Couple sue over luxury World Cruise & "WIN"

[Jaffa]

Even though this action was against Cunard it could have a flow on effect on all cruiselines who offer world cruises.

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=3578

 

I think being shunted into an inside cabin when you have paid $100,000 is just bad business and asking for trouble.

I could not imagine SS treating world cruisers this way "ever"

But l suppose there could always be a first time.

 

The complaintants recieved a reasonable payout, Plus a full refund. But the longterm damage this will cause on Cunards image & reputation should not be overlooked.

 

For far to long many cruiselines have been getting away with the exaggerated marketing promises of a product they fail to deliver on, and now they are begining to be held to account.

If Cunard lose the appeal, this could change the groundrules to passengers rights of recovery and open a flood of litigation when cruiselines fail to deliver on their marketing hype.

 

Regardless of which side you take on this..

This is a very interesting and important develoment for the cruise industry.

 

In my opinion, a debate that has been a long time in coming and well deserved.

 

This is most of the reason why l only cruise on the true luxury lines now.

I would rather pay top prices for a top product.

But it did cost me a lot of money and much dissapointment to learn that lesson.

 

Any comments?

[palamoh]

Don 't know how to react to this one. Reading the events as posted one could take issue with their complaints. But on the other hand having not gone through their experiences or frustrations, there may be more to this story than was posted. However I do not feel that verdicts from a British Court would have much precedent in the American Court system

 

Hopefully there will be more coming to fully explore this situation and of course one should be interested in Cunard's appeal efforts.

[Keith1010]

As they say different strokes for different folks.

 

I am not sure I understand all of what happened from the article. For me a lot more details are needed to come to any conclusions.

 

From what I read, there was a problem with their original cabin. I don't think it says in the article what accomodation they had originally booked, but I could be wrong.

 

They were moved to an inside cabin but one for disbabled use. Eventually they were moved to a penthouse cabin. Was the penthouse an upgrade to what they originally bookied? Either way, they felt trapped in the penthouse? I am not sure what that all means.

 

Even on a luxury cruise line I have known people to encounter problems with cabins where they either had to stay because there were not other rooms or they were moved. So, a problem with a cabin could happen on any line. Yes it's more disturbing when one is on a long voyage such as a world cruise.

 

Bottom line we don't know enough from the article on this to reach any judgments. And we also know that sometimes there are indeed legitimate reasons why someone would be upset and would go to court but we also know or read about other situations where there was no true merit to go to court. And time will tell as the case is appealed and if so we see how the court rules on that.

 

Keith

[SantaAna,CA]

And she didn't wear any since they reminded her "of the ordeal". I have no idea what to think about this!

[TheFerret]

"Trapped" in a penthouse suite?

 

Should have called their butler to let them out!

 

:p

[billcrooz]

I want this jury on my next cruise !!!!!

[justin2travel]

Some people are just bent on complaining. If the cruise had been perfect they probably still would have complained. With the time and effort they spent mounting they case they could have planned a complete fabulous vacation to replace the one they did not like. It sounds to me like the chose the wrong trip and want to blame the cruise line for it. When I don't like a hotel or ship I don't book it again.

[TLCOhio]

Some people are just bent on complaining. If the cruise had been perfect they probably still would have complained. With the time and effort they spent mounting they case they could have planned a complete fabulous vacation to replace the one they did not like. It sounds to me like the chose the wrong trip and want to blame the cruise line for it. When I don't like a hotel or ship I don't book it again.

 

Agree that many just get their "joys" by complaining. There were problems, but the jury award seems a little high for the actual financial "suffering" caused, including being confined to a Penthouse jail cell. That's why they have appeals courts to fix any cases of "RUNAWAY JURIES". One court decision by one jury in England is not binding in the USA and/or world.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

[PebmarshPete]

One court decision by one jury in England is not binding in the USA and/or world.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

Just to clarify, we don't have juries in civil cases (except for libel/slander) in the UK. The judge is both judge of law and of fact. Oh, and the judges are not elected either;)

And if it is a County Court decision (which I am fairly sure it is) it is not technically of precedential value in the English courts either! But the Court of Appeal decision - if there is one - would be.

[MJN1]

"Trapped" in a penthouse suite?

 

They probably mis-interpreted the "Do not disturb" sign hanging on their door-knob....:D

[TLCOhio]

Just to clarify, we don't have juries in civil cases (except for libel/slander) in the UK. The judge is both judge of law and of fact. Oh, and the judges are not elected either;)

And if it is a County Court decision (which I am fairly sure it is) it is not technically of precedential value in the English courts either! But the Court of Appeal decision - if there is one - would be.

 

THANKS, Pete! Good added background on the English law system and how it works. Kind of like in America where things can differ from state to state on how such legal matters are handled here, the courts are labeled, etc. Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

[lord of the seas]

One thing that caught my eye was,

 

Mr Milner described himself as "being in a terrible state" and he and his wife were both

"exhausted and inconsolible" after the holiday.

This perfectly describes myself and my wife after having to disembark a Silversea or Seabourn ship and having to return home.

Funny how this can have two totally different meanings.

Ah,the trappings of a penthouse.

[Jaffa]

Ah! how we manage to twist the facts, to suit our own sense of justification.

 

They were moved 3 times in one week before they were placed in the penthouse. Even then they were told it would only be until the next leg of the cruise (6 more days) after which they would be moved yet again. It was at this time they decided they had had enough and disembarked.

 

3 problem cabins in one week (which Cunard agreed and stated in court was unacceptable) and one of the guests falling sick as result.

With the huge outlay that was made for their trip of a lifetime.

It is no wonder the couple felt hopeless and angry.

 

Many on this board also would find these issues unaceptable with the money handed over for a full world cruise.

 

And even when the courts with all the evidence placed before them, pass judgement in the complaintants favor, there are still those cruiseline appologists that defend the cruiseline at all costs.

 

So the real question here is, has the courts penalty/deterent in this case been excesive.

This answer will always be subjective.

It seems to me that the judge felt it nessasary to make an example of Cunard in this case.

In my opinion, rightly so.

 

I patiently await the appeal.

 

If Cunard does lose the appeal, The company that sells itself on a history of service, will be sorely embarrased. And the media will have a field day.

You can be assured, if they do lose, this will set a precident.

 

Cruiselines have been a law unto themselves for far to long. Its time that they should be held accountable for their actions.

[PebmarshPete]

So the real question here is, has the courts penalty/deterent in this case been excesive.

This answer will always be subjective.

It seems to me that the judge felt it nessasary to make an example of Cunard in this case.

In my opinion, rightly so.

 

I patiently await the appeal.

 

If Cunard does lose the appeal, The company that sells itself on a history of service, will be sorely embarrased. And the media will have a field day.

You can be assured, if they do lose, this will set a precident.

 

Cruiselines have been a law unto themselves for far to long. Its time that they should be held accountable for their actions.

 

Just to clarify.

Whatever may be the position in USA or Australia, in English law the basis of an award in damages for breach of contract (which I believe was the cause of action against Cunard) is remedial, not punitive or deterrent, so if the judge's award went beyond compensation for the loss of enjoyment/distress/discomfort etc that the passengers suffered, the Court of Appeal would overturn. County Court judges are well aware of the law of damages, however, and it would be surprising (but not impossible) if an appeal were to succeed on that basis. The Court of Appeal does not rehear the evidence, by the way, but only reviews the judgment for procedural, evidential or legal errors.

The English courts fairly frequently award damages against tour operators etc when clients' holidays fall short of what they had been led to expect and it is no surprise, therefore, that Cunard should be held liable for the alleged shortcomings. As a matter of damage limitation, I would be surprised if Cunard pursued an appeal with all the attendant publicity, unless they were advised that there was a very strong chance that they could come out of it 'smelling of roses'!

[umtali]

One thing that caught my eye was,

 

Mr Milner described himself as "being in a terrible state" and he and his wife were both

"exhausted and inconsolible" after the holiday.

This perfectly describes myself and my wife after having to disembark a Silversea or Seabourn ship and having to return home.

Funny how this can have two totally different meanings.

Ah,the trappings of a penthouse.

As an aside to the entire debate, the Lord of The Sea's spellcheck has failed yet again. "inconsolAble"may be correct.

[lord of the seas]

As an aside to the entire debate, the Lord of The Sea's spellcheck has failed yet again. "inconsolAble"may be correct.

 

I will ask my secretary to use the spell check in future.

 

I will save a book mark for you as a prize.

and I will do something else with the secretary.;)