White Island erupts.

[boeckli]

4 hours ago, Kiwi_cruiser said:

 

I don't think it will be the NZ Govt who will say about tourist going back to white Island, I think the Maori will put a  Rāhui  (a tapu) on White island.

 

I thought this had already happened soon after the eruption

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7HrO5aFek

 

[Kiwi Kruzer]

Eruption survivors threaten to sue White Island Tours
 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/418425/eruption-survivors-threaten-to-sue-white-island-tours

[banzaii]

Ambulance chasers!👅

[Aus Traveller]

36 minutes ago, banzaii said:

Ambulance chasers!👅

I don't agree. Several people lost their lives and others were badly injured. Experts have said that there were warnings that an eruption was imminent and that tours should have been suspended earlier.

[banzaii]

18 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I don't agree. Several people lost their lives and others were badly injured. Experts have said that there were warnings that an eruption was imminent and that tours should have been suspended earlier.

You don't agree that those lawyers are ambulance chasers?

[banzaii]

21 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I don't agree. Several people lost their lives and others were badly injured. Experts have said that there were warnings that an eruption was imminent and that tours should have been suspended earlier.

And there are always experts in hindsight.

[The_Big_M]

6 hours ago, banzaii said:

You don't agree that those lawyers are ambulance chasers?

 

There's no evidence to say either way.

 

However, people died, many more were hospitalised, and if that's not potentially worthy of a legitimate claim, what is?

[The_Big_M]

6 hours ago, banzaii said:

And there are always experts in hindsight.

 

Because things causing death are usually analysed to see how it can be improved, and it's better to get experts in than just anonymous internet posters without credentials.

[Beanb41]

Suing White Island Tours maybe problematic as we have no fault legislation in NZ which does not not allow suing of such people. The plaintiffs will need to prove that the company operates outside of NZ jurisdiction to proceed. That may or may not be easy to prove. Whatever some lawyers are going to make a lot of money trying to find out.

Action against RCCL is a different case as they promoted this tour outside of NZ and took bookings from non NZ residents.  

Again ambulance chasing lawyers are going to make heaps.

Whatever the outcome it was a tragic event

[Docker123]

They plan to sue Royal Caribbean.

 

I thought this was an old story, going back to early this year.

[MicCanberra]

It doesn't matter who (if any one) is at fault or even partial fault, they would have a better chance getting money out of Royal than White island tours.

[casofilia]

We visited Whakaari twice in the seventies and, while dangerous, it was wonderful and we ensured that whenever we had visitors from the UK they visited too.   Always the dangers were well documented by White Island Tours before departure.

We lived, between 1993 and 2008, in the hills above Matata and we had a wonderful view of Whakaari from our front room.   We were always concerned when there was NO sign of any steam as that meant the main vent was blocked and that pressure was building up.   Sure enough there would always be an eruption to clear the vent; albeit a small one.

It is a volcano that erupts frequently and it was just extremely unfortunate that people were on the island when the big one occurred.  My heart went out to those who died and to their families.   However if the dangers of volcanoes erupting, or even just heavy thermal activity, were to be taken into account no one would be allowed in so many wonderful places not only in New Zealand but throughout the world.

No Tongariro Crossing, No Whakarewarewa, No Kuirau Park, No Waimangu

[banzaii]

16 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

There's no evidence to say either way.

 

However, people died, many more were hospitalised, and if that's not potentially worthy of a legitimate claim, what is?

Then sue the churches - who else is responsible for an act of god?

 

Why do we always have to find somebody to pay? 

 

Yes, people have died, and were hospitalised because they chose to visit an active volcano.  The were not forced to go and yes they were unlucky but nobody has ever predicted a large eruption to the minute hour or day.

 

The lawyers are not altruistic, they are only doing it for the money.  They are taking advantage of injury, loss and grief for their own gain.  Welcome to the US of A.

[banzaii]

16 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Because things causing death are usually analysed to see how it can be improved.

 

I agree with analysis of tragic events for impovements, lessons learnt and safety sake - just not for the sake of lawyers pockets.

16 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

and it's better to get experts in than just anonymous internet posters without credentials.

Should I bow to your expertise or your credentials.  Or is this directed at yourself too?

[pully8]

Not familiar with who will sue who in this, but what is clear is people have suffered terribly and some have lost their lives.

Utterly tragic. Sadly these cases tend to be prolonged and expensive.

People directly affected will not see all the benefits of litigation.

However seeking some redress is their right. Perhaps a coronial inquiry will also assist to clarify what could be done to prevent/minimize such a risk of harm occurring for future excursions. 

[The_Big_M]

7 hours ago, banzaii said:

Then sue the churches - who else is responsible for an act of god?

 

Why do we always have to find somebody to pay? 

 

Yes, people have died, and were hospitalised because they chose to visit an active volcano.  The were not forced to go and yes they were unlucky but nobody has ever predicted a large eruption to the minute hour or day.

 

The lawyers are not altruistic, they are only doing it for the money.  They are taking advantage of injury, loss and grief for their own gain.  Welcome to the US of A.

 

Um, bizarre tangent. How are churches responsible for God?

 

As for the reason, it's not about whether the volcano erupted. It's whether the seller had an adequate duty of care and it was sold accurately. The web page promoting the tour made it more like a theme park trip, with 0 risk. Were the passengers informed of what they were being sold with respect to the danger? It doesn't sound like it.

[The_Big_M]

7 hours ago, banzaii said:

I agree with analysis of tragic events for impovements, lessons learnt and safety sake - just not for the sake of lawyers pockets.

 

 

Your assertion was not legally related. As it would be farcical to question why legal cases, which are always conducted in hindsight, employ experts. I don't see what value could be gained by gathering the latest straw poll online or from the Tele to determine the validity of a case.

 

7 hours ago, banzaii said:

Should I bow to your expertise or your credentials.  Or is this directed at yourself too?

 

 

Where did I express any expertise or credentials about this?

[MicCanberra]

I cannot see how anyone climbing into a volcano cauldron would not know the potential dangers associated with it.

That said, Royal sold the tours to the passengers and whether they warned or them not, Royal are the first entity that the passengers must go to for recompense, whether Royal then proceed to get it from White Island tours is a matter of course.

[Beanb41]

19 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I cannot see how anyone climbing into a volcano cauldron would not know the potential dangers associated with it.

That said, Royal sold the tours to the passengers and whether they warned or them not, Royal are the first entity that the passengers must go to for recompense, whether Royal then proceed to get it from White Island tours is a matter of course.

The chances of Royal Caribbean having a claim against White Island tours are slim under NZ no fault  Accident Compensation legislation. The chance s of success against Royal Caribbean are somewhat different. Questions that will be no doubt be asked of RCCL are what steps did they take prior to this particular excursion taking place as to the safety of the passengers. If they did none but left it to the operator then there may be case to answer as the cruise line has a level of care to its customers. My experience of cruise line excursions is that they probably just assumed the operator had things in hand. Going forward if and when cruising starts again such trips like the White Island tour will be off the agenda around the world.  Hawaii and Sicily are two volcano excursions that come to mind and there must be plenty of other adventure tours that have potential for major mishap. RCCL like to have their courts cases heard in the USA so things could get interesting. If this case ever comes to court and doesn't do so within the next 12 months or so it maybe academic as RCCL may not be around in a year or so the way it is heamoraging money each month

[Aus Traveller]

3 minutes ago, Beanb41 said:

My experience of cruise line excursions is that they probably just assumed the operator had things in hand.

Can I suggest that a passenger going on a shore excursion would have no way of knowing what investigations the cruise line did regarding safety etc. I know that Princess has someone on their staff check safety on tours, for instance, on a bus, the standard of the tyres, whether the brakes appeared to work properly, was the driver properly licensed and did he drive in a safe manner. It is highly likely that RCI does the same. This is what applies on land-based tours.

 

With the White Island tours, local companies were running tours to a privately-owned island. Both the owner of the island and the tour operators had vested interests in continuing tours, even if there were signs that it was getting risky.

 

From what I read at the time, passengers going on the tour had to sign a waiver form. That would probably limit their chances of success in a legal action.

[Beanb41]

7 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Can I suggest that a passenger going on a shore excursion would have no way of knowing what investigations the cruise line did regarding safety etc. I know that Princess has someone on their staff check safety on tours, for instance, on a bus, the standard of the tyres, whether the brakes appeared to work properly, was the driver properly licensed and did he drive in a safe manner. It is highly likely that RCI does the same. This is what applies on land-based tours.

 

With the White Island tours, local companies were running tours to a privately-owned island. Both the owner of the island and the tour operators had vested interests in continuing tours, even if there were signs that it was getting risky.

 

From what I read at the time, passengers going on the tour had to sign a waiver form. That would probably limit their chances of success in a legal action.

I think it will come down to the Cruise LIne's duty of care and if and how they exercised that. Signing a waiver doesn't excuse "negligence" especially in such a litigious jurisdiction as the USA.  NZ and Australian courts may take a different viewpoint. The pending Ruby Princess court cases will attest to their attitude

 

[Russell21]

8 hours ago, Beanb41 said:

I think it will come down to the Cruise LIne's duty of care and if and how they exercised that. Signing a waiver doesn't excuse "negligence" especially in such a litigious jurisdiction as the USA.  NZ and Australian courts may take a different viewpoint. The pending Ruby Princess court cases will attest to their attitude

 

Don't forget that the home port of the ship and company is not the USA, same for the Ruby Princess.

[Beanb41]

1 hour ago, Russell21 said:

Don't forget that the home port of the ship and company is not the USA, same for the Ruby Princess.

The ships home ports may not be in the USA but Carnival Corporation the owner of the ship is.

 

[OzKiwiJJ]

2 hours ago, Beanb41 said:

The ships home ports may not be in the USA but Carnival Corporation the owner of the ship is.

 

Carnival Corp is the parent company for Princess but not for Royal Caribbean. RCI comes under a completely different company - Royal Caribbean Cruises which is also the parent company for Celebrity and Azimara.

Edited June 8, 2020 by OzKiwiJJ

[The_Big_M]

It doesn't matter what the home port is if the tours were booked here, as appears to be the case in the article.

 

If booked onboard it gets a little murky, but if a valid claim is found, RCL group wouldn't get away with domicile elsewhere if they wish to continue to do business as they would (which would mean a settlement would arise).