Accident on Mariner

[ShillyShally]

The problem is what amount of $$$ "settles" this for people?  He'll likely, or the lawyer on his behalf, will seek huge amounts of money  but it always seems to be an amount that goes way above and beyond medical costs, lost wages, lost vacation, etc.  I'm not unsympathetic, and I'm not an actuary, just have always wondered where the value for any of us is in large settlements for pain and suffering.  But again, his claim is valid, this is absolutely not his fault I can't imagine, it's a publicity nightmare for RCCL, it is awful for him and his travel mates.  Does he really deserve more than all medical costs, travel costs, lost wages plus perhaps an offer of an all expenses paid cruise when he's healed - and I mean all expenses, go hog wild on board, RCCL shouldn't bat an eye, let him take whomever he wants up to a certain number of cabins, I don't know but sometimes life is life and can turn on a dime at anytime, through no fault of anyone.

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

36 minutes ago, ShillyShally said:

The problem is what amount of $$$ "settles" this for people?  He'll likely, or the lawyer on his behalf, will seek huge amounts of money  but it always seems to be an amount that goes way above and beyond medical costs, lost wages, lost vacation, etc.  I'm not unsympathetic, and I'm not an actuary, just have always wondered where the value for any of us is in large settlements for pain and suffering.  But again, his claim is valid, this is absolutely not his fault I can't imagine, it's a publicity nightmare for RCCL, it is awful for him and his travel mates.  Does he really deserve more than all medical costs, travel costs, lost wages plus perhaps an offer of an all expenses paid cruise when he's healed - and I mean all expenses, go hog wild on board, RCCL shouldn't bat an eye, let him take whomever he wants up to a certain number of cabins, I don't know but sometimes life is life and can turn on a dime at anytime, through no fault of anyone.

I agree.  If I'm RCI, I'm offering all medical bills, travel costs, and lost wages, and a free trip for immediate family on a 7 day cruise.  I'm guessing the guy lawyered up though before talking to RCI.  

 

I agree it's not the passenger's fault, but that doesn't mean RCI is liable.  Again, if they can prove the proper maintenance, inspections, and training was done, I think they're off the hook (but should offer the above as a PR issue). 

[Merion_Mom]

3 hours ago, holiday-shrek said:

I have seen this behavior too - RCI doesn't want any evidence!

 

Nonsense.  Every security person is now wearing a body cam.  If the video is needed in court, RC will be ordered to produce it, and they will.

[BigHouseFootball]

He’ll get his money. I bet RC settles this one rather quickly. 

[mayleeman]

Res ipsa loquitor is a legal concept invented for situations like this. Implead everyone, from designer to mfr to builder to inspectors to RCCL. Discovery is a wonderful tool. Let the defendants fight it out as they all have a major stake in proving someone else was at fault.

 

And without lawsuits, companies would have no incentive to ensure safety. Look at the mining industry.

Edited March 21, 2019 by mayleeman
clarification

[Boatdrill]

5 hours ago, SAmome said:

 RCCL should make it right with him... 

 

 

If found liable, yes, RCI should make it right. If RCI stopped building amusements parks at sea, that would

reduce their exposure to accidents like this one.     

[LeDemonBlond]

I'm assuming the ride is still active on all the ships that have it. Just wondering if anyone knows if RCCL changed how they have operated that ride since this accident? As this happened in February, was the ride shut down for any length as I would hope RCCL would of wanted to understand what happened and correct  before others used again on any of the ships that have it.   

[simplyrubies]

12 hours ago, Boatdrill said:

If found liable, yes, RCI should make it right. If RCI stopped building amusements parks at sea, that would

reduce their exposure to accidents like this one.     

 

Even if RCL is not technically liable, I think they should still try to give this man and his family some kind of compensation for publicity purposes. Make a vague statement about how they aim to maintain their attractions to the utmost safety standards and they are very disappointed that an accident happened, they will re-train all staff on how to operate this particular attraction, and how they hope that this man recovers well. Since the accident ruined his vacation, offer an all expenses paid (or cruise fare with high OBC) cruise for him and a few family members in at least a balcony room.

 

The man and his family feel as if they have been compensated and RCL doesn't look like a stingy mean big corporation. The costs of paying for this cruise will far outweigh any bad publicity they receive as a result. In fact, if they play it right, they could look even more sympathetic to traveller's needs in the end.

[pstone1]

Here we go. . . .   Just saw a teaser for the story on local WFTV news: "Man files $10 million lawsuit after accident on Royal Caribbean ship."  

[Big_G]

 

Zoltar say man get many dollar and never sail Royal Caribbean again.

[mattb31]

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

I agree.  If I'm RCI, I'm offering all medical bills, travel costs, and lost wages, and a free trip for immediate family on a 7 day cruise.  I'm guessing the guy lawyered up though before talking to RCI.  

 

I agree it's not the passenger's fault, but that doesn't mean RCI is liable.  Again, if they can prove the proper maintenance, inspections, and training was done, I think they're off the hook (but should offer the above as a PR issue). 

I think RCL is 100% liable even if proper maintenance and inspections were done. It malfunctioned on their watch and the video clearly shows the guy wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. The waivers you sign are generally to protect RCL against you doing something stupid or doing things the wrong way that gets you hurt in an activity.

 

That being said I do not think the money he is asking for is a stretch. If he were to get the full settlement then shave off 25-35% for legal fees right off the bat. The guy was also fairly young and if the injury caused any sort of permanent damage that is absolutely grounds for being paid out. I haven't seen what he did for a living, but an injury like that could seriously hamper a guy who has 30 working years still ahead of him.

 

For all the minor complaints we see on these boards daily, this is without a doubt one that absolutely warrants a major payout, and I hope the guy recovers.

[lv2cruisgrl]

The video is out that was taken of the bungee cord coming right out of the top. Plus the floor has no padding if you fall. So glad it was recorded. Ships need to do more to ensure our safety.

[Jasukkie]

If I'm this jury, I would think $10mil is far more appropriate than expenses plus a top of the line RC cruise. I was actually thinking $5mil so maybe that's where they could end up at after mediation. 

[SRF]

14 hours ago, SAmome said:

No one likes frivolous lawsuits but this guy wasn't doing anything odd like drunk and climbing things around ship he shouldn't; he was just bouncing like the ride indicates.  RCCL should make it right with him AND the rest of us AND themselves.  

 

He needs some $, the rest of us need to know the cause is understood and a remedy in place so that it doesn't happen again and cost them more $.

 

I wouldn't blame RCCL for knee and ankle injuries that are common to trampolines but if something breaks and I end up on cement, something went horribly wrong and RCCL is responsible.   

 

So it you are driving down the street and something breaks on your car and you hit someone, YOU are automatically responsible?

 

RCCl should be liable if they did something wrong.  If not, they are not liable.   Maybe the people who made the equipment are.

 

Or there are times when things are just "acts of god."

[maranelloboy05]

2 hours ago, SRF said:

 

So it you are driving down the street and something breaks on your car and you hit someone, YOU are automatically responsible?

 

RCCl should be liable if they did something wrong.  If not, they are not liable.   Maybe the people who made the equipment are.

 

Or there are times when things are just "acts of god."

 

100%. This is why pretty much every state has mandated automotive liability insurance. 

[ShillyShally]

2 hours ago, Jasukkie said:

If I'm this jury, I would think $10mil is far more appropriate than expenses plus a top of the line RC cruise. I was actually thinking $5mil so maybe that's where they could end up at after mediation. 

$5Million or $10Million? That's extreme IMO!

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

3 hours ago, mattb31 said:

I think RCL is 100% liable even if proper maintenance and inspections were done.

For me, it comes down whether RCI could/should have done anything that would have prevented the accident.  If yes, they're liable, if no, it's an "act of God" and that's what the waivers cover.  

 

FWIW, I'm not saying RCI is definitely off the hook, but they (IMO) might be if they've done everything they're supposed to. 

[mayleeman]

7 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

or me, it comes down whether RCI could/should have done anything that would have prevented the accident.  If yes, they're liable, if no, it's an "act of God" and that's what the waivers cover.  

I have never heard of a mechanical failure being found to be an act of God. Earthquakes, tornados, floods, hurricanes, landslides, freak waves--not man-made equipment a company invites guests to use that are supposed to be safe. Even an accident caused by entirely unforeseeable and undetectable flaws in materials at the microscopic level are still considered unavoidable accidents, not acts of God.

 

My granddaughter always claimed that something wasn't her fault because it was an "askident" until she finally realized that it was her fault if she caused the "askident." 

 

People have a distorted sense of how accidents relate to tort law. Yes, if your brakes fail you will be held liable unless you can prove it was a cause beyond your control (only if you had done proper maintenance) and/or unforeseeable because of a design flaw, improper installation or manufacture, or improper repair. None of those are acts of God: they all involve negligence by humans. And if you were sued, you would implead the real culprit and prove why they, not God, are liable.

[ONECRUISER]

8 hours ago, simplyrubies said:

 

Even if RCL is not technically liable, I think they should still try to give this man and his family some kind of compensation for publicity purposes. Make a vague statement about how they aim to maintain their attractions to the utmost safety standards and they are very disappointed that an accident happened, they will re-train all staff on how to operate this particular attraction, and how they hope that this man recovers well. Since the accident ruined his vacation, offer an all expenses paid (or cruise fare with high OBC) cruise for him and a few family members in at least a balcony room.

 

The man and his family feel as if they have been compensated and RCL doesn't look like a stingy mean big corporation. The costs of paying for this cruise will far outweigh any bad publicity they receive as a result. In fact, if they play it right, they could look even more sympathetic to traveller's needs in the end.

Disagree. In the end, after settlement they'd rather this man and story just go away.

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

2 hours ago, mayleeman said:

I have never heard of a mechanical failure being found to be an act of God. Earthquakes, tornados, floods, hurricanes, landslides, freak waves--not man-made equipment a company invites guests to use that are supposed to be safe. Even an accident caused by entirely unforeseeable and undetectable flaws in materials at the microscopic level are still considered unavoidable accidents, not acts of God.

 

My granddaughter always claimed that something wasn't her fault because it was an "askident" until she finally realized that it was her fault if she caused the "askident." 

 

People have a distorted sense of how accidents relate to tort law. Yes, if your brakes fail you will be held liable unless you can prove it was a cause beyond your control (only if you had done proper maintenance) and/or unforeseeable because of a design flaw, improper installation or manufacture, or improper repair. None of those are acts of God: they all involve negligence by humans. And if you were sued, you would implead the real culprit and prove why they, not God, are liable.

So I used a term that wasn't appropriate.  Sue me.

 

Look at the part I bolded.   That's what I'm referring to.  *IF* RCI did proper maintenance, inspections, and trainings, they shouldn't be held liable.  If it was a design or manufacturing flaw, the onus should fall on the manufacturer/installer.  Thanks for backing up my point.   

[SRF]

3 hours ago, maranelloboy05 said:

 

100%. This is why pretty much every state has mandated automotive liability insurance. 

 

That is if you ARE responsible.

 

If the accident occurs due to a defect in your car, then the car company's insurance pays.

[SRF]

2 hours ago, mayleeman said:

I have never heard of a mechanical failure being found to be an act of God. Earthquakes, tornados, floods, hurricanes, landslides, freak waves--not man-made equipment a company invites guests to use that are supposed to be safe. Even an accident caused by entirely unforeseeable and undetectable flaws in materials at the microscopic level are still considered unavoidable accidents, not acts of God.

 

My granddaughter always claimed that something wasn't her fault because it was an "askident" until she finally realized that it was her fault if she caused the "askident." 

 

People have a distorted sense of how accidents relate to tort law. Yes, if your brakes fail you will be held liable unless you can prove it was a cause beyond your control (only if you had done proper maintenance) and/or unforeseeable because of a design flaw, improper installation or manufacture, or improper repair. None of those are acts of God: they all involve negligence by humans. And if you were sued, you would implead the real culprit and prove why they, not God, are liable.

 

There are mishaps that are acts of god.   I am a trained mishap investigator (we don't call them accidents), and historically about 1% of mishaps are truely non-preventable.  Everybody did everything right, but it still happened.

 

And also, tort law, and real mishap investigation are not the same thing.  Do not have the same goals, nor the same desired outcome.

 

A mishap investigation is to determine the failure and prevent it from occurring again. 

 

Tort law is all about who pays.  Which may not the be the person or entity responsible, but the one who can pay the most.  And YES, I have seen this occur.

Edited March 21, 2019 by SRF

[mayleeman]

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

So I used a term that wasn't appropriate.  Sue me.

Well, gee willikers! It must be me who is clearly wrong for responding to what you wrote instead of what you would have written if you knew what you are talking about!

 

We were discussing legal concepts. Correct terminology is pretty important.

 

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

There are mishaps that are acts of god.   I am a trained mishap investigator (we don't call them accidents), and historically about 1% of mishaps are truely non-preventable. 

 

And here is an example of why terminolgy is important. My comment was about never having heard of a mechanical failure being held to be due to an act of God. I was not discussing mishaps in general.

 

By definition, 100% of acts of God are not preventable, but the damage and injuries those acts cause often are. People are responsible for keeping someone safe when launching that someone into the air when the safety equipment fails. Gravity causing a body to fall is the act of God. The fact that gravity would plunge someone to the deck when equipment is faulty is entirely foreseeable and injuries resulting therefrom highly preventable.

Edited March 21, 2019 by mayleeman
clarification

[LMaxwell]

How is it that the deck or flooring is not padded or cushioned in some manner?  That would not have prevented the mechanical failure, but it could have mitigated injuries. 

[Guest]

I was on the Adventure a few years back and my sister slipped on some water in a bar and sprained her ankle. Before they even did any scans/provide her with any relief, they took photos of her shoes (mid wedge heel). I don't know if they thought we were going to sue them, but it seemed the wrong way round to do things? She was on crutches/wheelchair for the rest of the cruise though. 

 

The water was their fault, but they would most likely have blamed the heels if we had taken any action