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

[PATRLR]

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'.

Thank you for that very insightful response.

[njkate]

Bottom line is NCL owes these passengers NOTHING.

How many times have people cruised or did land vacations to Florida or Caribbean in winter only to find their flights home canceled due to weather?

Sometimes longer then a day!!

If you can't budget for the possibility of a blip in your vacation, you more then likely can not and should not be vacationing.

[NLH Arizona]

It would be interesting to know how many with travel insurance are looking for compensation from NCL versus those without travel insurance.

[L1211]

Well I am in the mental health business and it sounds like you look at your employees as "products". People with mental illness are much more complicated than computers or software. Most computer people I know know nothing about mental illness.

 

So your company takes responsibility for your employees with mental health issues and tries to prevent them? How does that compute?

 

 

 

I too am in a business where we are accountable the actions of our employees’ including their mental health. I expect most all businesses are. Because NCL contractually waives that accountability and we accept that if we choose to sail doesn’t make it customary or even right...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seminole1975]

I too am in a business where we are accountable the actions of our employees’ including their mental health. I expect most all businesses are. Because NCL contractually waives that accountability and we accept that if we choose to sail doesn’t make it customary or even right...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So if one of your employees commits suicide their behavior was your responsibility and the company is liable for their actions? Interesting. It is good to hear that a company actually cares about their employees mental health and takes responsibility for it.

[fshagan]

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

 

Indeed, we take no responsibility for compatibility with their computer. They have to determine that. Your company is similar, I'm sure. So that's a bad analogy, as you indicated it might be.

 

There is probably a legal reason the wording about no guarantee the vessel is "seaworthy" is in there. None of us have identified as attorneys here, and especially not maritime law attorneys. It might be that the difference between "seaworthy" and not is one engine fire or tossed cigarette away. They simply can't guarantee the vessel will be seaworthy throughout the cruise. Or the term is a term of art that means something other to mariners than it means to us.

 

Stuff happens at sea; that is why the Captain had a legal responsibility to try to save the man in the water, no matter the cause of the man being in the water. Every boater knows that responsibility - you must render aid unless doing so endangers your ship or crew. You must. Unlike on the highway, where you can simply pass by a stranded motorist, you must render aid at sea.

 

As a layman, I know that not all contract provisions are always enforceable and not all provisions stand up to challenges. But I'll bet they would stand up in THIS case, where people are looking for compensation for missed flights because the ship got back late. In the mandatory arbitration it would get dismissed quickly, I'm sure. Even if the plaintiffs were successful in getting past arbitration and got a civil trial, the jury gets to consider most facts, and the fact that they were late because they were looking for someone in the water as required by maritime law is pretty important.

 

Life trumps convenience. Life trumps a few hundred dollars in costs. Life trumps our interesting but, ultimately unimportant discussion here.

[L1211]

So if one of your employees commits suicide their behavior was your responsibility and the company is liable for their actions? Interesting. It is good to hear that a company actually cares about their employees mental health and takes responsibility for it.

 

 

 

It it happens at work and caused loss to customers, of course the company would be responsible. We have patients as customers and we are highly responsible for the wellbeing of both patients and employees. But employee actions, even if suffering from mental illness, is our responsibility. Again, I think any employer would feel the same. I’d put NCL in that same camp.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PTC DAWG]

They are owed nothing.. they actually got a longer vacation...

 

Are the people from the Carnival ship complaining because they had to stop and pick up the found crew member? Had to be some kind of delay there...

 

Where does the complaining end?

[fshagan]

I actually had a family member (an in-law) tell me that he would have left the guy behind to drown because he chose to jump overboard, so people have said. (No one has yet to hear anything from the crewman's point of view.) He also told me that he would have been highly pissed about missing his flight in this situation. And knowing him, he would have been one of the first people at customer service raising hell. This really made me angry and the conversation got a little heated. I told him I was glad he was not the Captain, but oh wait, the Captain had to follow the LAW.

 

So yes there are a lot of people who have no compassion and think only of themselves. Most people do not understand mental illness. Perhaps they might have been more compassionate if the delay had been due to a medical problem. I don't know. I hope if I had been on that cruise, I would have been empathetic and understanding, but had also taken steps to take care of myself and my family. Not get angry and demand compensation. NCL owes no one anything IMHO. Sorry about the rant, but as a psych nurse and a counselor, I feel strongly about this situation.

 

The law at sea requires the Captain to react to the news that a person is in peril in the water, especially if they are the closest vessel to the incident. It doesn't matter if the person is his crew member, one of his passengers, a pleasure boater or a suicide attempt. The rule is in the International Maritime Organization's International Convention on Salvage in Article 10, Duty to Render Assistance.

It is backed up by individual countries and states that have passed laws with the requirements. In the US, the law is found in 46 U.S.C. §2304(a). Your in law would face penalties including possible jail time of up to two years for not attempting to render assistance.

[suffield12]

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.

 

 

 

Thing is the Costa Concordia was seen as negligence due to the poor implementation of agreed procedures and also corporate manslaughter for enforcing commercial pressure onto the master and crew to carry out a manoeuvre which in hindsight was an accident waiting to happen.

 

This incident was caused by an individual throwing themselves/falling overboard. Even if the individual had fallen off a passing vessel, international law dictates the master is duty bound to render assistance. This was therefore not negligence and i think any reasonable court would throw such claims out quite quickly.

 

This would be covered by insurance though. I people risk travelling on a ship without insurance more fool them!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums