Does Carnival pay the medical bills when the ship lists??

[DragonMouse]

The ship has docked. It would be interesting to see someone who was onboard comment.

 

Honestly I think Carnival would be more likely to give the passengers a "looksey" to avoid a bigger issue later. Regardless of whether Carnival wins or loses a collective of law suits, still costs them more money than providing a few bandaids and maybe taking a little blood pressure. It doesn't sound like there were any really SERIOUS injuries. Why blow up something bigger than it has to be by sticking hard to "it wasn't OUR fault"...They're simply going to argue that perhaps Carnival wasn't looking out well enough...what if it had been fishing boat, a giant octopus or a mega shark? Maybe they should have been looking out a little better.

 

Alas they say the bouy wasn't supposed to be there...on a highway if you hit a COW it's the ranchers fault for letting the cow get away. Perhaps on the sea too...the bouy owners may be responsible for damages.

 

I'm quite certian Carnival has some degree of insurance. I guess we'll hear more to come for sure from people wanting a FREE cruise. You know the formula ...99% good 1% bad = 100% free cruise.

[LemurCat]

It was an accident......plain and simple........Carnival is liable for the injuries.....unless of course they find the buoy guilty in a court of law:rolleyes:

 

Guilty of what? There wasn't a crime committed, so there is no guilt. Just civil liability.

[sassy0930]

What I've found from my limited experience on Carnival, is that those customers would be taken care of on the ship at no cost, but if any of the injuries required more attention later at a regular hospital when the passenger contacted Guest Services they'd be given the run around, told they were never on the ship, told the ship didn't exist, told the ship didn't list, told they'd recieve forms int he mail to fill out to be compensated and then told again that the ship didn't exist.

 

The people on land are absolute idiots with no customer service experience or training and no training in their own policies. (Of course, a generalization, there have to be a couple of people who know what they're doing, but the point is made right?) But the people on the ship tend to be very accomodating and very fair to the passengers who have concerns and issues.

[Dr. Jack Daniels]

I think I'd have been more distressed emotional and physically if the captain didn't turn suddenly.

 

 

I'd be less distressed emotionally if the captain would watch where he is going so he would not have to make drastic maneuvers. Bouys don't just jump out in front of a ship suddenly like a deer crossing a road.:eek:

[songbird1329]

The ship has docked. It would be interesting to see someone who was onboard comment.

 

Honestly I think Carnival would be more likely to give the passengers a "looksey" to avoid a bigger issue later. Regardless of whether Carnival wins or loses a collective of law suits, still costs them more money than providing a few bandaids and maybe taking a little blood pressure. It doesn't sound like there were any really SERIOUS injuries. Why blow up something bigger than it has to be by sticking hard to "it wasn't OUR fault"...They're simply going to argue that perhaps Carnival wasn't looking out well enough...what if it had been fishing boat, a giant octopus or a mega shark? Maybe they should have been looking out a little better.

 

Alas they say the bouy wasn't supposed to be there...on a highway if you hit a COW it's the ranchers fault for letting the cow get away. Perhaps on the sea too...the bouy owners may be responsible for damages.

 

I'm quite certian Carnival has some degree of insurance. I guess we'll hear more to come for sure from people wanting a FREE cruise. You know the formula ...99% good 1% bad = 100% free cruise.

 

Carnival may not have inurance for this -- a lot of large companies carry a high self-insured retention, meaning they pay out of pocket for minor injuries and only resort to insurance for major injuries and catsastrophic losses. but if that's the case, they usually set aside a special fund to take care of the small stuff.

 

treating the minor injuries, replacing anything that broke (a camera, for example, that flew off a table) and other good will gestures will go a long way to prevent suit by reasonable people.

 

 

i suspect most people will walk away from this cruise with just a good war story. though you have to be on guard for the guy who will turn a minor injury into a major catastrophe, or the one who wasn't physically hurt but who "has nightmares" because of what they went through, or the one who will try to file a class action on behalf of all of the passengers on the ship....

[songbird1329]

I'd be less distressed emotionally if the captain would watch where he is going so he would not have to make drastic maneuvers. Bouys don't just jump out in front of a ship suddenly like a deer crossing a road.:eek:

 

 

from what I read....the buoy wasn't showing up on radar and was partially submerged, and therefore difficult to detect visually.

[highbridge5]

Sometimes, the possibility of bad press is enough to make companies do the right thing - even if they are not legally required to do so.

 

I think that no matter how you parse the semantics of the passenger contract, Carnival is not going to want to be known as the cruise line that you "sail at your own peril".

 

They already struggle with a less-than-favorable general public perception about the kind of crusing they provide (Walmart of the Seas, party boats etc.). Why would they compound that by letting this event paint them as a money-grubbing, hide-behind-the-fine-print kind of business ?

 

Nothing says that you are going to get nickel-and-dimed to death like a story that implies that if your ship has to make a sharp turn to avoid a collision and you break you arm or get a large gash on your head getting tossed around the deck, you are on your own to pay for your own medical bills.

 

How many times have we seen business make a decision that was legally defensible just to find that the bad PR generated by that decision cost them millions more than they would have spent to just do the right thing to begin with?

 

In particular, some large oil company refusing to take responsibility for the clean up after an enormous oil tanker spill off Alaska and then when it did, putting minimal resources toward the effort. That was 25 years ago and a huge lawsuit and a merger with another large company later: I still don't buy gas at that company's stations.

 

There was an airline that had some kind of collossal accident and did not do a good job providing information to the passenger's families, refusing to fly them to the airport where the flight originated etc. They were under no legal responsibility to do that but the bad press it generated made it look like an airline that not only had a safety or security problem but that it was selfish and greedy and uncaring also.

 

Yet again, we are reminded in recent months by some other car company that appears to have ignored a small but nagging safety complaint for one model of vehicle. Now, they have a trust issue with the public with every vehicle that they make.

[songbird1329]

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/91866694.html

 

they're not providing any "reimbursement" for the passengers....don't know what that means from the sound bite....

 

and the Coast Guard is investigating. good.

 

the news reports all seem to emphasize how scary it was for the passengers. good thing the Carnival contract says "no compensation for emotional distress without physical injury...."

[Winchester Ranger]

Carnival is offering injured passengers an extra towel giraffe in their stateroom.

[LemurCat]

Carnival is offering injured passengers an extra towel giraffe in their stateroom.

 

Perfect for temporarily stopping minor arterial bleeds ...

[Kurbanfan]

Guilty of what? There wasn't a crime committed, so there is no guilt. Just civil liability.

 

Guilty of escaping.........of not following the rules.......

[Kurbanfan]

i suspect most people will walk away from this cruise with just a good war story. though you have to be on guard for the guy who will turn a minor injury into a major catastrophe, or the one who wasn't physically hurt but who "has nightmares" because of what they went through, or the one who will try to file a class action on behalf of all of the passengers on the ship....

 

Sometimes minor injuries (at the time) will go that;)

[Nunu]

I'm going to dress as a buoy and sneak onto a ship.

[Planer's Edge]

from what I read....the buoy wasn't showing up on radar and was partially submerged, and therefore difficult to detect visually.

Logic doesn't work for the good doctor. :rolleyes:

 

PE

[songbird1329]

Sometimes minor injuries (at the time) will go that;)

 

sometimes a seemingly minor injury isn't so minor...remember Natasha richarson? fell and hit her head, but seemed OK....but died the next day.

 

but some people ... well, I've handled a number of cases where a plaintiff inhaled a small amount of a chemical substance, maybe something that would cause minor irriation such as coughing and watery eyes...they get treated for it...but now blame every ache and pain on that substance, it "ruined their lives" to have inhaled it....but when you start digging through the medical records their claims are not substantiated.

[halos]

 

The people on land are absolute idiots with no customer service experience or training and no training in their own policies. (Of course, a generalization, there have to be a couple of people who know what they're doing, but the point is made right?) But the people on the ship tend to be very accomodating and very fair to the passengers who have concerns and issues.

 

I haven't had any issues to deal with myself but from what I read on here, you statement is pretty much accurate.

[songbird1329]

Logic doesn't work for the good doctor. :rolleyes:

 

PE

 

bring me Mr. Spock!

[Kurbanfan]

sometimes a seemingly minor injury isn't so minor...remember Natasha richarson? fell and hit her head, but seemed OK....but died the next day.

 

but some people ... well, I've handled a number of cases where a plaintiff inhaled a small amount of a chemical substance, maybe something that would cause minor irriation such as coughing and watery eyes...they get treated for it...but now blame every ache and pain on that substance, it "ruined their lives" to have inhaled it....but when you start digging through the medical records their claims are not substantiated.

 

Exactly!

[Nunu]

I thought Natasha Richardson was skiing:confused:

[halos]

sometimes a seemingly minor injury isn't so minor...remember Natasha richarson? fell and hit her head, but seemed OK....but died the next day.

 

but some people ... well, I've handled a number of cases where a plaintiff inhaled a small amount of a chemical substance, maybe something that would cause minor irriation such as coughing and watery eyes...they get treated for it...but now blame every ache and pain on that substance, it "ruined their lives" to have inhaled it....but when you start digging through the medical records their claims are not substantiated.

 

Exactly!

Agree!

The problem then lies with the business that has to differentiate between the valid suit and the person who is just greedy.

This is a burden on the business AND a huge burden on any person with a valid issue because they sometimes have to go through hell to prove their issue is valid.

 

Nobody wins in these situations.....

 

I thought Natasha Richardson was skiing

 

She suffered a head injury while skiing, I believe.

[songbird1329]

I thought Natasha Richardson was skiing:confused:

 

yoou're right. she was skiing in canada and took a fall. the paramedics who responded to the accident were told she was not hurt, and she refused any medical attention at the scene. three hours later she developed a bad headache and was taken to the hospital...her condition deteriorated rapidly, they flew her to NY for treatment, and she died in NY. the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head".

 

my point is...she seemed fine immediately after the fall, but really was seriously injured and didn't know it. sometimes that happens.

 

and sometimes someone has a minor injury and it becomes the event that ruined their life. sometimes they're faking it, sometimes they really believe that the injury is catastrophic....

[songbird1329]

Agree!

The problem then lies with the business that has to differentiate between the valid suit and the person who is just greedy.

This is a burden on the business AND a huge burden on any person with a valid issue because they sometimes have to go through hell to prove their issue is valid.

 

Nobody wins in these situations.....

 

 

 

 

welcome to my life.

[Kurbanfan]

Agree!

The problem then lies with the business that has to differentiate between the valid suit and the person who is just greedy.

This is a burden on the business AND a huge burden on any person with a valid issue because they sometimes have to go through hell to prove their issue is valid.

 

Nobody wins in these situations.....

 

 

 

 

True........but it is what it is.........nobody said it was easy to fight for what is right......

[nrdsb4]

LOL! True and then the owner would go after the company that made the buoy and so forth:p

 

Seriously if I was driving my car with a passenger and I swerved to avoid a cat and ended up bouncing from wheel to wheel and my passenger was injured........I am liable and that is what my insurance is for......

Accidents happen.........

 

Those passengers would not have sustained those injuries if the accident didn't happen.........

Good to hear nobody was seriously injured.........as of yet anyway.......

 

I think some people are thinking that being liable is the same as being negligent. You don't have to be negligent to still have the duty to pay for injuries sustained. Your example is a perfect illustration of why Carnival should pay. Because of the accident with the Carnival employees at the wheel (so to speak), people were injured and Carnival's insurance should pay for their medical expenses.

[oldvato]

As BC Todd pointed out earlier -

 

 

basic tort law:

 

1) A duty is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff

 

2) That duty was breached due to the negligence of the defendant

 

3) The plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate cause of the defendant's negligence

 

 

there's no real argument that Carnival has a duty to provide safe passage to the passengers. there's no argument that people got hurt because the ship listed when the captain/bridge crew turned the ship to avoid the buoy. the real question is whether the actions of the captain and crew were negligent.

 

the arguments would be either: that the crew failed to perceive the danger from the errant buoy in a timely fashion and thus caused the accident, or, alternatively, that the crew timely spotted the buoy but took inappropriate actions when evading the buoy.

 

and none of us have the information we'd need to make that determination.

It won't surprise me that someone will try to sue Carnival, and some lawyer will try to prove negligence on Carnival's part.

 

I'm no lawyer, but they'll probably post these questions. Who was on the bridge, what were they doing at the time, who was in charge, and why was the bouy not seen with plenty of time to avoid such a turn? If Carnival knows that radar and sonar have limitations, were there lookouts posted, how many, where were they, and what equipment do lookouts have? They'll want to know where the captain was.

 

If you were representing a plaintiff, what would you do?