Anthem Passenger Files Lawsuit

[akcruz]

Ok... I'll bite. NO ONE said that "no one could have gotten hurt." But an 18 foot flight through a cruise ship cabin? Well, sure, he could have been in one of the large suits. But another excellent point was that if he was unconscious, whey did HE have to call Medical AFTER he regained consciousness? Why didn't his cruise partner or wife call? Well, he must have been solo or his partner/wife must have been out of the cabin. Only solo makes sense under the conditions, and how many solo cruisers book large suites. Now that may be the case. But this is a "litigious country." People smell "free money" everywhere. Does this guy deserve compensation? Maybe. But his story seems... questionable? And sure, RCCL, if in the wrong AFTER the proper authorities actually FINISH their investigation, needs to be held accountable. But that investigation hasn't, to my knowledge, been completed. So, why do I care? Well, RCCL is my cruise line of choice. And if they pay millions out to settle a lawsuit that turns out might be more frivolous than real, then they pass the loss to me, the consumer. I'm tired of ridiculously high costs of lawsuits. I liked the hot coffee that McDonalds USED to serve, until some woman couldn't figure out that coffee cups aren't designed to be held between your thighs while you drive your car. Her actions cost McDonalds $2 million, and they significantly reduced the temperature of their coffee and, imho, degraded the flavor. But her actions placed others in danger. What if after the coffee spilled, she had swerved and killed pedestrian or another driver? Whose fault would THAT have been. Anyway, my point, everyone "needs" to sue someone. It's a ship. A ship sails on the ocean, hits waves, breaks down, even sometimes sinks. If it's no fault of the Captain or Cruise line (and this might have been, we'll see) then it's just "one of those things."

But on another tack, what if they had delayed sailing a day or two and it turned out the storm was what they say it was forecast to be, 50 kt winds? Then someone would file a class action suit because they missed the islands and days at sea that they originally booked. CC forum is FILLED with that complaint.

Rant over.

 

Great rant, thanks for posting. This is one where a like button is definitely needed!!!

[NIATPAC29]

Lots of speculation. Nothing anyone has posted can say for sure that the man was not hurt. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[knittinggirl]

Are cabins even that big??

Our Junior Suite is that deep. I think even the Insides are that deepm narrow and deep.

 

We traveled through the remnants of Patricia, and may I say, unless we had to, we stuck to the edges of the room. Grabbing onto desks, etc. I used my monopod, since I had a sore leg. But mostly, I kept sitting.

 

But on the 53 MPH winds on Star, I went to the bathroom in my stocking feet. The ship lurched, and I slid backward from the doorway to the land on the toilet.

[setsail]

According to ABC news, just NOW...a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT...has just been filed.

 

They do say that in the text but if you watch the video of the report it is only 1 person and they HOPE others will join in, of course they all signed the cruise contract which does not allow for class action so most likely will not be allowed or will have to be refilled.

 

And of course abc does not report what the cruise contract says.

Edited February 25, 2016 by setsail

[poncho1973]

Did he spill hot McDonald's coffee on himself too while he was being thrown? Haha.

You might want to do some quick research about that case before making clichéd jokes.

 

No joke Queen. I'm 100% opposed to frivolous lawsuits and we have these DISGUSTING new billboards all over Orlando that (paraphrasing) say:

 

"This Lawyer got me $325,000!!!! You can sue and get money!"

"Do you need to sue someone? This lawyer got me a bunch of money!"

"Thanks This Lawyer! He got me $500,000!!"

 

It's really bad and a horrible statement about our society.

 

 

HOWEVER, the hot water at McDonald's is often a subject of jokes and it is absolutely not a joke. Not a joke, at all. There was a HBO documentary called Hot Coffee on it. This poor old lady had her crotch and thighs scalded to the point of needing skin grafts.

 

She didn't spill a little coffee on her lap and ruin a pair of cheap track pants, get mad, and decide to get rich over it.

 

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe owned by her grandson Chris, which did not have cup holders, and Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]

 

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

[chengkp75]

But I think the whole thing depends on the results of the investigations. If it's shown that Royal Caribbean was fully informed of the real conditions, and they sailed anyway, well... game over. But if they were told that the forecast was max winds of 50 kts, then that's a whole new ball game. I've been in 80 kt winds on Mariner, and no real problem. The forecast was for the storm to go a different direction, and it shifted and caught us. We spent the afternoon in the Pub on the Promenade drinking beer and people watching. Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch. The results of the NTSB if they are investigating will be the definitive answer. But I suspect RCCL will settle as it will be cheaper. I think the lawyer and plaintiff think the same thing.

 

First off, whether the real conditions were known in advance or not, it all boils down to whether the company's ISM (International Safety Management) system was followed with regards to passage planning, and whether the ISM, as approved by the flag state and class society met industry best practices. That will determine the company's liability.

 

The NTSB will only be marginally involved in any investigation, if at all. The responsible agency is the Bahamas Maritime Agency, as the flag state. The USCG can, and has, requested "significantly interested state" status, since most of the passengers were US citizens. The BMA has granted this, and requested USCG assistance in the investigation, but the USCG will have no legal authority to enforce any action based on their findings. The NTSB has acknowledged that a foreign flag ship operating in international waters is not in their jurisdiction, and anyway, maritime incidents are investigated by the USCG as lead agency, who may or may not request NTSB assistance, because NTSB expertise is in the forensic area, and there really isn't any forensics or accident reconstruction to do.

[TC1957]

It's clear that there are those that have never read their cruise contract, otherwise you would know that when you agree, you waive rights to a class action. One has to file as an individual

 

Are you aware that a case in a related area made it all the way to the Supreme Court? Contract clauses that exempt a party from liability can, and often are, voided when the company owes a duty of service to the public, are contrary to public policy and the injury/damages are the result of negligence on the part of the company being sued. In that case the SCOTUS ruled against the company's attempt to use the contract verbiage to free them from liability.

 

This is a civil case, I think they only need to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" benchmark in the claim of negligence. Since Royal Caribbean clearly "owes a duty of service to the public" by selling cruise vacations they are A LONG WAY from having a slam dunk win.

 

Any lawyer worth a plugged nickel will have this be a jury trial. I put the plaintiffs chances of getting something significantly better than 50-50. Especially since they have said publically they made a mistake and have taken steps to "enhance" their decision making process. Care to bet how a jury will view that enhancement step when weighing someone who probably had their only vacation opportunity of the year ruined by an admittedly wrong decision of a huge corporation?

[garnetpalmetto]

Ok... I'll bite. NO ONE said that "no one could have gotten hurt." But an 18 foot flight through a cruise ship cabin? Well, sure, he could have been in one of the large suits. But another excellent point was that if he was unconscious, whey did HE have to call Medical AFTER he regained consciousness? Why didn't his cruise partner or wife call? Well, he must have been solo or his partner/wife must have been out of the cabin. Only solo makes sense under the conditions, and how many solo cruisers book large suites. Now that may be the case. But this is a "litigious country." People smell "free money" everywhere. Does this guy deserve compensation? Maybe. But his story seems... questionable? And sure, RCCL, if in the wrong AFTER the proper authorities actually FINISH their investigation, needs to be held accountable. But that investigation hasn't, to my knowledge, been completed. So, why do I care? Well, RCCL is my cruise line of choice. And if they pay millions out to settle a lawsuit that turns out might be more frivolous than real, then they pass the loss to me, the consumer. I'm tired of ridiculously high costs of lawsuits. I liked the hot coffee that McDonalds USED to serve, until some woman couldn't figure out that coffee cups aren't designed to be held between your thighs while you drive your car. Her actions cost McDonalds $2 million, and they significantly reduced the temperature of their coffee and, imho, degraded the flavor. But her actions placed others in danger. What if after the coffee spilled, she had swerved and killed pedestrian or another driver? Whose fault would THAT have been. Anyway, my point, everyone "needs" to sue someone. It's a ship. A ship sails on the ocean, hits waves, breaks down, even sometimes sinks. If it's no fault of the Captain or Cruise line (and this might have been, we'll see) then it's just "one of those things."

But on another tack, what if they had delayed sailing a day or two and it turned out the storm was what they say it was forecast to be, 50 kt winds? Then someone would file a class action suit because they missed the islands and days at sea that they originally booked. CC forum is FILLED with that complaint.

Rant over.

 

No joke Queen. I'm 100% opposed to frivolous lawsuits and we have these DISGUSTING new billboards all over Orlando that (paraphrasing) say:

 

"This Lawyer got me $325,000!!!! You can sue and get money!"

"Do you need to sue someone? This lawyer got me a bunch of money!"

"Thanks This Lawyer! He got me $500,000!!"

 

It's really bad and a horrible statement about our society.

 

 

HOWEVER, the hot water at McDonald's is often a subject of jokes and it is absolutely not a joke. Not a joke, at all. There was a HBO documentary called Hot Coffee on it. This poor old lady had her crotch and thighs scalded to the point of needing skin grafts.

 

She didn't spill a little coffee on her lap and ruin a pair of cheap track pants, get mad, and decide to get rich over it.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

 

Thank you, poncho, for your comments with regards to Liebeck which prevented me from going on a rant with regards to how the general public completely bungles the facts of the case. The media in general does a horrible job presenting information pertaining to lawsuits because they aren't quick pieces that can be distilled down into a 30-60 minute piece that can be easily sandwiched between local news and the weather.

[A&L_Ont]

Are you aware that a case in a related area made it all the way to the Supreme Court? Contract clauses that exempt a party from liability can, and often are, voided when the company owes a duty of service to the public, are contrary to public policy and the injury/damages are the result of negligence on the part of the company being sued. In that case the SCOTUS ruled against the company's attempt to use the contract verbiage to free them from liability.

 

This is a civil case, I think they only need to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" benchmark in the claim of negligence. Since Royal Caribbean clearly "owes a duty of service to the public" by selling cruise vacations they are A LONG WAY from having a slam dunk win.

 

Any lawyer worth a plugged nickel will have this be a jury trial. I put the plaintiffs chances of getting something significantly better than 50-50. Especially since they have said publically they made a mistake and have taken steps to "enhance" their decision making process. Care to bet how a jury will view that enhancement step when weighing someone who probably had their only vacation opportunity of the year ruined by an admittedly wrong decision of a huge corporation?

 

If you want a bet, I'd say any insurance company and large corporation will pay this off well before it has a chance to get to court.

Edited February 25, 2016 by A&L_Ont

[chengkp75]

Are you aware that a case in a related area made it all the way to the Supreme Court? Contract clauses that exempt a party from liability can, and often are, voided when the company owes a duty of service to the public, are contrary to public policy and the injury/damages are the result of negligence on the part of the company being sued. In that case the SCOTUS ruled against the company's attempt to use the contract verbiage to free them from liability.

 

This is a civil case, I think they only need to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" benchmark in the claim of negligence. Since Royal Caribbean clearly "owes a duty of service to the public" by selling cruise vacations they are A LONG WAY from having a slam dunk win.

 

Any lawyer worth a plugged nickel will have this be a jury trial. I put the plaintiffs chances of getting something significantly better than 50-50. Especially since they have said publically they made a mistake and have taken steps to "enhance" their decision making process. Care to bet how a jury will view that enhancement step when weighing someone who probably had their only vacation opportunity of the year ruined by an admittedly wrong decision of a huge corporation?

 

While I agree with most of what you say, please note that the only public acknowledgement of a "mistake" was in "not providing the vacation experience people expected", not in whether or not the ship should have sailed. And whether or not they have decided to enhance their passage planning decision system is not totally relevant, since any company can make a decision to exceed industry best practices. And industry best practices would be the basis of any liability/negligence decision.

[Aduntu]

Some interesting "facts" after reviewing the publicly available Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial:

 

• Bruce Simpson boarded with his husband as paying passengers
  
• Although the captain claimed to be in contact with the Coast Guard, Plaintiff discovered after the fact that instead the Coast Guard contacted the ship after observing social media activity
  
• Plaintiff and husband were confined to their room
  
• Plaintiff was holding onto the bed, and Plaintiff's husband was holding onto the couch
  
• Plaintiff and husband were disturbed that they were unable to find life preservers in their room
  
• Plaintiff needed to use the restroom. Stood up from the bed to make his way to the restroom, but as soon as he stood up, the ship pitched violently, flinging Plaintiff nearly 18 feed from the edge of the bed, head first, into the exit door of his room
  
• Plaintiff's husband witnessed the event and the result of the Plaintiff "crumpled to the floor, completely unconscious"
  
• Plaintiff's husband attended to Plaintiff until consciousness was regained
  
• After injury, Plaintiff's husband dialed 0 on the room's phone and was told to dial 911. After doing so Plaintiff's husband was told the medical team was attending to other injured passengers and that as long as Plaintiff was breathing and not bleeding, further medical attention should be sought after the storm calmed
  
• Plaintiff discovered a closed medical facility the next morning, but opened a few minutes later
  
• Medical facility was crowded - some passengers in wheelchairs and others with arms in slings
  
• Plaintiff was unable to receive X-rays to diagnose injuries because the X-ray machine was damaged during the storm
  
• Medical staff told Plaintiff he did not suffer from life-threatening injuries
  
• Royal Caribbean nor ship staff followed up with Plaintiff after medical attention was received
  

[TC1957]

While I agree with most of what you say, please note that the only public acknowledgement of a "mistake" was in "not providing the vacation experience people expected", not in whether or not the ship should have sailed. And whether or not they have decided to enhance their passage planning decision system is not totally relevant, since any company can make a decision to exceed industry best practices. And industry best practices would be the basis of any liability/negligence decision.

 

Do you really think the lawyer isn't going to "spin" the mistake comment?

 

As far as what is and isn't relevant...I can tell you from experience that the only things relevant are what the jury decides are relevant. In many, many trials, when one side starts talking about industry standards, international organizations, best practices, international waters, foreign registration, etc. it does will not sit well with jurors. As much as we like to think (and hope) that a jury will make an intelligent, informed decision based on hard facts the reality is in civil cases emotions usually prevail.

[MommaBear55]

Royal admits they did not provide the vacation experience people were expecting. The compensation was 100% refund and 50% off next cruise, so that part taken care of.

 

Medical injury cases require that injury has occurred due to medical neglect, such as missing a diagnosis. The care can be substandard, the medical provider an idiot, but if there is no negative outcome, there is no medical injury. In those cases generally the compensation is to write the bill off.

 

Now whether this actually gets to court, it will be interesting to see what the charges will be. They didn't call to check up on me? They were following Maritime rules and did not have lifejackets in the cabins? I realize that logic and lawsuits don't always go hand in hand but it will still be interesting to see what the formal accusation is.

[poncho1973]

I'm tired of ridiculously high costs of lawsuits. I liked the hot coffee that McDonalds USED to serve1, until some woman couldn't figure out that coffee cups aren't designed to be held between your thighs while you drive2 your car. Her actions cost McDonalds $2 million3, and they significantly reduced4 the temperature of their coffee and, imho, degraded the flavor. But her actions placed others in danger. What if after the coffee spilled, she had swerved and killed pedestrian or another driver?5 Whose fault would THAT have been.

 

I missed your post, but I'm glad garnetpalmetto quoted it.

 

Almost none of the piece I quoted from you is even close to correct. I'll specifically address the 5 I noted above in RED.

 

1. McDonald's has expressly and repeatedly stated that they absolutely have not changed the temperature of their coffee. That's why the warning is on the cup. This is according to McDonald's, not everyone else. I'm sure the drive-thru kid making $8 an hour THINKS they are an authority on something that happened about 15 years before they were born, but they aren't.

 

2. She wasn't driving. Also in the early 1990, cup holders weren't as common in all cars as they are today. According to the legal documents, the car wasn't even in motion at the time.

 

3. The suit was for almost $3 million. It was reduced to $640,000 and a private settlement was made. If you know the private amount, it's on you for spilling sealed documents.

 

4. See #1. They insist they didn't reduce it all, especially not "significantly" as you state.

 

5. If you knew even the bare-bones of this case, you wouldn't have said this. Thus, it's likely you know almost nothing about it.

[setsail]

Are you aware that a case in a related area made it all the way to the Supreme Court? Contract clauses that exempt a party from liability can, and often are, voided when the company owes a duty of service to the public, are contrary to public policy and the injury/damages are the result of negligence on the part of the company being sued. In that case the SCOTUS ruled against the company's attempt to use the contract verbiage to free them from liability.

 

This is a civil case, I think they only need to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" benchmark in the claim of negligence. Since Royal Caribbean clearly "owes a duty of service to the public" by selling cruise vacations they are A LONG WAY from having a slam dunk win.

 

Any lawyer worth a plugged nickel will have this be a jury trial. I put the plaintiffs chances of getting something significantly better than 50-50. Especially since they have said publically they made a mistake and have taken steps to "enhance" their decision making process. Care to bet how a jury will view that enhancement step when weighing someone who probably had their only vacation opportunity of the year ruined by an admittedly wrong decision of a huge corporation?

 

HUH! I did not say one word about liability, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. The cruise contract does not exclude one from filing a suite against Rci, but it has to be as an individual and in miami

[NIATPAC29]

What a surprise. If it didn't happen to you. It didn't happen at all. How convenient

[knittinggirl]

I listened to the 22 minutes video of the Captain's report on the storm. Let me tell you, this is a case where speaking in a monotone is indeed appropriate. Our Toastmasters evaluators would have been all over him for no vocal variety. But he did right, and didn't alarm his charges.

[chengkp75]

Do you really think the lawyer isn't going to "spin" the mistake comment?

 

As far as what is and isn't relevant...I can tell you from experience that the only things relevant are what the jury decides are relevant. In many, many trials, when one side starts talking about industry standards, international organizations, best practices, international waters, foreign registration, etc. it does will not sit well with jurors. As much as we like to think (and hope) that a jury will make an intelligent, informed decision based on hard facts the reality is in civil cases emotions usually prevail.

 

Of course the lawyer will try to spin anything. However, when the cruise line parades figures like retired USCG admirals, officials from the Maritime Commission, and the like, who will support the ISM code, juries may have a hard time assessing fault.

[Thetrail]

I'm more interested in what a doctor has to say. This forum is way too fast to label any and all individuals as liars and dismiss any blame from the cruise line. All the subforums. NCL forum is particularly nasty.

 

I'm just saying that if this was you, a relative, or a friend, you would want them to have the ability to seek legal remedy.

 

So I find this interesting and will wait to see if we ever hear more about the case. I'm just not going to be so fast to write the plaintiff off.

If I was 'HONESTLY" thrown 18 feet which this liar wasn't, when I woke up so to speak I think I just might have been seen by the Doctor, just in case my brains may have been rattled.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[chengkp75]

Some interesting "facts" after reviewing the publicly available Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial:

 

• Bruce Simpson boarded with his husband as paying passengers no denying this, but what is the pertinence?
  
• Although the captain claimed to be in contact with the Coast Guard, Plaintiff discovered after the fact that instead the Coast Guard contacted the ship after observing social media activity there is no legal requirement for the Captain of any ship, even a US flag ship yo contact the USCG when encountering severe weather, only if in distress.
  
• Plaintiff and husband were confined to their room for their safety, no points for this one.
  
• Plaintiff was holding onto the bed, and Plaintiff's husband was holding onto the couch
  
• Plaintiff and husband were disturbed that they were unable to find life preservers in their room again, no legal requirement, either international or even for a US ship to have lifejackets in the cabins
  
• Plaintiff needed to use the restroom. Stood up from the bed to make his way to the restroom, but as soon as he stood up, the ship pitched violently, flinging Plaintiff nearly 18 feed from the edge of the bed, head first, into the exit door of his room if it was that rough that they were holding on to things, why did he get up, and not crawl to the bathroom?
  
• Plaintiff's husband witnessed the event and the result of the Plaintiff "crumpled to the floor, completely unconscious"
  
• Plaintiff's husband attended to Plaintiff until consciousness was regained
  
• After injury, Plaintiff's husband dialed 0 on the room's phone and was told to dial 911. After doing so Plaintiff's husband was told the medical team was attending to other injured passengers and that as long as Plaintiff was breathing and not bleeding, further medical attention should be sought after the storm calmed Why did husband wait until he regained consciousness? I would have called immediately. And medical triage is a brutally frank operation.
  
• Plaintiff discovered a closed medical facility the next morning, but opened a few minutes later if he had called, he could have been seen outside of hours the next morning.
  
• Medical facility was crowded - some passengers in wheelchairs and others with arms in slings
  
• Plaintiff was unable to receive X-rays to diagnose injuries because the X-ray machine was damaged during the storm
  
• Medical staff told Plaintiff he did not suffer from life-threatening injuries
  
• Royal Caribbean nor ship staff followed up with Plaintiff after medical attention was received
  

 

And I won't go into the other points, as this is just ridiculous. But, whatever floats this guys boat, and while the industry does tend to settle, if they demand a jury trial RCI will fight it with every nickle they have.

[knittinggirl]

If I was 'HONESTLY" thrown 18 feet which this liar wasn't, when I woke up so to speak I think I just might have been seen by the Doctor, just in case my brains may have been rattled.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I wondered about that.

 

When you have a loss of consciousness, you need to be checked out.

[NIATPAC29]

Anyone who can prove they were injured on this Cruise should and need to be compensated accordingly.

[RiotAct]

The man claims he was throw 15 feet in his cabin and knocked unconscious. He did not receive medical treatment when he woke up.

 

Are cabins even that big??

 

LOL - good point!

[jackson bernard]

First off, whether the real conditions were known in advance or not, it all boils down to whether the company's ISM (International Safety Management) system was followed with regards to passage planning, and whether the ISM, as approved by the flag state and class society met industry best practices. That will determine the company's liability.

 

 

 

The NTSB will only be marginally involved in any investigation, if at all. The responsible agency is the Bahamas Maritime Agency, as the flag state. The USCG can, and has, requested "significantly interested state" status, since most of the passengers were US citizens. The BMA has granted this, and requested USCG assistance in the investigation, but the USCG will have no legal authority to enforce any action based on their findings. The NTSB has acknowledged that a foreign flag ship operating in international waters is not in their jurisdiction, and anyway, maritime incidents are investigated by the USCG as lead agency, who may or may not request NTSB assistance, because NTSB expertise is in the forensic area, and there really isn't any forensics or accident reconstruction to do.

 

 

If I were on the jury I couldn't care less what the ism said, where the ship was from or who was investigating.

 

Seems like the poor guy got hurt and is looking to be compensated.

 

Time to pay up RCCL!

[BecciBoo]

pathological. Why not just let it go? Avoid an ulcer.

 

 

I would almost bet he works for that schiester boat chasing attorney;) And dang it, quit quoting him...I was doing so well avoiding his tireless drivel with the ignore feature...again.

Edited February 25, 2016 by BecciBoo