay since we didn't hear about it. But then we know what happens when we assume.


(sorry, this is not my usual type of post but people are really getting my goat today...baaahhh.)

Thank you to the parties who were involved in this awful mess for clarifying that there was really just 1 teen out of hundreds who was out of control and that the family was put out at the next port (which happened to be NY) You are all to be commended for giving us the information and also follwing up on it. I am taking my older teens on our next cruise and followed this with interest.[/QUOTE]


Well I guess you missed my review of the Dawn then. Yes it was a good cruise (thanks for asking). My problem is with the customer service aspect of NCL. Maybe you should investigate things a little more before posting such information. If you dont like my posts then block me out. Doesn't change the fact that NCL probably has some of the worst customer service in the industry.

[karfest]

Sorry-

I shouldn't post when I'm having a bad day at work. I'm glad you enjoyed your cruise.

[Host CMLA]

[quote name='emcemt'] My problem is with the customer service aspect of NCL. Doesn't change the fact that NCL probably has some of the worst customer service in the industry.[/QUOTE] I got the impression that the original poster was happy with what NCL could do during their cruise to help the situation. NCL, like all other cruise lines, may not have the best customer service but how does it relate to this situation when it seems that NCL did the best they could to help this family? It can be your opinion that you don't like NCL or the experience you had with their customer service but it doesn't seem to fit on this thread. Just my opinion.

[DocJohnB]

[quote name='bicker']
I disagree. Civil courts would have only limited concern and possibly no respect for what the Captain [i]thought[/i]. The judgement will be based on the evidence presented, and in the light of domestic civil law (not Maritime law), as biased or incomplete as that evidence may be.
[/QUOTE]

I am not a lawyer nor in any way legally trained and I have the feeling that you may be.

However, having said that: Isn't contractual law a part of civil law. If it is then the Captain, IMO, is still covered by the contract between the cruise line and the passenger. To quote from a cruise line brochure:

"[B]Refusal of Passage[/B]: Passage may be refused to any guest, and any guest's cruise may be terminated at any time, at the risk and expense of the departing guest, where, in the opinion of the ship's captain or physician, a guest is unfit for travel or a risk or danger to himself or herself or a disturbance or danger to others. Such guest may be left at any port or place at which the ship calls without any liability to (the cruise line). The (cruise line) shall not be required to refund any amount paid by any guest who must leave the cruise prematurely for any of the reasons set forth above or otherwise, no shall (the cruise line) be responsible for lodging, meals, return transportation or other expenses incurred by the guest."

[DocJohnB]

[quote name='Host Cecilia']I got the impression that the original poster was happy with what NCL could do during their cruise to help the situation. NCL, like all other cruise lines, may not have the best customer service but how does it relate to this situation when it seems that NCL did the best they could to help this family? It can be your opinion that you don't like NCL or the experience you had with their customer service but it doesn't seem to fit on this thread. Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Cecelia: You are correct in your assumption. However, a little later down the thread, [B]Capesteno[/B] posted of an incident that happened on the same cruise and did not get the same satisfaction from NCL that the OP did.

[bUU]

The Refusal of Passage clause renders the contract bereft of the required "obligation to perform". It gives one party to the contract unconditional power over the other, and is therefore unenforceable.

[emcemt]

Like DocjohnB stated I was responding to Capesteno's post...sorry to diverge from the OP but I found Capesteno's post more akin to NCL customer service. Although I have said it before and will say it again...The crew on the Dawn were awesome when I cruised but NCl but theier customer service was lacking. Come on ....you dont think an international company has a formal incident report?

[Host CMLA]

[quote name='emcemt']Like DocjohnB stated I was responding to Capesteno's post...sorry to diverge from the OP but I found Capesteno's post more akin to NCL customer service. [/QUOTE] Thanks for the explanation. It wasn't clear who you were responding to. Now I know. Thanks.

[NoPiratesPlease]

As MsEscada's other half, I can tell you we WERE satisfied with how NCL handle our problem with this teen. Generally service on NCL is the best of all the major cruise lines we've been on, including the Queen's Grill on the QE2. There are always things that are less than satisfactory (service in the Dawn's Java Cafe is an example) but usually small.

CapeSteno's experience on the very same cruise was different and upsetting--I DID see the boy who had been hit the next day. Our issues were resolved. Clearly, CapeSteno's were not.

[smeyer418]

[quote name='bicker']The Refusal of Passage clause renders the contract bereft of the required "obligation to perform". It gives one party to the contract unconditional power over the other, and is therefore unenforceable.[/QUOTE]
No its not unenforceable, it can be enforced the issue is whether the captain judgement under the crircumstances was reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. That is the legal standard in Florida for this type of contract clause. As a lawyer I have no idea what "obligation to perform" is. Not a legal term I ever heard of.

[Host CMLA]

It's terrible that your son was involved in such an unnecessary incident. Young people can be very foolish and your son unfortunately was on the short end of the stick in this situation. I hope he's healed and been able to get past this having learned a lesson about how important it is to be responsible for one's actions. Your son was responsible. The other teen wasn't. Your son will more than likely reap the benefits of his wisdom in the future. [quote name='capesteno'] Additionally, I've been told that there was drinking going on in this this underaged teenager club. [/quote] I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way but teenagers will usually take advantage of any opportunity to drink. At least most 18, 19 and 20 year olds do. In my opinion, it doesn't sound outrageous to know that some teens may have been drinking. I don't condone it but it's not that far fetched. I took my first cruise in 1984 when I was 14. We found ways to sneak a Strawberry Daquiri. :) [quote] NCL was more concerned about their own welfare.[/quote] I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. I don't see how the situation you described helps them lookout for their own welfare. If they don't help in the situation it only creates bad will between you and the cruiseline. That's not looking out for their welfare which is to make money by keeping you happy. I think in your case someone messed up. They do have a standard incident report. They will contact local authorities when something happens onboard. Someone dropped the ball and that's not acceptable when someone is assaulted. You don't like the food...that's subjective. Your son gets assaulted...that's criminal. Someone dropped the ball on this one and I don't think that indicates NCL is looking out for their own welfare.

[bUU]

[quote name='smeyer418']No its not unenforceable, it can be enforced the issue is whether the captain judgement under the crircumstances was reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. That is the legal standard in Florida for this type of contract clause. As a lawyer I have no idea what "obligation to perform" is. Not a legal term I ever heard of.[/QUOTE]You contradicted yourself. The earlier poster's assertion was that the Refusal of Passage clause protects the cruise line and captain from civil court sanctions based on the captain's opinion that there was a risk. As you correctly pointed out, the clause is unenforceable because the legal threshold is what is [i]reasonable [/i]rather than the opinion of an employee of one party to the contract[i]. [/i]The court will ignore the clause and, as I said, make its own decision on the evidence presented to it.

"Obligation to perform" is one of the required aspects of a legal contract. It is related to, but not the same as, "consideration."

[ChrisConnolly]

I didn't get a chance to read the entire thread, but let me state some facts about the garden villa.. Both the elevator and the entrance are keycarded and always locked.. After you get past that safety check there are another set of doors that are always keycarded and locked. If someone wanted to "infiltrate" the garden villa then they would have a much better chance scaling the wall adjacent to the sports court.


I'm not passing judgement just did a survey lastnight.. Regarding the "teenager" issue.. Currently on the dawn 12/30 cruise I'm on, there are lots of teenagers, none of who have I seen behaving badly. There have also been many activities for them to participate in....

Parents that blame the cruiseline for their kids actions should maybe take a closer look at themselves.

Chris Connolly <== hit the wheel of fortune jackpot last night.

[DocJohnB]

[quote name='bicker']You contradicted yourself. The earlier poster's assertion was that the Refusal of Passage clause protects the cruise line and captain from civil court sanctions based on the captain's opinion that there was a risk. As you correctly pointed out, the clause is unenforceable because the legal threshold is what is [i]reasonable [/i]rather than the opinion of an employee of one party to the contract[i]. [/i]The court will ignore the clause and, as I said, make its own decision on the evidence presented to it.
[/QUOTE]

Bicker,

Again, I am not a legal type so your paragraph is totally confusing to me when applied to smeyer418's response. Just where did he contradict himself in the following: [QUOTE]No its not unenforceable, it can be enforced the issue is whether the captain judgement under the crircumstances was reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. [/QUOTE]

not unenforceable = enforcable.

My last two thoughts on this issue of this thread.

1) I still believe the Captain has the absolute authority to remove passengers from the ship if he feels justified.

2) I, for one, would never question or test that authority by assuming that I could sue and win in civil court.

[chatisfaction]

I think what it means is that if this type of case does come to court the 'captains opinion' will not matter. The court will decide if the circumstances warrented the actions the cruise line took. If the courts decide the cruise line over reacted by putting parties off the ship the line will be responsible to compensate them. The clause saying they can do it just based on the captain's opinion won't protect them.

That"s what I think bicker means. I have no legal opinion on this myself. Don't have the qualifications to have one.

[bUU]

The issue is whether the clause in the contract shields the cruise line from being second-guessed by a civil court via a lawsuit. If the clause iS enforceable, then you cannot prevail in a lawsuit against the cruise ship for its putting you off the ship no matter what. If the clause iS not enforceable, then you can sue the cruise line for putting you off the ship without sufficient grounds, and then the court will review the evidence that you and the cruise line would have to put forward to defend the opposing assertions, and the court would make the decision.

I believe smeyer418 and I agree that the court [b]would[/b] decide whether the captain's decision was either reasonable, or arbitrary and capricious, and [b]would not [/b]summarily dismiss the case because the clause says that the captain's opinion should prevail.

[DocJohnB]

[quote name='bicker']The issue is whether the clause in the contract shields the cruise line from being second-guessed by a civil court via a lawsuit. If the clause in enforceable, then you cannot prevail in a lawsuit against the cruise ship for its putting you off the ship no matter what. If the clause in not enforceable, then you can sue the cruise line for putting you off the ship without sufficient grounds, and then the court will review the evidence that you and the cruise line would have to put forward to defend the opposing assertions, and the court would make the decision.

I believe smeyer418 and I agree that the court [b]would[/b] decide whether the captain's decision was either reasonable, or arbitrary and capricious, and [b]would not [/b]summarily dismiss the case because the clause says that the captain's opinion should prevail.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. That does make sense and clears it up for me and put in those terms I would even agree with you.

[lorn63vt]

Thank you for this info. We will be bringing our (well-behaved and innocent) children on our cruise in April, ages 12 and 9. I would be devastated if they were bullied like this. Funny, you think you can let your kids roam around without you, after all there is little chance they will become "lost", but I had never thought of something like that happening before. These "children" should have been left on an island somewhere to find their own way home. I would never tolerate that kind of behavior from my kids, where the heck were these parents??

[bUU]

[quote name='smeyer418']I have no idea what "obligation to perform" is. Not a legal term I ever heard of.[/QUOTE]I was reading-up on this tonight, and saw that in some circles, the lack of an obligation to perform is referred to as an "illusory promise." I hope that helps.

[minivanmama]

I feel the staff handled your problem badly. It is true that some teens do get into fights over girls, it is not the parents fault and I feel for them. It hurts so much to see your children hurt. I can't believe the captain actually tried to blame the victim because other teens were angry and talked about retaliation.

[andreakul]

Wow, these stories are very upsetting to me. We are sailing in a Villa on the Star soon with two kids. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. I will be very proactive to see that something like this doesn't happen. It's very sad that people have to behave like this!!!! Especially while on vacation. I feel the same way that others do! Those kids and their families should have been removed from the ship at the next port. That's what happened last year on RCCL when some boys became violent. All four families were thrown off the ship! That's the way it should be. If you can't be responsible for your children's behavior then who can.

I appreciate the "head's up" on the elevator and potential for these types of problems. Sorry this happened to you.

Andreakul

[catdancers]

I read msescada's excellent suggestions on how to protect oneself and family when staying in a villa. Good heavens, are good, well-behaved people supposed to act like they're in the witness protection program? It's ridiculous that these out-of-control teens are allowed to continue their harrassment. Maybe they were drunk or on drugs. If so, how long before they toss someone over the side? Then watch the lawsuits fly!

Every cruise line should enforce their own rules--even the small ones--and set up an no-nonsense attitude. Probably the parents of these type teens break the rules themselves and thus have taught (by example) their kids to do the same. Even taking kids into adults-only places (lounge, pool, etc.) flounts the rules.

I would suggest that every passenger whose family is threatened and can't get satisfaction with the captain and crew, write a detailed, calm letter to the NCL president and request monetary compensation such as future cruise credits.