Passengers sue RCL over excursion incident

[MikeNJ1109]

I did a quick search this morning of the topics, but had not seen this posted ... if it has and I duplicated it, I apologize to the group.

 

Interesting story making the rounds re: passengers suing RCL over an excursion incident.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/01/10/cruise-passengers-sue-royal-caribbean-over-jamaican-bus-ride-excursion-gone-wrong.html

 

Michael

[monctonguy]

I was on Independence when that happened.....was quite a sober evening aboard that night...

 

Not surprised they are suing but I am not sure if anything will come of it.

[dividedsky]

What a terrible story :(

[dmc6469]

Very sad story, but yes, RCI will pay out something. Medical bills, pain and suffering, etc. I mean, I assume this was booked through the ship itself. Even though they aren't a direct employer of RCI, they take the liability when they sell their package with the company if it's an outside company and they are a responsible party.

[Janet524]

 

Passengers suing a cruise line isn't news. In this day and age it's news when somebody doesn't sue.

[sparks1093]

Very sad story, but yes, RCI will pay out something. Medical bills, pain and suffering, etc. I mean, I assume this was booked through the ship itself. Even though they aren't a direct employer of RCI, they take the liability when they sell their package with the company if it's an outside company and they are a responsible party.

 

I'm sure the contract absolves them of any liability but it's easier to sue RCI than it is the excursion operator, which is the one that is liable.

[Fouremco]

Passengers suing a cruise line isn't news. In this day and age it's news when somebody doesn't sue.

This is the first suit I'm personally aware of where cruise passengers are suing following a death and injuries during a shore excursion.

[DisneyDatknee]

Sad story. At least they are actually suing about something realistic. I remember someone wanted to sue Vancouver for slipping on the sidewalk while running in the rain. Crazy what people think they can sue left and right. I do think Royal has some liability as they were selling the package, but I'm not a law expert.

[tserface]

Were they on a ship excursion or one booked privately? I assume it was a ship excursion, but the article is clear.

 

Tom

[S.A.M.J.R.]

I'm sure the contract absolves them of any liability but it's easier to sue RCI than it is the excursion operator, which is the one that is liable.

Assuming the passengers booked through RCI, IMO, that's who they should sue. RCI is responsible for selecting the tour operators.

[Fouremco]

According to a Cruise Critic news release in January 2016, it was an RCI ‘Dolphin Swim and Dunn's River Falls' shore excursion.

[BillOh]

Passengers suing a cruise line isn't news. In this day and age it's news when somebody doesn't sue.

 

True, and as much fun as I make of "that guy's website" I might side with the injured party on this one. I am not the litigious type, and I am a Royal Cheerleader, the one place they frequently disappoint me is in excursions and excursion offerings. Anytime they comment about cancellations, they throw the "Customer Safety comes first" line out there. In my 10 years I have come to the conclusion that the bottom line and profit margin are more important the company when it comes to excursions.

 

That said, the tour company may have had an excellent record and one employee having a bad day can change that in a hurry. But from what little detail I have read, this was an official RC excursion and they supposedly have vetted it.

[The Grumpus]

If there was gross-negligence on part of the tour operator, of course they should be sued, along with RCI if it is proven they are a party to the transaction.

 

Iv'e never sued anyone in my life but if someone injures me due to their negligence and they don't take care of me to my satisfaction, they're going to have to answer why in court.

Edited January 11, 2017 by The Grumpus

[sparks1093]

Assuming the passengers booked through RCI, IMO, that's who they should sue. RCI is responsible for selecting the tour operators.

 

Think Royal has it covered in their contract:

5. SHORE EXCURSIONS, TOURS, FACILITIES OR OTHER TRANSPORTATION:

All arrangements made for or by Passenger for transportation (other than on the Vessel) before, during or after the Cruise or CruiseTour of any kind whatsoever, as well as air arrangements, shore excursions, tours, hotels, restaurants, attractions and other similar activities or services, including all related conveyances, products or facilities, are made solely for Passenger’s convenience and are at Passenger’s risk. The providers, owners and operators of such services, conveyances, products and facilities are independent contractors and are not acting as agents or representatives of Carrier. Even though Carrier may collect a fee for, or otherwise profit from, making such arrangements and offers for sale shore excursions, tours, hotels, restaurants, attractions, the Land Tour and other similar activities or services taking place off the Vessel for a profit, it does not undertake to supervise

or control such independent contractors or their employees, nor maintain their

conveyances or facilities, and makes no representation, whether express or

implied, regarding their suitability or safety. In no event shall Carrier be liable for any loss, delay, disappointment, damage, injury, death or other harm whatsoever to Passenger which occurs on the Vessel or the Transport as a result of any acts, omissions or negligence of any independent contractors.

[MikeNJ1109]

Think Royal has it covered in their contract:

5. SHORE EXCURSIONS, TOURS, FACILITIES OR OTHER TRANSPORTATION:

All arrangements made for or by Passenger for transportation (other than on the Vessel) before, during or after the Cruise or CruiseTour of any kind whatsoever, as well as air arrangements, shore excursions, tours, hotels, restaurants, attractions and other similar activities or services, including all related conveyances, products or facilities, are made solely for Passenger’s convenience and are at Passenger’s risk. The providers, owners and operators of such services, conveyances, products and facilities are independent contractors and are not acting as agents or representatives of Carrier. Even though Carrier may collect a fee for, or otherwise profit from, making such arrangements and offers for sale shore excursions, tours, hotels, restaurants, attractions, the Land Tour and other similar activities or services taking place off the Vessel for a profit, it does not undertake to supervise

or control such independent contractors or their employees, nor maintain their

conveyances or facilities, and makes no representation, whether express or

implied, regarding their suitability or safety. In no event shall Carrier be liable for any loss, delay, disappointment, damage, injury, death or other harm whatsoever to Passenger which occurs on the Vessel or the Transport as a result of any acts, omissions or negligence of any independent contractors.

 

The section of the contract cited above is a "hold harmless" part of the contract, and I'd strongly assume is used by most (all?) all cruise lines. Written by lawyer, for lawyers, as we'd all suspect.

 

That said, any lawsuit filed as a result of *This Specific* incident will never see the light of day in a courtroom. As sure as the sun rises in the east, both sides will amicably resolve their dispute PRIOR to jury selection in order to avoid the uncertainties of a jury verdict.

 

Michael

[George C]

I do not trust the quality of shore excursions offered by RCCL, all they care about is there cut of the excursion. also while I like Jamaica and have done Dunn's river about 8 times over the years I would never do a bus ride that long in Jamaica roads are bad drivers are crazy. I preferred when RCCL docked in Ocho rios

[sparks1093]

The section of the contract cited above is a "hold harmless" part of the contract, and I'd strongly assume is used by most (all?) all cruise lines. Written by lawyer, for lawyers, as we'd all suspect.

 

That said, any lawsuit filed as a result of *This Specific* incident will never see the light of day in a courtroom. As sure as the sun rises in the east, both sides will amicably resolve their dispute PRIOR to jury selection in order to avoid the uncertainties of a jury verdict.

 

Michael

 

If it even survives the summary judgment phase and if I were Royal I wouldn't make any offers until that phase was completed. Of course the above section is written by lawyers and for lawyers but that doesn't invalid it nor does it change the fact that Royal was only a middleman in the whole thing.

[orville99]

Think Royal has it covered in their contract:

5. SHORE EXCURSIONS, TOURS, FACILITIES OR OTHER TRANSPORTATION:

All arrangements made for or by Passenger for transportation (other than on the Vessel) before, during or after the Cruise or CruiseTour of any kind whatsoever, as well as air arrangements, shore excursions, tours, hotels, restaurants, attractions and other similar activities or services, including all related conveyances, products or facilities, are made solely for Passenger’s convenience and are at Passenger’s risk. The providers, owners and operators of such services, conveyances, products and facilities are independent contractors and are not acting as agents or representatives of Carrier. Even though Carrier may collect a fee for, or otherwise profit from, making such arrangements and offers for sale shore excursions, tours, hotels, restaurants, attractions, the Land Tour and other similar activities or services taking place off the Vessel for a profit, it does not undertake to supervise

or control such independent contractors or their employees, nor maintain their

conveyances or facilities, and makes no representation, whether express or

implied, regarding their suitability or safety. In no event shall Carrier be liable for any loss, delay, disappointment, damage, injury, death or other harm whatsoever to Passenger which occurs on the Vessel or the Transport as a result of any acts, omissions or negligence of any independent contractors.

 

This holds until you supersede it with the notification in the onboard Compass that warns you to only use tours booked through the cruise line because they can't guarantee the quality or safety of anyone else's equipment. Implied warranties of merchantability can create vicarious liability on the part of the cruise line, and they can easily be argued to be a party to the lawsuit.

[sparks1093]

This holds until you supersede it with the notification in the onboard Compass that warns you to only use tours booked through the cruise line because they can't guarantee the quality or safety of anyone else's equipment. Implied warranties of merchantability can create vicarious liability on the part of the cruise line, and they can easily be argued to be a party to the lawsuit.

 

Possibly, contracts are capable of being reformed, but it's hard for marketing material to overcome contract language (not impossible, but difficult).

[MikeNJ1109]

If it even survives the summary judgment phase and if I were Royal I wouldn't make any offers until that phase was completed. Of course the above section is written by lawyers and for lawyers but that doesn't invalid it nor does it change the fact that Royal was only a middleman in the whole thing.

 

I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that "caveat emptor" would mean A LOT more in the case where I booked an excursion that was NOT arranged by RCL. In this case, any good tort attorney will argue along the lines of that if it's good enough for RCL to offer it on their list of excursions, then nothing can go wrong. I have trouble believing that Royal can get a piece of the action by selling the excursion, but can disavow any responsibility for the action of their agents.

 

Yes, I know that the contract is crystal clear, but put the relatives of the victims in front of 12 jurors, and there's no way RCL gets completely off the hook on this one.

 

Michael

Edited January 11, 2017 by MikeNJ1109

[sparks1093]

I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that "caveat emptor" would mean A LOT more in the case where I booked an excursion that was NOT arranged by RCL. In this case, any good tort attorney will argue along the lines of that if it's good enough for RCL to offer it on their list of excursions, then nothing can go wrong. I have trouble believing that Royal can get a piece of the action by selling the excursion, but can disavow any responsibility for the action of their agents.

 

Yes, I know that the contract is crystal clear, but put the relatives of the victims in front of 12 jurors, and there's no way RCL gets completely off the hook on this one.

 

Michael

 

It depends on how well the other side argues at summary judgment- if the judge holds the contract to be valid and binding then it'll never get before a jury, it will be dismissed.

[The Grumpus]

If RCI were to be found as a partly responsible party, I can't imagine why they would ever want to sit in a Courtroom next to this vendor having to defend their actions in a wrongful death suit due to negligence on their part. The PR would be devastating. I think they would try to settle out of court.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Scottee25]

It depends on how well the other side argues at summary judgment- if the judge holds the contract to be valid and binding then it'll never get before a jury, it will be dismissed.

 

A friend who is an attorney once told me that negligence doesn't absolve someone from liability regardless of what is written in a contract. If the bus driver was part of a RCL offered excursion and he showed negligence in his behavior, then there is a god chance RCL can be held responsible.

[The Scurvy Pirate]

I do not see RCI settling before summary judgment as it would set a bad precedent for others to file an action. Also, if somehow RCI were to lose, I would not be shocked if RCI quit offering to coordinate excursions.

 

Although there is no such thing as a "bullet proof" document, lots of lawyers were paid lots of money to come up with this contract. Like others have said, it will be difficult for the plaintiffs to get past summary judgment. Very sad for the passengers, but the providers were independent contractors, not RCI employees.

Edited January 11, 2017 by The Scurvy Pirate

[CruisingChick]

but the providers were independent contractors, not RCI employees.

 

The passengers paid RCCL for the shore excursion. Therefore RCCL is liable along with the tour operator. The Passengers contract was with RCCL, RCCL's contract was with the tour operator.

 

This will be settled out of court.