RCI loses 'trumpet lawsuit'

[bluegirlum]

I don't hate anyone. The tort system in this country is out of control and I am sick of tired of certain lawyers constantly blurting out their 800 numbers on TV proclaiming that if you have been wronged call me an I will get you the money you deserve. I recall one commercial where some dude who was supposedly in a car accident proclaims.... "I was hurt really bad until my lawyer hit that other driver and made him pay."

 

I guess there is nothing like money to make everything better.

 

As a lawyer, I totally agree with you. Those people make us all look bad. There are a lot of lawyers that really are good people--I know this because I went to law school with them and I know what they're doing now--and want to do the right thing and aren't in it for the money or prestige.

 

I did an internship with a judge in law school and it made me realize that the courtroom was not for me. The first case I sat in on was a PI case where the driver of a Chevy Blazer sued the driver of a Geo Metro for $150,000. Long story short, it took the jury all of 5 minutes to find for the Metro driver. Most of the time, the jury system works.

 

I won't get into the McD's case--you all can google it for the legal analysis. I think we can complain quite a bit about the legal system, but I think overall it works for those who need it. (At least, I like to hope so!)

[bluegirlum]

Here is what I do know. When I buy coffee I assume that it is hot. I know that hot stuff has the ability to cause burns. I know that styrofoam and paper cups are flexible. I know that thigh muscles hardly provide the dexterity of hands as to control and feedback and thus I would not place a hot cup of liquid there and take off the top thinking that I would be able to apply the right amount of pressure with my thigh adductor muscles so as to not cause the cup to either flex or tilt and not spill this hot liquid.

 

Go do all the research on the case that you want. Using some basic common sense would have avoided the injury.

 

I believe the jury found that she had some responsibility for her injury as well. It also found that the coffee could've been brewed at a lower temperature, tasted just as good, and taken more time to cause such substantial burns. So while it found McD's liable, the award was lowered because she was partly "to blame." I think the court felt that it needed to send McD's and other restaurants a message that it could brew good coffee that's not as hot or "dangerous", and it sent the public a message that you need to use common sense when handling hot beverages.

 

Note that McD's coffees now come with the "CAUTION: HOT COFFEE" warning on them. Well, duh, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't there before this lawsuit.

[bluegirlum]

Something sounds fishy. 9 years? Isn't there a two year statute of limitations on personal injury?

 

I'm fairly certain it will be reversed on appeal.

 

Did you sit in on the trial? Did you hear all the evidence? How can you be "fairly certain" it will be reversed?

[MAZANDSTEVE]

You're making an unjustified assumption that the mistake was made by the injured man and not by RCI. Slip and fall cases are not as easy to win as the news outlets make them sound. If this gentlemen had just been careless, then it's very unlikely his case would even have made it to trial.

 

 

I agree, fair play to him.

[wolv4life]

I believe the jury found that she had some responsibility for her injury as well. It also found that the coffee could've been brewed at a lower temperature, tasted just as good, and taken more time to cause such substantial burns. So while it found McD's liable, the award was lowered because she was partly "to blame." I think the court felt that it needed to send McD's and other restaurants a message that it could brew good coffee that's not as hot or "dangerous", and it sent the public a message that you need to use common sense when handling hot beverages.

 

Note that McD's coffees now come with the "CAUTION: HOT COFFEE" warning on them. Well, duh, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't there before this lawsuit.

 

The rationale behind the McD's case is simple. McD's served coffee that was so hot that it was dangerous. They were selling a product that was unfit for the use for which it was intended, considering foreseeable misuse like accidental spills. Companies have a legal duty to sell you reasonably products, and McD's wasn't doing that. The warning on the coffee doesn't relieve them of that duty.

[bluegirlum]

The rationale behind the McD's case is simple. McD's served coffee that was so hot that it was dangerous. They were selling a product that was unfit for the use for which it was intended, considering foreseeable misuse like accidental spills. Companies have a legal duty to sell you reasonably products, and McD's wasn't doing that. The warning on the coffee doesn't relieve them of that duty.

 

Any good Wolverine knows this. I think I learned this at my first day of orientation. :)

[Moeve]

What I find strange though is that every cruise line has you sign as part of your contract that you are responsible for making sure that you are working safely!! The old saying of one hand for yourself and one hand for the ship holds true to this day. Therefore it would have been his responsiblity to make sure the area he was practising in was safe for him to do so....... in other words he didn't check the stage (I am asssuming it was here) or where ever else he practised before doing so therefore violating his contract. Also to suggest that one of these smoke machines would not have been a regular element of his work place is also ludecrious. Bearing this in mind I would think in the end the sum will be considerably smaller.

[Captain Jake]

What I find strange though is that every cruise line has you sign as part of your contract that you are responsible for making sure that you are working safely!! The old saying of one hand for yourself and one hand for the ship holds true to this day. Therefore it would have been his responsiblity to make sure the area he was practising in was safe for him to do so....... in other words he didn't check the stage (I am asssuming it was here) or where ever else he practised before doing so therefore violating his contract. Also to suggest that one of these smoke machines would not have been a regular element of his work place is also ludecrious. Bearing this in mind I would think in the end the sum will be considerably smaller.

 

Have to disagree.Its not his responsibility to see that the machine was working properly.Its the responsibility of the employer to provide safe working conditions for their employees.It is ludecrious to suggest the musician should have known the machine was defective.Now if he provided the defective machine your theory holds

:cj

[Ocean Boy]

True. As with almost every accident, there were both unsafe actions and unsafe conditions. You seem to be of the opinion that it is OK for a company to ignore easily avoidable unsafe conditions, and all the onus should be on the company's customers to use precautions to avoid the dangers.

 

Not everyone will agree with you on that, though.

 

No, I do not feel that companies should ignore unsafe conditions. But I am also a big believer in taking responsibility for your own actions. It seems to me that someone who has lived 79 year should have developed some sense over the years of the proper way to handle a hot cup of coffee. Her way was not it.

 

Yes, McDonald's needed to, and apparently did, finally fix the issue. I would probably have more of an issue with what they were doing if I didn't think the woman's actions played as big a role as I do. Now, I just wonder what McD's will have to do to counter the alligations that eating too much of their food makes people fat.

[Ocean Boy]

Have to disagree.Its not his responsibility to see that the machine was working properly.Its the responsibility of the employer to provide safe working conditions for their employees.It is ludecrious to suggest the musician should have known the machine was defective.Now if he provided the defective machine your theory holds

:cj

 

I agree with you there. But I tend to think that the same cruise line that makes us agree to a contract stating that they don't necessarily provide a seaworthy ship is going to go too overboard on employee working conditions.

[wolv4life]

What I find strange though is that every cruise line has you sign as part of your contract that you are responsible for making sure that you are working safely!! The old saying of one hand for yourself and one hand for the ship holds true to this day. Therefore it would have been his responsiblity to make sure the area he was practising in was safe for him to do so....... in other words he didn't check the stage (I am asssuming it was here) or where ever else he practised before doing so therefore violating his contract. Also to suggest that one of these smoke machines would not have been a regular element of his work place is also ludecrious. Bearing this in mind I would think in the end the sum will be considerably smaller.

 

No judge in the world (okay, none that I've ever encountered :) ) is going to ignore an employer's negligence based on a contractual provision like that. Those provisions will only apply to accidents where the cruise line itself was not at fault.

[sissymaryuk]

What I find strange though is that every cruise line has you sign as part of your contract that you are responsible for making sure that you are working safely!! The old saying of one hand for yourself and one hand for the ship holds true to this day. Therefore it would have been his responsiblity to make sure the area he was practising in was safe for him to do so....... in other words he didn't check the stage (I am asssuming it was here) or where ever else he practised before doing so therefore violating his contract. Also to suggest that one of these smoke machines would not have been a regular element of his work place is also ludecrious. Bearing this in mind I would think in the end the sum will be considerably smaller.

So, if your computer monitor suddenly blows up in your face, it's your fault for not checking it properly?

As I previously mentioned, smoke fluid often collects on the grid above stage, and drips down causing slick spots. It's not necessarily a defective machine that causes this, it's just the nature of the beast. Under the working light this can be hard to see (think black ice). Believe me, as someone who has worked in the technical field, very few musician's are aware of the technical aspects that go towards putting a show together. The same way I'm unaware of all that goes into playing an instrument to such a high standard.

I really don't think this is comparable to a cup of coffee.

[Moeve]

Are you suggesting that what ever he slipped on was not visable to the naked eye?? If that is so then I might agree with you but if it is like water or moisture on the floor - no then it was his responsibilty to either clean it up or call some one to do it and while that was being done avoid the area. Hey there are lots of things we do every day that are reckless but we don't worry about them until things go wrong - in this case unfortunately very badly.

[GaryfmCol]

As we walked through a very prominent nationwide

restaurant, my wife in her all dressed and, in heels, slid on the floor where something was spilled,last Saturday

night while out for Father's Day dinner.

 

Lucky for her (and, me), I caught her before she fell.

What I am wondering here is do I have basis for a law suit because she slipped on THEIR floor because something was spilled and, was not cleaned up?

She could have hurt herself.

I could have been without her companionship on my next cruise if she was laid up. Since I caught her, wouldn't

some sympathic jury decide I was entitle to some compensation anyway? :p

[TahoeBob]

I suggest kindly, Tahoe Bob, that OB knows a heck of a lot more about 3rd degree burns than you do. Of course, your lack of knowledge has never gotten in the way of your trashing people in the past. :rolleyes:

 

jc

And your lack of class, does that play into the equation. No it does not.

[Captain Jake]

Are you suggesting that what ever he slipped on was not visable to the naked eye?? If that is so then I might agree with you but if it is like water or moisture on the floor - no then it was his responsibilty to either clean it up or call some one to do it and while that was being done avoid the area. Hey there are lots of things we do every day that are reckless but we don't worry about them until things go wrong - in this case unfortunately very badly.

 

are you suggesting it was?:rolleyes:.I doubt that he intentionally slipped on something a reasonable person would not expect to be there.He certainly wasn't reckless but thats the picture a heartless corporation would want to paint .I once got rear ended driving a company vehicle by a drunk driver.It was suggested that it was my fault for not taking a different route

:cj

[Captain Jake]

As we walked through a very prominent nationwide

restaurant, my wife in her all dressed and, in heels, slid on the floor where something was spilled,last Saturday

night while out for Father's Day dinner.

 

Lucky for her (and, me), I caught her before she fell.

What I am wondering here is do I have basis for a law suit because she slipped on THEIR floor because something was spilled and, was not cleaned up?

She could have hurt herself.

I could have been without her companionship on my next cruise if she was laid up. Since I caught her, wouldn't

some sympathic jury decide I was entitle to some compensation anyway? :p

 

No you caught her and hopefully not feeling bad about it

:cj

[wolv4life]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moeve

Are you suggesting that what ever he slipped on was not visable to the naked eye?? If that is so then I might agree with you but if it is like water or moisture on the floor - no then it was his responsibilty to either clean it up or call some one to do it and while that was being done avoid the area. Hey there are lots of things we do every day that are reckless but we don't worry about them until things go wrong - in this case unfortunately very badly.

 

 

are you suggesting it was?:rolleyes:.I doubt that he intentionally slipped on something a reasonable person would not expect to be there.He certainly wasn't reckless but thats the picture a heartless corporation would want to paint .I once got rear ended driving a company vehicle by a drunk driver.It was suggested that it was my fault for not taking a different route

:cj

 

 

I don't know what the laws are like where this lawsuit was filed, but here in Michigan we have what is called open and obvious doctrine. This legal doctrine states that a hazard that can be seen an avoided by the ordinary and reasonably prudent person cannot form the basis for a slip and fall lawsuit.

[bluegirlum]

are you suggesting it was?:rolleyes:.I doubt that he intentionally slipped on something a reasonable person would not expect to be there.He certainly wasn't reckless but thats the picture a heartless corporation would want to paint .I once got rear ended driving a company vehicle by a drunk driver.It was suggested that it was my fault for not taking a different route

:cj

 

But we don't know that he wasn't reckless. Maybe he was warned to be careful and he wasn't? We weren't there and didn't hear the testimony and see the evidence. We can't say anything is "certain."

[Hondu]

I want to apologize to Royal Caribbean for the blatant SHAKEDOWN by this injured musician and a Florida jury:)

[cruising_knc]

As we walked through a very prominent nationwide

restaurant, my wife in her all dressed and, in heels, slid on the floor where something was spilled,last Saturday

night while out for Father's Day dinner.

 

Lucky for her (and, me), I caught her before she fell.

What I am wondering here is do I have basis for a law suit because she slipped on THEIR floor because something was spilled and, was not cleaned up?

She could have hurt herself.

I could have been without her companionship on my next cruise if she was laid up. Since I caught her, wouldn't

some sympathic jury decide I was entitle to some compensation anyway? :p

 

I know of someone who slipped and fell and seriously broke her ankle in a nice steakhouse that's part of a well known Chicago-based chain of restaurants. I don't know whether she sued but I do know that everytime I'm led to the table in that restaurant, the hostess warns me to watch my step on the ramp that leads into the dining room.

 

If your wife was injured and had serious medical bills, your insurance company may have felt the restaurant was responsible and punted coverage to the restaurant chain.

[sissymaryuk]

Are you suggesting that what ever he slipped on was not visable to the naked eye?? If that is so then I might agree with you but if it is like water or moisture on the floor - no then it was his responsibilty to either clean it up or call some one to do it and while that was being done avoid the area. Hey there are lots of things we do every day that are reckless but we don't worry about them until things go wrong - in this case unfortunately very badly.

Black ice is visible to the naked eye, it's just very hard to see under certain conditions. There's plenty of spots on a dark-coloured stage (because of shadows etc) were you wouldn't see residue until it's too late.

When a musician goes on the stage, they're more than likely to be incredibly careful because they carry their livelihood around with them. Instruments are expensive to fix, and it's hard to get them repaired when you're at sea. When you walk on stage, you have to be careful to avoid props, set-pieces, cables, music stands, equipment, however the stage is set (risers, lifts etc), the other musician's gear as well as any other more "random" hazards (like fluid).

Once aware of their environment, and they are actually rehearsing, a musician should be concentrating on playing the music (their job), and not be worrying about any known or unknown hazards. The safe management of these hazards is the responsibility of the Stage & Production Manager. The stage is supposed to be as "safe" as possible before anybody goes on it. In this case it clearly wasn't, something as simple as a mopping beforehand would've eliminated this problem.

[Moeve]

First of all there is a difference between employee and guest. Employees are responsible for keeping their eyes open for thier surroundings especially at sea but even there many Judges and probably juries have pointed out that life comes with a risk and if the floor is wet then you have a certain amount of responsiblity to make sure you don't hurt yourself and employees have to make sure the danger is removed as fast as possible.

[beachchick]

Are you suggesting that what ever he slipped on was not visable to the naked eye?? If that is so then I might agree with you but if it is like water or moisture on the floor - no then it was his responsibilty to either clean it up or call some one to do it and while that was being done avoid the area. Hey there are lots of things we do every day that are reckless but we don't worry about them until things go wrong - in this case unfortunately very badly.

 

It's entirely possible that it was not visible. I haven't been able to find a reference to which type of fog machine it was, but both particulate and CO2 types use lubricating oil. A note: Particulate types atomize fluid that usually contains glycol. Stage actors and other performers, including musicians, tend to hate them. Try taking a deep breath to sing when you're inhaling a mist of oily yuck. One show, the producers had to switch to the older dry ice machine at the last minute because we were all so choked up, literally. It also gunks up instruments. The glycol also adheres to the stage, but I don't know how slippery it might be if the stage hasn't been mopped.

 

But I digress...A fine slick of oil isn't necessarily noticeable. It doesn't take much oil to spread out on a smooth surface and a thin layer is often basically invisible.

 

He still has a bad arm and the pain that goes with it.After lawyer fees and based on a projected life expectancy of 84 and based that RCI is 8 years behind on payments and the low monthly payments for a annuity based on todays low interest rates the award is not that high

:cj

 

Thanks for explaining it in a logical way. I was trying to figure out how to do that.

 

It would depend on a number of things that are not addressed in your question. i.e., what sould my company do for me, etc. Also, in the case of the trumpet player, I'm fairly certain he is still able to do something to earn a wage.

 

The fact is that he trained for years as a trumpet player. It is no less a profession than, for example, a physician. It takes a long time and tremendous effort to become a professional musician. That he might be able to do something else is irrelevent to the case because it is about the loss of his ability to pursue his specific career.

 

beachchick

[sissymaryuk]

Water based and oil based are the 2 most common types of fluid. Unless you had a spillage then the residue will not form in big visible puddles. Imagine spilling some washing up liquid and putting a cloth on it. What's left after you pick the cloth up is what you'd be likely to see (if you see anything).

The stage should've been safe before anyone went on it. If there was residue on it then it clearly wasn't. Makes no difference if you're employee or guest with negligence. Being at sea makes no difference in this case.

I was working on another Royal ship when I had colleagues have to go give depositions and people come and take photo's of the stage. This was because about a year earlier a drunk guy and his wife decided to get on the stage in-between production shows and dance. He fell in the orchestra pit, a few feet, onto the safety net. He decides to sue because there wasn't enough light so it's all the cruiselines fault! Even though he had absolutely no business being on the stage and was drunk. That's a frivolous law-suit, I think that this trumpet guy certainly is not.