Lawsuit against RCCL

[Uncleromulus]

True. It's a 50/50 shot of it going to court, and this will be brought up for time to come.

Please don't take this wrong, but from everything I've seen, it's people that have no knowledge of maritime build techniques and what ships can and cannot handle that are being listened to. Squeaky wheel thing. It would be in RCCLbest interest to layout a timeline to settle things down. Al Roker wasn't on the bridge with a forecast and neither was I or any one else. But I seriously doubt that a Capt of a new billion dollar ship deliberately put his ship into harms way. They can refuse to sail or put a ship into harms way if corporate says to, like Tonka's Skipper pointed out. Lime Capt Klink of the Concordia found out incompetence is not an excuse. Today its a different ball game much like the US Navy culture is different from 20 years ago. They don't put up with much.

Like I said, it would be in any lines interest to say this ship can handle theses given conditions and this was what was forecast for the route they took.

Oh I understand--I'm certainly not a ship builder or Captain.

But if by "handle" you mean not turn over or not sink, then that's one thing. But the passengers might think VERY differently about what "handle" means when they are thrown around along with furniture and dining room dishes.

Even that NWS forecast suggested turbulent winds and water--not to mention several other forecasts that did predict even worse weather.

Anyway--I do hope it gets to court and whatever evidence is forthcoming should settle the question once and for all.

 

[truck1]

But if by "handle" you mean not turn over or not sink, then that's one thing. But the passengers might think VERY differently about what "handle" means when they are thrown around along with furniture and dining room dishes.
.

For the most part yes. The ships are designed with certain weather conditions in mind. Which is what I meant by handle. Each class has different criteria for what is considered safe conditions. Using the Dream class vs the Magic class, they are probably different due to size and weight. The Fantasy or the Dream came home from Germany thru 40 foot waves if I recall correctly.

The ship it self came thru without a scratch. You could call the azipod either way. (they are known for premature failures) Yes things did get dumped and broken, which to an extent is to be expected. ( I would expect tables and chairs to move and prob get turned over but I cant see why glass bottles would still be on shelves. Things like that should have been the first thing to get moved to a lower position.) And this goes back to perception like you pointed out. It may have been a wild uncomfortable ride, but people have a habit of taking wild and uncomfortable and confuse it with danger. Especially in todays litinous society. One of the reports I saw passengers said that the ship rolled to 45 degrees. 45 degrees prob would have shut down the engines since the fuel pumps have to be in a certain attitude to function properly. They prob would have sucked air at some point. Everyone is looking to put the blame on someone, and then profit from it in someway shape or form.

 

[Racer X]

OK Mr Truck1 you are missing one main point. You are assuming the went into the storm KNOWINGLY. Even if they did not, with intent, put the ship or passengers in danger it doesn't make them less liable. They are RESPONSIBLE. Therefore they will and must face the music. If they find out they did KNOWINGLY accept the risk of the storm, then that could add to the damages.

 

[Uncleromulus]

And from now on at least maybe they might check other weather forecasting sites aside from the NWS--most of whom were predicting a major storm.

And this isn't really about the "ship" itself--it's about the passengers, many of whom were severely tossed about and felt in grave danger. Wild and uncomfortable is not what they were expecting or paying for. And this was certainly wild and uncomfortable by any standards.

 

[truck1]

OK Mr Truck1 you are missing one main point. You are assuming the went into the storm KNOWINGLY. Even if they did not, with intent, put the ship or passengers in danger it doesn't make them less liable. They are RESPONSIBLE. Therefore they will and must face the music. If they find out they did KNOWINGLY accept the risk of the storm, then that could add to the damages.

I assume the other way. They went into the storm knowing that it would be uncomfortable but not dangerous. (Their insurance carrier would have had a fit, and are probably the ones raising questions and doing an investigation.) They assumed 50 knot winds with 30 foot waves. They got double the prediction. Now if they went knowing they were facing 100 mph winds and 70 foot seas, that's a totally different story. Then they are responsible and liable.

Out of curiosity, I looked up RCCLs cruise contract. IN all likeliness, this will never go to court. Arbitration possibly but not court. Its a real eye opener reading a cruise contract regarding liabilities. Heres 2 of the highlites.
This is under the Lawsuit clause:

9. FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE FOR ALL LAWSUITS; CLASS ACTION WAIVER:

a. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 (b) WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS SUBJECT TO BINDING ARBITRATION, IT IS AGREED BY AND
BETWEEN PASSENGER AND CARRIER THAT ALL DISPUTES AND MATTERS WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH OR
INCIDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT, PASSENGER'S CRUISE, CRUISETOUR, RCT LAND TOUR OR TRANSPORT, SHALL BE LITIGATED, IF AT ALL,
IN AND BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, U.S.A., (OR AS TO THOSE LAWSUITS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES LACK SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION, BEFORE A COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A.) TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COURTS OF ANY
OTHER STATE, TERRITORY OR COUNTRY. PASSENGER HEREBY CONSENTS TO JURISDICTION AND WAIVES ANY VENUE OR OTHER

OBJECTION THAT HE MAY HAVE TO ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING BEING BROUGHT IN THE APPLICABLE COURT LOCATED IN MIAMIDADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA.
b. CLASS ACTION RELIEF WAIVER. PASSENGER HEREBY AGREES THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS

PARAGRAPH, PASSENGER MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIER ONLY IN PASSENGER'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. EVEN IF THE

APPLICABLE LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE, PASSENGER AGREES THAT ANY ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT AGAINST CARRIER, VESSEL OR

TRANSPORT WHATSOEVER SHALL BE LITIGATED BY PASSENGER INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OR AS PART OF A

CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, AND PASSENGER EXPRESSLY AGREES TO WAIVE ANY LAW ENTITLING PASSENGER TO

PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. IF YOUR CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 BELOW, THE ARBITRATOR

SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE

SEVERABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.b BELOW, AND IF FOR ANY

REASON THIS CLASS ACTION WAIVER IS UNENFORCEABLE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR CLAIM, THEN AND ONLY THEN SUCH CLAIM SHALL

NOT BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.

This is under the liability section:

"a. CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INJURY, DEATH, ILLNESS, DAMAGE, DELAY OR OTHER LOSS TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR ANY

OTHER CLAIM BY ANY PASSENGER CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD, WAR, TERRORISM, CIVIL COMMOTION, LABOR TROUBLE, GOVERNMENT
INTERFERENCE, PERILS OF THE SEA, FIRE, THEFTS OR ANY OTHER CAUSE BEYOND CARRIER'S REASONABLE CONTROL, OR ANY ACT
NOT SHOWN TO BE CAUSED BY CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE."
'c. CARRIER HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY TO THE PASSENGER FOR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, MENTAL SUFFERING OR

PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY OF ANY KIND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN SUCH DAMAGES WERE NEITHER THE RESULT OF A
PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE PASSENGER, NOR THE RESULT OF PASSENGER HAVING BEEN AT ACTUAL RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY, NOR
WERE INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED BY THE CARRIER. WITHOUT LIMITING THE PRECEDING SENTENCE, IN NO EVENT WILL CARRIER BE
LIABLE TO PASSENGER FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES."

 

[truck1]

And from now on at least maybe they might check other weather forecasting sites aside from the NWS--most of whom were predicting a major storm.

And this isn't really about the "ship" itself--it's about the passengers, many of whom were severely tossed about and felt in grave danger. Wild and uncomfortable is not what they were expecting or paying for. And this was certainly wild and uncomfortable by any standards.

I doubt it. Simply because once a storm moves off shore, such as in this instance, the NWS and NOAA are the lead agencies. The news stations get there info from the NWS weather buoys regarding wind speed directions etc. They use NOAA satelittes, for information. In a sense, the land weather forecasters are simply relaying what NOAA and NWS are saying. With some exceptions. Even the Weather Channel, in trying to explain the situation on youtube, ( I was looking for the Capts explanation the next day trying to see if they said this was predicted and this is what we got) doesnt say hurricane force conditions. They say almost verbatim what the NWS said.

I agree what the passengers got and what they expected are 2 totally different things. They are just going to have a hard time proving the danger part. Feeling in danger, and being in danger are 2 totally different things. Now if this was the Concordia, with Capt Klink,(and Im certain there are a few more of those running around) theres no doubt. This one, I don't think there is a smoking gun that will say that RCCL deliberately went out in hurricane forces winds and conditions. Its kinda of the same mentality the news people use. Im not discrediting what the passengers went thru. Some of them probably did fear for there safety. Right wrong or indifferent. Everything the news does is for ratings. Ever notice the people on the news describing the situation make it seem like the world was coming to an end? Never hear how the other 200 people watching are saying are they looking at the same thing we are? By making it seem like a given scenario is much worse then it was, they get viewers, and therefor they get sponsors and money. We were on the Wonder when we picked up the MOB from Carnival. Listening to the news accounts, youd swear Carnival couldn't do anything right. Dumb luck the Wonder came in from a direction that put us almost on top of the mob. Wonder bridge crew heard the person as we stopped, launched a boat, picked up the drunk, and we moved on.

In the end, I think this will end up being called an Act of God, the lawyers will get a good chunk of whatever settlement RCCL offers thru arbitration, and life will go on until the next time that forces don't play out as expected.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

OK Mr Truck1 you are missing one main point. You are assuming the went into the storm KNOWINGLY. Even if they did not, with intent, put the ship or passengers in danger it doesn't make them less liable. They are RESPONSIBLE. Therefore they will and must face the music. If they find out they did KNOWINGLY accept the risk of the storm, then that could add to the damages.

Except no one was hurt except 4 passengers and from what I read these were minor injuries. Being afraid is not injury. Read the contracts.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I assume the other way. They went into the storm knowing that it would be uncomfortable but not dangerous. (Their insurance carrier would have had a fit, and are probably the ones raising questions and doing an investigation.) They assumed 50 knot winds with 30 foot waves. They got double the prediction. Now if they went knowing they were facing 100 mph winds and 70 foot seas, that's a totally different story. Then they are responsible and liable.

Out of curiosity, I looked up RCCLs cruise contract. IN all likeliness, this will never go to court. Arbitration possibly but not court. Its a real eye opener reading a cruise contract regarding liabilities. Heres 2 of the highlites.
This is under the Lawsuit clause:

9. FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE FOR ALL LAWSUITS; CLASS ACTION WAIVER:

a. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 (b) WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS SUBJECT TO BINDING ARBITRATION, IT IS AGREED BY AND
BETWEEN PASSENGER AND CARRIER THAT ALL DISPUTES AND MATTERS WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH OR
INCIDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT, PASSENGER'S CRUISE, CRUISETOUR, RCT LAND TOUR OR TRANSPORT, SHALL BE LITIGATED, IF AT ALL,
IN AND BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, U.S.A., (OR AS TO THOSE LAWSUITS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES LACK SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION, BEFORE A COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A.) TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COURTS OF ANY
OTHER STATE, TERRITORY OR COUNTRY. PASSENGER HEREBY CONSENTS TO JURISDICTION AND WAIVES ANY VENUE OR OTHER

OBJECTION THAT HE MAY HAVE TO ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING BEING BROUGHT IN THE APPLICABLE COURT LOCATED IN MIAMIDADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA.
b. CLASS ACTION RELIEF WAIVER. PASSENGER HEREBY AGREES THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS

PARAGRAPH, PASSENGER MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIER ONLY IN PASSENGER'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. EVEN IF THE

APPLICABLE LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE, PASSENGER AGREES THAT ANY ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT AGAINST CARRIER, VESSEL OR

TRANSPORT WHATSOEVER SHALL BE LITIGATED BY PASSENGER INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OR AS PART OF A

CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, AND PASSENGER EXPRESSLY AGREES TO WAIVE ANY LAW ENTITLING PASSENGER TO

PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. IF YOUR CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 BELOW, THE ARBITRATOR

SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE

SEVERABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.b BELOW, AND IF FOR ANY

REASON THIS CLASS ACTION WAIVER IS UNENFORCEABLE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR CLAIM, THEN AND ONLY THEN SUCH CLAIM SHALL

NOT BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.

This is under the liability section:

"a. CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INJURY, DEATH, ILLNESS, DAMAGE, DELAY OR OTHER LOSS TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR ANY

OTHER CLAIM BY ANY PASSENGER CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD, WAR, TERRORISM, CIVIL COMMOTION, LABOR TROUBLE, GOVERNMENT
INTERFERENCE, PERILS OF THE SEA, FIRE, THEFTS OR ANY OTHER CAUSE BEYOND CARRIER'S REASONABLE CONTROL, OR ANY ACT
NOT SHOWN TO BE CAUSED BY CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE."
'c. CARRIER HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY TO THE PASSENGER FOR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, MENTAL SUFFERING OR

PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY OF ANY KIND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN SUCH DAMAGES WERE NEITHER THE RESULT OF A
PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE PASSENGER, NOR THE RESULT OF PASSENGER HAVING BEEN AT ACTUAL RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY, NOR
WERE INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED BY THE CARRIER. WITHOUT LIMITING THE PRECEDING SENTENCE, IN NO EVENT WILL CARRIER BE
LIABLE TO PASSENGER FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES."

Perils of the Seas/ ACT OF GOD includes heavy, severe weather conditions, among many other things. Now RCCL will likely settle claims out of court for reasons other then real liability. These would be for avoid continued bad press, but not because they may lose a court case.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

And from now on at least maybe they might check other weather forecasting sites aside from the NWS--most of whom were predicting a major storm.

And this isn't really about the "ship" itself--it's about the passengers, many of whom were severely tossed about and felt in grave danger. Wild and uncomfortable is not what they were expecting or paying for. And this was certainly wild and uncomfortable by any standards.

I would love to see other written forecasts, ones that say 100 MPH winds on Friday from Saturday or Sunday??? The Weather people on TV never showed any written forecasts, nor did they any rebroadcast any forecasts saying storm or seas conditions with 100 mph winds. All I saw was verbal statements and weather maps showing the extreme conditions the Anthem encountered that were created after or during the storm.

The Master used any number of weather services, including but not limited to the NWS, Maritime weather and routing services, and private weather services.

I would suggest reading the parts of the contract Truck 1 posted. The passengers paid for a cruise, there was never any guarantee on weather or seas conditions. Frankly anyone so afraid of bad weather, should not take cruises.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Even if it is frivolous, the insurance company will settle. I had a 70 year old woman file a lawsuit against my restaurant because she fell in the parking lot over a curb. How/why did she fall you ask? Because she was walking backwards trying to take a picture of our building and didn't see the curb behind her. The group of people with her said it was her fault and they settled anyway. It's generally cheaper to settle than go through the courts.

I agree.

In the USA Maritime courts the P and I or if the line is self insured, they will settle for $20,000 to $25,000 max. That is the general rule of thumb for cost of even a minor court case/time. It of course varies in other countries.

AKK

 

[JMHDisney]

Perils of the Seas/ ACT OF GOD includes heavy, severe weather conditions, among many other things. Now RCCL will likely settle claims out of court for reasons other then real liability. These would be for avoid continued bad press, but not because they may lose a court case.

AKK

I agree with you but it also says they aren't liable unless they were negligent. Being negligent is a pretty low bar (higher ones would be being grossly negligent or reckless). Any decent lawyer should be able to make a enough of an argument that this was negligent that it wouldn't get tossed as frivolous. I'm actually surprised at how NOT strict this contract is. I've seen tougher provisions in the release waivers for the bounce house my kid goes to!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I agree with you but it also says they aren't liable unless they were negligent. Being negligent is a pretty low bar (higher ones would be being grossly negligent or reckless). Any decent lawyer should be able to make a enough of an argument that this was negligent that it wouldn't get tossed as frivolous. I'm actually surprised at how NOT strict this contract is. I've seen tougher provisions in the release waivers for the bounce house my kid goes to!

I see your point, however you have to remember you are dealing with a Marine contract......not a local court or laws. The language is based on hundreds of years of cases and is clearly defines just what it means, and was agreed to by the passengers. As I said before, just being afraid is not a injury.....negligent...........low bar,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems all the Master would have to do is what he already showed in that video.......maps and forecasts showing a rough storm, but nothing close to what he encountered in the end. Add to that the minor damage to the vessel, some items tossed around the decks and off shelves.

I would be amazed if any case (except maybe the 4 passengers with the minor injuries) was settled based on the legalities of the case. If they are settled it would be for *Good Will* and stop any bad publicity.

AKK

 

[JMHDisney]

If they are settled it would be for *Good Will* and stop any bad publicity.

AKK

Completely agree. I bet they settle and it will be entirely because RCCL just wants this out of the news as quickly as possible.

 

[bumbershoot]

Wild and uncomfortable is not what they were expecting or paying for.

I bet there were some that would have paid MORE for the experience.

DH, who worked on tankers up in Valdez, would pay more for a storm experience. On our honeymoon cruise when we came out of the Inside Passage into "real" ocean for the glacier day, he slept like a baby while I worried and fretted at the sounds and motion of the ship. To him, that was what sailing is like; the smooth as glass experience isn't what he is expecting!

Frankly anyone so afraid of bad weather, should not take cruises.

True.

What's the point of building these ships that can take all sorts of weather if they only go out when it's crystal clear?

Not that I personally want to experience a big storm, but I'm not foolish enough to never expect rough seas...

 

[OKW Lover]

I got a mailer from them this week offering 30% off a bunch of cruises. I wasn't shocked to see it.

Were you on this cruise? Or was it a standard mailer?

 

[wombat_5606]

I got a mailer from them this week offering 30% off a bunch of cruises. I wasn't shocked to see it.

This is also "Wave Season" where a lot of the cruise lines offer sales and specials.

 

[Topper]

Wouldn't this be better suited to the RCCL board? Why post it here?

 

[cgolf]

The passengers paid for a cruise, there was never any guarantee on weather or seas conditions. Frankly anyone so afraid of bad weather, should not take cruises.

AKK

This, and DCL probably gets the most inexperienced and unprepared cruisers expecting the cruise line to give them a perfectly smooth ride. I guess I must be like Bumbershoot's husband, on our Hawaii cruise I slept like a baby with heavier seas and my mom said she noticed a lot of sea sick people, I had no clue lol.

It is too bad that there isn't a way to prepare people for what they are potentially embarking on when they go out into the ocean open. Reading about the Anthem and even the Fantasy (sandy cruise) the reports differed greatly between newer cruisers and veteran cruisers, generally the newer cruisers were scared out of their minds and the veteran cruisers rolled with it. Both feelings are acceptable and expected, but being scared out of your mind because you don't have a clue what is safe or not is not a valid reason to sue a cruise line.

 

[phinz]

Anybody who says that the RCCL ship had a 45* roll has no idea what a 45* roll is really like. I bet they also overestimate a lot of other things.

 

[tvguy]

OK Mr Truck1 you are missing one main point. You are assuming the went into the storm KNOWINGLY. Even if they did not, with intent, put the ship or passengers in danger it doesn't make them less liable. They are RESPONSIBLE. Therefore they will and must face the music. If they find out they did KNOWINGLY accept the risk of the storm, then that could add to the damages.

These days in our courts, responsibility means little. It's the bottom line. I suspect RCCL will settle the suit, because it will cheaper to do that than prove the passengers agreed to cruise at their own risk.