Has NCL given any reimbursement for the delay due to crew member jumping overboard?

[Seminole1975]

Maybe their feelings were hurt. :loudcry::loudcry:

 

No doubt! :')

[Seminole1975]

Okay, I get it about the delays or change in routing, etc.

 

But "no warranty, whether express or implied, as to the fitness,

seaworthiness, or condition of the vessel or any person on board." ??

 

They are able to claim that the ship "may NOT be seaworthy" and that's ... OK?

 

Or that the Captain, for example, might not be "fit" for his job?

 

Really??

 

:eek: :eek:

 

*Obviously* we didn't think this bit through!!

 

GC

 

Another interesting point! Yikes!

[BirdTravels]

I don't understand why everyone is dismissing the idea that NCL has some responsibility for the delay in the Getaway's return.

 

Do you all think the passengers on the Costa Concordia were due compensation? Sure, that was much different becuase the Captain ran that ship aground. What if it was one of his staff who did it? I think we all would agree those passengers would still be due compensation.

 

But in the case of the Getaway it was a low level staffer possibly attempting suicide. So because of that situation, many here say NCL isn't responsible. Hmmm.

 

Let's go back to the Concordia - what if it was a low level staffer in the engine room that wanted to commit suicide, caused a fire and left the Concordia with no power and adrift and it ended up on those rocks. Are the Concordia passengers no longer due compensation because of the personal tragedy of someone committing suicide?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but, I think that when an employee is the one that causes the harm, the business is usually responsible for that harm.

 

Before you all jump all over me here, my travel is insured and I wouldn't be looking for compensation. I just am not so quick to say NCL doesn't have some responsibility here.

 

As you said, you are not a lawyer, so your "expert opinions" have no basis. Your assertions have no basis, just random, unsubstantiated claims. Read the terms and conditions of the contract every passenger has agreed to before boarding the ship. The Cruise Line has no responsibility for returning the ship per a schedule and can change the schedule at their discretion.

 

The analogy to the Concordia is just absurd.

 

Best you look up a legal definition of "harm" because your usage of the term is just to play on emotion and has no legal basis. Again, based on the contract that everyone signed, which you seem to have not looked at, the cruise line can change the ship's itinerary with out consulting you. And the cruise ship, in accordance with the contract, does NOT owe anyone compensation.

 

They can and have compensated people as a gesture of good will. And those with insurance can be compensated for travel delays causing change fees and/or hotel fees IF they were smart enough to get documentation BEFORE leaving the ship. A newspaper clipping from the Miami Herald probably won't allow your to make an insurance claim.

[pcakes122]

Another interesting point! Yikes!

The entire Terms & Conditions is VERY eye-opening if you carefully read through it! For example, even though we've seen so many passengers medivac'd off the ship, NCL specifically states in the T&C that they are not obliged to do that and you are taking that risk by stepping onboard.

 

It is very detailed and is, of course, written to protect them. If I was on NCL's Legal team I would have done the same. Of course, doesn't mean they won't help people or even offer compensation - but it does mean they are not legally bound to do so (and it would likely take a long, expensive court battle to prove otherwise.) They may (and do) settle serious cases in the interest of public relations/image, of course.

 

But the folks complaining about a few hours delayed return are really pushing it in light of the contract they signed before embarking!

[AmazedByCruising]

But the folks complaining about a few hours delayed return are really pushing it in light of the contract they signed before embarking!

 

When people sign contracts that say it's their problem when the ship is not even seaworthy I'd say that the cruise line should have known that people didn't know what they signed for. Not sure how consumer protection works in the US?

 

Incidentally, I never had a contract with HAL nor Celebrity. My (Dutch) TA gave me a much simpler contract. "This is the itinerary, these are the cabins, this is the price", basically. I didn't even need to sign anything, just pay.

[AmazedByCruising]

NCL went one better than insuring themselves. They hired lawyers that wrote an extensive and detailed Terms of Service contract between themselves and their Guests. Problem is, most passengers don't read it before embarking. It clearly lays out potential risks of sea travel and limits and/or absolves NCL liability in just about any case you can imagine.

 

Are you saying that after reading a contract that almost says "we can sink the ship on purpose if we want to, and we'd still owe you nothing", people should be wise and shouldn't be cruising at all? Where's child service when you take your kids on board a ship that isn't even guaranteed seaworthy?

[Laszlo]

Where's child service when you take your kids on board a ship that isn't even guaranteed seaworthy?

 

That goes right out the window also Lol

[Seminole1975]

When people sign contracts that say it's their problem when the ship is not even seaworthy I'd say that the cruise line should have known that people didn't know what they signed for. Not sure how consumer protection works in the US?

 

Incidentally, I never had a contract with HAL nor Celebrity. My (Dutch) TA gave me a much simpler contract. "This is the itinerary, these are the cabins, this is the price", basically. I didn't even need to sign anything, just pay.

 

I remember agreeing to their terms and conditions when I signed up on the NCL website and set up MyNCL page. Is that the same as a legal contract? I would not have been able to complete boarding documents without agreeing to them. I definitely did not sign anything labeled a "contract" that I recall.

 

Some of the good folks on CC have taught me to always read the fine print, but I can't say I have read every word. Need to get busy I guess after what I have learned today.

 

As to the vessel being seaworthy, the Getaway and her sister ships, have regular coast guard inspections. I suppose they have to meet certain standards. I am not worried at all, this information and situation is very fascinating to me, especially having a son working on the ship.

 

Hope everyone in the US is enjoying the holiday!

[pcakes122]

Are you saying that after reading a contract that almost says "we can sink the ship on purpose if we want to, and we'd still owe you nothing", people should be wise and shouldn't be cruising at all? Where's child service when you take your kids on board a ship that isn't even guaranteed seaworthy?

I didn't say people shouldn't cruise at all. Personally, I have 9 upcoming cruises booked & I can't wait. :)

 

My point is that people need to be aware that they are accepting the risks associated with getting on a big floating hotel that is going out to sea. NCL is detailing those risks upfront (in case people don't know what the risks are.) If potential passengers aren't willing to accept those risks, choose a different vacation.

 

Child services has nothing to do with anything. :') If you don't feel comfortable taking your children into the middle of the ocean, that's fine - but it is your choice. No one is forcing you to do anything - especially NCL.

[KDOG687]

Read the cruise contract that you sign, be advise of the guidelines they recommend on departing flights in case of delays. Also don't travel if you can't afford or the potential for delays. If you can't afford it, then travel and extra health insurance probably would be beneficial.

 

Sent from my H1611 using Forums mobile app

[AmazedByCruising]

I didn't say people shouldn't cruise at all. Personally, I have 9 upcoming cruises booked & I can't wait. :)

 

 

So jealous..

 

 

My point is that people need to be aware that they are accepting the risks associated with getting on a big floating hotel that is going out to sea. NCL is detailing those risks upfront (in case people don't know what the risks are.) If potential passengers aren't willing to accept those risks, choose a different vacation. :)

 

 

And my point is that people are probably not going to read the contract. And if they do, and the cruiseline literally says "we can't guarantee our ships are seaworthy", everything else is taken as laywer talk as well and I expect the ship to do exactly the cruise I paid for.

 

 

As a customer, reading a contract, I'd be enlightened when the cruise line says "because of weather, there's a reasonable chance you may miss a port, or a change to your itinerary. But we will try to visit all the islands". That would make me think again about the wedding on St Maarten. A sensible contract, where the company being the bigger party, explains some reasonable risks to me.

 

Child services has nothing to do with anything. :') If you don't feel comfortable taking your children into the middle of the ocean, that's fine - but it is your choice. No one is forcing you to do anything - especially NCL.

 

They are literally saying the ship may not be seaworthy. Why shouldn't child services be alerted when I take kids on a ship, where the cruise line even warned me it could very well sink. I mean: nobody takes the contract serious.

[GeezerCouple]

I remember agreeing to their terms and conditions when I signed up on the NCL website and set up MyNCL page. Is that the same as a legal contract? I would not have been able to complete boarding documents without agreeing to them. I definitely did not sign anything labeled a "contract" that I recall.

 

Some of the good folks on CC have taught me to always read the fine print, but I can't say I have read every word. Need to get busy I guess after what I have learned today.

 

As to the vessel being seaworthy, the Getaway and her sister ships, have regular coast guard inspections. I suppose they have to meet certain standards. I am not worried at all, this information and situation is very fascinating to me, especially having a son working on the ship.

 

Hope everyone in the US is enjoying the holiday!

 

I suppose clicking a box or something online is the current "signature".

But no cruiseline that I've experienced (or airline, etc.) has required an actual "signature".

 

I'm just curious - where, exactly, do NCL passengers encounter and acknowledge the wording about how the vessels may not be seaworthy?

 

Somehow, it just seems like there should be some legalese that would phrase this more along the lines about having inspections or whatever, "... but despite our efforts...<there could be problems, etc.>"

 

But obviously, I am not an attorney!

 

GC

[pcakes122]

I mean: nobody takes the contract serious.

The lawyers and courts do. Honestly, if I wasn't willing to accept the risk, I just wouldn't go on the cruise. You can't demand Child Services intervention or go on the cruise and if something happens say "Well who reads contracts, I want compensation."

 

I think people not only don't read Terms & Conditions but they also just look at what they want to look at and believe what they want to believe. So do kids.

 

That's why my original point was people need to start acting like responsible adults, make informed decisions, stop blaming everyone else and don't cry like a baby when life doesn't go their way. Again, perspective here folks - the ship was delayed a couple of hours coming back into port. Everybody was safe and sound - just a little late!

 

On a positive note, I guess these people have never experienced any REAL problems if they think that maybe missing their flight home was such an ordeal. I'm happy for them! :D

[AmazedByCruising]

The lawyers and courts do. Honestly, if I wasn't willing to accept the risk, I just wouldn't go on the cruise. You can't demand Child Services intervention or go on the cruise and if something happens say "Well who reads contracts, I want compensation." :D

 

You are on a holiday, and when a port is missed you can live with it with 8 more cruises in sight. I guess that's your idea of the "risk".

 

If the cruise line says "yes, a missed port is possible, but you could also be dead, not our problem, read your contract", I guess that was not the risk you want to take for a few ports and a nice view. If such contracts are to to be taken seriously, nobody should be cruising.

[Toofarfromthesea]

When people sign contracts that say it's their problem when the ship is not even seaworthy I'd say that the cruise line should have known that people didn't know what they signed for. Not sure how consumer protection works in the US?

 

Incidentally, I never had a contract with HAL nor Celebrity. My (Dutch) TA gave me a much simpler contract. "This is the itinerary, these are the cabins, this is the price", basically. I didn't even need to sign anything, just pay.

 

By paying you agreed to the terms and conditions.

 

 

And yet I'd bet that virtually everyone who has participated in this thread, and specifically had that pointed out to them IN this thread, will not give it another thought nor will it make them stop cruising. It isn't that we don't KNOW, it is that when it comes down to it we don't CARE.

 

Are you done with cruising because of these contract provisions? I'm not.

[KDOG687]

I have had several cruises delayed due to medical emergency, I didn't become unhinged or wanted to know who to sue. Life happens it took 5 cruises to finally make it to the Caymans. I think this is a prime example of the entitled. They only think about themselves I have seen these post even a few hours after the news broke wanting a free cruise and didn't even care about the person who jump. It is sad a few hundred bucks and a couple hours mean more than someone life. What if that was you or one of your loved ones that took the plunge what would be your response then?.....leave the behind because I'm cheap and book the cheapest earliest flight to save a dime. The other argument if your to dumb to understand what you sign in the cruise contract then be all means don't cruise this is why I have stopped eating in the MDR with a table full of whiners.

 

Sent from my H1611 using Forums mobile app

[fshagan]

I'm not in the cruise line business, I sell software. We have numerous reasons why our product could fail, too, including employees with mental health problems. It is always our problem, which we should get an insurance for or be big enough to absorb the risk ourselves, and of course try our utmost to prevent it.

 

I also work for a software company. Have you read your Terms of Service? I'll bet it is as restrictive as NCL's contract of carriage or whatever they call their contract. Most software is. You can post yours here if it is different, as I'm sure everyone would like to know the one software product that covers all costs for any problem with their software.

 

Most sales people believe their product is wonderful, never fails and of course the company always cover all costs for any malfunction. The people who are in post-sale customer facing positions have a different view of your company.

[GeezerCouple]

I also work for a software company. Have you read your Terms of Service? I'll bet it is as restrictive as NCL's contract of carriage or whatever they call their contract. Most software is. You can post yours here if it is different, as I'm sure everyone would like to know the one software product that covers all costs for any problem with their software.

 

Most sales people believe their product is wonderful, never fails and of course the company always cover all costs for any malfunction. The people who are in post-sale customer facing positions have a different view of your company.

 

Does your company's software agreements state that "our software may not be suitable for use on computers"?

 

That's the best I could (quickly) re-word an equivalent to ships that might not be seaworthy...

 

;)

 

GC

[Maniacal Cruiser]

When people sign contracts that say it's their problem when the ship is not even seaworthy I'd say that the cruise line should have known that people didn't know what they signed for. Not sure how consumer protection works in the US?

 

Incidentally, I never had a contract with HAL OR Celebrity. My (Dutch) TA gave me a much simpler contract. "This is the itinerary, these are the cabins, this is the price", basically. I didn't even need to sign anything, just pay.

 

Yes you did, you just never read it.

[Guest I am the Onion]

Lawyers and courts DO NOTtake contracts seriously. If they did, no one would be able to file a lawsuit when they get hit by a baseball while stuffing a hot dog into their face. Didja ever look at the back of a baseball ticket ? All that writing. It’s a contract.

[goin-away]

https://www.cruisecritic.com/about-us/terms-of-use/

 

For comparison.

[newmexicoNita]

I don’t understand why people assume they are due compensation either. If you bought concert tickets, get stuck in traffic because a truck jack knifes and causes a major wreck, and you miss your concert you paid a lot of money for, does the driver owe you compensation? Does the company he drives for owe you? I don’t understand why people feel entitled every time something goes not as planned. If a few hour delay breaks the bank, you should not be going on vacation. Life happens.

very good point. I think some of us just are saying no, NCL has not responsibility to reimburse anyone but insurance might help out.

[new salt]

My law student days are decades behind me but in tort I cannot see liability for NCL. They would only be liable if the damage was suffered as a consequence of the crewman performing his duties, not embarking 'on a frolic of his own'. It is difficult to imagine a duty requiring someone to jump over the side. I wonder if NCL will dock his pay for the period he was willfully unavailable for his duties?

[Shawnino]

My law student days are decades behind me but in tort I cannot see liability for NCL. They would only be liable if the damage was suffered as a consequence of the crewman performing his duties, not embarking 'on a frolic of his own'. It is difficult to imagine a duty requiring someone to jump over the side. I wonder if NCL will dock his pay for the period he was willfully unavailable for his duties?

 

Would International Maritime Law supersede Tort Law here?

[buckeyefrank]

Would International Maritime Law supersede Tort Law here?

 

YES!!!

 

Everyone is debating the merits of litigation for this cruise based on US Laws. This is NOT a US legal issue. This is a seaworthy ship. The contract that everyone signs (regardless of cruiseline) agress that Maritime law prevails. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that Maritime laws are very complicated.