Celebrity Cruises sued by passenger who got coronavirus

[grandgeezer]

26 minutes ago, yorky said:

I admire your confidence but I doubt very much it’s going to be even close to that simple. Proving a huge multinational company committed “gross negligence” Hopefully they are wealthy individuals.

Size of the company has nothing to do with it, it's not a blanket indictment, it covers specific instances. 

They don't have to be wealthy, there are lawyers pounding on doors who would take this and take a piece of the damages or settlement. I think the later, even RCL can figure that out. Once they knew it was Covid-19 they tried to ignore it and gloss over what was happening, that's almost criminal.

[yorky]

10 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

Size of the company has nothing to do with it, it's not a blanket indictment, it covers specific instances. 

They don't have to be wealthy, there are lawyers pounding on doors who would take this and take a piece of the damages or settlement. I think the later, even RCL can figure that out. Once they knew it was Covid-19 they tried to ignore it and gloss over what was happening, that's almost criminal.

Ha ha yes ok. A multi billion dollar company who know that losing a case like this would lead to a massive number of others coming forward will just role over and not drag it out for years until it dies a death. 

[Life Buoy]

Where was the case filed?  I believe that the passenger contract says it must be filed in Miami.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Life Buoy

[RSLeesburg]

Hmmm... isn’t this the same ship that was denied entry into Chile and every other country in South America, and was forced to sail to San Diego just to allow passengers to disembark.  It would seem that the cruise line could claim that these circumstances caused passengers to be exposed far longer than they would have if they had been allowed to disembark when originally scheduled.  Awfully hard to allow people off the ship if countries are denying you.  Also, it seems too many people want to point blame at decisions made in the past based on information we have today.  I am sure when they lay out the cases, this will be a critical piece - who knew what when.  This situation unfolded so quickly that everyone was caught off guard. Mistakes were definitely made by lots of people, but does not mean that anyone did so intentionally to do harm.  

[Orator]

I believe that those suing are looking for a settlement and they really don't want to spend years in Court. I believe that unless the lawyers for Celebrity believe that a winning case could be made by those who are suing, Celebrity should not make any offer of settlement and they should make it clear that they will go to trial. I believe that in  Florida the loser can be responsible for all litigation costs. 

[d9704011]

2 minutes ago, Orator said:

I believe that those suing are looking for a settlement and they really don't want to spend years in Court.

Agree with you on that although although I think Celebrity should view this as a nuisance case and use it to set a precedent to discourage other, similar lawsuits.

[wrk2cruise]

Why aren't the sueing Chile for not letting the disembark.

[DYKWIA]

Lots of legal experts here.....

[DaveSJ711]

9 minutes ago, wrk2cruise said:

Why aren't the sueing Chile for not letting the disembark.

 

Sovereign immunity.

[Firepath]

Even if they are found to be not negligent, they still spend a lot of money defending these cases, the cost of which, of course, gets passed on to all of us.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Firepath

[Roger88]

This case is very weird. I mean its good that he is trying to stand his right and get some sort of compensation but everything in order to protect him has been done. I think this person just wants some media attention.. it has nothing to do with him getting a Corona virus, its not the cruiser that is responsible 

[chipmaster]

9 hours ago, CMW5060 said:

Could be considered an Act of God under law (see below) and arguments can be made on both sides.  Did Celebrity exercise 'reasonable care'  and take the necessary precautions will be the theme.  Either way the only ones to ultimately win will be the lawyers!

 

[As a general principle of Act of God,^[7]epidemic can be classified as an act of God if the epidemic was unforeseeable and renders the promise discharged if the promisor cannot avoid the effect of the epidemic by exercise of reasonable prudence, diligence and care, or by the use of those means which the situation renders reasonable to employ.]

 

 

Look at POTUS and most of the world,  In hindsight we all understand the how it happened but nobody in January would have believed we'd have the world in lock down, and well all those other things.   

 

I call it biology, or biology, chemistry, physics and math, all don't care about god, people, border, and delusions/wishes.

 

The lawsuit will make some lawyers rich but doubt anyone else will get much out of this.

 

My sympathies to all that got ill, condolences to those that past from this tragedy, and well sad that the rest of us have our lives and joy's kind of on hold for a bit longer, but we will all get out of this and have some great stories of heroes and idiots to share won't we 🙂

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by chipmaster

[TeeRick]

17 hours ago, RSLeesburg said:

Hmmm... isn’t this the same ship that was denied entry into Chile and every other country in South America, and was forced to sail to San Diego just to allow passengers to disembark.  It would seem that the cruise line could claim that these circumstances caused passengers to be exposed far longer than they would have if they had been allowed to disembark when originally scheduled.  Awfully hard to allow people off the ship if countries are denying you.  Also, it seems too many people want to point blame at decisions made in the past based on information we have today.  I am sure when they lay out the cases, this will be a critical piece - who knew what when.  This situation unfolded so quickly that everyone was caught off guard. Mistakes were definitely made by lots of people, but does not mean that anyone did so intentionally to do harm.  

You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

[RSLeesburg]

3 hours ago, TeeRick said:

You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

Sorry...I did not mean to be a buzz kill...may explain why I never get invited to parties...lol

[npcl]

23 hours ago, RSLeesburg said:

Hmmm... isn’t this the same ship that was denied entry into Chile and every other country in South America, and was forced to sail to San Diego just to allow passengers to disembark.  It would seem that the cruise line could claim that these circumstances caused passengers to be exposed far longer than they would have if they had been allowed to disembark when originally scheduled.  Awfully hard to allow people off the ship if countries are denying you.  Also, it seems too many people want to point blame at decisions made in the past based on information we have today.  I am sure when they lay out the cases, this will be a critical piece - who knew what when.  This situation unfolded so quickly that everyone was caught off guard. Mistakes were definitely made by lots of people, but does not mean that anyone did so intentionally to do harm.  

The issue in this case is that the ship reported no cases of COVID on board, disembarked passengers in San Diego, with one women taken taken  on stretcher by ambulance immediately to a hospital where she immediately tested positive for COVID-19.

Some people from that cruise stated that the Captain had for a portion of the cruise reported no illness on board during his announcements, even as there were people in the medical center with symptoms of COVID-19.  Later he stopped saying that in the announcements, but yet no action was taken to stop normal cruise activities.

 

So claims could be made that the ship was negligent in taking action to prevent spread, even after a reasonable person would have realized COVID-19 was likely on board and spreading.

 

The biggest problem with a case like this is that marine law greatly limits damages in the case of incidents that occur at sea. So to collect any major amount the negligence would need to proven to have taken place on land.

Edited May 21, 2020 by npcl

[ORV]

On 5/20/2020 at 7:49 AM, TeeRick said:

  How about suing China where the virus was first discovered?  

Actually the Missouri AG has already done that. 

[Pavovsky]

The law will decide. If there is negligence then they pay up, if not then so be it. Cruise companies have been a little dismissive when it came to passenger rights so perhaps no harm having some rebalancing. 

[d9704011]

1 hour ago, Pavovsky said:

The law will decide. If there is negligence then they pay up, if not then so be it. Cruise companies have been a little dismissive when it came to passenger rights so perhaps no harm having some rebalancing. 

You say the law will decide but finish off by inferring a ‘rebalance’ in support of passenger rights, whatever they are.  So, a little bias on the side of sticking it to the man?

[RSLeesburg]

2 hours ago, npcl said:

The issue in this case is that the ship reported no cases of COVID on board, disembarked passengers in San Diego, with one women taken taken  on stretcher by ambulance immediately to a hospital where she immediately tested positive for COVID-19.

Some people from that cruise stated that the Captain had for a portion of the cruise reported no illness on board during his announcements, even as there were people in the medical center with symptoms of COVID-19.  Later he stopped saying that in the announcements, but yet no action was taken to stop normal cruise activities.

 

So claims could be made that the ship was negligent in taking action to prevent spread, even after a reasonable person would have realized COVID-19 was likely on board and spreading.

 

The biggest problem with a case like this is that marine law greatly limits damages in the case of incidents that occur at sea. So to collect any major amount the negligence would need to proven to have taken place on land.

Yes. Thank you for refreshing memory.   I do remember all of this now.   I remember remarking to my wife at the time that they found COVID cases after the ship docked in San Diego, and that it appeared that they strongly suspected that they had infected people on board, but kept that a secret, and she said something that I thought was quite profound - she said, "Would you?  Look what happened to the Princess ships in Japan and then the HAL ships when they announced they had infected people - the FL Governor and local government officials told them they could not come into Port Everglades.  Why tell the truth if it means that you are going to be stranded out at sea where more and more people can become infected."   

 

So, you can say - OMG, they lied about this - how evil.  Or, you can say, OMG they lied so that they could get into a port and allow people to get off, go home, or get treated in adequate medical facilities so they have a chance of surviving if they have become infected.  Everyone could see that passengers on all ships were communicating with people outside, so if the Captain told people that they may have infected people on board, that news would have gotten out and San Diego may have denied them entry.  But who knows.  So many variables, and so many unknowns.  Honestly, if it were my decision, and just knowing what was happening to other ships, I think I would probably tell a lie if it meant I could get those passengers into port and off the ship.  

[Fouremco]

14 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

You say the law will decide but finish off by inferring a ‘rebalance’ in support of passenger rights, whatever they are.  So, a little bias on the side of sticking it to the man?

As @Pavovsky won't be the arbiter in this case, there's nothing wrong with him/her having or displaying a bias. After all, you've clearly stated your strong bias in the opposite direction in previous posts.

[npcl]

28 minutes ago, RSLeesburg said:

Yes. Thank you for refreshing memory.   I do remember all of this now.   I remember remarking to my wife at the time that they found COVID cases after the ship docked in San Diego, and that it appeared that they strongly suspected that they had infected people on board, but kept that a secret, and she said something that I thought was quite profound - she said, "Would you?  Look what happened to the Princess ships in Japan and then the HAL ships when they announced they had infected people - the FL Governor and local government officials told them they could not come into Port Everglades.  Why tell the truth if it means that you are going to be stranded out at sea where more and more people can become infected."   

 

So, you can say - OMG, they lied about this - how evil.  Or, you can say, OMG they lied so that they could get into a port and allow people to get off, go home, or get treated in adequate medical facilities so they have a chance of surviving if they have become infected.  Everyone could see that passengers on all ships were communicating with people outside, so if the Captain told people that they may have infected people on board, that news would have gotten out and San Diego may have denied them entry.  But who knows.  So many variables, and so many unknowns.  Honestly, if it were my decision, and just knowing what was happening to other ships, I think I would probably tell a lie if it meant I could get those passengers into port and off the ship.  

The only problem is there are specific legalities involved when it comes to ships not telling the truth to port officials when coming into port.  It may have come back to bite them in the CDC's restrictions. THe cruise lines seem to have taken the approach that as long as they don't test it is "flu like symptoms" and not COVID-19 because it has not been confirmed. So technically not a lie.

 

As the CDC puts it on their web site where they talk about the new disembarkation requirements and why they are restricting crew travel. I do not believe the comment inconsistent reporting is there by accident.

 

At this time, given the limited availability of testing onboard ships and inconsistent reporting from cruise ships, CDC does not have confirmation or evidence that any cruise ship is free of COVID-19

Edited May 21, 2020 by npcl

[d9704011]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

As @Pavovsky won't be the arbiter in this case, there's nothing wrong with him/her having or displaying a bias. After all, you've clearly stated your strong bias in the opposite direction in previous posts.

Fair enough.  I don’t know whether we’ll ever find out how this turns out; we may actually be back to cruising before there’s a resolution to the suit and much of the CV-19 discussion will be a hazy memory.

[Oville]

On 5/20/2020 at 3:20 PM, RSLeesburg said:

Hmmm... isn’t this the same ship that was denied entry into Chile and every other country in South America, and was forced to sail to San Diego just to allow passengers to disembark.  It would seem that the cruise line could claim that these circumstances caused passengers to be exposed far longer than they would have if they had been allowed to disembark when originally scheduled.  Awfully hard to allow people off the ship if countries are denying you.  Also, it seems too many people want to point blame at decisions made in the past based on information we have today.  I am sure when they lay out the cases, this will be a critical piece - who knew what when.  This situation unfolded so quickly that everyone was caught off guard. Mistakes were definitely made by lots of people, but does not mean that anyone did so intentionally to do harm.  

And when did this cruise originally embark?  Also why did the Captain repeatedly assure passengers that there was no Coronavirus without testing?  

[PhoenixCruiser]

And when did this cruise originally embark?  Also why did the Captain repeatedly assure passengers that there was no Coronavirus without testing?  

One reason could be that at first they said if you don't have a fever you are not positive. Well this turned out to be incorrect, several people are asymptomatic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[TeeRick]

20 hours ago, RSLeesburg said:

Sorry...I did not mean to be a buzz kill...may explain why I never get invited to parties...lol

I'll invite you maybe sometime in 2021 when I am allowed to have a party.