Lawsuit Filed By Family of Mariner Overboard

[beachchick]

I've followed this and the other lawsuit threads. Several years ago, DH and I were on a Hawaii cruise. I fell and broke my ankle on Kauai. We were not on a shore excursion. We in no way felt this was the responsibility of the cruise line--it was an accident (although it happened partly because a man had parked his car right up on the walking path so his wife wouldn't have to get out of the car to see from the overlook; forcing me to walk "up" on a little hill on the very slipperly red dirt). Anyway, we got back to the ship with my ankle the size of a grapefruit. DH got me a wheelchair and took me to the medical center. They couldn't do much but put it in a temporary cast, give me pain meds, and (this was actually nice) move us to a larger cabin because our first (and last) inside cabin was too tiny for the wheelchair. So, I was wheeling around the ship (nice and mellow on the meds; whee). Of course others wanted to know what happened, and at least a dozen of them asked me if I planned to sue the cruise line--after I mentioned where it happened and that we were not on a ship excursion. I mean, this is the first thing they think of??? What that says about our societal mindset is mind-boggling. Every time I responded, "No, why would we? The cruise line didn't have anything to do with this." For crying out loud.

 

The cruise lines do sometimes have liability when a pax is injured, but what exactly were they supposed to do in the case of this young man, who smuggled on alcohol and got plastered. Perhaps the bartenders could have cut him off sooner, but they aren't babysitters and we have no way of knowing whether he was even acting drunk. Of course this is a horrible situation for the family. It's a terrible tragedy. But we are not talking about a child.

 

What a mess.

 

beachchick

[DukeFamily]

Am I right to perceive "You are wrong my friend" as being condescending? Perhaps I am being oversenstive, but it did strike me that way.

 

Oh, no, sorry - I definitely didn't mean that in a condescending "voice" at all. I'm really sorry if it reads that way. Just vollying back. I guess we all read the case and feel differently about it. Sure, somebody who spills a whole cup of coffee on their lap deserves a "slap upside the head", which the plaintiff did receive in the 20% reduction in the compensatory damage award (sorry, previously I said is was the punitive damages and that's not right), for her responsibility in the accident. It's just that it went SO far beyond an annoying - even painful - accident when that coffee produced full thickness burns.

 

Hey, I'd write more but I'm about 5 minutes late getting the kids' breakfast started.....gotta get in gear and go be the mom :D .

[Cuizer2]

"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[13]

 

"Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[14] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." [15] "

 

I think this quote entirely backs up everything I said.

 

Basically you disagree with the jury. That is ok. The bottom line is, after sitting through the trial, twelve people, who would think like any other twelve randomly selected people, decided that not only should they award compensatory damages to the plaintiff (which only requires a perponderance of the evidence) they felt that McDonalds should be punished beyond that and awarded punitive damages. It takes a lot more than "too hot coffee" to cause a jury to want to punish a defendant via punitive damages.

[cruisecrasy]

What about accepting responsibility..???

 

Isn't it simple???

U are handed a cup of coffee u have requested.

It shld be your responsibility to check to see how hot it is (I mean if it was cold wldn't u want a warmer cup?) and take the precautions necessary to not be burned -

 

EEE GADS - does even that have to be done for the 'simple' folks..

 

Whats next - checking to make sure the toilet paper doesn't chaff their sensitive rears 'cause then they can sue?

 

Sorry but in my experience the jury members usually are only interested in 'sockin' it to the big guys and 'deep pockets' and scoring one for the little guys of which most of the time they are one. I have served on a few juries myself and have been disgusted with the attitudes of far too many of them - such as 'ah they can afford it so why not' - not they are guilty of negligence and therefore shld be held accountable with a $ settlement for real injuries.. Jury of your peers - yours maybe not mine - I am more educated & enlightened and like to maintain a sense of justice and fair play whether wealthy or poor..and not to simply spread the wealth around..

 

Lets face it - the US is totally 'sue' happy and even Canada is becoming that way also and we can blame the law profession for same. I used to be a legal secretary and saw it becoming more common as time progressed & my daughter agrees. She is a lawyer but not interested in litigation..!

 

Very distressing and not beneficial to society as a whole - in fact - very detrimental..

[piercetc4]

i agree with you cruisecrasy- the jury i was on had similar sentiments to making the big guy pay because "he" has deep pockets- I refused to award the little guy who was negligent and just out to get the money and was lying to do so- wanted 75,000 for a small scar on his elbow- said he could not eat without his wifes help to cut his food ( he had a broken arm) so she missed work staying home to aid him- all he got was a broken arm from a fall- they wanted compensation for wifes missed work- plus other damages for trauma etc....... all total they were asking for like 500,000..........laughable for a broken arm- in the end , they got $1.00 :0

[broberts]

What about accepting responsibility..???

 

Isn't it simple???

U are handed a cup of coffee u have requested.

It shld be your responsibility to check to see how hot it is (I mean if it was cold wldn't u want a warmer cup?) and take the precautions necessary to not be burned -

 

<clip>

 

Lets face it - the US is totally 'sue' happy and even Canada is becoming that way also and we can blame the law profession for same. I used to be a legal secretary and saw it becoming more common as time progressed & my daughter agrees. She is a lawyer but not interested in litigation..!

 

Very distressing and not beneficial to society as a whole - in fact - very detrimental..

 

Certainly individuals must take responsibility for their own actions. Just as corporations must take responsibility for theirs.

 

I tend to agree that juries often seem to award damages based on the depth on the party's pockets. But if one thinks about it, is there any other way to force a party to correct bad behavior? If a "guilty" party has very deep pockets I'd suggest that the only way to make them correct the erroneous behavior is to make it cost them enough that they can't simply view the award as a "cost of doing business".

 

I don't think things are simple in this area. Unfortunately, greed is found on all sides. Plaintiffs looking for easy money. Companies trying to eek out every penny of profit possible. Lawyers looking for those lovely large contingency settlements. The difficulty is how are the greedy discouraged without breaking the necessary check that this type of suit provides society?

[Cuizer2]

What about accepting responsibility..???

 

Isn't it simple???

U are handed a cup of coffee u have requested.

It shld be your responsibility to check to see how hot it is (I mean if it was cold wldn't u want a warmer cup?) and take the precautions necessary to not be burned -

 

EEE GADS - does even that have to be done for the 'simple' folks..

 

Whats next - checking to make sure the toilet paper doesn't chaff their sensitive rears 'cause then they can sue?

 

Sorry but in my experience the jury members usually are only interested in 'sockin' it to the big guys and 'deep pockets' and scoring one for the little guys of which most of the time they are one. I have served on a few juries myself and have been disgusted with the attitudes of far too many of them - such as 'ah they can afford it so why not' - not they are guilty of negligence and therefore shld be held accountable with a $ settlement for real injuries.. Jury of your peers - yours maybe not mine - I am more educated & enlightened and like to maintain a sense of justice and fair play whether wealthy or poor..and not to simply spread the wealth around..

 

Lets face it - the US is totally 'sue' happy and even Canada is becoming that way also and we can blame the law profession for same. I used to be a legal secretary and saw it becoming more common as time progressed & my daughter agrees. She is a lawyer but not interested in litigation..!

 

Very distressing and not beneficial to society as a whole - in fact - very detrimental..

 

Not too mention humble. Too bad you had to serve on a jury full of of society's uneducated and unenlightened.

 

Have you ever thought of why products in America are as safe as they are? It is not because corporate America is looking out for everyone's safety as part of its civic enlightenment. It is because corporate America knows that an unsafe product can result in a very costly lawsuit. As bad as the sue happy lawyers are, they also are responsible for a lot of the good things that we take for granted.

 

Now if only we could do something about all those people who believe that they are better than everyone else. As I am sure you know, Bill Gates is a college drop out, as are the two Steves that started Apple.

[Nliedel]

It's not the crews job to babysit. I know that's been said, a lot, but what were they supposed to do?

[Christen99]

Personal responsiblity is something seen very infrequently in the ER. Every shift someone wants to blame someone for their behavior. I am not surprised that the family has a lawyer and wants some money. This is one of those cases that is causing everyone to be forced to no longer carry on their favorite soda, bottled water or even some rum. It is sad that the person lost their life but PERSONAL responsibility has be assumed at some point. I know this is not McDonalds but we lost most personal responsibility with the hot coffee in the lap...now, whoever would have thought hot coffee would have been hot? Whomever would think drinking all day would lead to some dumb activities on ship, or in a car?

 

I couldn't agree more! My ex DH had hit a woman who ran at full speed out from a blind corner into the street, never looking to see who may have been driving down the road. She was trying to make her train, and she didn't even think when she crossed the road. My ex DH was driving a full sized Bronco, and although she wasn't killed she had some very severe life threatening, and life changing injuries. She was life flighted from the scene, and rushed into surgery. My ex DH was put through the wringer, made to feel it was his fault (she never looked, he was driving the speed limit on his way to work), given field sobriety tests, car impounded, blood tests, etc. She turned around and sued us...no personal responsibility. She ran in the street, she didn't look, she got hit by a big freaking car...she sued. It's as if she was rewarded for being stupid! I'm sorry she was hit, I'mvery sorry she was severely injured but it wasn't my ex DH's responsibility to make sure she looked both ways and not run into the street from a blind corner, and it wasn't our responsibility to take care of someone who made a really bad decision. My ex DH had some severe emotional problems as a result of the accident requiring therapy and medication for a long time, did we sue her family requesting money for the treatment? No, we took responsibility and paid for it ourselves. He wouldn't have needed to endure any of that if she had taken personal responsibility and looked where the heck she was running.

 

Why aren't this guy's "friends" being sued? Shouldn't they have been just as responsible as the cruise line? After all, they illegally smuggled booze onto a cruise ship when the policy is clearly outlined that no booze is to be brought on board. Why should a company pay for people's stupidity? I can see suing a cruise line if because of their negligence there was a safety violation and someone was hurt as a result, but come on at some point people need to take responsibility for their own actions. I'm sorry this tragedy happened, it's truly awful and I feel for the family and friends as it's a terrible loss.

 

I had a very close friend (we had actually talked about getting married) killed by a drunk driver last year, someone who had apparantly never driven drunk before. She had been bar hopping with her friend, and got into her full size truck and made the decision to drive. She entered the freeway going the wrong way, and struck and killed my friend instantly (he was decapitated). Are the bars liable for his death? I think the person that made the decision to go to the bars, drink the liquor, get in her truck and drive home was liable. She only received 5 years in prison, as her first offense with good behavior she should be out in about 2. I would hold her friend more accountable than the bars that served them, she was the one who was with her the entire time and knew at some point they were getting awfully toasty. Didn't this person have to drive to multiple times? She had been driving around drunk all evening (and had no recollection of the crash), and her friend never stopped her.

 

Maybe this turned into more of a rant, but I think personal responsibility is a thing of the past. Unfortunately we live in a money driven, sue happy society where people don't have to be held accountable for their own stupidity.

[cruisecrasy]

I couldn't agree more! My ex DH had hit a woman who ran at full speed out from a blind corner into the street, never looking to see who may have been driving down the road. She was trying to make her train, and she didn't even think when she crossed the road. My ex DH was driving a full sized Bronco, and although she wasn't killed she had some very severe life threatening, and life changing injuries. She was life flighted from the scene, and rushed into surgery. My ex DH was put through the wringer, made to feel it was his fault (she never looked, he was driving the speed limit on his way to work), given field sobriety tests, car impounded, blood tests, etc. She turned around and sued us...no personal responsibility. She ran in the street, she didn't look, she got hit by a big freaking car...she sued. It's as if she was rewarded for being stupid! I'm sorry she was hit, I'mvery sorry she was severely injured but it wasn't my ex DH's responsibility to make sure she looked both ways and not run into the street from a blind corner, and it wasn't our responsibility to take care of someone who made a really bad decision. My ex DH had some severe emotional problems as a result of the accident requiring therapy and medication for a long time, did we sue her family requesting money for the treatment? No, we took responsibility and paid for it ourselves. He wouldn't have needed to endure any of that if she had taken personal responsibility and looked where the heck she was running.

 

Why aren't this guy's "friends" being sued? Shouldn't they have been just as responsible as the cruise line? After all, they illegally smuggled booze onto a cruise ship when the policy is clearly outlined that no booze is to be brought on board. Why should a company pay for people's stupidity? I can see suing a cruise line if because of their negligence there was a safety violation and someone was hurt as a result, but come on at some point people need to take responsibility for their own actions. I'm sorry this tragedy happened, it's truly awful and I feel for the family and friends as it's a terrible loss.

 

I had a very close friend (we had actually talked about getting married) killed by a drunk driver last year, someone who had apparantly never driven drunk before. She had been bar hopping with her friend, and got into her full size truck and made the decision to drive. She entered the freeway going the wrong way, and struck and killed my friend instantly (he was decapitated). Are the bars liable for his death? I think the person that made the decision to go to the bars, drink the liquor, get in her truck and drive home was liable. She only received 5 years in prison, as her first offense with good behavior she should be out in about 2. I would hold her friend more accountable than the bars that served them, she was the one who was with her the entire time and knew at some point they were getting awfully toasty. Didn't this person have to drive to multiple times? She had been driving around drunk all evening (and had no recollection of the crash), and her friend never stopped her.

 

Maybe this turned into more of a rant, but I think personal responsibility is a thing of the past. Unfortunately we live in a money driven, sue happy society where people don't have to be held accountable for their own stupidity.

 

Thankyou for supplying examples of exactly what I was attempting to convey...u did it better than I..

 

Oh by the way Cruizer2 - why the remark re: 'humble'- I am simply stating facts & I didn't say I was college educated - just 'educated'.. Not difficult... life can do it to u if u don't watch out ;0)!!

[Cuizer2]

Why aren't this guy's "friends" being sued?

 

Because they don't have a billion dollars in assets.

[cruisecrasy]

Because they don't have a billion dollars in assets.

 

U nailed it exactly - so much easier and usually profitable to sue the 'deep pockets'..

In my experience the suit is usually not worth fighting - too time consuming & bad press - good news doesn't seem to be as popular (the journalists & papers shld also be held responsible for faning the flames so to speak to sell more papers) & costly for the companies so they settle - which perpetuates the cycle..

Sad isn't it & one of the signs of a declining civilization?

[beachchick]

U nailed it exactly - so much easier and usually profitable to sue the 'deep pockets'..

In my experience the suit is usually not worth fighting - too time consuming & bad press - good news doesn't seem to be as popular (the journalists & papers shld also be held responsible for faning the flames so to speak to sell more papers) & costly for the companies so they settle - which perpetuates the cycle..

Sad isn't it & one of the signs of a declining civilization?

 

Certainly true, up to a point. OTOH, anyone who automatically assumes that someone who sues a company for any reason (no matter how valid the reason) is out to "gouge" the company and live the high life has no more business on those juries than someone who automatically assumes that a company being sued must be guilty (and let's dig into those "deep pockets"). Such mass generalizations do nothing to help the legal system and those it is supposed to serve (who would be all of us).

 

There are problems with the civil lawsuits, no doubt. But I agree with others that valid lawsuits which force companies to "do the right thing" are beneficial because they lead to safer products and better public safety.

 

There is a middle ground and there are valid lawsuits. This is not one of them.

 

beachchick

[broberts]

U nailed it exactly - so much easier and usually profitable to sue the 'deep pockets'..

In my experience the suit is usually not worth fighting - too time consuming & bad press - good news doesn't seem to be as popular (the journalists & papers shld also be held responsible for faning the flames so to speak to sell more papers) & costly for the companies so they settle - which perpetuates the cycle..

Sad isn't it & one of the signs of a declining civilization?

 

While it may be true that only those with deep pockets get sued, its erroneous to think that courts always apportion the entire blame to those being sued. Certainly up our way its not uncommon for a decision to asses a % blame on various contributors, including the plaintiff. While a court cannot make an award against a party not being sued, that doesn't mean that a judgment represents the entirety of the liability.

 

Given the cost of suing, even when its "open & shut" and one is clearly in the "right", its no surprise to me that most suits are made against those who can pay up. I presume that most ethical lawyers advise clients against pursuing cases where the potential cost recovery is unlikely to meet the actual out of pocket costs.

 

If people didn't read, watch, etc. the stories, news organizations would quickly find other stories. I'd suggest that we should be extremely careful about even suggesting a limitation on free speech when there are other, much more effective, means of adjusting behavior. And, if it turns out that most people enjoy these types of stories, lets not kill the messenger. It won't make the problem go away.

[cruisecrasy]

Certainly true, up to a point. OTOH, anyone who automatically assumes that someone who sues a company for any reason (no matter how valid the reason) is out to "gouge" the company and live the high life has no more business on those juries than someone who automatically assumes that a company being sued must be guilty (and let's dig into those "deep pockets"). Such mass generalizations do nothing to help the legal system and those it is supposed to serve (who would be all of us).

 

There are problems with the civil lawsuits, no doubt. But I agree with others that valid lawsuits which force companies to "do the right thing" are beneficial because they lead to safer products and better public safety.

 

There is a middle ground and there are valid lawsuits. This is not one of them.

 

beachchick

 

U said it better than I..

 

I wld like to add if I may, this observation - These type of lawsuits are more frequent, very costly and get more press than valid ones however and therein lies a huge problem..what think?

[beachchick]

U said it better than I..

 

I wld like to add if I may, this observation - These type of lawsuits are more frequent, very costly and get more press than valid ones however and therein lies a huge problem..what think?

 

Unfortunately, I think you are right on with your assessment of what gets publicity.

 

beachchick