Jump to content

Carnival sued over St. Thomas death


Nezmo

Recommended Posts

Is port selection a regulated process? Are there some regulations or laws overseeing this process? If it can be proven that Carnival did not follow the process, I'd say they have a case.

 

Otherwise, I really don't see what they can sue for? Maybe a lawyer or someone familiar with legal systems can chime in?

 

It's tragic situation, but if there is no law and Carnival didn't violate anything, the girl's parents would better serve their purpose by helping to establish such a regulation around port selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take her with a grain of salt. Anyone who puts something boiling hot between their legs while driving deserves to be burned. If you're that dumb I'm sorry show some personal responsibility.;)

 

The sole basis of your argument is wrong. The woman burned by the McDonald's coffee was not driving). Why not read up about the case and find out what other inaccuracies you might be spreading?

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html

http://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/the-truth-about-the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

I won't even touch the "deserves to be burned" comment. That's just ignorance or plain 'ol meanness. I can't decide which.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think some of you need to log off Cruise Critic, take a deep breathe, and go find something else to do. You are getting sooo spun up over this and it's pretty sad. My goodness, one of you even has 21 posts on this thread already. Please do yourself a huge favor and go do something physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think some of you need to log off Cruise Critic, take a deep breathe, and go find something else to do. You are getting sooo spun up over this and it's pretty sad. My goodness, one of you even has 21 posts on this thread already. Please do yourself a huge favor and go do something physical.

 

Great idea but I may say the same for you if you can read who has 21 posts on this one subject;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea but I may say the same for you if you can read who has 21 posts on this one subject;)

 

From the main board where the thread topics are listed, if you click in the replies column (for example, right now, it says 231), it lists who all has posted and how many times. Oh no, trust me, I did not count. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the main board where the thread topics are listed, if you click in the replies column (for example, right now, it says 231), it lists who all has posted and how many times. Oh no, trust me, I did not count. ;)

 

 

Woo hoo! Do I win a prize:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the main board where the thread topics are listed, if you click in the replies column (for example, right now, it says 231), it lists who all has posted and how many times. Oh no, trust me, I did not count. ;)

 

LOL good to know, I was worried :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sole basis of your argument is wrong. The woman burned by the McDonald's coffee was not driving). Why not read up about the case and find out what other inaccuracies you might be spreading?

. . .

 

I won't even touch the "deserves to be burned" comment. That's just ignorance or plain 'ol meanness. I can't decide which.

 

+1

 

Also, I'm personally going with the ignorance choice.

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Seeing as how we have so many people that want to chime in when so little facts are known here is a test.

Some years ago an man was in a phone booth (with a closing door) a car came out of nowhere crashed into the phone booth injured the man.

The driver was not sued but the phone company was.

Why was the phone company sued and not the driver?

 

This is an actual case but chime in on why you think the phone company was sued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Seeing as how we have so many people that want to chime in when so little facts are known here is a test.

Some years ago an man was in a phone booth (with a closing door) a car came out of nowhere crashed into the phone booth injured the man.

The driver was not sued but the phone company was.

Why was the phone company sued and not the driver?

 

This is an actual case but chime in on why you think the phone company was sued.

 

Man sues phone company after drunk driver hit him in phone booth. The facts: The man sued the driver, too, and ended up settling. And he did sue the phone company, but that’s because the door was stuck, trapping him inside—and a car had hit the same booth 20 months before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man sues phone company after drunk driver hit him in phone booth. The facts: The man sued the driver, too, and ended up settling. And he did sue the phone company, but that’s because the door was stuck, trapping him inside—and a car had hit the same booth 20 months before.

 

You are wrong the driver was not drunk you were right on part of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was because the phone booth had been hit multiple times and the phone company replaced the booth every time.

The driver just had an accident but was pushed into the booth.

It was clearly the phone companies fault.

If you have a swimming pool in your back yard get rid of it because you could be sued even if kids are trespassing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the best qoute you got is a comedy website? Please

 

Oh I didn't know I was shooting for the best......here's more......

 

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v2n3/ant_v2n3_tort.html

 

 

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Bigbee_42306_web_version.pdf

 

 

All the same......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you the one that is known around these boards as being an attorney?

If so you are not a very good one because the article I quoted was from Wikipedia and any lawyer that is worth a **** knows that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

And I did that on purpose just to see how smart you were.

If you really are an Attorney you forgot the first rule, "Never ask a question you do not know the answer to."

And you are quoting Berkeley Law?

I bet the next article you throw out there will be the world is coming to an end because some Berkeley nut said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you the one that is known around these boards as being an attorney?

If so you are not a very good one because the article I quoted was from Wikipedia and any lawyer that is worth a **** knows that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

And I did that on purpose just to see how smart you were.

If you really are an Attorney you forgot the first rule, "Never ask a question you do not know the answer to."

And you are quoting Berkeley Law?

I bet the next article you throw out there will be the world is coming to an end because some Berkeley nut said so.

 

Nope I am not an attorney never said I was either.....the attorney that you are referring to somehow is avoiding this thread:D

Hope you feel better now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...