Should They Sue?

[Quantum Windbag]

The whole purpose of tort law is to put the injured person back into the position he was in before the bad thing some defendant did caused him harm, as far as money can do. The ginormous awards you hear of occassionally are punitive damages. Juries can award these extra funds, in some case, if they feel the defendant's conduct was so blame-worthy it should never be repeated, and so they want to punish the defendant.

I'd agree, lost wages for time away from work due to being trapped on that boat would be a measure of damages. But so would the costs of the trip, since it was not as advertised. Any costs associated with care for physical or emotional problems arising from the boat ride would also be awarded.

Awarding some sort of "pain and suffering" amount is common in cases like traffic accidents. I dun know what would be customary for being trapped on a cruise ship....I rather doubt there's another case just like this one. If it were an auto case, "pain and suffering" would usually run to about a third or a half of the damages to the car. Seems reasonable to add such an amount to these claims.

What about the cost of an irreplaceable window of time to enjoy one's family or friends? Suppose someone on that ship had assembled all the grandkids so their grandma could see them one more time, as she was dying? (I know...why would a terminally ill, elderly woman be on a cruise? But still, I'd expect at least a few such fact patterns to emerge.) What about the couples on their honeymoons, whose celebration of their new marriages was made hellish?

It seems to me that in some cases it is possible -- not likely, just possible -- the passengers' damages could be much higher than the straightforward wages plus cruise tickets costs.

If Carnival offers full payment of all these damages, I see no reason any passenger should sue. If they don't, I imagine they'll be sued in a New York minute. Carnival'd be foolish to risk trial, as then the plaintiffs might could make out a case for punitive damages.

Might.

Carnival's liability is clear as a bell and I do expect them to settle with everyone, but it is interesting to me how much hostility exists towards plaintiffs in such suits and how protective many of you are of Big Business. I'm not sure exactly how anyone here came to the conclusion that suing for damages from someone else's negligence is an immoral thing to do if the defendant is a Big Business, but clearly some of you have done.

Lost Wages?

It was a vacation trip that was over before it started. The cruise was supposed to last 7 days, and they were back in port before then. Lost wages is going to be hard to prove.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?

First off, they were not fed Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

They have the right to sue. I have the right to sue as per the constitution even though I wasn't there.

I however cannot prove damages. They must prove damages as well I believe.

Rights do not come from governments, or pieces of paper, they are inherently a part of us as human beings.

 

[ConHog]

First off, they were not fed Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

They have the right to sue. I have the right to sue as per the constitution even though I wasn't there.

I however cannot prove damages. They must prove damages as well I believe.

Rights do not come from governments, or pieces of paper, they are inherently a part of us as human beings.

They don't understand that at all. What I find completely laughable as that they make claims about rights that are not guaranteed by the COTUS at all.

Note to goobers. The COTUS does NOT give you any rights. It simply guarantees that the USG will not attempt to abridge certain rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?

First off, they were not fed Spam.

According to media reports, that's what they are eating -- cold Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

I wasn't on the boat so of course I have no right to sue. Or did you mean the passengers have no such rights? If so, I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

They did not sign up for this cruise in hopes of getting "the story of a lifetime". I'm gonna guess the average cruise passenger has zero interest in "survival style" vacations.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

There's been discussion scattered all through this thread about the potential for additional damages. Lost wages. Lasting emotional or psychiatric injuries. Possible damage to the body from insulin deprivation. Lost window of time to enjoy the company of a certain group that cannot be reassembled. Lost honeymoon. Etc.

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

How is it that "only the lawyers benefit"? There's a cap on the percent of an award a plaintiff's lawyer can demand as a contingency fee -- usually one-third plus costs. The other two thirds (or whatever) goes to the plaintiff. Are you suggesting that the contingent fee system itself is the evil in our courts?

If so, how do you suggest we reform it and still allow middle class and poor people access to courts?

Media reports made assumptions. The Navy delivered Spam, but it was not served. They did eat warm yogurt, and had to live without room service and brownies, hardly the worst thing to ever happen to human beings.

No one has a "right to sue" because suing implies a legal structure that is imposed on us from without, which only exist to restrict our rights.

It does not matter what they expected when they left, what matters is what they received. There are pictures of signs hanging off the side of the ship saying "Nest stop, The Daily Show." They got the story of a lifetime, and will be able to capitalize on it if they are smart.

The navy had helicopters at the ship within hours, and could have easily medevaced out anyone who needed it. They are also more than capable of dropping small generators and refrigeration units to keep emergency medical supplies fresh. Trust me, no one suffered from lack of insulin. Lost wages is going to be a stretch for anyone who was on a vacation, like every passenger on the ship. They went without cell phones or internet for a couple of days, hardly something I would rate as damaging. Nor do I call nights on the deck of a ship in the middle of the ocean, where you can see more stars than most city dwellers know exist, damaging to your psyche.

Did you know that Google recently lost a tort case about privacy because every user they have was opted into Google Wave? As a result, every Google User received a grand sum of $0.00 dollars. Do you really expect me to believe that the lawyers involved didn't get paid? Would you like me to provide examples of lawyers who made millions, or billions, off of tort cases where the plaintiffs walked away with pennies? Or would you rather admit that your notion of what lawyers get is completely out of line with reality?

I already gave my suggestion, pay lawyers flat fees in all class action lawsuits, and allow them to apply for expenses if they are approved by accounting firms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system? Maybe if you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you don't get to practice law anymore?

VERY interesting concept.

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

If you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you'll be out of business long before anybody could touch your license.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in most cases work on contingency. They put out the resources, effort and time up front and only get compensation if they win. The system isn't perfect, but can you imagine a business with this kind of compensation structure where the rainmakers are going out looking for bogus cases to throw away their time and resources on hoping to get lucky?

You may think all lawyers are inherently evil, subhuman and not worth the effort it would take to piss on them if they were on fire - but "suicidal" doesn't usually apply.

I really don't have a problem with lawyers working for individual clients on a contingency basis. Class action lawsuits need to be handled differently though.

 

[Madeline]

Well, one thing is for sure. After reading through all these so-called "lawyers" posts up here, it becomes quite clear that one shouldn't hire an attorney through the USMB....Christ, you'll head to civil court and suddenly find yourself in criminal court awaiting a death sentence with these people representin' ya'!

Sorry GC, couldn't help myself. You're the real deal.....That other clown?.....Oh hell fuckin' no!...It's only too obvious!


Fuckin' LMAO!

Anyone dumb enough to hire an attorney through the USMB deserves whatever they get, chef.

Don't be dissin' Maddy though. I don't agree with her positions all the time but reasonable people can do that. Like the lady said, lawyers all come from different places and points of view. We're not going to advocate for the same things or have the same opinion on everything because of it. Doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

Unless of course they disagree with me.

Kidding!

O for Gawd's sake, WJ. What part of "I am retired" and "I have never represented the injured" is just too fucking hard for you to digest?

 

[Madeline]

The whole purpose of tort law is to put the injured person back into the position he was in before the bad thing some defendant did caused him harm, as far as money can do. The ginormous awards you hear of occassionally are punitive damages. Juries can award these extra funds, in some case, if they feel the defendant's conduct was so blame-worthy it should never be repeated, and so they want to punish the defendant.

I'd agree, lost wages for time away from work due to being trapped on that boat would be a measure of damages. But so would the costs of the trip, since it was not as advertised. Any costs associated with care for physical or emotional problems arising from the boat ride would also be awarded.

Awarding some sort of "pain and suffering" amount is common in cases like traffic accidents. I dun know what would be customary for being trapped on a cruise ship....I rather doubt there's another case just like this one. If it were an auto case, "pain and suffering" would usually run to about a third or a half of the damages to the car. Seems reasonable to add such an amount to these claims.

What about the cost of an irreplaceable window of time to enjoy one's family or friends? Suppose someone on that ship had assembled all the grandkids so their grandma could see them one more time, as she was dying? (I know...why would a terminally ill, elderly woman be on a cruise? But still, I'd expect at least a few such fact patterns to emerge.) What about the couples on their honeymoons, whose celebration of their new marriages was made hellish?

It seems to me that in some cases it is possible -- not likely, just possible -- the passengers' damages could be much higher than the straightforward wages plus cruise tickets costs.

If Carnival offers full payment of all these damages, I see no reason any passenger should sue. If they don't, I imagine they'll be sued in a New York minute. Carnival'd be foolish to risk trial, as then the plaintiffs might could make out a case for punitive damages.

Might.

Carnival's liability is clear as a bell and I do expect them to settle with everyone, but it is interesting to me how much hostility exists towards plaintiffs in such suits and how protective many of you are of Big Business. I'm not sure exactly how anyone here came to the conclusion that suing for damages from someone else's negligence is an immoral thing to do if the defendant is a Big Business, but clearly some of you have done.

Lost Wages?

It was a vacation trip that was over before it started. The cruise was supposed to last 7 days, and they were back in port before then. Lost wages is going to be hard to prove.

When this was written it was not clear how long it would take the boat to reach shore. You are right; if no one was delayed, lost wages is not an element of anyone's claim.

 

[Madeline]

First off, they were not fed Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

They have the right to sue. I have the right to sue as per the constitution even though I wasn't there.

I however cannot prove damages. They must prove damages as well I believe.

Rights do not come from governments, or pieces of paper, they are inherently a part of us as human beings.

Nice philospohical post, but if this is true why don't people all over Planet Earth have the same rights?

 

[Madeline]

First off, they were not fed Spam.

According to media reports, that's what they are eating -- cold Spam.

Second, you do not have a right to sue.

I wasn't on the boat so of course I have no right to sue. Or did you mean the passengers have no such rights? If so, I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.

Third, they got the story of a lifetime, and people who have never seen the ocean will one day be claiming to have been on that ship.

They did not sign up for this cruise in hopes of getting "the story of a lifetime". I'm gonna guess the average cruise passenger has zero interest in "survival style" vacations.

Forth, all they missed was a vacation. They are getting full refunds, and a free cruise anywhere Carnival goes at any point in the future. What exactly do you think is the harm they suffered?

There's been discussion scattered all through this thread about the potential for additional damages. Lost wages. Lasting emotional or psychiatric injuries. Possible damage to the body from insulin deprivation. Lost window of time to enjoy the company of a certain group that cannot be reassembled. Lost honeymoon. Etc.

Fifth, the only people that are going to benefit from any suits are lawyers, so I would only support a "right" to sue if the lawyers on both sides were paid a flat fee, not a percentage of the settlement.

How is it that "only the lawyers benefit"? There's a cap on the percent of an award a plaintiff's lawyer can demand as a contingency fee -- usually one-third plus costs. The other two thirds (or whatever) goes to the plaintiff. Are you suggesting that the contingent fee system itself is the evil in our courts?

If so, how do you suggest we reform it and still allow middle class and poor people access to courts?

Media reports made assumptions. The Navy delivered Spam, but it was not served. They did eat warm yogurt, and had to live without room service and brownies, hardly the worst thing to ever happen to human beings.

No one has a "right to sue" because suing implies a legal structure that is imposed on us from without, which only exist to restrict our rights.

It does not matter what they expected when they left, what matters is what they received. There are pictures of signs hanging off the side of the ship saying "Nest stop, The Daily Show." They got the story of a lifetime, and will be able to capitalize on it if they are smart.

The navy had helicopters at the ship within hours, and could have easily medevaced out anyone who needed it. They are also more than capable of dropping small generators and refrigeration units to keep emergency medical supplies fresh. Trust me, no one suffered from lack of insulin. Lost wages is going to be a stretch for anyone who was on a vacation, like every passenger on the ship. They went without cell phones or internet for a couple of days, hardly something I would rate as damaging. Nor do I call nights on the deck of a ship in the middle of the ocean, where you can see more stars than most city dwellers know exist, damaging to your psyche.

Did you know that Google recently lost a tort case about privacy because every user they have was opted into Google Wave? As a result, every Google User received a grand sum of $0.00 dollars. Do you really expect me to believe that the lawyers involved didn't get paid? Would you like me to provide examples of lawyers who made millions, or billions, off of tort cases where the plaintiffs walked away with pennies? Or would you rather admit that your notion of what lawyers get is completely out of line with reality?

I already gave my suggestion, pay lawyers flat fees in all class action lawsuits, and allow them to apply for expenses if they are approved by accounting firms.

You cannot pay flat fees to lawyers whose clients have no money, Quantum Windbag. Unless you are suggesting we the taxpayers fund some sort of Lawyer Fees facility anyone with a bar license can tap? I would be willing to discuss some sort of reform to the contingent fee system but I want reforms that preserve a citizen's access to courts and adequate representation. So far as I know, contingent fees are the best solution.

The Google case does sound odd. Do you happen to have a link? If the lawyers accepted a payment from Google to go away (you cannot call it fees because they were ethically unable to represent Google) that stinks and these guys should be looked at hard by their state bars.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well, one thing is for sure. After reading through all these so-called "lawyers" posts up here, it becomes quite clear that one shouldn't hire an attorney through the USMB....Christ, you'll head to civil court and suddenly find yourself in criminal court awaiting a death sentence with these people representin' ya'!

Sorry GC, couldn't help myself. You're the real deal.....That other clown?.....Oh hell fuckin' no!...It's only too obvious!


Fuckin' LMAO!

Anyone dumb enough to hire an attorney through the USMB deserves whatever they get, chef.

Don't be dissin' Maddy though. I don't agree with her positions all the time but reasonable people can do that. Like the lady said, lawyers all come from different places and points of view. We're not going to advocate for the same things or have the same opinion on everything because of it. Doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

Unless of course they disagree with me.

Kidding!

O for Gawd's sake, WJ. What part of "I am retired" and "I have never represented the injured" is just too fucking hard for you to digest?

Retired from what?........Certainly not lawyering, OBVIOUSLY!

Of course you never "represented the injured", or anybody else for that matter......That would require having a law degree.

Oh, and I thought you were putting me on ignore?........Ya' see, in the end, you women just can't resist my irresistable charm!

Oh, and one more thing Maddie. I digest just fine......Yep, in fact I took a big ol' giant pinch a loaf just a couple o' hours ago and immediately thought of you!..........Digestion works just fine!

 

[Madeline]

Interesting concept......

Perhaps the way to reform tort litigation is to yank the licenses of those lawyers who abuse the system? Maybe if you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you don't get to practice law anymore?

VERY interesting concept.

You may have finally contributed something of merit to the conversation you started, Maddy!

If you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you'll be out of business long before anybody could touch your license.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in most cases work on contingency. They put out the resources, effort and time up front and only get compensation if they win. The system isn't perfect, but can you imagine a business with this kind of compensation structure where the rainmakers are going out looking for bogus cases to throw away their time and resources on hoping to get lucky?

You may think all lawyers are inherently evil, subhuman and not worth the effort it would take to piss on them if they were on fire - but "suicidal" doesn't usually apply.

I really don't have a problem with lawyers working for individual clients on a contingency basis. Class action lawsuits need to be handled differently though.

That's pretty much where most reasonable people have ended up. There have been reforms to the class action contingent fee schedule in federal court during my professional life, and many states have made various efforts as well. Every reform has the same goal: balancing the citizen's rights to access to courts with society's interest in avoiding unjust enrichment to lawyers.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Stuck on crippled liner, eating Spam, with no Internet service, cruise passengers are towed to U.S. | cleveland.com

I am curious if the tort reformers around here think the passengers of this ship have a right to sue, and if so, should they exercise it?

I'm betting the answer from many will be "no", in which case I have a final question: are there ANY torts (bad acts or negligent acts that cause harm) you feel a plaintiff should sue over?

I wonder if they signed a release before they boarded.

Would you get on if a release was demanded of you before boarding?

Free cruise should be enough for Splendor passengers

...They gave us our money back. They gave us free beer. The crew was in good spirits and helped us with whatever we needed,” he said. “They’re giving us a free cruise at a later date. I’m grateful for that. I’m not the kind of person who’s going to go sue, sue, sue. Not me or my wife.”

Good thing, say travel agents and travel lawyers, because the ticket contracts signed by Carnival Splendor passengers almost assuredly protect the cruise line from future legal action. The vacationers had been living on the 13-story vessel without electricity since Monday when a fire erupted onboard. The lights went out. Food spoiled. And for 14 hours, the toilets didn’t work.

Splendor passengers get free cruise, no recourse - Travel - News - msnbc.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't win 80-90% of the cases you file, you'll be out of business long before anybody could touch your license.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in most cases work on contingency. They put out the resources, effort and time up front and only get compensation if they win. The system isn't perfect, but can you imagine a business with this kind of compensation structure where the rainmakers are going out looking for bogus cases to throw away their time and resources on hoping to get lucky?

You may think all lawyers are inherently evil, subhuman and not worth the effort it would take to piss on them if they were on fire - but "suicidal" doesn't usually apply.

I really don't have a problem with lawyers working for individual clients on a contingency basis. Class action lawsuits need to be handled differently though.

That's pretty much where most reasonable people have ended up. There have been reforms to the class action contingent fee schedule in federal court during my professional life, and many states have made various efforts as well. Every reform has the same goal: balancing the citizen's rights to access to courts with society's interest in avoiding unjust enrichment to lawyers.

Yet lthe left is arguing that contracts that require arbitration are unenforceable because they take away a persons "right to sue."

AMERICAblog News: AT&T fighting before Supreme Court to deny consumers class action lawsuits

Since the only people that benefit from class action law suits are lawyers, just who is it that the left is trying to protect?

 

[Madeline]

I really don't have a problem with lawyers working for individual clients on a contingency basis. Class action lawsuits need to be handled differently though.

That's pretty much where most reasonable people have ended up. There have been reforms to the class action contingent fee schedule in federal court during my professional life, and many states have made various efforts as well. Every reform has the same goal: balancing the citizen's rights to access to courts with society's interest in avoiding unjust enrichment to lawyers.

Yet lthe left is arguing that contracts that require arbitration are unenforceable because they take away a persons "right to sue."

AMERICAblog News: AT&T fighting before Supreme Court to deny consumers class action lawsuits

Since the only people that benefit from class action law suits are lawyers, just who is it that the left is trying to protect?

Arbitration is not "access to courts", Quantum Windbag. American Arbitration Association rules call for a levy of the costs of the arbitrator(s) on the losing party. The rules of evidence are very wide open -- and there are sound reasons why a court will not admit hearsay evidence, etc. AAA matters result in no written opinion and cannot be appealed.

One company notorious for using arbitration to foreclose consumer rights is Gateway. If you buy a pc from them and it breaks under warranty and they refuse to honor their obligation, you cannot go to court to seek a remedy. Instead, you have to risk thousands of dollars in arbitrator fees if you wish to pursue the matter at all. Considering the pc likely cost less than $1,000 it will almost always be irrational to do this. It's an illusory right and one that a Big Business should not be able to force a consumer to accept, IMO.

Arbitration has value and should be encouraged but only between parties of somewhat equal resources -- it should not be a "gotcha" Big Business uses to insulate itself from liability for bad products or breach of warranty, etc.

 

[Madeline]

I wonder if they signed a release before they boarded.

Would you get on if a release was demanded of you before boarding?

Free cruise should be enough for Splendor passengers

...They gave us our money back. They gave us free beer. The crew was in good spirits and helped us with whatever we needed,” he said. “They’re giving us a free cruise at a later date. I’m grateful for that. I’m not the kind of person who’s going to go sue, sue, sue. Not me or my wife.”

Good thing, say travel agents and travel lawyers, because the ticket contracts signed by Carnival Splendor passengers almost assuredly protect the cruise line from future legal action. The vacationers had been living on the 13-story vessel without electricity since Monday when a fire erupted onboard. The lights went out. Food spoiled. And for 14 hours, the toilets didn’t work.

Splendor passengers get free cruise, no recourse - Travel - News - msnbc.com

By this reasoning, an airline could escape liability for a crash by offering to fly the passengers' corpses home.

 

[zzzz]

Standard ticket contract signed by passengers when you buy the ticket. How many people actually read this stuff? And this is only a small section releasing Carnival of liability.

7(e) If the performance of the proposed voyage is hindered or prevented (or in the opinion of Carnival or the Master is likely to be hindered or prevented) by war, hostilities, blockage, ice, labor conflicts, strikes on board or ashore, restraint of Princes, Rulers or People, seizure under legal process, breakdown of the Vessel, congestion, docking difficulties or any other cause whatsoever or if Carnival or the Master considers that for any reason whatsoever, proceeding to, attempting to enter, or entering or remaining at the port of Guest’s destination may expose the Vessel to risk or loss or damage or be likely to delay her, the Guest and his baggage may be landed at the port of embarkation or at any port or place at which the Vessel may call, at which time the responsibility of Carnival shall cease and this contract shall be deemed to have been fully performed, or if the Guest has not embarked, Carnival may cancel the proposed voyage without liability to refund passage money or fares paid in advance.

Ticket Contract | Carnival Cruise Lines

 

[Madeline]

Standard ticket contract signed by passengers when you buy the ticket. How many people actually read this stuff?

7(e) If the performance of the proposed voyage is hindered or prevented (or in the opinion of Carnival or the Master is likely to be hindered or prevented) by war, hostilities, blockage, ice, labor conflicts, strikes on board or ashore, restraint of Princes, Rulers or People, seizure under legal process, breakdown of the Vessel, congestion, docking difficulties or any other cause whatsoever or if Carnival or the Master considers that for any reason whatsoever, proceeding to, attempting to enter, or entering or remaining at the port of Guest’s destination may expose the Vessel to risk or loss or damage or be likely to delay her, the Guest and his baggage may be landed at the port of embarkation or at any port or place at which the Vessel may call, at which time the responsibility of Carnival shall cease and this contract shall be deemed to have been fully performed, or if the Guest has not embarked, Carnival may cancel the proposed voyage without liability to refund passage money or fares paid in advance.

Ticket Contract | Carnival Cruise Lines

It is highly unlikely this boat was based in the US, zzzz. It's home port is doubtless some tiny Carribean nation that has no regulatory power whatsoever. And though we have all been discussing US tort law, the fact is that events on the high seas involving Americans, insofar as the US would even have jurisdiction, are covered by Maritime Law -- the Jones Act -- which I never had occassion to learn.

I have no idea whether the limitation on liability in the passengers' tickets is enforceable. I do know anyone who would board a boat after being required to sign away all rights to sue in the event that boat breaks down is foolish and I doubt the passengers' knew and understood they were being asked to do so before they boarded.

Would you fly on a plane if the airline forced you to relinquish all rights to sue in the event of a crash? Would you ride on a train if the railroad had such a prerequisite?

 

[Middleman]

All this goes to show that cruises are stupid. I remember my Dad going on a few way back when. You have a bunch of pretentious people pretending to be high class, getting photoed with the Capt. When he came back he complained endlessly about some of the idiots he went with. He was a jerk going through an endless midlife crisis that lasted 2 or 3 decades. Now he's an old fool with a photo of him and the Capt of some cruiseline in an album somewhere.

 

[goldcatt]

I really don't have a problem with lawyers working for individual clients on a contingency basis. Class action lawsuits need to be handled differently though.

That's pretty much where most reasonable people have ended up. There have been reforms to the class action contingent fee schedule in federal court during my professional life, and many states have made various efforts as well. Every reform has the same goal: balancing the citizen's rights to access to courts with society's interest in avoiding unjust enrichment to lawyers.

Yet lthe left is arguing that contracts that require arbitration are unenforceable because they take away a persons "right to sue."

AMERICAblog News: AT&T fighting before Supreme Court to deny consumers class action lawsuits

Since the only people that benefit from class action law suits are lawyers, just who is it that the left is trying to protect?

Americablog is "THE LEFT"??? QW, I'm disappointed.

There are times when arbitration is appropriate. Much depends on the type of contract, whether the arbitration is binding, the choice of venue, whether other options are completely foreclosed....there are numerous questions depending on the contents and nature of the contract. To say "THE LEFT" is screaming to get rid of arbitration clauses in contracts because a blogger says so is missing on the details and subtleties (not to mention the friggin' basics) of a huge debate concerning alternative dispute resolution that's been going on for decades.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You're forgetting punitive damages.

No, I'm not. There's nothing punitive that should come from a vacation not meeting your expectations. Yours is the ridiculous mindset I was referring to previously. You don't get compensated 100 times the amount you paid just because you didn't like something, when no damage actually came upon you.

The principle is that tort laws exist to make the victim whole. They exist in fairness to the victim, not the tortfeasor. So let's say a person went on that cruise who has a fear of fire, for example. Being stuck in the middle of the ocean, confined to a ship that is on fire will be more traumatic for that person than others, sure. Trauma that can have lasting effects.

Please don't make up psychiatry as reasoning for damages. The people aboard the ship didn't see the fire. It sounds like they were told about it after it was controlled. EVEN IF someone had a fear of fire, by time they knew about it, it was already over. That means you're talking about anxiety provoked by knowing about something passing already. The very treatment for such a phobia is controlled exposure. You'd have a hard time making the psych case.

Rights do not come from governments, or pieces of paper, they are inherently a part of us as human beings.

How do you figure?