Proposal to Strengthen Cruise Passenger Safety Laws

[MidwestOceanToo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCwkrvL5ECE You can't fix stupid. Somehow a case would be made for the cruise line being liable.

[BND]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCwkrvL5ECE You can't fix stupid. Somehow a case would be made for the cruise line being liable.

 

And that is the real issue. The vast majority of injuries and deaths not associated with age or health issues are stupidity, not liability on the cruiseline.

[bUU]

And that is the real issue. The vast majority of injuries and deaths not associated with age or health issues are stupidity, not liability on the cruiseline.

Liability is practically never 100%. In many cases, when there is fault on both sides, the damaged party can only claim damages in proportion to the fault of the party being sued.

[MidwestOceanToo]

I see more inquiries on these boards about cabin configuration than about personal safety when cruising. Up until now I have not questioned who is going to investigate my death if my dear wife suddenly decides she would rather cruise as a single supplement.

 

Liability and legal issues usually end up being resolved in a couple of ways, which will be born by the passengers. The cruise lines will actuarially figure the additional cost of litigation and settlements, divide it by passenger count and tag it on to the fare, and continue with business as usual.

 

Or possibly implement measures to lessen the risk by changing the environment. Imagine no more balcony cabins, perhaps no outdoor decks at all, implement a profession level security force, limit alcohol consumption, etc. Whatever it takes to lessen their liability and still make a profit.

 

Extended US jurisdiction really scares me. If people actually endorse such ideas as limiting or banning super size drinks, with the obesity problem in the States, the buffet is headed for extinction. I only offer that has an example. As far as the gov't goes, I am a camels nose in the tent person. Someone is always looking out for my good, even if I don't need it. But hey, I believe every right has a corresponding responsibility.

 

Lastly in the extreme, in the future, I can see all of us flying to the Bahamas or some other island as the only port of embarkation. Hope one of the islands is big enough for an O'Hare size airport. I think the Bahamas currently charges a $10/person exit fee. I can see the Bahamian parliament chanting in unison "Yesss! Pass another law, pass another law!"

[genegri]

Unfortunately I no longer trust the government to regulate corporations. Nowadays too often I see them in bed together.

[BND]

Liability is practically never 100%. In many cases, when there is fault on both sides, the damaged party can only claim damages in proportion to the fault of the party being sued.

 

Did you watch the video (btw, one of several out there of people doing stupendously stupid things on a cruisehip)? In no way was the cruiseline liable for any damage to the individual. And, that isn't the point of this thread. Useless legislation designed to make people feel good, period.

[bUU]

Did you watch the video (btw, one of several out there of people doing stupendously stupid things on a cruisehip)? In no way was the cruiseline liable for any damage to the individual.

We're talking about two different incidents in this thread. The earlier part of the thread included discussion of the Larry and Christy Hammer tragedy, for which Peruvian authorities have determined that the cruise line is partially liable for. That was what I was referring to. Sorry for any confusion in that regard.

 

I agree completely that the cruise line is not at all liable for the St. Maarten tragedy.

 

And, that isn't the point of this thread. Useless legislation designed to make people feel good, period.

This has nothing to do with making people feel good. Rather it is about making cruise lines as responsible for their negligence, committed in the context of cruises embarking or debarking from US ports (and perhaps even otherwise, as long as the cruise is purchased using US markets, banks and/or credit card transaction processors, as I would like to see it) regardless of whether they're in US waters.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Did you watch the video (btw, one of several out there of people doing stupendously stupid things on a cruisehip)? In no way was the cruiseline liable for any damage to the individual. And, that isn't the point of this thread. Useless legislation designed to make people feel good, period.

 

 

 

Oh, but... the Cruise ship should add a fence, grate, glass, to prevent people from doing stupid things. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Biker19]

The only real barrier is myopic reactionaryism.

Just a word of advice - bring the wording down to USA Today levels and you may have a better reception.;)

[bUU]

Just a word of advice - bring the wording down to USA Today levels and you may have a better reception.;)

While I accept that that is good advice, I'll continue to afford those I disagree with with more respect for their ability to understand something a bit more advanced than that. Maybe it is misplaced respect, but I can live with that.

[BecciBoo]

protecting a passenger from failure of the cruise line to take appropriate measures to keep the passenger safe.

 

This would almost require the cruise line to apply a small child's harness and jumper lines:cool: and run around behind the passenger trying to prevent things from happening to them, when all along, the passenger should be

"RESPONSIBLE" for their own behavior and intelligence....or lack of !

 

Back in the day brain cells typically began to activate around 21, but I honestly believe it's more like 40 these days!;p

[John&LaLa]

Oh, but... the Cruise ship should add a fence, grate, glass, to prevent people from doing stupid things. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Safety nets.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[John&LaLa]

Just a word of advice - bring the wording down to USA Today levels and you may have a better reception.;)

I've been thinking that for a couple weeks. [emoji33]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[bUU]

At least two ships we've considered cruising on recently have promenade decks that extend beyond the balconies above. Coincidence?

 

Having said that, I doubt it'll go that far. This is more about what happened to the Hammers.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[xpcdoojk]

The picture even looks like Bicker.;p:halo:

 

JC:halo:

[chengkp75]

At least two ships we've considered cruising on recently have promenade decks that extend beyond the balconies above. Coincidence?

 

 

Yeah, they take the rare instance of jumping overboard when they design a multi-hundred million dollar ship. I would say that the cruise lines would initiate background checks for crew before designing ships to lessen the liability for people going overboard.

[bUU]

How much bad PR, even if it is unfair, is enough to drive design decisions? I truly don't know. In all my years hearing executives talk about such things I don't think I've ever heard them voice concerns of that sort out loud. Such things invariably factor into their decision making to some (perhaps negligible, perhaps not) extent but either way it would be imprudent to get their perspectives on it on the record.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[John&LaLa]

At least two ships we've considered cruising on recently have promenade decks that extend beyond the balconies above. Coincidence?

 

Having said that, I doubt it'll go that far. This is more about what happened to the Hammers.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Hammers?

 

I thought the Legislation OP referenced brought up George Smith IV.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[bUU]

The reason why this has come up again now was the story about the Hammers.

I think this legislation and the discussion that goes with it have come up because of a couple that died in a stateroom fire on an Amazon river cruise ... I saw the story on the news. A power strip in the room caught fire and the two died I believe. No fire alarms went off and it took quite a while for anyone to get into the room to investigate the smoke. By then it was too late.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[John&LaLa]

The reason why this has come up again now was the story about the Hammers.

 

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

That's just an opinion here. The quote by the bill sponsor mentions George Smith IV.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[bUU]

I suspect if this ever gets debated for real every incident where liability was limited due to DOHSA will be brought up. No sense in leaving any out.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[StolidCruiser]

We're talking about two different incidents in this thread. The earlier part of the thread included discussion of the Larry and Christy Hammer tragedy, for which Peruvian authorities have determined that the cruise line is partially liable for. That was what I was referring to. Sorry for any confusion in that regard.

 

I agree completely that the cruise line is not at all liable for the St. Maarten tragedy.

 

This has nothing to do with making people feel good. Rather it is about making cruise lines as responsible for their negligence, committed in the context of cruises embarking or debarking from US ports (and perhaps even otherwise, as long as the cruise is purchased using US markets, banks and/or credit card transaction processors, as I would like to see it) regardless of whether they're in US waters.

 

Do I understand you correctly that if I purchase my cruise using a US based credit card for itineraries that never touch US soil, is operated by a foreign company and regulated under non-US legislation that I should expect the full protections of US liabilty laws by the foreign travel operator?

 

If so, it would be a massive game changer to the international travel industry if expected to abide by US laws outside of the US because the traveller is American using a US-based credit card.

 

If I have misunderstood, I apologize.

[bUU]

Do I understand you correctly that if I purchase my cruise using a US based credit card for itineraries that never touch US soil, is operated by a foreign company and regulated under non-US legislation that I should expect the full protections of US liabilty laws by the foreign travel operator?

Eventually, I hope that will be the case. I don't think sellers should be able to evade consumer protections without completely disavowing themselves of the good offices of the United States government ENTIRELY.

 

If so, it would be a massive game changer to the international travel industry if expected to abide by US laws outside of the US because the traveller is American using a US-based credit card.

That is at the outer edge of what I would hope for. Before that, we have other touchstones: Embarking or disembarking at a US port would be the first level. Being a US based company or owned by a company with substantial assets in the US would be the second level. Marketing to US consumers would be a third level.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[jimbo5544]

That's just an opinion here. The quote by the bill sponsor mentions George Smith IV.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

 

 

 

While true, I wonder where the esteemed senator and representative were at the time of the accident. What we don't need is more government oversight unless they truly have a better plan. In all likelihood, it will be more grandstanding like the bully Rockerfeller did two years ago.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Aquahound]

Do I understand you correctly that if I purchase my cruise using a US based credit card for itineraries that never touch US soil, is operated by a foreign company and regulated under non-US legislation that I should expect the full protections of US liabilty laws by the foreign travel operator?

 

If so, it would be a massive game changer to the international travel industry if expected to abide by US laws outside of the US because the traveller is American using a US-based credit card.

 

I would certainly hope not. If a foreign cruise company operating outside of the US is alleged to be liable for damages, then it needs to be handled in the venue spelled out in the cruise contract. To even suggest a measure otherwise is ludicrous.