Carnival Corp: Ticket contract "makes absolutely no guarantee for safe passage"

[sppunk]

Particularly when they don't have their facts right.

 

I grew up a journalist and still work in the field so always am skeptical of reports; this one only used Carnival's internal reports for analysis. They were obtained by a Houston-based marine lawyer. I don't care what the lawyer or reporter says when they can directly show and quote internal company documents. My.02 cents.

[visagrunt]

What lawyer with two clues to rub together is going to move statutory obligations and place them in a contract of carriage?!? That's dumb--all it does is invite more than one court to administer a body of law.

 

All carnival lines are obliged to provide a safe voyage by reason of the admiralty legislation in their ships' respective ports of registry. Your right to a safe ship arises not from the contract made with HAL under Washington state law, but rather from the law of the Netherlands.

 

If you have reason to sue a vessel (you sue a ship in rem for failures to comply with admiralty law) for failure to adhere to safety requirements, you do so in the courts of the country of registry, and you do so in their admiralty jurisdiction.

 

So Carnival's argument here is that passenger rights that are not set out in the contract have no place being argued in a forum in the jurisdiction where the contract was made.

 

Now, the interesting question is whether the courts of Washington will "read-in" regulatory compliance as an implicit term of the contract of passage. Just because Carnival has argued that it's not there does not mean that the court cannot find that it is.

[voyageur9]

What lawyer with two clues to rub together is going to move statutory obligations and place them in a contract of carriage? .... the interesting question is whether the courts of Washington will "read-in" regulatory compliance as an implicit term of the contract of passage. Just because Carnival has argued that it's not there does not mean that the court cannot find that it is.

 

How refreshing to have such useful and intelligent points made so well.

 

But, James, ... be warned: HAL's contract of passage won't keep you safe from being trampled by a horde of cheerleaders.

 

Safe travels

Edited December 17, 2013 by voyageur9
typos

[ANSalberg]

CNN just aired a damning report showing Carnival Corp. knew of trouble and neglected to repair CCL's Triumph Engine 6. Fuel lines leaking onto engines, which caused Costa Alegra's fire, was a known issue but immediate fixes were not mandated.

 

But the kicker, in response to a passenger lawsuit, Carnival issued a statement that says the ticket contract "makes absolutely no guarantee for safe passage, a seaworthy vessel, adequate and wholesome food, and sanitary and safe living conditions."

 

What in the world? As they are the parent company of HAL, does this bother anyone like it does me?

 

We just returned from a 70 day cruise on Holland America; This cruise was into Asia and dealt with SEVERAL typhoons in the area of South Japan and the Philippines. We experienced very little rough sea AT ALL and felt like we were TOTALLY being protected BY Holland America in some very dire situations; I might add that there are still over 1000 Filipinos still unaccounted for. Holland America DOES accept responsibility for keeping passengers safe! Amen!

Anne

[jwm51]

You don't want to see bloodbath over at the Carnival board!:(

 

11 pages (so far:eek:) full of sniping, personal attacks...:eek:

 

And here you thought getting rid of tablescloths & limiting bottles of wine was bad!:eek::D;)

[rucrazy]

Carnival stock looks like it will close up today....;) but how will it close at weeks end?

[startwin]

You don't want to see bloodbath over at the Carnival board!:(

 

11 pages (so far:eek:) full of sniping, personal attacks...:eek:

 

And here you thought getting rid of tablescloths & limiting bottles of wine was bad!:eek::D;)

 

Anything is possible.... look at the 10 pages so far on the Table Cloths thread, pitting posters against one another for having different opinions. The boards are all pretty much the same.

[hypercafe]

There is a new article on the CNN web site about this. It spells out how little maintenance Carnival corporation gives it's ships, non wonder problems like AC never get fixed. Wonder why there are cut backs, they just spent 300mil to inspect the fleet.

[RDC1]

Honest question: would you board an American Airlines 777 with only one of two engines operational to full satisfactory criteria?

 

If you say no, Carnival was sailing Triumph dileberately with a failing engine known prone to causing fire. It'd be the same thing

 

The engines in this case are generators. You have probably flown on an aircraft with a generator offline. I believe that a 727 has three generators and met requirements to fly as long as 2 or the 3 were working.

 

Cruise ships tend to have 6 or so different generators (modern cruise ships are electric drive). At any given time some are down for maintenance, including major rebuilding during a cruise. There is a limit below which they cannot sail, but one or two being offline is not considered to be a major problem.

Edited December 17, 2013 by RDC1

[agabbymama]

It is not just Carnival. EVERY Cruise line has a similar passage contract.

It is not just the cruise lines.

EVERY Airline has a similar passage contract.

 

Now I have 2 questions for you:

1. If you are so concerned (as I am and you should be) about such things, why is it that you have never read these contracts?

 

2. Now that you know that all the cruise lines and airlines have similar contracts, will you still fly and cruise anyway?

 

 

NOPE, as a matter of fact after my last airplane ride in Oct 2011 and my last cruise in Sept 2011, I have decided I will drive and stay on land for my vacations from now on.

 

I don't need a Costa Concordia or Carnival Triumph in my future!

No guarantees in life, and there may be a lot of car accidents, but at least I have some control over the vehicle I am driving.

[kazu]

I do have certain expectations when I cruise - the same for hotels or airlines.

 

Sorry, I expect my plumbing and my AC to work. I expect the ship/airline/hotel to be safe

 

And I expect some empathy if I have a problem.

 

I fully recognize that ship can happen but there is a big difference between ship and sh@t.

 

A number were upset when the Prinsendam cancelled/amended a cruise to fix the stabilizer. I far prefer that than a ship that sails unprepared ;)

 

Oh, and just to light the flames - I do expect tablecloths. They are on my tables at home - so I expect them on a cruise;)

 

Carnival's statement is not necessarily wrong (and yes I have read the cruise contract) but there is a big difference between something happening that couldn't be anticipated and something happening when necessary repairs were not done.

[fredflint]

I check RCLs ticket it states this:

 

3. No undertaking or warranty shall be given or shall be implied as to the seaworthiness, fitness or condition of the Vessel or any food or drink supplied on board!

 

pretty funny I wonder how many people would sign if they knew what the contract actually said and how a TA could explain to you that it really didn't mean anything!

[Crazy Gramps]

The cruise lines in general aren't worried about CNN.

 

But they're terrified of congress looking into it.

 

Grmaps

[stlouistravelers]

CNN report just aired here on the west coast and Carnival also said they were not negligent. They knew there was a risk for over a year. I think they were negligent. Carnival's spokesman was stumbling a little over his words. I am not a carnival fan. Too bad they bought HAL.

 

Does anyone honestly think that a corporation would say anything else. To admit some sort of guilt or guarantee would put them at extreem financial risk. As with anything CNN or any other tabloid type of "news" program you need to take everything at face value. They will skew anything to increase ratings by leaving out portions of the interview or snipping the statements given by others. Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see. As to the contract with the passengers, some contracts are not worth the paper they are written on hence the lawsuit. Some expectations such as a safe passage are implied. I recently cruised on Carnival (great price) and I felt I was on a well maintained, clean ship. It is not exactly my prefered demographic but we had a good time. As you chuck rocks at someone else or make statements about other forms of transportation such as the airplane comment ask yourself if you have ever got on a bus, train, drove your car with some sort of mechanical fault. My father told me that the two best forms of exercise are to run up stairs and down people, maybe its time to run up the stairs and save the judgements on Carnival until the process runs its way thru the court system.JMHO

[cruisemom42]

NOPE, as a matter of fact after my last airplane ride in Oct 2011 and my last cruise in Sept 2011, I have decided I will drive and stay on land for my vacations from now on.

 

I don't need a Costa Concordia or Carnival Triumph in my future!

No guarantees in life, and there may be a lot of car accidents, but at least I have some control over the vehicle I am driving.

 

While you may be in control of your own vehicle, you do not control the many other drivers on the road.

 

I've driven in a major city for 25 years and never had an accident until one day a driver ran through a red light at 45 mph and t-boned my car. Luckily my brakes slowed me enough that the impact occurred just above where I, as the driver, was sitting. Another 3 feet and I probably would have been dead or severely injured.

 

The driver tried to claim the light was still green on her side. Luckily, there were several witnesses who remained on the scene. Later, records showed she had been talking on her cell phone when the accident occurred.

 

Also, I am somewhat in the field of public health, so I'm used to applying large-scale probabilities. And it's a lot more probable that I will die driving back and forth to work than in any ship, plane, train (or potential terrorist plot or unrest while traveling).

 

Perhaps I should quit my job now and just travel full time. :p

[Sea King]

I

 

Now I have 2 questions for you:

1. If you are so concerned (as I am and you should be) about such things, why is it that you have never read these contracts?

 

2. Now that you know that all the cruise lines and airlines have similar contracts, will you still fly and cruise anyway?

 

interesting questions

 

but, don't leave out trains!!!!!! bad off the rail accident in New York not that long ago

 

I am not a legal expert BUT .. isn't safe passage implied when anyone books a cruise or purchases an airline ticket..

 

last time I looked, HAL was in the "vacation business" .. maybe that's why every HAL ship has a Lido ..

 

IMO, the OP may have over-reacted just a bit

 

finally, I've never read the contract part of a ticket .. which may explain why I can still sleep at night:eek:

[serendipity1499]

While you may be in control of your own vehicle, you do not control the many other drivers on the road.

 

I've driven in a major city for 25 years and never had an accident until one day a driver ran through a red light at 45 mph and t-boned my car. Luckily my brakes slowed me enough that the impact occurred just above where I, as the driver, was sitting. Another 3 feet and I probably would have been dead or severely injured.

 

The driver tried to claim the light was still green on her side. Luckily, there were several witnesses who remained on the scene. Later, records showed she had been talking on her cell phone when the accident occurred.

 

Also, I am somewhat in the field of public health, so I'm used to applying large-scale probabilities. And it's a lot more probable that I will die driving back and forth to work than in any ship, plane, train (or potential terrorist plot or unrest while traveling).

 

Perhaps I should quit my job now and just travel full time. :p

 

Excellent post!

 

Agree quit the public health field early & travel, or get a job in the travel field.. That's what I did & have no regrets.. :):)

 

Betty

[Opinions]

Your right to a safe ship arises not from the contract made with HAL under Washington state law, but rather from the law of the Netherlands.

 

 

Actually the Carnival Corporation, the owner of HAL, is incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Panama.

[Typhoon1]

I think this is the norm throughout the industry.

[serendipity1499]

Actually the Carnival Corporation, the owner of HAL, is incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Panama.

 

IMO this statement is incorrect..

 

"Carnival Corp & PLC" is incorporated in both the U. S & The United Kingdom..

 

See the following: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=140690&p=irol-govhighlights

 

Quote: Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc operate under a dual listed company structure with primary stock listings in the United States and the United Kingdom. Accordingly, we have implemented a single corporate governance framework consistent, to the extent possible, with the governance practices and requirements of both countries. While there are customs or practices that differ between the two countries, we believe our corporate governance framework effectively addresses the corporate governance requirements of both the United States and the United Kingdom.Unquote

 

In addition HAL's ships are registered in Rotterdam, not Panama..

 

Betty

Edited December 22, 2013 by serendipity1499

[Opinions]

IMO this statement is incorrect..

 

"Carnival Corp & PLC" is incorporated in both the U. S & The United Kingdom..

 

See the following: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=140690&p=irol-govhighlights

 

 

 

 

Betty

 

You are confusing the Articles of Association with the Articles of Incorporation...Actually the link you posted says under the Articles of Incorporation that the Carnival Corporation is incorporated under the laws of Panama...IMO my statement is correct.

[chengkp75]

While I am not a supporter of Carnival, I would like to point out a couple of things that were on the Carnival thread about this, before it went "poof".

 

If you look at the CC news page for Dec 18th, there is a story where Carnival disputes the documentation from the CNN spot. This does not mention the other cruise forum where Carnival actually released other documentation, and I'm not sure I can mention it here without having this post deleted, so I will leave it up to the interested to search for it.

 

The document that the plaintiff's lawyer disclosed, used by CNN, was dated Dec 2011, about 14 months before the fire. If there was a culture of deferred maintenance, and cost cutting, wouldn't there have been more documentation of this, closer to the time of the fire? Wouldn't the plaintiff have released these further documents to bolster their case? Do we know from this one document:

 

1. What the maintenance consisted of that was overdue?

2. How overdue was it, both in total time, and percentage of the prescribed maintenance interval?

3. Was the maintenance completed in the 14 months between this document and the time of the fire?

 

Carnival's rebuttal on the other forum includes documentation that you can download, including documents from the USCG, and the class society that the ships had been inspected in February and found to meet IMO, SOLAS, and class requirements, with no indications of "conditions of class", which are items that need immediate attention.

 

Both sets of documents show a "snapshot" of the condition of the Triumph at the time the document was written. Both can be correct. Further documentation would determine whether there was a timeline of continual deferred maintenance or whether the plaintiff's document was a one time problem.

 

I can also say, from 37 years as a ship's engineer, that the statements in the document released by the plaintiff's lawyer, where the Staff Chief Engineer states that the engines are "not in compliance with SOLAS", should be taken with a huge grain of salt, as he does not specify what in SOLAS they are not in compliance with, and maintenance intervals of engines is not a SOLAS requirement.

 

Do Carnival's lawyers statement about the ticket contract hurt them in the court of PR? Sure it does. Does it hurt them in a court of law? No, and that is why it's being stated. And regardless of the clause about "guarantee" of safe passage, etc, the contract spells out that the passenger gives up any right to sue for any mental anguish, distress, other than physical injury. Even John Walker from Cruise Law News won't touch this case, as he knows it won't have any legs for just this clause in the contract. The people were refunded, and by contract cannot sue for more.

[donaldsc]

I am sure that anyone on CC who is a lawyer can comment on this. However, I believe that just because something is in a cruise contract does not mean that the contract verbiage trumps other legal stuff.

 

Imagine that you are on an airplane with engines that are known to the airline based on past history to fail frequently. Just because the airline contract says that you can not sue if the engines fail, I would bet that the courts would rule that this part of the contract is invalid.

 

The thing with cruises is that in most cases, the personal losses are just short term inconveniences and not loss of life or long term decrease in the quality of life. When you get down to it, what is this short term inconvenience really worth? Not much. Therefore, there is not an incentive for a lawyer to spend a lot of effort to sue the cruise company, even if you could combine all the suits into a class action suit.

 

Now, if the cruise company negligence resulted in a sinking and extensive loss of life, that is a different story. I wonder what Costa is going to eventually have to pay out for their sinking? We will probably never know because they will be settled out of court with the plaintiffs being required to keep the settlement terms secret.

 

DON