In The News Again

[janetz]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/travel/carnival-triumph-cruise-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[bmdz412]

Not sure I like the line... "The contract ticket makes no express guarantee for safe passage, a seaworthy vessel, adequate and wholesome food, and sanitary and safe living conditions" :(

[carrieluvsgreg]

All of the mishaps are unfortunate. No one wishes to experience a bad time on vacation (or any other time...) however, I think cruise ships do get a bad rap simply because of the large number of people involved. If we had all of the incidents for bad restaurant reports combined in a single incident, none of us would eat out... Or injury reports for amusement parks or other tourist attraction where there was some sort of negligence on the part of the company- you really only hear about deaths, which, outside of the Costa tragedy, there have been very few related to negligence.

 

Of course, I wouldn't want to be on any stranded ship adrift in the ocean without food and little water, not to mention the sewage problems. But for me, right now, it's worth the risk. Just like going out to dinner or visiting universal studios.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[pbsteve]

I know if I were walking through poop, I'd be taking pictures to show... yet the worst I've seen were of people in hallways, red bags in trash cans in the bathroom and a floater in the toilet. Nothing horrific. I wonder why that is... and also that a part of the reason for a balcony... Red bag go bye bye

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Midwestgal]

And I'm sure Carnival isn't the only line with this. It's just crazy:eek:

[RWolver672]

Not sure I like the line... "The contract ticket makes no express guarantee for safe passage, a seaworthy vessel, adequate and wholesome food, and sanitary and safe living conditions" :(

 

Not sure I like it either but there's no guarantee for flying, riding a train, bus, etc. You take your chances and hope for the best.

[jks336]

and yet you only see in the documents that there are only a handful compared to over 2000 guests that are sueing. and as to that line, it also stated most if not all cruise lines has that disclaimer.

 

will be interesting how this continue's to play out.

[etwright]

Of course it's CNN. I quit watching/reading CNN about a year ago... :D:confused::D

[J_Viggy]

Not sure I like the line... "The contract ticket makes no express guarantee for safe passage, a seaworthy vessel, adequate and wholesome food, and sanitary and safe living conditions" :(

 

All that means is that the passenger do not have a cause of action under contract law. That doesn't mean Carnival wouldn't be liable under another theory, such as tort law (negligence), for any damages.

[douglinc@msn.com]

Of course it's CNN. I quit watching/reading CNN about a year ago... :D:confused::D

 

Along with MSNBC.

 

Doug

Edited February 26, 2014 by douglinc@msn.com

[songbird1329]

H\It's hard to tell exactly what the judge ruled based on the CNN soundbite.

 

If I read between the lines correctly, there was some sort of pretrial motion to narrow the claims which will be presented to the jury. As J_Viggy said, it sounds like the judge ruled that there was negligence as a matter of law based on the res ipsa doctrine, but that the claim for breach of contract for failing to provide safe passage should be dismissed.

 

It sounds like the trial is focusing on damages, not liability. And it sounds like most of the claims are for emotional distress. Hence the exaggeration of the poor conditions on the ship.

 

I'm sure it was uncomfortable, I'm sure it was unpleasant, I'm just not sure it was compensable. But I'm not the judge or the jury.

[J_Viggy]

I agree with you. My recollection from law school is that a physical manifestation is required for recovery on emotional distress claims, but I don't know if that is correct.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[cjknox]

Of course it's CNN. I quit watching/reading CNN about a year ago... :D:confused::D

 

Along with MSNBC.

 

Doug

 

And don't forget Faux News .

[Pine Bluff]

And don't forget Faux News .

 

I've watched all three during each of these incidents, and Fox has been the only one reporting it right.

 

Has your experience been different?

[cruiser1955a]

If a restaurant provides a place to hang your coat, and posts a sign that says "not responsible for lost or stolen articles", they are still legally responsible for your lost or stolen article.

 

The same applies to cruise-lines & airlines. It doesn't matter what your contract states. If their neglect causes you harm, they are still legally responsible. Unfortunately, most lawyers will try to sue for 100 times the amount of actual damage.

[J_Viggy]

Actually, the restaurant may not be liable. But the presence or absence of a sign has nothing to do with whether they would be liable!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[songbird1329]

If a restaurant provides a place to hang your coat, and posts a sign that says "not responsible for lost or stolen articles", they are still legally responsible for your lost or stolen article.

 

The same applies to cruise-lines & airlines. It doesn't matter what your contract states. If their neglect causes you harm, they are still legally responsible. Unfortunately, most lawyers will try to sue for 100 times the amount of actual damage.

 

 

 

The restaurant has no liability for your coat unless they provide a service where you can check your coat in the coatroom. If you give your coat to the coat check, you have created a bailment. A bailment is the act of placing property in the custody and control of another, usually by agreement in which the holder (bailee) is responsible for the safekeeping and return of the property. If they have a coat rack and a sign posted that they are not responsible for your lost or stolen items, you hang your coat on the coat rack at your own risk.

 

 

Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. You have to show that there was a duty owed to the plaintiff, the breach of which breach caused harm/damages to the plaintiff. If you are a passenger on a ship or a plane, the carrier has a duty to provide you with safe passage.

 

What the judge in this case apparently ruled was that there was no contractual obligation to provide safe passage and therefore the passengers could not pursue a claim for breach of contract. However, the failure to provide safe passage gave the passengers a claim in tort for which they may recover damages.

[songbird1329]

Actually, the restaurant may not be liable. But the presence or absence of a sign has nothing to do with whether they would be liable!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

Also not quite correct, counselor. The more obvious the sign, the more likely a court will find that there was no bailment. At least under New York law.

Edited February 26, 2014 by songbird1329

[WetToes]

and yet you only see in the documents that there are only a handful compared to over 2000 guests that are sueing.

 

That caught my eye too, but I guess it's possible that a few others may be suing on their own?

Edited February 26, 2014 by WetToes

[songbird1329]

I agree with you. My recollection from law school is that a physical manifestation is required for recovery on emotional distress claims, but I don't know if that is correct.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

You recall correctly, counselor. The majority of jurisdictions require physical manifestation of emotional injury. The first question I ask when I see an emotional distress claim is "what's the law in this state?"

[BenjiRodney]

I am mentally injured by all of the people wearing their bathrobes in the lido lines will be the next thing people sue for.

[J_Viggy]

I am mentally injured by all of the people wearing their bathrobes in the lido lines will be the next thing people sue for.

 

Do people actually do thAt? I'm going on my first cruise in April, need to prepare myself for that!!

[J_Viggy]

Also not quite correct, counselor. The more obvious the sign, the more likely a court will find that there was no bailment. At least under New York law.

 

Ack bailments. You're bringing me back to first year property. *shudders*

[BenjiRodney]

Do people actually do thAt? I'm going on my first cruise in April, need to prepare myself for that!!

 

Yes you will be surprised, but the way I look at it I'm on vacation and I don't care.:)

[J_Viggy]

Yes you will be surprised, but the way I look at it I'm on vacation and I don't care.:)

 

Yeah, no biggie. Might actually provide some entertainment! ;):)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums