Lawsuit against RCCL

[phinz]

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.

On our December cruise Captain Thord *knowingly* took us into 55+ mph apparent winds, with forecast seas of at least 18-25'. Could this have blown up to be bigger? Sure. Did it? Nope. This wasn't our first rodeo with the Fantasy and high seas either. Our first cruise was just as big, and that was for 48 hours, not just 24. A captain looks at the reports and forecasts. He makes his decision, or corporate makes it for him. Armchair meteorologists be damned.

 

[Uncleromulus]

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.

OF course there are about 6,000 other possible lawsuits in this case. Almost every passenger on the ship could sue if they wanted to. Settle one and people might get the idea they could get a settlement as well

I've seen any #of Youtube etc videos on this and there is GENUINE fear being displayed. This was more than just a "rough sea".

IF this were a jury trial and I was a juror RCCL would have a hard time convincing me that they weren't negligent going out even with just that NWS forecast.

 

[DynamicDisneyDuo]

I've seen any #of Youtube etc videos on this and there is GENUINE fear being displayed. This was more than just a "rough sea".

No, it wasn't more than just a "rough sea". It was landlubbers on a cruise that went into rough seas expecting smooth sailing not realizing that when one goes out into the ocean, one can run into rough seas that make sailing unpleasant.

I don't doubt that there were people on the cruise who were genuinely frightened. Doesn't change the fact that sailing on the ocean can be a hairy business.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

On our December cruise Captain Thord *knowingly* took us into 55+ mph apparent winds, with forecast seas of at least 18-25'. Could this have blown up to be bigger? Sure. Did it? Nope. This wasn't our first rodeo with the Fantasy and high seas either. Our first cruise was just as big, and that was for 48 hours, not just 24. A captain looks at the reports and forecasts. He makes his decision, or corporate makes it for him. Armchair meteorologists be damned.

Hi Phinz,

I agree with most of what you said. However the shore office is very limited in what they can tell the Master what to do, especially involving the vessels safety. The Master does make his own mind up about sailing his vessel. The office can tell him not to sail, but they cannot tell or force him to sail.



AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Being afraid is not something a passenger would win a suit based on legal issues. The only way they may get a award is to shut down any bad press.

AKK

 

[Sleepyluke]

Ok, I know people were scared and I am not trying to gloss over feelings, BUT....

What is the alternative, sit at port and get sued because they did not get their cruise? Drive around in a 2 mile circle? People would gripe and complain about that too. Uncomfortable is not dangerous, and I have now been on 6 DCL cruises, a couple with larger waves than the others and have seen people throw up on all 6, smooth or rough. Now do I lower my "perceived" tolerance for them? No, they genuinely think cruises suck and are rough. Do I think they were rough, no.

Now to settle all of this, and it will never happen, the entire cruising world will need to decide what is tolerable (not what is the limit of the vessel) and that will be written into all contracts. Like the Fantasy will not leave port if conditions are over 40 knot winds and 20 foot seas. We will stay put and you staring at the terminal. Does this seem extreme, absolutely, but until that line is drawn, safety, comfort, and perceived reality have to all match or someone is going to be less than pleased.

 

[tvguy]

OF course there are about 6,000 other possible lawsuits in this case. Almost every passenger on the ship could sue if they wanted to. Settle one and people might get the idea they could get a settlement as well

I've seen any #of Youtube etc videos on this and there is GENUINE fear being displayed. This was more than just a "rough sea".

IF this were a jury trial and I was a juror RCCL would have a hard time convincing me that they weren't negligent going out even with just that NWS forecast.

The most valuable lesson I learned in a 6 1/2 week civil trial that I was a juror on.
Something can be very wrong.
But that does not make it illegal.
And if there is no legal basis for awarding damages, you can't.
The cruise contract says, in legalize, you are cruising at your own risk.

 

[over50visits]

No, it wasn't more than just a "rough sea". It was landlubbers on a cruise that went into rough seas expecting smooth sailing not realizing that when one goes out into the ocean, one can run into rough seas that make sailing unpleasant.

I don't doubt that there were people on the cruise who were genuinely frightened. Doesn't change the fact that sailing on the ocean can be a hairy business.

I disagree that it's reasonable to say that landlubbers just don't understand rough seas, so it is okay to sail into them. That's an attitude, but I would prefer to sail on a line where they don't choose to sail into rough weather based on whether the ship can handle it. I would rather it be based on the passenger experience, even of uninformed landlubbers who shouldn't complain. Just as in Sandy, other cruise captains chose to stay out of the storm, and the fact that RCCL this time was "safe" doesn't make the decision okay.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Ok, I know people were scared and I am not trying to gloss over feelings, BUT....

What is the alternative, sit at port and get sued because they did not get their cruise? Drive around in a 2 mile circle? People would gripe and complain about that too. Uncomfortable is not dangerous, and I have now been on 6 DCL cruises, a couple with larger waves than the others and have seen people throw up on all 6, smooth or rough. Now do I lower my "perceived" tolerance for them? No, they genuinely think cruises suck and are rough. Do I think they were rough, no.

Now to settle all of this, and it will never happen, the entire cruising world will need to decide what is tolerable (not what is the limit of the vessel) and that will be written into all contracts. Like the Fantasy will not leave port if conditions are over 40 knot winds and 20 foot seas. We will stay put and you staring at the terminal. Does this seem extreme, absolutely, but until that line is drawn, safety, comfort, and perceived reality have to all match or someone is going to be less than pleased.

A nice idea, however, everyone has different levels where they will be concerned about the weather and seas and how the vessel is riding....everyone is different.. Then add that the direction and speed the vessel is moving will greatly change the way she rides in the weather and sea conditions...so all vessels are different as well.

You are right it will never happen. People have to understand if they are easily frigthened, not to cruise, or for that matter fly, take the train or drive.

AKK

 

[C6PT7]

A nice idea, however, everyone has different levels where they will be concerned about the weather and seas and how the vessel is riding....everyone is different.. Then add that the direction and speed the vessel is moving will greatly change the way she rides in the weather and sea conditions...so all vessels are different as well.

You are right it will never happen. People have to understand if they are easily frigthened, not to cruise, or for that matter fly, take the train or drive.

AKK

Very well said Sir!

 

[truck1]

Now to settle all of this, and it will never happen, the entire cruising world will need to decide what is tolerable (not what is the limit of the vessel) and that will be written into all contracts. Like the Fantasy will not leave port if conditions are over 40 knot winds and 20 foot seas. We will stay put and you staring at the terminal. Does this seem extreme, absolutely, but until that line is drawn, safety, comfort, and perceived reality have to all match or someone is going to be less than pleased.

Youll never see it even considered. Simple reason is that ports have a heavy weather plan. The short version of the plan is that when winds are expected to be sustained at a ceratin level, the port says were closed. Your still tied to the pier? Sorry. You cant stay here because we don't want you breaking free and hitting any other piers, sinking at the pier, or worse sinking in the channel. The safest place for a ship in a storm is at sea.

The main problem is that most people today, are more likely to sue at the drop of a hat. And theres too many lawyers that are more then willing to take them on. Theres not enough to say let me get this straight. You were told not to do something, you did it anyway and got hurt? That makes you an idiot not a plaintiff. Goodbye good luck good riddance. (fictional for instance)

 

[Club Disney Chandler]

Youll never see it even considered. Simple reason is that ports have a heavy weather plan. The short version of the plan is that when winds are expected to be sustained at a ceratin level, the port says were closed. Your still tied to the pier? Sorry. You cant stay here because we don't want you breaking free and hitting any other piers, sinking at the pier, or worse sinking in the channel. The safest place for a ship in a storm is at sea.

The main problem is that most people today, are more likely to sue at the drop of a hat. And theres too many lawyers that are more then willing to take them on. Theres not enough to say let me get this straight. You were told not to do something, you did it anyway and got hurt? That makes you an idiot not a plaintiff. Goodbye good luck good riddance. (fictional for instance)

This post needs a "LOVE" button, like isn't nearly strong enough!!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Seems there is a 2nd cruise for the Anthem that has bee cut short and turned around and is heading to Cape Liberty. due to the possibility of a storm on the return northern part of the voyage.

Passengers are to receive 2 days they did not have on on this cruise and 50% off another cruise

However now it looks like the storm maybe not be a big deal.......modest even, yet this cruise ( and other cruises based on compensation) has/will lose alot of money and the mortgage on the Anthem is big bucks!

The point is who pays for this, especially if it continues to happen? How many itinerary routes will be removed because of fears of storms and passengers being *AFRAID* and bad press!

Well the passengers will of course and that means higher fares. How long will suit happy passengers be allowed to get the media revved up and file lawsuits?

Comments??



Anthem of the Seas Cruise Cut Short to Avoid Storm

February 29, 2016 by Mike Schuler


AddThis Sharing
88.8K44
SHARES
FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintEmail

Anthem of the Seas. File photo: Pavel1964 / Shutterstock.com
Royal Caribbean isn’t taking any chances when it comes to weather following its nightmare cruise into a hurricane force storm earlier this month, cutting Anthem of the Seas’ latest voyage short to avoid a storm off the mid-Atlantic seaboard.

The cruise ship giant said Saturday that it was closely watching a “large storm” off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, making the decision to head back to its homeport in Cape Liberty, New Jersey immediately to avoid the storm and provide guests “with a comfortable journey back home”. An update on Monday said Captain was following the company’s new storm avoidance policy and that the decision was made after the Captain consulted with shoreside experts.



As you’ll recall, Royal Caribbean found itself in some hot water earlier this month after the Anthem of the Seas with more than 6,000 people on board sailed into the a hurricane-force storm off the Cape Hatteras that damaged part of the ship’s propulsion and left passengers shaken as they took to social media to post about the nightmare conditions.

Royal Caribbean has insisted that the storm in that case was worse than forecasted, but nonetheless the company said it identified gaps in its planning system that would be addressed to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. Within days of the event, Royal Caribbean made moves to strengthen its storm avoidance policy, supposedly adding shoreside resources at its Miami headquarters to provide additional guidance to our ships’ captains.

But looking at marine charts from this past Saturday, it seems Royal Caribbean’s decision to cut the latest cruise short may have been out of an abundance of caution or perhaps to avoid the inevitable bad publicity that would come with any Royal Caribbean ship sailing in any storm at the moment.

NWS OPC 24 hour forecast issued Saturday night.
A 24 hour forecast chart issued Saturday night by the National Weather Services Ocean Prediction Center predicted a relatively modest 993 mb low over the Great Lakes moving ENE with gale force conditions forecast off the Mid-Atlantic and New England coast by Sunday evening.

“What Storm? The low moving across the Great Lakes was forecast to produce near gale to gale conditions from Hatteras northward (mostly 30-40 knots). Might be a bit rough but hardly storm conditions,” marine meteorologist and ship routing expert with Ocean Weather Services, Fred Pickhardt, commented to gCaptain.

In other Anthem of the Seas news, Royal Caribbean said Monday that about 10 guests per day were reporting symptoms of norovirus during the cruise, but the company insists that the outbreak didn’t impact the decision to return to port early.



AKK

 

[phinz]

I'm betting Anthem moves south, out of New Jersey.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I'm betting Anthem moves south, out of New Jersey.

That would not surprise me in the least. RCCL would either give up the run outta New York or bring up a smaller older vessel.

AKK

 

[truck1]

In another months or so, the weather will be a non issue as the patterns will change into the summer season weather. This year is a more active winter weather season due to El Nino. Next year should be similar but not as frequent.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

In another months or so, the weather will be a non issue as the patterns will change into the summer season weather. This year is a more active winter weather season due to El Nino. Next year should be similar but not as frequent.

Agreed, but the problem is how many times can they keep cutting cruises short?.......They are losing millions each time, not only effecting the Anthem, but the other cruises booked with the 50%. compensation???


AKK

 

[truck1]

Agreed, but the problem is how many times can they keep cutting cruises short?.......They are losing millions each time, not only effecting the Anthem, but the other cruises booked with the 50%. compensation???


AKK

I think on this cruise the noro is a little bit worse then what they are letting on and using the storm as a convenient excuse. No matter what they do they are going to get looked at. In this case, noro passengers who normally wouldn't be comped are now comped 2 days plus a %50 cruise.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I think on this cruise the noro is a little bit worse then what they are letting on and using the storm as a convenient excuse. No matter what they do they are going to get looked at. In this case, noro passengers who normally wouldn't be comped are now comped 2 days plus a %50 cruise.

Hi Truck,

You may indeed be right, the morning news said 8 to 10 passengers effected by the noro. They maybe hiding some.

AKK

 

[truck1]

Hi Truck,

You may indeed be right, the morning news said 8 to 10 passengers effected by the noro. They maybe hiding some.

AKK

No doubt they are hiding some.
Those would be the reported cases to the ships doc staff. I'm guessing there's going to be more who didnt. I've heard a few different estimates on the number of sick. I've heard up to 70