MrMarc

no.

This is what makes Cruise Critic so much fun. It lives up to it's name.

It is showing you the rate for 2 people (which is the minimum) plus taxes and fees for 1,

I have this booked next year. Do the 9 sea days start to get boring (I don't have enough to spend that time in the casino)?

The question is what did it say on the pricing page? I believe it has always said per person/day. In that case they would have to provide 1 day of the cheers package if forced to honor the offer.

According to John Heald, they will refund the 1 day price and offer a one time use discount code. So they are not going to honor what was an obvious computer error.

If they follow their rules, you will be charged full fare for the cruise. I would guess it could also affect the future offers from the casino. So that free cruise could get quite expensive. Please let us know what happens, but don't complain when they charge you the full single fare for the cabin.

Oops. It's gone from my cruise planner page again.

So if you are injured, you should only be able to file a suit if you have as much money as the other party has to spend on attorneys? If you are hit while stopped at a stoplight, juries return verdicts against the person that was just stopped all the time. This basically closes the courts to everyone except the extremely wealthy.

And RCCL released the video to do the same thing. Ever see the TV ads where corportions basically say how good and safe they are? If you looked you would most likely find a case going to trial in that area. My point is that defendants do the same thing, I do not like either.

I forgot to post in this thread that it was fixed.

Sorry. I read too quickly. And that plays a part in it also. But ask anyone that has actually been involved in a personal injury lawsuit, the public's perception is very different from reality.

In my opinion, the system hasn't changed, people's opinion of the system has changed based on a few misreported real cases and a huge number of totally imaginary cases reported and/or misreported by the press. Just look at how many people have already decided the outcome of this case based on media reports. Trials were never meant to be held by vote of public opinion.

I totally agree. But my point is that there are questions for a jury to answer. My guess is they are going to try and get a jury to put at least a small percentage of the blame on RCCL and less than 50% on the parents and/or the child. The damages numbers could be large enough that that small percentage could still be a substantial amount. But I haven't read the pleadings at all, so I have no idea what their strategy is. I would have never tried to say he didn't know the window was open, I would have come at it from a totally different direction, if I had to.

Yes I've seen the video. Personally I think only the grandfather was negligent. But if I was an associate at a law firm and someone dropped this case on my desk, I think I could at least get it in front of a jury because there are some questions of facts. I know people disagree with that, but if something happens to you, it might be totally different. To get past summary judgment all you need is to present a question of fact. It seems wrong when you look at some cases from the outside, but if you are involved it seems much different. That's what courts are for. We resolve our disputes in court. We used to be proud of that, only recently has it been turned into something bad. The question of getting a case before a jury is totally separate from who should win. When you start erecting barriers to getting what some one else believes is justice today, someone else can use those same barriers to do the same thing to you tomorrow. Just my opinion.

It's back.

I seriously doubt the grandfather thought that. We all have brain farts. Like grabbing a hot pan or something in the oven. Warning signs are for those moments that we all have .They are usually not to warn you but remind you. But most of the time the results are not this tragic and the danger is not this obvious.

That's effectively what a JNOV is, but in both cases they still get a chance to prove their case to a jury first. Summary Judgement is where there is no question of fact in the case at all. While many people will think the answers to the questions are obvious, if there is a question of fact then a jury needs to decide it. Without reading the pleadings I would wonder what the safety regulations were, and there are probably a number of overlapping ones. Could the color of the windows been different for color blind people? Could they have had other safety devices like a net? Should there have been warning signs? Again, most people will think they are silly questions, but they are questions. If the baby's estate is one of the Plaintiffs, you certainly could not attribute any negligence to it, so I think under Florida law it could collect damages.

Directly from Royal Up: We appreciate your interest in taking part of this wonderful opportunity and It is our pleasure to assist you with your question on your RoyalUp bid. We apologize for the trouble, our team is aware of the outage and we are working on resolving the issue as quickly as possible. We appreciate your patience while we work to restore service and please try again at a later time. Thank you again for contacting Royal Caribbean. We look forward to sailing with you. Best Regards, The Royal Caribbean International® RoyalUp® Team

No. Actually I am an attorney. I can see many questions of fact in this case. While I would never have taken it, I think it should have survived summary judgment, even though I think the outcome is obvious. Perhaps even a JNOV possibility, but not summary judgment. What would be interesting would be for a Guardian Ad Litum or even RCCL to bring the Grandfather in as a defendant.

I think the OP has learned that Cruise Critic is not a place to seek sympathy.

The appellate Court simply said a Jury should hear the facts and make the decision, not the Judge. There is a question regarding the safety of the design. While everyone here seems to have made their own decision, the fact that you are deciding is why it is a question of fact not law. No matter how obvious it seems to people here, questions of fact ore for a jury. Questions of law are for the Judge. If Royal makes the business decision to settle, trust that their lawyers know what they are doing. Every case that goes before a jury, no matter how obvious it may be to you, involves some risk.

There is a problem with Royal Up. It has disappeared from the cruise planner and the web page does not work. The only way to check or change your bids right now is with the link from the original royal up offer email. They are working on it and the bids have not been lost.

That is not working for the cruise that I tried.

There is a problem with Royal Up right now. The only way to see or change your bids is from the original email link. The web page is not working and it has disappeared from the cruise planner. They are working on it. The bids have not been lost.