Jury Awards $21 million to Injured HAL Passenger

[TiogaCruiser]

Brought up at trial: He continued to enjoy himself even after his traumatic head injury: Stayed on the ship for another 5 months, said suffered from vertigo but still rode elephants, enjoyed ports.

 

He complained of bright lights but still went to the casino most nights. He drank heavily both before and after the accident as bar staff noted he drank 24 beers a day in his cabin and more at night in the casino.

 

He filed lawsuits over ten previous times.

 

Even if that award was reduced to a million, it still screams "payday" to me.

[sail7seas]

Good Morning America did a segment about this story on the show this morning.

The played and replayed the video of the door striking him and what I noticed was other guests continuing to walk past. No one seemed particularly alarmed or disturbed that he possibly was seriously hurt..... at least from the image I saw and the way I saw it.

Edited November 12, 2015 by sail7seas

[ship2]

DW hits me harder than that door hit him!

[Tampa Girl]

hope the whole award gets overturned or maybe 50k total. that is complete bull and is why jurys should never set the amounts.

 

The jury is the fact finder in a jury trial. So who else do you think should make the findings for damages? If the jury had insufficient evidence to support the punitive (or compensatory) damages award, that is why we have appeals courts. As a former trial attorney, I will take a jury any day over a judge.

[Tampa Girl]

This accident happened on the Amsterdam. I have never been on that ship, but I have not noticed the same problem on other HAL ships. Has anyone else noticed this on other ships?

[Tampa Girl]

And the lawsuit was 3 years later - wasn't the time period 2011-2012? This is what drives me crazy - ambulance chasing attorneys.

 

This was hardly an "ambulance chasing" situation. The plantiff went to lengths to search out the attorney. Of what possible difference is the span of 3 years? It takes time to investigate the facts for a lawsuit; to file it; and to bring it to trial. And, yes, I am being defensive. I always am in the face of statements made about matters obviously not within the knowledge of the speaker.

[avian777]

The jury is the fact finder in a jury trial. So who else do you think should make the findings for damages? If the jury had insufficient evidence to support the punitive (or compensatory) damages award, that is why we have appeals courts. As a former trial attorney, I will take a jury any day over a judge.

 

... pretty safe bet that you were either a plaintiffs' attorney or an unsuccessful defense attorney (as I do not know any defense attorneys who would trust a jury over a Federal Judge such as Judge Rothstein) ...

Edited November 12, 2015 by avian777

[Krazy Kruizers]

$21 million is a pretty large sum of money.

This story was on the Today show this morning.

[amster65]

Ten previous lawsuits, now we know how he could afford a world cruise[emoji33]

[swedish1]

Many years ago my Parents filed a Lawsuit against HAL and won as well. In my parents case HAL won at Circuit Court but then HAL lost at the Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court. HAL was stubborn and arrogant as my Parents tried to settle with HAL for far less than what HAL had to pay in the end.

 

I have yet to set foot on a HAL because of what they put my Parents through.

[Tampa Girl]

... pretty safe bet that you were either a plaintiffs' attorney or an unsuccessful defense attorney (as I do not know any defense attorneys who would trust a jury over a Federal Judge such as Judge Rothstein) ...

 

There are always exceptions, and Judge Rothstein may be one of them. My earlier comment was made in the context of generalities, and not specifically to this case. I know nothing about this case other than what is being reported. Unless anyone on this board sat through the evidence, our opinions and statements are speculative. BTW, your speculation as to my legal experience is neither appropriate nor justified.

[avian777]

... My earlier comment was made in the context of generalities, and not specifically to this case...

 

... your earlier post may have been "made in the context of generalities", but (more importantly) it was a categorical statement (i.e., no exceptions) as to your preference to "take a jury any day over a judge." As such, by inference it applied to the Hausman case, whether or not you intended it.

[Fouremco]

Many years ago my Parents filed a Lawsuit against HAL and won as well. In my parents case HAL won at Circuit Court but then HAL lost at the Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court. HAL was stubborn and arrogant as my Parents tried to settle with HAL for far less than what HAL had to pay in the end.

 

I have yet to set foot on a HAL because of what they put my Parents through.

Would you care to provide some details of the case? Otherwise, it's hard for readers to have any appreciation of the events.

[Lizzie68]

This settlement even made the evening news here in Vancouver today. I am not surprised HAL is appealing - and though the amount seems excessive, none of us were in the courtroom or are privy to all of the testimony, so it's hard to have any kind of informed opinion. This could be tied up in the judicial system for a long time to come.

[cbr663]

Interesting that some people feel the award is excessive. I agree that $21 million is a lot of money, but I don't think that it was excessive. In fact, I wonder if it is high enough.

 

$15 million was awarded as punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded as an attempt to deter HAL from continuing to engage in this conduct. Is it enough?

 

The article above mentions that during the trail HAL tried to suppress 34 incidents involving sliding doors in the previous 3 years. So the fact that these doors were causing incidents that were seriously injuring people was not enough for HAL to correct the problem. A known health and safety issue existed and continued.

 

In addition, the article mentioned that industry experts testified that this incident should never have occurred. It is alleged, and it would seem that the unanimous jury agreed, that HAL had changed the motion sensors to open and close faster than normal, all for the goal of saving fuel, aka, increasing profits.

 

The message I take away is of a company so driven by profits that when it changed the normal operation of a piece of equipment that resulted in passengers being injured, it did nothing. So what would it take to convince the HAL powers that be that this is unacceptable?

 

A $15 million penalty? When you consider the Carnival Corp posted revenues in 2014 of $15,844 billion and a net income of $1,226, the penalty of 1.2% of net income is hardly excessive. This for a company that spends over $11.5 million a week on advertising alone. And let's not forget, Carnival Corp and HAL have insurance that will pick up the eventual tab.

[Hlitner]

Excessive award? Perhaps. But sometimes it takes an excessive award to wake up corporations (in this case HAL) that when there is a problem it needs to be repaired.....NOW! And we just saw this story (with the video) on Foxnews so it continues to get playing time on national networks. We saw a similar situation, a few years ago, on the Prinsendam where one of the forward elevators would close very hard on anyone who happened to be in the way. The door slammed passengers hard enough to cause some bruising (I probably had a few myself) and was reported numerous times. Although our cruise was 2 months in length, nothing was done to repair the problem during the entire cruise....and there was warning sign. That elevator continued to hit passengers for months! On that same ship we had one of the few cabins that did not have a walk-in closet and instead had a large heavy closest system with sliding doors. The doors would constantly pop off the tracks and jam, and when we showed this to the steward he simply lifted the door back on the track and said "it always does that." A few weeks later, while I was sliding the heavy door it popped off the tracks and fell completely out of the closet nearly knocking me over. Fortunately, I am big enough that there was no real harm (other then another bruise) but if it had happened to DW she could have been seriously injured. Our steward, who was nearby, expressed some frustration as we both lifted that heavy door back onto its tracks. We suspect that if we had that same cabin today, that same door would still be there and still be popping off the tracks. One day it will fall on a small woman, and there will likely be another lawsuit.

 

Accidents happen and some folks are law suit crazy. But deferring maintenance on an item that could cause injury is sometimes called gross negligence. And there are times when giving the injured passenger some chocolate covered strawberries, or a cheap bottle of wine is just not good enough.

 

Hank

[Rosethorn40]

The jury is the fact finder in a jury trial. So who else do you think should make the findings for damages? If the jury had insufficient evidence to support the punitive (or compensatory) damages award, that is why we have appeals courts. As a former trial attorney, I will take a jury any day over a judge.

 

And as a person who sat on a jury in a capital murder case I would take a judge that knew the law over 12 average Joe's.

[Tampa Girl]

And as a person who sat on a jury in a capital murder case I would take a judge that knew the law over 12 average Joe's.

 

Not if you were were defending your cliient. And this is generally speaking.

[avian777]

Not if you were were defending your cliient. And this is generally speaking.

 

... generally speaking, isn't a lawyer "defending [her/his] client" whether in front of a jury or in front of a judge? The old law school adage was, as a criminal defense attorney, pick a judge if your client is innocent and a jury if he's guilty ...

[sail7seas]

Just a few thoughts that come to mind:

 

None of us were in the court room and heard all the testimony,

None of us know all the facts of the case,

None of us really know the Defendant

 

Most importantly..... How many of us respond positively when we get a Jury Summons. Too many of us find all sorts of reasons why they cannot/do not want to serve. This jury did their civic duty and they reached a verdict.

 

I have lots of problems criticizing them. I wasn't in the court room and they were.

 

[cbr663]

Excessive award? Perhaps. But sometimes it takes an excessive award to wake up corporations (in this case HAL) that when there is a problem it needs to be repaired.....NOW! And we just saw this story (with the video) on Foxnews so it continues to get playing time on national networks. We saw a similar situation, a few years ago, on the Prinsendam where one of the forward elevators would close very hard on anyone who happened to be in the way. The door slammed passengers hard enough to cause some bruising (I probably had a few myself) and was reported numerous times. Although our cruise was 2 months in length, nothing was done to repair the problem during the entire cruise....and there was warning sign. That elevator continued to hit passengers for months! On that same ship we had one of the few cabins that did not have a walk-in closet and instead had a large heavy closest system with sliding doors. The doors would constantly pop off the tracks and jam, and when we showed this to the steward he simply lifted the door back on the track and said "it always does that." A few weeks later, while I was sliding the heavy door it popped off the tracks and fell completely out of the closet nearly knocking me over. Fortunately, I am big enough that there was no real harm (other then another bruise) but if it had happened to DW she could have been seriously injured. Our steward, who was nearby, expressed some frustration as we both lifted that heavy door back onto its tracks. We suspect that if we had that same cabin today, that same door would still be there and still be popping off the tracks. One day it will fall on a small woman, and there will likely be another lawsuit.

 

Accidents happen and some folks are law suit crazy. But deferring maintenance on an item that could cause injury is sometimes called gross negligence. And there are times when giving the injured passenger some chocolate covered strawberries, or a cheap bottle of wine is just not good enough.

 

Hank

 

Thanks for sharing your story of the closet doors. I have to admit that I am wondering what else we have to look out for when we cruise? Here is the thing though - as your story above and this lawsuit clearly illustrates, the fact the something is happening that is injuring passengers doesn't appear to be enough to motivate HAL to change it.

 

We tend to think that a company that promotes that it cares about the health and safety of its passengers would never tolerate anything that could potentially cause harm to any passenger. Many of us think that if we report an incident that we see or experience on a ship that it will be dealt with right away. Is this a naive way to think?

 

Maybe these are isolated incidents, maybe not? Who knows as I am sure HAL is not about to release that information. But this lawsuit does present an example of a company that doesn't believe that it has a legal obligation nor a moral obligation to operate in a certain manner. So what's left but the bottom line?

[Rosethorn40]

Not if you were were defending your cliient. And this is generally speaking.

 

In the jury I was on, one of my fellow jury members said as soon as we got into the jury room "Can we all agree to find her guilty so we can go home?" Personally I thought deciding someone's fate should have a little discussion.

 

The defendant was found guilty of first degree murder, and in my state, when it comes to a first degree murder conviction, the jury has a say in the sentence. The choices are No Mercy (Life w/out parole), Mercy (The possibility of parole after 15-years), or if all 12 can't agree the defendant automatically gets Mercy. After the first round of voting it was 9 No Mercy, 1 undecided, and 2 for Mercy. However, we had several strong personalities in the room and within 20-minutes the 2 that wanted Mercy were browbeaten into changing their votes. After we left the courthouse, I saw one of the original "Mercy" voters sobbing uncontrollably in his truck.

 

In the jury room I tried to tell the last holdout for Mercy, that while I could not change my vote to Mercy, I would back him 100% if he was steadfast to his belief that the defendant should be shown Mercy, but he changed his vote anyway. After that I knew I never would want 12 of my fellow citizens to decide my fate.

[Lynda S]

Not that my opinion makes any difference, but no matter how many times I watch that video, I still see him not looking where he was going and walking into that door.

[sapper1]

Not that my opinion makes any difference, but no matter how many times I watch that video, I still see him not looking where he was going and walking into that door.

 

Those were my thoughts exactly, Lynda. I watched over and over and the guy kept on walking into the door.

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

Interesting that some people feel the award is excessive. I agree that $21 million is a lot of money, but I don't think that it was excessive. In fact, I wonder if it is high enough.

 

$15 million was awarded as punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded as an attempt to deter HAL from continuing to engage in this conduct. Is it enough?

 

The article above mentions that during the trail HAL tried to suppress 34 incidents involving sliding doors in the previous 3 years. So the fact that these doors were causing incidents that were seriously injuring people was not enough for HAL to correct the problem. A known health and safety issue existed and continued.

 

In addition, the article mentioned that industry experts testified that this incident should never have occurred. It is alleged, and it would seem that the unanimous jury agreed, that HAL had changed the motion sensors to open and close faster than normal, all for the goal of saving fuel, aka, increasing profits.

 

The message I take away is of a company so driven by profits that when it changed the normal operation of a piece of equipment that resulted in passengers being injured, it did nothing. So what would it take to convince the HAL powers that be that this is unacceptable?

 

A $15 million penalty? When you consider the Carnival Corp posted revenues in 2014 of $15,844 billion and a net income of $1,226, the penalty of 1.2% of net income is hardly excessive. This for a company that spends over $11.5 million a week on advertising alone. And let's not forget, Carnival Corp and HAL have insurance that will pick up the eventual tab.

They might self insure a present. .