Does Carnival pay the medical bills when the ship lists??

[LemurCat]

 

Last week a golfer named Davis called a penalty on himself for hitting a twig on his 3rd shot out of a bunker. Headlines would have made people think he gave up many dollars by calling this penalty on himself. The reality was that his opponent and winner of the tourney, Jim Furyk, was on the green in 2 - His sand shot was a long way from the hole in 3, making his chance to win or even tie on the sudden-death playoff hole next to impossible, so he then decided to make the call & be the hero. He wanted to pick up and give Furyk a gimme, but that is not possible in stroke play, so Furyk putted out after Davis picked up - Now, that would have been a great story if Davis could have gotten Furyk to pick up and void the hole he lost on, in which case they would have needed to play another hole to determine the winner. Bet the next time Davis is in a trap he is more careful not to disturb the surroundings with his backstroke, like most golfers already know to do. Not because he lost $thousands, as he won 2nd place and over $600,000, which is what happens when the other golfer gets a lower score, with or without penalty strokes. Ever see how they are careful not to let their club touch the sand when getting ready to make a sand shot?

 

 

Can anyone tell me if this is in English? ;)

[Kurbanfan]

true, the factual cause of the accident was an action of the bridge crew, making a sharp turn.

 

but the factual casue of the accident is not sufficient to create legal liability.

 

legal liability requires negligence, a failure to do what the hypothetical "reasonable man" would do.

 

the "reasonable man" would have precautions in place to detect an object in the water. the "reasonable man" would take evasive action to avoid hitting the submerged object.

 

would the "reasonable man" have made a sharp turn to avoid the object, or was there a more prudent way to avoid an accident?

 

No wonder people sue:D

[halos]

true, the factual cause of the accident was an action of the bridge crew, making a sharp turn.

 

but the factual casue of the accident is not sufficient to create legal liability.

 

legal liability requires negligence, a failure to do what the hypothetical "reasonable man" would do.

 

the "reasonable man" would have precautions in place to detect an object in the water. the "reasonable man" would take evasive action to avoid hitting the submerged object.

 

would the "reasonable man" have made a sharp turn to avoid the object, or was there a more prudent way to avoid an accident?

I may be wrong, but this is my guess.

(Yes...it's total conjecture on my part...so sue me LOL!)

 

No matter who's fault it wasn't or was, or how reasonable anyone is or was, CCL will take care of the folks that were hurt (whether to their satisfaction or not, remains to be seen)

BUT others...not physically injured, will run to lawyers anyway.

 

.....and down the road, the cruise contract will be a few pages longer.

[Kurbanfan]

Maybe the captain will come out of this as the hero, doing the right thing, saving the lives of thousands! Well, could be.

 

So, the captain of the Ecstasy avoided turning the ship over or a collision that could have taken the ship down, saving lives Let's see the headlines Carnival "Captain of Ecstasy A Hero!"

 

 

Good lord.........talk about a stretch:rolleyes:

[halos]

Can anyone tell me if this is in English? ;)

I don't speak golf. :o

[songbird1329]

No wonder people sue:D

 

:D

 

we have become a litigious society. everyone is looking for someone to blame.

 

 

sometime an accident is just an accident.

[smeyer418]

if you're hurt through no fault of your own...does that mean someone else must be responsible? legally, no.

 

if you get hurt on Carnival's ship through no fault of your own, but Carnival didn't do anything wrong either, Carnival has no legal liability and you have no recourse against them. there may be a moral obligation, but that's not enforceable in court.

 

that's why we have no fault auto insurance in many states -- your medicla expenses are paid for no matter whose fault the accident was; why we have worker's compensation -- you collect if you get hurt on the job, no matter who caused the injury; why you buy health insurance and travel insurance....

 

FYI one of my worst cases was a plaintiff who sued for alleged inhalation of a chemical which never happened....but he collected $100K from California's worker's comp program. I was not happy with the comp carrier in that case...

 

 

workers comp is a no fault situation too. Workers comp in the US is a direct result of the Triangle shirt waist fire. There although the owners had locked the door their was no legal requirement for it to be open. The jury(all male women hadn't the right to sit as jurors) found for the owners. Thereafter, almost every state legislature created a no fault system for when someone is hurt on the job. If you are hurt on the job, the law requires payment-although mostly at a greatly reduced amount from normal tort law. The only thing required is for you to prove that you were injured in the course of your employment and that is all. No finding of fault is required(in fact the accident CAN be the employees fault)Some states make the burden of proof on the employer to show that the injury didn't occur "on or connected with the job". Its a long body of law but it IS really stacked on behalf of the employee....for a greatly reduced amount than it would be under normal tort law. BTW the tort rule is duty owed duty breach = damages. It doesn't have to do with a reasonable person but whether a duty was breached. but this take a couple of years to learn the difference and not in a posting...

[Kurbanfan]

I may be wrong, but this is my guess.

(Yes...it's total conjecture on my part...so sue me LOL!)

 

No matter who's fault it wasn't or was, or how reasonable anyone is or was, CCL will take care of the folks that were hurt (whether to their satisfaction or not, remains to be seen)

BUT others...not physically injured, will run to lawyers anyway.

 

.....and down the road, the cruise contract will be a few pages longer.

 

That's a shocker:confused::p:D

[songbird1329]

I may be wrong, but this is my guess.

(Yes...it's total conjecture on my part...so sue me LOL!)

 

No matter who's fault it wasn't or was, or how reasonable anyone is or was, CCL will take care of the folks that were hurt (whether to their satisfaction or not, remains to be seen)

BUT others...not physically injured, will run to lawyers anyway.

 

.....and down the road, the cruise contract will be a few pages longer.

 

it doesn't need to be any longer....it already covers everyting it should cover....

 

you can sue for anything. doesn't mean you're going to win....

[halos]

Good lord.........talk about a stretch:rolleyes:

is that a l o n g bus?

[halos]

....

 

you can sue for anything. doesn't mean you're going to win....

 

I agree...but Steveaaaaaaa may disagree with you :p

[Kurbanfan]

:D

 

we have become a litigious society. everyone is looking for someone to blame.

 

 

sometime an accident is just an accident.

 

Yes........but there is always a cause for an accident......whether I trip and fall over my own foot and break my leg or I get thrown off the stairs of a cruise ship from a sharp turn and break my leg.....

Everyone needs to own up.........I would have no problem making the causer own up in the event of a serious injury:D

[Kurbanfan]

is that a l o n g bus?

 

More like huge pom poms:D

[songbird1329]

workers comp is a no fault situation too. Workers comp in the US is a direct result of the Triangle shirt waist fire. There although the owners had locked the door their was no legal requirement for it to be open. The jury found for the owners. Thereafter, almost every state legislature created a no fault system for when someone is hurt on the job. If you are hurt on the job, the law requires payment-although mostly at a greatly reduced amount from normal tort law. The only thing required is for you to prove that you were injured in the course of your employment and that is all. Some states make the burden of proof on the employer to show that the injury didn't occur on the job. Its a long body of law but it IS really stacked on behalf of the employee....for a greatly reduced amount than it would be under normal trot law. BTW the tort rule is duty owed duty breach = damages. It doesn't have to do with a reasonable person but whether a duty was breached. but this take a couple of years to learn the difference and not in a posting...

 

 

exactly.

 

if you get hurt on the job you're entitled to comp benefits, but you give up the right to sue your employer in tort.

 

but what generally happens is...well, let me give an example.

 

you are a construction worker. you work for a subcontractor at a jobsite. you get injured on the job. you cannot sue your employer, so you sue the general contractor and the owner of the site for creating an unsafe working environment. they, in turn, sue the subcontractor -- because worker's comp doesn't bar them from pursuing your employer.

 

let's say, for simplicity's sake, that no one agreed to indemnify anyone else here -- a lot of times the contractor promises to indemnify the owner and the subs promise to indemnify the GC.

 

let's say another subcontractor on the job was negligent and that's what caused the accident. they also get added into the suit. they decide to settle the case with you before trial.

 

the worker's comp carrier has a lien against anything you get from the lawsuit. it has to be paid when you settle the suit. so if you got $100K in comp benefits, you have to ask for a lot more than that in order to net anything after you pay the lien and your attorneys' fees.

[Nunu]

More like huge pom poms:D

 

[rrraydon]

Can anyone tell me if this is in English? ;)

 

Who was on first??:confused:

[Kurbanfan]

 

Bigger:D

[songbird1329]

Yes........but there is always a cause for an accident......whether I trip and fall over my own foot and break my leg or I get thrown off the stairs of a cruise ship from a sharp turn and break my leg.....

Everyone needs to own up.........I would have no problem making the causer own up in the event of a serious injury:D

 

factually someone may have caused the accident....but you can't legally make them own up unless there's legal liability.

 

let's say it's January and there's a blizzard. there's a town ordinance that requires homewoners to shovel the public sidewalk in front of their homes, but there's no ordinance addressing the homeowner's private driveway. the owner of the house on the corner is sailing in the Caribbean. before he left he hired the teenager next door to shovel out his sidewalk and his driveway, but the teen next door forgot.

 

you slip on the icy sidewalk fall and break your ankle. you have a claim against homeowner, and homeowner may have a claim against teen next door.

 

but what if you fell on the driveway? same cause in fact -- the teen's failure to shovel the driveway after the storm -- but the legal situation is very different. there's a whole series of questions to ask, such as whether you're even legally entitled to be on that property. you might not have a viable claim against the homeowner at all.

[songbird1329]

I agree...but Steveaaaaaaa may disagree with you :p

 

 

I've seen some outrageous lawsuits over the years.....getting that defense verdict was so gratifying.

[Kurbanfan]

factually someone may have caused the accident....but you can't legally make them own up unless there's legal liability.

 

let's say it's January and there's a blizzard. there's a town ordinance that requires homewoners to shovel the public sidewalk in front of their homes, but there's no ordinance addressing the homeowner's private driveway. the owner of the house on the corner is sailing in the Caribbean. before he left he hired the teenager next door to shovel out his sidewalk and his driveway, but the teen next door forgot.

 

you slip on the icy sidewalk fall and break your ankle. you have a claim against homeowner, and homeowner may have a claim against teen next door.

 

but what if you fell on the driveway? same cause in fact -- the teen's failure to shovel the driveway after the storm -- but the legal situation is very different. there's a whole series of questions to ask, such as whether you're even legally entitled to be on that property. you might not have a viable claim against the homeowner at all.

 

I understand......truely I do:D

But we are talking about being lifted off your feet here:p:D

[soakedbythesea]

Think yall are missing the point here about the liability or action of Carnival, its employees and staff.

 

The buoy adrift was the problem, not the Carnival Ecstasy being on course.

 

Had it been an iceberg, like the one bringing the Titanic down, it would have been an act of nature (or as some like to phrase it - an act of God).

 

It was not natural for an buoy to be adrift and mostly out of sight - the liability is with the owner of the buoy, allowing it to drift around at sea in shipping channels.

 

The captain and crew were hero

 

Carnival & other cruise lines are not big at trying to handle things like this with honesty, grace and ease, but would rather ignore or deny. Taking their normal course in all situations is not prudent. Stand up now, not to deny what has happened or to afix blame, but to accept the praise of those in public who benefited or will in the future. Not quite like accepting a few Bil$ for bringing down the World economy or trying to catch a burning person jumping from the World Tower, but they didn't hit the buoy and averted what could have been a major disaster - Instead of stopping to take an honor, they just accept the next group of passengers and move on, one cruise at a time.

 

Think of this - the captain of the plane in the Hudson River helped to save lives by setting the plane down, not on a runway, but in the river. The captain (or crew that was in charge at the time, if the captain was at lunch or taking a nap or a crap) of this ship avoided hitting an object that could have caused loss of life and limb, but avoided it.

 

Had the captain of the plane not flown into a flock of geese, things would have been better for the flight.

 

Had the buoy not been out of place, the cruise would have been better.

 

In both cases, captains and crew saved people on board from disaster - they did not cause it.

[CalmCruiserNC]

WOW -- My little question of curiosity seems to have stimulated quite a discussion!

 

I'm certainly no lawyer -- and I know it's all speculation at this point -- but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

 

It would seem to me that the helmsman made a conscious choice, knowing that both alternatives carried risk. On the one hand, hit the buoy and run the risk of damaging the ship and dealing with the consequences OR perform an evasive maneuver to avoid the buoy and run the risk of damaging things (including people) that would be affected by the evasive maneuver and deal with the consequences.

 

Either way, Carnival made the choice and should be responsible for the consequences of their choice.

[songbird1329]

Think yall are missing the point here about the liability or action of Carnival, its employees and staff.

 

The buoy adrift was the problem, not the Carnival Ecstasy being on course.

 

Had it been an iceberg, like the one bringing the Titanic down, it would have been an act of nature (or as some like to phrase it - an act of God).

 

It was not natural for an buoy to be adrift and mostly out of sight - the liability is with the owner of the buoy, allowing it to drift around at sea in shipping channels.

 

The captain and crew were hero

 

Carnival & other cruise lines are not big at trying to handle things like this with honesty, grace and ease, but would rather ignore or deny. Taking their normal course in all situations is not prudent. Stand up now, not to deny what has happened or to afix blame, but to accept the praise of those in public who benefited or will in the future. Not quite like accepting a few Bil$ for bringing down the World economy or trying to catch a burning person jumping from the World Tower, but they didn't hit the buoy and averted what could have been a major disaster - Instead of stopping to take an honor, they just accept the next group of passengers and move on, one cruise at a time.

 

Think of this - the captain of the plane in the Hudson River helped to save lives by setting the plane down, not on a runway, but in the river. The captain (or crew that was in charge at the time, if the captain was at lunch or taking a nap or a crap) of this ship avoided hitting an object that could have caused loss of life and limb, but avoided it.

 

Had the captain of the plane not flown into a flock of geese, things would have been better for the flight.

 

Had the buoy not been out of place, the cruise would have been better.

 

In both cases, captains and crew saved people on board from disaster - they did not cause it.

 

 

there's a difference between the pilot who landed in the Hudson and the situation on the Ecstasy.

 

the pilot was already in an emergency situation -- both engines shut down -- when he did something almost impossible -- landing the plane on the Hudson instead of crashing into the river, or worse, into a Manhattan skyscraper. when we looked out our windows and saw all those boats headed to an airplane we couldn't believe our eyes.

 

what the crew of the Ecstasy did -- while laudable -- was to avoid an accident in a dangerous situation. they didn't accomplish something "impossible".

[songbird1329]

WOW -- My little question of curiosity seems to have stimulated quite a discussion!

 

I'm certainly no lawyer -- and I know it's all speculation at this point -- but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

 

It would seem to me that the helmsman made a conscious choice, knowing that both alternatives carried risk. On the one hand, hit the buoy and run the risk of damaging the ship and dealing with the consequences OR perform an evasive maneuver to avoid the buoy and run the risk of damaging things (including people) that would be affected by the evasive maneuver and deal with the consequences.

 

Either way, Carnival made the choice and should be responsible for the consequences of their choice.

 

but the real problem wasn't Carnival, it was whoever owned the buoy. the Carnival crew had to react to a situation they didn't create.

[soakedbythesea]

Can anyone tell me if this is in English? ;)

Fore