Royal gets sued

[BillOh]

21 hours ago, klfrodo said:

I can see where Royal has some liability. Maybe not 100%, but a percentage depending on the contract between Royal and the operator. 

Royal does sell this excursion and they do profit from selling this excursion.

 

How many times have we on CC advised people to use local vendors only because the cruise lines excursions are so expensive. They are expensive for a reason and not just because of the extra revenue. The cruise lines negotiate guaranteed space, timely returns, safety and equipment practices, liabilty insurance, and yes PROFIT margin.

 

So, Yes, Royal has a dog in this fight and should be part of the litigation.

 

At one point when I use to do Royal excursions only, they canceled 33% of the ones I booked. When I tried to find out why, they would only say some token rehearsed statement about the safety of their guests.   Its nothing but lip service. 

[orville99]

Two observations, both from an insurance perspective, and both presumptions on my part. 1) Presumably, RCL vets tour operators not only for their safety records but also for their insurance policy status, and if they follow normal event industry practices they would require a certificate of insurance from the tour operator before doing business with them, and 2) following those same industry practices RCL would require the tour operator to add them as an "additional insured" party on the tour company's insurance policy which indemnifies them from liability or negligence by the tour operator. 

 

Does either of these prevent RCL from being sued, not at all, but it does provide them a viable defense when they are sued.

[ONECRUISER]

19 hours ago, mo&fran said:

Over someone dying?

Wouldn't surprise me if it is many times a yr. Deaths happen on board, people jumping overboard, come up missing. Many we hear about most we don't

[KuffMUp]

23 hours ago, davekathy said:

...The suit says the excursion was operated by an independent contractor, but guests were misled to believe it was operated by Royal Caribbean. ...😏 

It also says they booked it on board.  That means it was on a Royal contract.

[davekathy]

19 minutes ago, KuffMUp said:

It also says they booked it on board.  That means it was on a Royal contract.

Agree. But the comment of "were misled to believe". He said she said. 😏 That's all I was pointing out. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by davekathy

[waterbug123]

18 hours ago, KuffMUp said:

It also says they booked it on board.  That means it was on a Royal contract.

 

"sold by" and "operated by" mean two completely different things. 

[Big_G]

Thanks for the update. Litigation for personal injury and especially death has become the standard these days so I'm not sure why anyone would get their undies in a bundle over it.

[Milwaukee Eight]

On 12/13/2018 at 1:27 PM, Biker19 said:

In usual CC fashion, there was a lengthy thread about this at the time of the incident.

 

Biker. Could you please post the link for that thread. 

[kevdad]

1.  I can't even begin to imagine the horror this woman has been through with this incident.  I don't fault her whatsoever in wanting to hold everyone involved responsible and remuneration is the primary way to do that.

 

2.  Maybe scratching big checks will help in some way prevent something like this from happening again.  Again, monetary punishment is the only way to send a message to those responsible that changes need to be made.

[Biker19]

1 hour ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

 

Biker. Could you please post the link for that thread. 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2561412-allure-passenger-killed-on-zip-line-tour/

[S.A.M.J.R.]

3 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

 

"sold by" and "operated by" mean two completely different things. 

You purchase a dishwasher from a store.  Because of an electrical defect in the dishwasher, it catches fire and your house burns down.  You're going to be looking at the manufacturer AND the seller as being at fault.  In my opinion, a seller does have a responsibility to make sure the products they sell are safe.  

 

Now, is Royal 100% at fault?  No.  But I do feel they have some culpability. 

[OfficerKrupke]

On 12/14/2018 at 7:19 AM, sparks1093 said:

 

 Lawyers are also trained to name anyone remotely connected to the incident in the suit and let the matter of ultimate culpability be decided by the court. 

 

A lot of people call this the shotgun approach. You roll up everybody in one suit, fire a shotgun and see who it hits in the spread. Courts/Judges will decide ultimately who is culpable. The judge may even remove RCCL from the suit after their lawyers get a chance to speak before the court. They may not. This is all normal.

[waterbug123]

19 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

You purchase a dishwasher from a store.  Because of an electrical defect in the dishwasher, it catches fire and your house burns down.  You're going to be looking at the manufacturer AND the seller as being at fault.  In my opinion, a seller does have a responsibility to make sure the products they sell are safe.  

 

Now, is Royal 100% at fault?  No.  But I do feel they have some culpability. 

 

In your example, the store would be at fault if the electrical defect had been made known, such as through a product recall, but the store didn't adhere to the recall and sold you the dishwasher anyway, knowing it was a fire hazard.  If it wasn't known, and it was an otherwise reputable manufacturer whose line they'd been selling for some time, the only true fault lies with the manufacturer.   Of course, the average person will sue them anyway, and the store might well throw some money at you because that's often cheaper than going to court.  But if they cannot be proven to have know their was a problem or been negligent in some way, one can't really say they were at fault.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

10 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

 

In your example, the store would be at fault if the electrical defect had been made known, such as through a product recall, but the store didn't adhere to the recall and sold you the dishwasher anyway, knowing it was a fire hazard.  If it wasn't known, and it was an otherwise reputable manufacturer whose line they'd been selling for some time, the only true fault lies with the manufacturer.   Of course, the average person will sue them anyway, and the store might well throw some money at you because that's often cheaper than going to court.  But if they cannot be proven to have know their was a problem or been negligent in some way, one can't really say they were at fault.

I understand what you're saying.  I feel (and I don't know if the law backs it up or not) that the seller does take on some responsibility of knowing that what they're selling is safe.  Going back to the Royal suit, I think Royal should periodically check the safety practices of their 3rd party excursion operators.  Now, maybe they do that, and they checked a week before the accident and everything was fine.  IMO, that would mitigate how responsible they are.

 

But, if they signed the excursion operator five years ago, and haven't checked to see if things are still being done safely, then they're more on the hook.

 

Again, just my opinion. 

[clean1owner]

Waaaay too many variables and unanswered questions here to even think about who is or isn't liable. While it's true that if you throw enough manure against the wall, you will get some of it to stick, there is still something called the "burden of proof". 

 

Having watched many episodes of Perry Mason, LA Law, and Boston Legal, I am enough of an armchair lawyer to know that the widow will have to prove that they weren't screwing around and doing what the operators and release specifically say not to do, and it was also due to negligence on the tour operator that caused them to collide.

 

 

[Bloodgem]

9 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I understand what you're saying.  I feel (and I don't know if the law backs it up or not) that the seller does take on some responsibility of knowing that what they're selling is safe.  Going back to the Royal suit, I think Royal should periodically check the safety practices of their 3rd party excursion operators.  Now, maybe they do that, and they checked a week before the accident and everything was fine.  IMO, that would mitigate how responsible they are.

 

But, if they signed the excursion operator five years ago, and haven't checked to see if things are still being done safely, then they're more on the hook.

 

Again, just my opinion. 

I'm just curious.  

Could the type of safety visit, RC undertook , have any impact on  RC's responsibility?  

I'm thinking if RC did a mystery shopper safety visit, a couple of weeks before the accident,  that might mitigate how responsible RC are. 

But if RC did a planned visit, and the excursion operator knew about the visit,  could RC be held more responsible? 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

1 hour ago, Bloodgem said:

I'm just curious.  

Could the type of safety visit, RC undertook , have any impact on  RC's responsibility?  

I'm thinking if RC did a mystery shopper safety visit, a couple of weeks before the accident,  that might mitigate how responsible RC are. 

But if RC did a planned visit, and the excursion operator knew about the visit,  could RC be held more responsible? 

Just my opinion, but it comes down to if RC took reasonable steps in determining whether the excursion operator was operating in a safe manner.  A recently done "mystery shopper" safety visit would absolve them of most wrong doing in my mind (assuming they found the operator doing things safely at that point).  But a "known" safety inspection at the same time would mitigate some wrong doing, but not as much as the mystery shopper.  If it can be proven that RCI said something like "we're sending a safety team out in three weeks, make sure (wink, wink) that everyone is on their toes.", then I would hold them more responsible. 

[Landlocked Luke]

9 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Just my opinion, but it comes down to if RC took reasonable steps in determining whether the excursion operator was operating in a safe manner.  A recently done "mystery shopper" safety visit would absolve them of most wrong doing in my mind (assuming they found the operator doing things safely at that point).  But a "known" safety inspection at the same time would mitigate some wrong doing, but not as much as the mystery shopper.  If it can be proven that RCI said something like "we're sending a safety team out in three weeks, make sure (wink, wink) that everyone is on their toes.", then I would hold them more responsible. 

 

It is simpler than that.

RC is selling a service provided by a vendor. There is no relationship between the deceased and the shoddy zipline company. Waivers only protect from uncontrollables - like the guest getting sick, being struck by lightning... Once negligence or shoddy equipment occurs the waiver disappears. Ask every amusement park in the US. If someone dies on your ride, you are writing a big check.

Now RC can try to collect from the vendor after paying out to the deceased, but good luck with that. I'm sure RC's insurance is structured to take this hit.

[Biker19]

RCI wins this one:

 

Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines has been found not responsible for the death of a 22-year-old man who went overboard off the 12th deck of one of their cruise ships in 2016.

Nathaniel Skokan, 22, died on December 22, 2016, when witnesses say he was pretending to jump ship, but slipped and fell off the Independence of the Seas Royal Caribbean Cruise Ship.

Skokan had been served 30 ounces of alcohol over a period of 12 hours before he went overboard at 1.37am, with his parents and brothers arguing in their complaint meant the cruise company 'knew or should have known' he was a danger to himself or others.

 

Royal Caribbean argued for the case to be decided in its favor before even going to trial. But in a motion denying summary judgment for Royal Caribbean in October, a judge wrote there was 'ample evidence' to be considered at trial, which began on December 10 and lasted one week. 

The tragic accident happened on the fifth and final day of a cruise which started and ended at Port Everglades in Ft. Lauderdale, when the ship was off the coast of the Florida Keys. 

'Nathan, while intoxicated, made his way to the ship’s exterior 12th-floor deck with multiple passengers he had met on the cruise,' federal district court Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga wrote in October, describing some of the evidence presented to that point.

'One of those passengers jokingly suggested they should jump overboard, pointing to the hand rail. In turn, Nathan pretended to throw himself up on the handrail, but when he went to sit on the handrail, . . . Nathan, seemingly intoxicated, lost his balance, slipped, and accidentally flipped over the ship’s railing.'   

 

The federal jury in Miami disagreed, however, denying the family the $75,000 it sought in damages with its decision on Monday, the Orlando Sentinel reported.

Evidence presented at trial showed Nathaniel had consumed at least 30 ounces of alcohol within the 12-hour period leading up to his fall, including six full-sized martinis that he had made at a martini-making class, two vodka-Red Bulls and one cognac. The family estimated Nathaniel's blood alcohol content level was at least .256 percent.  

 

In the lawsuit, Nathaniel's parents, Todd and Lisa Skokan, and his brothers, Samuel and Zachary, accused Royal Caribbean of over-serving Nathaniel as part of its all-inclusive drink package, illegally detaining the family members in their cabin while officials searched for Nathaniel, as well as waiting two hours to lower rescue boats from the time the ship learned of his disappearance, and in so doing, deviating from appropriate search and rescue procedures.

The family also alleged the cruise line company of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them by announcing their son 'intentionally' fell overboard, which caused grief that he may have committed suicide.  

Witnesses who were on board the ship that night said that the captain announced the fall was intentional.

A travel writer with the Twitter username @CruiseNiche tweeted on December 22, 2016 at shortly after 7am:

'Captain just announced that Coast Guard released us from the search & that the guest deliberately jumped #independenceoftheseas #manoverboard.'  

 

The jury found the cruise company was not responsible for any of the claims lodged by the Skokan family. 

Nathaniel's family members, who had 'pursued this action with the hope another family never has to experience such a tragedy,' said they were disappointed, in a statement through their attorney, Michael Coyle to The Miami Herald on Monday.

The Coast Guard suspended its search for Nathaniel on the night before Christmas Eve in 2016, at around 5pm, after spending 38 hours searching for him.

The air and boat crews searched an area of 4,574 square miles.