Accident on Mariner

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

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

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.

 

 

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.

I think the difference is trying to read what was meant (which isn't always the easiest, I admit), instead of what was typed.  I would think it would be pretty obvious that I don't feel God reached down and made connection come undone, but using the term "act of God" as something that couldn't be prevented by RCI. 

 

Also, don't forget, you can't read tone in the written word.

[bakersdozen12]

10 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. 

 

I totally disagree. Yes, he should be compensated. For his medical bills, for his lost pay, and even a bit more for his “pain & sufferring.” But does he deserve to become a millionaire because of this? Heck no. That’s going over board. No pun intended. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by bakersdozen12

[travelplus]

When you sign the "Activities Waiver" you are entering into an agreement that you will not hold Royal Caribbean responsible for any accident as well as part of the E-Ticket Agreement that you signed.  Now I am not sure how Royal Caribbean was negligent in this incident and we would want to know if the passenger used the equipment as intended.   

 

If there is camera footage that could potentially show if the passenger was using the equipment as intended or if there was  a flaw in the equipment.  If there are any witnesses I am sure they would be interviewed if possible. 

 

Royal Caribbean is under no obligation to compensate the passenger if its found out that there was no negligence involved. I would also want to know if the passenger had too much to drink or was not fit to use the equipment as intended. The video posted in the article may go against the passenger because it may help Royal settle the case in their favor. 
 

"

[helen haywood]

Just as an example of how the law works, in our county there was a car accident when a farmer’s cow got out of a fenced enclosure onto a highway and a car struck it.  The driver of the car was seriously injured.  He sued the farmer but the farmer was not found liable.  Even though his cow had escaped the farmer was able to prove that he was a conscientious person who kept his fences in good order.  So even though the car driver did nothing wrong (wasn’t speeding or drinking) the farmer was also found not to have done anything wrong.  ($&@! Happens is I guess the non legal term.)  The driver also sued the manufacturer of the car...don’t know how that came out.

 

So to apply that to this accident, I would think Royal would only be liable if it could be proven that they did not maintain the equipment properly.  Just the fact that it happened is not enough.

[Germancruiser]

Unbelievable - it was an accident- 5 or 10 Mio Dollars for THAT! Live changeing- for the time beeing until everything is healed - yes- but that much money- that is outrageous.

Is that a hobby in the states suing for this and that- and makeing money out of such things?

Edited March 22, 2019 by Germancruiser

[fielddreamer]

This why I did not go on the Zip Line ! Never know how they maintain the equipment and if anything happens there is no second chance. How about Carnival with the roller coaster on the next ship. Things are getting a little overboard as they say !

[mcatmcat]

Can u imagine if it were on the zipline!!!!! IM not riding that zipline anymore

[mayleeman]

1 hour ago, Germancruiser said:

Unbelievable - it was an accident- 5 or 10 Mio Dollars for THAT! Live changeing- for the time beeing until everything is healed - yes- but that much money- that is outrageous.

Is that a hobby in the states suing for this and that- and makeing money out of such things?

How does Germany make sure companies act safely? Our lawsuit system has its abuses, but it results in having thousands of private people bringing illegal or unsafe activities to court to face judgment.

[Germancruiser]

We have our TÜV requierments- for lifts- escalators and all thing Trechnical!  They come either unanounced or you have to order them - if you don´t have the requiered anual check up - all okay stamp you are not allowed to operate the lift, car- whatever!

We have lawsuits too- of course- but not turning into Millions and Millions of compensation!

 

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, travelplus said:

When you sign the "Activities Waiver" you are entering into an agreement that you will not hold Royal Caribbean responsible for any accident as well as part of the E-Ticket Agreement that you signed.  Now I am not sure how Royal Caribbean was negligent in this incident and we would want to know if the passenger used the equipment as intended.   

 

If there is camera footage that could potentially show if the passenger was using the equipment as intended or if there was  a flaw in the equipment.  If there are any witnesses I am sure they would be interviewed if possible. 

 

Royal Caribbean is under no obligation to compensate the passenger if its found out that there was no negligence involved. I would also want to know if the passenger had too much to drink or was not fit to use the equipment as intended. The video posted in the article may go against the passenger because it may help Royal settle the case in their favor. 
 

"

 

You can see from the video it was being used as intended. Also, it shows the equipment itself failed. That's on RCL, not the passenger.

 

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

3 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You can see from the video it was being used as intended. Also, it shows the equipment itself failed. That's on RCL, not the passenger.

 

I agree the passenger is no way in fault.  I'm not willing to blame RCI yet however. 

[Jasukkie]

9 hours ago, Germancruiser said:

Unbelievable - it was an accident- 5 or 10 Mio Dollars for THAT! Live changeing- for the time beeing until everything is healed - yes- but that much money- that is outrageous.

Is that a hobby in the states suing for this and that- and makeing money out of such things?

 

I'm just going by the video but his injuries look like more than "this and that" to me. I hope RC does a thorough root cause analysis so that steps can be taken so that it never happens again.  I also hope the young man makes a complete recovery. 

[SRF]

17 hours ago, mayleeman said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

Without seeing all the evidence, I will withhold judgement on the cause.

 

But I do see your point.  

[mayleeman]

51 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Without seeing all the evidence, I will withhold judgement on the cause.

 

But I do see your point.  

I see yours, too, and I think it was just the nomenclature separating our thoughts. I was going to ask in reply to your earlier post if you have read To Engineer is Human (Petroski, I think), which is (simplifying) about the role of failure in providing us with information about proper design? 

 

I am fascinated with engineering, and my wife says I missed my calling. I tell her there would have been too much math--you cannot argue away an unsolved equation!

 

Catch you on board. I will buy you a drink.

Edited March 22, 2019 by mayleeman

[gatour]

8 hours ago, Germancruiser said:

We have our TÜV requierments- for lifts- escalators and all thing Trechnical!  They come either unanounced or you have to order them - if you don´t have the requiered anual check up - all okay stamp you are not allowed to operate the lift, car- whatever!

We have lawsuits too- of course- but not turning into Millions and Millions of compensation!

 

Just because something is inspected doesn't mean things can happen.  In the states all kinds of things are inspected including elevators and escalators.  For elevators, they even post the last inspection certifcate in the cab (although some say "certificate is filed in the managers office" something to that effect.   For example amusement park rides are regularly inspected.  Accidents still happen.  Ane employee can be hired and did not follow a procedure.  If it could be shown that the employee was improperly trained then the company could be at fault.  Mind you the ride could have been inspected the day before and passed, but the company is still liable

[goingcrazywithkids]

On 3/21/2019 at 6:24 PM, travelplus said:

When you sign the "Activities Waiver" you are entering into an agreement that you will not hold Royal Caribbean responsible for any accident as well as part of the E-Ticket Agreement that you signed.  Now I am not sure how Royal Caribbean was negligent in this incident and we would want to know if the passenger used the equipment as intended.   

 

If there is camera footage that could potentially show if the passenger was using the equipment as intended or if there was  a flaw in the equipment.  If there are any witnesses I am sure they would be interviewed if possible. 

 

Royal Caribbean is under no obligation to compensate the passenger if its found out that there was no negligence involved. I would also want to know if the passenger had too much to drink or was not fit to use the equipment as intended. The video posted in the article may go against the passenger because it may help Royal settle the case in their favor. 
 

"

I just got off the mariner today. I did the skypad 2 times......i didn't sign any activity waiver for it. The only waiver i signes was for the flowrider. 

[Germancruiser]

Of course I hope the guy will make a speedy recovery- of course i feel sorry for him- he could have been dead with this nasty fall. Of course X should be held responsible- BUT NOT WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY!

Oh we have the same in our elevators- the date of the last inspcetion!

[mayleeman]

13 hours ago, gatour said:

If it could be shown that the employee was improperly trained then the company could be at fault.

Minor correction: the company will absolutely be liable for any negligence on the part of the employee acting in the scope of his employment regardless of training. It is called respondeat superior, which means what it sounds like, "the master answers."  This is one of the most basic tenets of tort law, and why companies always try to claim someone they are paying is an independent contractor who may or may not trigger company liability depending on many things. Here, we don't know the relationships among the personnel, and I admit I was remiss in not covering an "independent vendor" possibility as set out in the cruise contract (although liability could still flow to Royal if... blah blah blah--just trust me, it could).

 

I have overstayed my welcome. Bowing out!

Edited March 23, 2019 by mayleeman
parenthesis

[itsmeagain]

Wonder if they charged him the on-board medical and early return expenses? 🙂

Edited March 23, 2019 by itsmeagain

[cruisequeen4ever]

I think many lawsuits are ridiculous, but this poor dude does seem to have a case IMO. The video was horrifying. I think he should receive a giant lump sum to cover current medical bills as well as any future ones because as we all know, accident injuries can creep back up later in life with arthritis, etc. and could necessitate surgeries. 

[later]

On 3/22/2019 at 2:41 AM, The_Big_M said:

 

You can see from the video it was being used as intended. Also, it shows the equipment itself failed. That's on RCL, not the passenger.

 

If the equipment failed and proper maintenance  is being done it is on the manufacture of the defective part.

[The_Big_M]

12 hours ago, later said:

If the equipment failed and proper maintenance  is being done it is on the manufacture of the defective part.

 

And what evidence do you have to say the proper maintenance, and operation is being done at this point? 

 

That's why it currently sits with RCL. 

 

[SRF]

On 3/24/2019 at 5:03 AM, The_Big_M said:

 

And what evidence do you have to say the proper maintenance, and operation is being done at this point? 

 

That's why it currently sits with RCL. 

 

 

No, it sits with NO ONE at this point.  Lawsuits will be filed against EVERYONE involved, and the courts will work out who was responsible (may be shared among several entities).

[ShillyShally]

On 3/21/2019 at 10:44 PM, Germancruiser said:

Is that a hobby in the states suing for this and that- and makeing money out of such things?

It feels like it!  Drives me batty, it's so much easier for companies to settle and throw money at things to settle them instead of fighting which is negative PR so yes, there is a percentage who believe it could be a means to get without doing....

[CRUISEFAN0001]

This is NOT any form of opinion...rather...a collection of information summary to date.

 

1. A passenger voluntarily chooses to use a ship's optional feature.
2. Passenger signs waiver for RCI liability prior to using the optional feature.
3. Passenger gets injured using the feature.
4. Passenger lawyer's up within a very short time after his injury.

It is terrible that anyone gets hurt using any of the standard or optional features on any ship.

 

Since waivers apply to a number of things offered on all brands of cruise ships...this brings into question the validity of the waivers passengers sign prior to using features on a ship. Obviously, the court system will make their assessment and ruling. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by CRUISEFAN0001