DCL lawsuits

[DisneYE]

On another thread about pool hours the issue of lawsuits was briefly mentioned in regards to why DCL decided to have lifeguards.
And it got me thinking...

Years ago, there was this major lawsuit won by someone vs. another cruise because of a faulty sliding door. He won over $20 million (!)

So, has anyone ever sued DCL for something (minor or major)? Or does someone know of lawsuits filed and/or won against DCL?

I think I would never sue DCL (or any company) if I was hit by a glass door or a slipped on a wet deck... but you gotta believe there are ppl out there that just crave for an chance to sue..

Without looking it up on the search button, I don't recall this being asked.
Just curious..

 

[lanejudy]

On another thread about pool hours the issue of lawsuits was briefly mentioned in regards to why DCL decided to have lifeguards.

I'm not sure if that incident even resulted in an actual lawsuit. I think DCL worked with the family and settled out of court. Which is typical of Disney whenever they can. And most if not all agreements/settlements likely involve a non-disclosure so the public never hears much.

 

[jjb1974]

I think I would never sue DCL (or any company) if I was hit by a glass door or a slipped on a wet deck... but you gotta believe there are ppl out there that just crave for an chance to sue..

I'm not sure where people get the impression that defendants and/or their insurers are just looking to hand out vast sums of money for the slightest of inconveniences, but I can assure you it doesn't come close to working that way. If someone paid big money, big harm occurred.

 

[tvguy]

I'm not sure where people get the impression that defendants and/or their insurers are just looking to hand out vast sums of money for the slightest of inconveniences, but I can assure you it doesn't come close to working that way. If someone paid big money, big harm occurred.

Or the insurance company determined the cost of proving their client had done nothing wrong exceeded the settlement. My neighbor was shopped at a traffic light when a guy on a bicycle going the wrong pay ran into the side of his STOPPED car. Guy on the bike got a ticket, investigation showed zero responsibility on my neighbor, but he got sued and his insurance settled for $100,000. It wasn't about liability, it was about the bottom line. Defending the suit would have cost at least $250,000. As another neighbor, an attorney put it "go away money"

 

[mmouse37]

I remember people saying they were going to sue DCL because they felt the Captain of the Fantasy was negligent during the Sandy storm. Don't know if anything came of it.

 

[DisneYE]

I remember people saying they were going to sue DCL because they felt the Captain of the Fantasy was negligent during the Sandy storm. Don't know if anything came of it.

Yeah to me this is the epitome of what a frivolous lawsuit means.
A cruise line has no control over the weather.. would love to see what they meant by the captain was "negligent"
I'll google it because it sounds interesting enough.

 

[Maggie'sMom]

Yeah to me this is the epitome of what a frivolous lawsuit means.
A cruise line has no control over the weather.. would love to see what they meant by the captain was "negligent"
I'll google it because it sounds interesting enough.

Definitely google it. In that situation, it wasn't so much about Disney not being able to control the weather as much as it was the captain made a decision that carried some risk and ultimately put the Fantasy in a bad situation with extreme sea conditions. Other ships in the area at the time made less risky decisions and didn't encounter the same conditions. Since the situation they encountered was due to the captain's judgment, I don't know that I'd say it is the "epitome of frivolous lawsuit." It wasn't like the storm materialized out of nowhere and the captain was stuck with no alternatives.

 

[jjb1974]

Or the insurance company determined the cost of proving their client had done nothing wrong exceeded the settlement. My neighbor was shopped at a traffic light when a guy on a bicycle going the wrong pay ran into the side of his STOPPED car. Guy on the bike got a ticket, investigation showed zero responsibility on my neighbor, but he got sued and his insurance settled for $100,000. It wasn't about liability, it was about the bottom line. Defending the suit would have cost at least $250,000. As another neighbor, an attorney put it "go away money"

I’m pretty sure there are substantial details missing here. It doesn’t cost $250,000 to defend a collision suit.

 

[tvguy]

I’m pretty sure there are substantial details missing here. It doesn’t cost $250,000 to defend a collision suit.

It does in California.

EDITED: Even small claims court can get pricey. California limits awards in small claims court to $5,000, however that does not include your actual court costs, there is no limit on that if you win. You bring in an expert to testify at $2,500 to $5,000 an hour to testify, your court costs can easily exceed your actual award.

 

[squirk]

It's true that some of these suits are settled because it would cost more in attorney/court fees than to just give the plaintiff some money to make them go away, and that happens a lot. And people often settle for a lot less than what they demand at the outset.

But it's also true that Disney (and/or its liability carriers) has the resources to bury a plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney working on contingency) in a massive amount of litigation time and expense. You see this happen from time to time when people sue huge corporations. Sometimes the plaintiff's attorney or firm actually has to take out loans in order to work a contingency case.

In the U.S., we have what we call the "American rule," where each party to a lawsuit is responsible for their own attorney fees (with some exceptions by contract or by law). If Disney thinks a claim is completely unmeritorious, and decides "enough is enough," they can drag out the litigation to the point whereby even if the plaintiff wins, they might owe more in attorney fees than what they recovered.

Also, when a lawyer works on contingency, if you lose, the lawyer can't come after you for fees (again, with some exceptions). The whole point of a contingency fee is that it's contingent on success. So if you go to an attorney with a truly frivolous claim, they are not going to take your case because odds are good that you will lose, and won't even get a settlement offer, and the lawyer will get nothing for the time and expense they sunk into it. Personal injury business (which is almost exclusively contingency) is really a gamble for the attorney, which makes them incentivized to settle before they expend significant resources in the case. "A bird in the hand....," for lack of a better phrase.

Compare this to the "English rule," where the losing party is supposed to reimburse the winning party for their attorney fees.

The American rule (ostensibly) discourages frivolous lawsuits because, win or lose, you (plaintiff) have to pay your lawyer costs. It also encourages settlement, because again, it's often cheaper for a defendant to pay "go-away" money than defend the suit, win on the merits, and nonetheless still have to pay their own attorney fees.

Others say the American rule encourages frivolous lawsuits because even if you lose, you won't be liable for paying the other side's fees, and if you're under a contingency arrangement, you won't have to pay your own attorney either. So what do you have to lose?

That said, despite the American rule, if your lawsuit is egregiously frivolous, the court can order you to pay the defendant's legal fees.

 

[jjb1974]

It does in California.

EDITED: Even small claims court can get pricey. California limits awards in small claims court to $5,000, however that does not include your actual court costs, there is no limit on that if you win. You bring in an expert to testify at $2,500 to $5,000 an hour to testify, your court costs can easily exceed your actual award.

I'm sticking with substantial facts missing here, as if liability was as open and shut as you'd imply, you'd MSJ it away before you even got to damages. But, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[tvguy]

I'm sticking with substantial facts missing here, as if liability was as open and shut as you'd imply, you'd MSJ it away before you even got to damages. But, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Cities work the same way with claims. Without admitting liability they frequently make a settlement offer without regard to the facts.

EDITED: Wish you had been involved in the case I was on Jury Duty for for 6 1/2 weeks. When we got in the deliberation room all the Jurors wondered how this case EVER got to court. There was no case against the defendants. Only after we rendered our verdict did we learn that there were three other defendants in the case, all three settled before trial, and all three clearly did have liability in the case.

 

[DisneYE]

It's true that some of these suits are settled because it would cost more in attorney/court fees than to just give the plaintiff some money to make them go away, and that happens a lot. And people often settle for a lot less than what they demand at the outset.

But it's also true that Disney (and/or its liability carriers) has the resources to bury a plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney working on contingency) in a massive amount of litigation time and expense. You see this happen from time to time when people sue huge corporations. Sometimes the plaintiff's attorney or firm actually has to take out loans in order to work a contingency case.

In the U.S., we have what we call the "American rule," where each party to a lawsuit is responsible for their own attorney fees (with some exceptions by contract or by law). If Disney thinks a claim is completely unmeritorious, and decides "enough is enough," they can drag out the litigation to the point whereby even if the plaintiff wins, they might owe more in attorney fees than what they recovered.

Also, when a lawyer works on contingency, if you lose, the lawyer can't come after you for fees (again, with some exceptions). The whole point of a contingency fee is that it's contingent on success. So if you go to an attorney with a truly frivolous claim, they are not going to take your case because odds are good that you will lose, and won't even get a settlement offer, and the lawyer will get nothing for the time and expense they sunk into it. Personal injury business (which is almost exclusively contingency) is really a gamble for the attorney, which makes them incentivized to settle before they expend significant resources in the case. "A bird in the hand....," for lack of a better phrase.

Compare this to the "English rule," where the losing party is supposed to reimburse the winning party for their attorney fees.

The American rule (ostensibly) discourages frivolous lawsuits because, win or lose, you (plaintiff) have to pay your lawyer costs. It also encourages settlement, because again, it's often cheaper for a defendant to pay "go-away" money than defend the suit, win on the merits, and nonetheless still have to pay their own attorney fees.

Others say the American rule encourages frivolous lawsuits because even if you lose, you won't be liable for paying the other side's fees, and if you're under a contingency arrangement, you won't have to pay your own attorney either. So what do you have to lose?

That said, despite the American rule, if your lawsuit is egregiously frivolous, the court can order you to pay the defendant's legal fees.

Wow this is a thorough explanation.. you must be a lawyer ... would love to buy you a drink at Meridian or a coffee at cove cafe and chat about this further if we ever coincide on a DCL ship.. I love this topic it's so interesting.
Thanks for posting this.

 

[squirk]

Wow this is a thorough explanation.. you must be a lawyer ... would love to buy you a drink at Meridian or a coffee at cove cafe and chat about this further if we ever coincide on a DCL ship.. I love this topic it's so interesting.
Thanks for posting this.

I am, but don’t spread it around.

Actually, my background is intellectual property and estate planning, so I don’t have a whole lot more to contribute on the topic of personal injury contingency fees.

I will agree with the comments above and say that when you hear a news story about a massive settlement for what appears to be very little actual harm, you probably are not getting the full facts.

 

[CBMom01]

Tort claims are the only way to at law is the only way civilians have to hold others accountable for their actions.
But for the plaintiffs bar, corporate shareholders’ profits would decide fears safe and what’s not.