And now here's the Class Action Lawsuit

[songbird1329]

Yes this is how i see it and on a ship in these conditions I find blaming people for where it was coming from and insinuation their fault highly subjective and unfair..a reflection of not having been there; or walking a hallway of a mess.

 

It was not Shawshank Redemption escaping through a sewer or Schindler's list hiding in a latrine for safety...but raw or just wet No 1 sewage on carpet and if doors had outside hall vents..wow. I hope the steward would help me get a mattress to somewhere else on ship..where there was always personnel watching for the inside cabin slumber party.

 

 

I want a return of those 50's rubbers that went over your shoes and were so light to carey in your purse..if lucky..your gramdma gave you a pair of hers..fond memory..and a handy item.

 

 

I saw a homeless woman in Penn Station last night with plastic bags over her shoes.

 

Certainly not ideal, but it did keep her feet dry.

[sjn911]

I saw a homeless woman in Penn Station last night with plastic bags over her shoes.

 

Certainly not ideal, but it did keep her feet dry.

 

Yes,,,even in my small western town living,,and smaller bedroom towns close to University town we have homeless and far less shelter,,,people hand out those heavier red ones and newspaper,,,

 

Thanks so much for all of your great info and good mind!!!

[dolphins76]

Just money hungry people!

[makeda]

:eek:

If people are so fragile they should reconsider ever leaving their house!

 

:mad:

 

hear! hear!

[hockeypapa]

I BLAME G W BUSH!!!!!!:p

[Maraprince]

We are of the same opinion as those you have already heard from. There were long lines for food to be sure, and the food may not have been to our particular tastes or liking, but it was plentiful. Neither was water an issue. The smell was indeed pretty bad, but I can't imagine any smell would cause undue hardship or stress.

 

As a whole, I would consider the experience to be uncomfortable and inconvenient. Saying it was "Hell" or describing it as "horror" is a serious dramatization, but there were certainly those types of people aboard who I know are impossible to avoid in a group this size.

 

I'm happy to see that calmer heads are prevailing and that folks like us seem to be the majority.

 

 

Glad to hear from some of the more realistic passengers on board!

 

If Carnival did nothing at all, then I would agree there are grounds for going after them. But, this is not the case. They tried to make sure food and water was provided. While the food may not have been to everyone's taste, without a proper kitchen, they did the best they could. Passenger greed prevented others from enjoying more than just a bun with fixings inside of it. Food was airlifted in.

 

Makeshift toliets were devised and many passengers said they had water, just not hot water, to wash with.

 

It seems that the inside cabins suffered the most due to no A/C or light and matresses were used on the outside decks along with deck chairs for these passengers.

 

Passengers were compensated for the cost of the sailings and received monies towards a future cruise, were put up at hotels, chartered flights were secured to get them home and buses were obtained. What else could have been done that wasn't? There is where I get lost in the lawsuits. If you were "bruised" by other passengers how is it the cruise line's fault?

 

MARAPRINCE

[FSUNole]

I notice it's the same attorney who's been on every possible News Talk Show he could be on over the past week.

 

Apart from the shipboard conditions caused by the cruise ship fire, Lipcon also points out that Carnival’s decision to tow the Triumph to Mobile, instead of the closer port of Progreso, Mexico, caused passengers to endure more time onboard the disabled vessel than was necessary, prolonging their exposure to disease, accidents and trauma.

 

If the basis of his claim for the lawsuit is that Carnival should have towed the ship to Progresso because it would have taken less time, then I would like to see all the people who are experts in ocean currents, sea towing and the like tear him to shreds in court.

 

I don't have disdain for all attorneys but this guy is an ambulance chaser at his finest.

There is another maritime lawyer in Miami who specializes in cruise ship issues who said plaintiffs don't stand much of a chance.

[clackey]

Lawyers, guns and/or money can over ride ANY "contract". ;)

Guns trump lawyers, but not often enough.:rolleyes:

[songbird1329]

There is another maritime lawyer in Miami who specializes in cruise ship issues who said plaintiffs don't stand much of a chance.

 

He points out that the plaintiffs have to jump through a lot of hoops before they have a realistic hope of success.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[LuckyZ]

I notice it's the same attorney who's been on every possible News Talk Show he could be on over the past week.

 

Apart from the shipboard conditions caused by the cruise ship fire, Lipcon also points out that Carnival’s decision to tow the Triumph to Mobile, instead of the closer port of Progreso, Mexico, caused passengers to endure more time onboard the disabled vessel than was necessary, prolonging their exposure to disease, accidents and trauma.

 

If the basis of his claim for the lawsuit is that Carnival should have towed the ship to Progresso because it would have taken less time, then I would like to see all the people who are experts in ocean currents, sea towing and the like tear him to shreds in court.

 

I don't have disdain for all attorneys but this guy is an ambulance chaser at his finest.

 

I've been to Progresso. I think they made the right choice

[iwannacruznow]

Can I wear shorts in the courtroom? :D

[Jimmy Geegitz]

I think all passengers deserve a weeks pay for worked missed.

[ship-disturber]

I think all passengers deserve a weeks pay for worked missed.

 

I agree with you. What most people are missing is the out of pocket expenses some people may have experienced because of the delay getting home. Some may have lost a weeks pay, some may have even lost their jobs, some had extra expenses because they had pets in Kennels, the list goes on and on. A person has a right to launch a lawsuit and just because they launch it, there is no guarantee they will be successful. I do realize that CCL has gone above what they are required by international law to do. The investigation will no doubt reveal if this was an accident or the result of a lack of maintenance issue.

 

I respect all those who are posting to say that things were not that bad, and I know that most of you probably had outside cabins with balconies and I know that there are those that will complain for the sake of complaining but please respect a persons right to seek compensation for damages they perceive. If as some suggest they haven't got a hope then the only people out of pocket are the ambulance chasing lawyers that love to take these things on in hopes of a big pay day. But before you criticize put yourself in the position of someone who may have suffered a financial loss over and above what the compensation covers.

 

If I had been in CCL shoes I might have offered all passengers on board 50% off all future cruises for the rest of their life or the next 10 years.

[songbird1329]

I agree with you. What most people are missing is the out of pocket expenses some people may have experienced because of the delay getting home. Some may have lost a weeks pay, some may have even lost their jobs, some had extra expenses because they had pets in Kennels, the list goes on and on. A person has a right to launch a lawsuit and just because they launch it, there is no guarantee they will be successful. I do realize that CCL has gone above what they are required by international law to do. The investigation will no doubt reveal if this was an accident or the result of a lack of maintenance issue.

 

I respect all those who are posting to say that things were not that bad, and I know that most of you probably had outside cabins with balconies and I know that there are those that will complain for the sake of complaining but please respect a persons right to seek compensation for damages they perceive. If as some suggest they haven't got a hope then the only people out of pocket are the ambulance chasing lawyers that love to take these things on in hopes of a big pay day. But before you criticize put yourself in the position of someone who may have suffered a financial loss over and above what the compensation covers.

 

If I had been in CCL shoes I might have offered all passengers on board 50% off all future cruises for the rest of their life or the next 10 years.

 

The passengers received a refund, credit towards another cruise and $500. If Carnival had not given them this compensation, the passengers would, of course, be entitled to monetary damages for breach of contract. For most people, the amount they received from Carnival is more or less what they could expect to recover in a breach of contract suit. For someone with economic damages beyond that amount - such as lost wages - I suspect Carnival might pay additional sums if pushed. Filing a lawsuit in Miami is not cost effective.

 

As for the rest . . .you have a right to consult an attorney and bring an action if you feel you've been harmed. But if your attorney is honest with you he'll tell you it's an uphill battle, regardless of how horrible you felt conditions on the ship were.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

[Big_G]

 

I respect all those who are posting to say that things were not that bad, and I know that most of you probably had outside cabins with balconies and I know that there are those that will complain for the sake of complaining but please respect a persons right to seek compensation for damages they perceive. If as some suggest they haven't got a hope then the only people out of pocket are the ambulance chasing lawyers that love to take these things on in hopes of a big pay day. But before you criticize put yourself in the position of someone who may have suffered a financial loss over and above what the compensation covers.

 

 

Well said.

[JLC@SD]

Filed today...

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10436918.htm

....so it appears the heart of their class action is that Carnival should have towed the ship to Mexico instead of the US .......that is a weak issue ......;)

 

Carnival can justify it was smarter to tow with the current than against it.

 

....dismissed.....:D

[pmacher61]

1. Is there any maritime treaty which governs the rights and obligations of the parties?

 

2. If there is mandatory arbitration clause in the cruise contract, how does one get around that?

 

3. If one could get around the mandatory arbitration clause, is a class action maintainable for plaintiffs who claim personal injuries? Such injuries are uniquely individual to each plaintiff so I would think a class could not be certified in either a suit or any arbitration.

 

4. Clauses in contracts by which one side seeks to exculpate itself for damages caused by its negligence are typically held to be unenforceable as against public policy, but clauses seeking to reasonably limit damages for a breach of contract are often enforced, correct? If so, and assuming there is such a clause, would it not be true that Carnival may not be liable for more than a refund of the cruise price on a breach of contract claim (i.e., no right by pax to recover plane fares, hotel rooms, lost wages, etc).

 

Damages recoverable based upon a negligence claim may also be contractually limited, but less so. I read that Carnival has offered to refund travel expenses, but do not know how they define that. If it were to include all air, hotel, etc expenses it seems that together with a full refund, a full credit for another cruise, and $500, Carnival has made a fair offer unless someone really suffered excessively because of some unique condition.

 

5. I understand the cruise contract contains a clause requiring a physical injury in order for a pax to recover proximately caused emotional distress damages. How is physical injury defined? Assuming this clause is valid and assuming further that the pax could prove negligence, would not each pax have a valid (arbitration) claim for pain, suffering, and emotional distress as the attack on the sense of smell constitutes the required physical injury to support an award of emotional distress damages.

 

Gladly welcome corrections and erroneous points.

[crewsweeper]

....so it appears the heart of their class action is that Carnival should have towed the ship to Mexico instead of the US .......that is a weak issue ......;)

 

Carnival can justify it was smarter to tow with the current than against it.

 

....dismissed.....:D

Oh I'm sure one of these "Belluck and Fox" wannabes could argue that going to Progresso would have been a day sooner; Mexican tugs could have pulled the ship against the current at a faster than 6 knot rate; no tug lines would have broken; and it would have been easier for Carnival to get passengers back home out of Mexico than going to Mobile.:rolleyes:

[BLK03GT]

My feeling is that these folks are expecting the words "improperly maintained" to appear in the final USGC/Bahamian incident report. If so, they will already have their place in line.

[ship-disturber]

This is the international convention that covers liability. Most countries are signatories to this convention. I do not know for sure if the USA has signed on or not.

 

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC)

 

Adoption: 19 November 1976; Entry into force: 1 December 1986; Protocol of 1996: Adoption: 2 May 1996; Entry into force: 13 May 2004

[songbird1329]

1. Is there any maritime treaty which governs the rights and obligations of the parties?

 

2. If there is mandatory arbitration clause in the cruise contract, how does one get around that?

 

3. If one could get around the mandatory arbitration clause, is a class action maintainable for plaintiffs who claim personal injuries? Such injuries are uniquely individual to each plaintiff so I would think a class could not be certified in either a suit or any arbitration.

 

4. Clauses in contracts by which one side seeks to exculpate itself for damages caused by its negligence are typically held to be unenforceable as against public policy, but clauses seeking to reasonably limit damages for a breach of contract are often enforced, correct? If so, and assuming there is such a clause, would it not be true that Carnival may not be liable for more than a refund of the cruise price on a breach of contract claim (i.e., no right by pax to recover plane fares, hotel rooms, lost wages, etc).

 

Damages recoverable based upon a negligence claim may also be contractually limited, but less so. I read that Carnival has offered to refund travel expenses, but do not know how they define that. If it were to include all air, hotel, etc expenses it seems that together with a full refund, a full credit for another cruise, and $500, Carnival has made a fair offer unless someone really suffered excessively because of some unique condition.

 

5. I understand the cruise contract contains a clause requiring a physical injury in order for a pax to recover proximately caused emotional distress damages. How is physical injury defined? Assuming this clause is valid and assuming further that the pax could prove negligence, would not each pax have a valid (arbitration) claim for pain, suffering, and emotional distress as the attack on the sense of smell constitutes the required physical injury to support an award of emotional distress damages.

 

Gladly welcome corrections and erroneous points.

 

 

I can't answer all your questions, but I can answer some of them.

 

You can't prove "bodily injury" on purely subjective complaints. You need an injury that a doctor can diagnose and treat. Feeling ill and nauseated doesn't cut it, but if your doctor says you were ill and nauseated because you had salmonella poisoning, you have a viable bodily injury claim. You're going to need a psychologist/psychiatrist/counselor to prove you have an emotional distress claim.

 

In the absence of a contractual provision prohibiting class action suits, a class action involving bodily injury claims would be feasible. Let me give you an example of how such a suit is handled.

 

Let's say there was a release of toxic gases from a factory. Many people were in the neighborhood when the gases were released. The people closest to the leak may have sustained serious injuries, people in the factory but further away had less serious injuries, and people in the neighborhood may have had even less serious injuries. They can all bring a class action, which would deal with the common questions, such as the cause of the leak.

 

But when it came time to collect damages, we'd treat the various plaintiffs differently. One guy who was right next to the source of the leak of the toxic gas, inhaled quite a bit of the gas, he passed out, was in the hospital for a week and can no longer work because of ongoing respiratory problems. Another guy was walking past the factory, felt a little ill and saw his doctor, who gave him medications and sent him back to work. We will evaluate both claims and make appropriate settlement offers. Obviously the guy who can no longer work is going to get more money than the guy who was ill for a short time but didn't have a permanent injury.

 

Members of the class with relatively minor injuries might be offered a set amount of money -- e.g., if you have medical bills for treatment and your treatment is less than X amount of dollars, you will get a settlement of X amount.

[RuthlessBoss]

Can I wear shorts in the courtroom? :D

Not if it's a FORMAL hearing;)

[pmacher61]

I can't answer all your questions, but I can answer some of them.

 

You can't prove "bodily injury" on purely subjective complaints. You need an injury that a doctor can diagnose and treat. Feeling ill and nauseated doesn't cut it, but if your doctor says you were ill and nauseated because you had salmonella poisoning, you have a viable bodily injury claim. You're going to need a psychologist/psychiatrist/counselor to prove you have an emotional distress claim.

 

In the absence of a contractual provision prohibiting class action suits, a class action involving bodily injury claims would be feasible. Let me give you an example of how such a suit is handled.

 

Let's say there was a release of toxic gases from a factory. Many people were in the neighborhood when the gases were released. The people closest to the leak may have sustained serious injuries, people in the factory but further away had less serious injuries, and people in the neighborhood may have had even less serious injuries. They can all bring a class action, which would deal with the common questions, such as the cause of the leak.

 

But when it came time to collect damages, we'd treat the various plaintiffs differently. One guy who was right next to the source of the leak of the toxic gas, inhaled quite a bit of the gas, he passed out, was in the hospital for a week and can no longer work because of ongoing respiratory problems. Another guy was walking past the factory, felt a little ill and saw his doctor, who gave him medications and sent him back to work. We will evaluate both claims and make appropriate settlement offers. Obviously the guy who can no longer work is going to get more money than the guy who was ill for a short time but didn't have a permanent injury.

 

Members of the class with relatively minor injuries might be offered a set amount of money -- e.g., if you have medical bills for treatment and your treatment is less than X amount of dollars, you will get a settlement of X amount.

 

Thanks for endeavoring to answer my questions, however, I remain somewhat dubious.

1. What if the doctor says you were ill and nauseated and had headaches and other painful sensations because of inhalation of noxious fumes caused by exposure to human waste? Isn't that physical (bodily) injury? I don't see the difference between inhalation of noxious odors/fumes vs salmonella as a cause of bodily injury. After all, in an extreme case inhalation of toxic fumes can cause death - that's not a subjective injury.

2. Sorry, but I am not convinced by your explanation. Unless someone with actual experience in a certified class action involving a spectrum of PI claims can set me straight, I adhere to my opinion that class action certification will not be granted.

You talk of settlement, but that presumption (even if valid) isn't determinative. Theoretically, each and every plaintiff would be required to testify to prove up damages so the purpose of the class action would be defeated, although the finding of liability in one case would probably be binding upon the defendant in subsequent trials (res judicata or collateral estoppel).

3. The LLMC convention has aggregate limits on liability that don't seem likely to come into play given the ship's tonnage and nature of the injuries.

[songbird1329]

Thanks for endeavoring to answer my questions, however, I remain somewhat dubious.

1. What if the doctor says you were ill and nauseated and had headaches and other painful sensations because of inhalation of noxious fumes caused by exposure to human waste? Isn't that physical (bodily) injury? I don't see the difference between inhalation of noxious odors/fumes vs salmonella as a cause of bodily injury. After all, in an extreme case inhalation of toxic fumes can cause death - that's not a subjective injury.

2. Sorry, but I am not convinced by your explanation. Unless someone with actual experience in a certified class action involving a spectrum of PI claims can set me straight, I adhere to my opinion that class action certification will not be granted.

You talk of settlement, but that presumption (even if valid) isn't determinative. Theoretically, each and every plaintiff would be required to testify to prove up damages so the purpose of the class action would be defeated, although the finding of liability in one case would probably be binding upon the defendant in subsequent trials (res judicata or collateral estoppel).

3. The LLMC convention has aggregate limits on liability that don't seem likely to come into play given the ship's tonnage and nature of the injuries.

 

When I spoke of class actions for bodily injury, I qualified my remarks by saying "in the absence of a contractual limitation..." I am of the opinion that the contractual prohibition against joining a class action is enforceable. There was a recent case out of California, the plaintiffs sued AT&T and wanted to be the lead plaintiffs in a class action, but AT&'s contract with the plaintiffs precluded a class action by consumers. Case went up the the US Supreme Court, where it was upheld in a 5-4 decision. the case in California did not involve bodily injury, but if I were briefing the issue I'd most certainly be citing that case.

 

As for expert opinions....

 

In federal court, as in most state courts, the judge is bound to exclude evidence that does not meet the Daubert standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard Some state courts still adhere to Frye. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frye_standard Frye is more liberal that Daubert, but they address the same concern.

 

Since these suits are filed in federal court in Miami, Daubert would apply. It requires a judge to evaluate material for scientific reliability before it can be admitted into evidence.

 

In other words, just because you say you became ill because of conditions on the ship doesn't make it so. You have to prove it by scientifically reliable evidence.

[JUGGER]

I notice it's the same attorney who's been on every possible News Talk Show he could be on over the past week.

 

Apart from the shipboard conditions caused by the cruise ship fire, Lipcon also points out that Carnival’s decision to tow the Triumph to Mobile, instead of the closer port of Progreso, Mexico, caused passengers to endure more time onboard the disabled vessel than was necessary, prolonging their exposure to disease, accidents and trauma.

 

If the basis of his claim for the lawsuit is that Carnival should have towed the ship to Progresso because it would have taken less time, then I would like to see all the people who are experts in ocean currents, sea towing and the like tear him to shreds in court.

 

I don't have disdain for all attorneys but this guy is an ambulance chaser at his finest.

these people who are filing suit--are greedy------AND THE LAWYERS ARE REDICULOUS----EVER HEAR OF RULES OF INTERENATIONAL--LAW--VERSUS LAWS OF THE USA--------CARNIVAL--IS GIVING BACK THE PRICE OF THE CRUISE----PLUS--FREE--FREE----GET IT----TRANSPORTATION TO THIER HOME--PLUS---$500. for the next cruise------NOW WITH THE CROOKED LAWYERS INVOLVED--THEY WILL GET NADA-----WE ARE SAILED---55 TIMES ON CARNIVAL----AND THINGS HAPPEN------BUT------THAT'S LIFE------- IRENE AND JOHN