Proposal to Strengthen Cruise Passenger Safety Laws

[Cruzaholic41]

I'm guessing that you're not going to believe anything that contradicts your assumptions coming from me.

 

Research it yourself. Here's a place to start: http://www.mahonefirm.com/death-on-the-high-seas-act-dohsa/.

 

 

Assumptions? Um, no. Try fact. When researching, how about reading the actual statute? Let me help you. It's 46USC30303. Click on Amount and apportionment of recovery. Nowhere in the statute does it say "actual monetary loss" as you so proclaim. It's says "fair compensation."

[bUU]

snip

Predictable response.

 

snip

Both of you: Go research some cases and find examples proving your GUESS about what the wording of the law means is better than what these lawyers know. I'm not going to waste time playing your stupid games.

 

Denial won't help you if you are a victim. If you are the victim of negligence of a cruise line while it is more than 3 miles away from the shore of the United States your rights are limited as compared to if you were wronged within the three-mile limit.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Predictable response.

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

 

What's predictable?? The fact that you are posting a link from an Ambulance Chaser? Are they the "little guy" that you like to say or are they really the big guy you are so much against??

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Cruzaholic41]

Predictable response.

 

Both of you: Go research some cases and find examples proving your GUESS about what the wording of the law means is better than what these lawyers know. I'm not going to waste time playing your stupid games.

 

Denial won't help you if you are a victim. If you are the victim of negligence of a cruise line while it is more than 3 miles away from the shore of the United States your rights are limited as compared to if you were wronged within the three-mile limit.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you post this gibberish on purpose. I'm beginning to see a trend with you.

[bUU]

Oh I already see a trend with you.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Biker19]

[bUU]

Truly. Instead of actually going and posting factual information like I did what did we get? We got meta discussion and a vacuous backhanded personal attack against me. I am truly getting sick of being the target of this childish behavior.

 

Post some real facts if you don't agree with the facts that I've posted. And even then recognize that reasonable people can disagree with each other.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Cruzaholic41]

46USC30303. "Fair Compensation." Real fact.

[Aquahound]

I'm beginning to see a trend with you.

 

Don't say you weren't warned. ;):D

 

Don't let bUU get to you. He's a troll. He does this in every thread in which he posts.

[bUU]

Maybe you should let those lawyers know too. I'm sure they're just dying for you to be teaching them the law.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Maybe you should let those lawyers know too. I'm sure they're just dying for you to be teaching them the law.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

 

Oh Please don't try to convince us that Lawyers are not working for anything but themselves and the big dollar. I don't know of any lawyer whom I could visit without a fee or the thrill of making a name for themselves or the big dollar.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

Deleted

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

Then it should be child's play for you to post a bevy of case citations where victims collected damages for pain and suffering. Why all this "drama"? Post the proof!

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Then it should be child's play for you to post a bevy of case citations where victims collected damages for pain and suffering. Why all this "drama"? Post the proof!

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

 

You have shown your true colors and I have shown mine. Let the people decide.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

Another excuse.

[xpcdoojk]

Isn't this link exactly from those wishing to chase ambulances and make money from libel claims. You talk about the little guy, but I don't think these people are the little guy, BUT THE PROBLEM.

 

And you trust them because???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I am guessing Bicker is them.

 

JC

[mcrcruiser]

No matter the cost? Somebody always has to pay for Government Bureaucracy. Are you willing to pay for this?? Pay are larger fare?

 

Some seem to think the so called little guy should pay nothing and the Corporations and people who have earned a good wage should sacrifice for those little people (not my words).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

If you read cruise critic for years you would know that crimes by cruise personnel have been committed against cruise passengers .

 

Here are some of those crimes :

 

A so called trusted employee talks to cruise passengers & gets their home address .They int urn give that address to their fellow crime partners on land & the cruise passenger home is robbed

 

Then there are the times when male cruise personnel have raped women

 

I for one know first hand about the lax state when you need security to check issues & they take there time & if you are directed to Customer relations & you are under stressful conditions .Yes ,it happened to us & management has us on the carpet because they said we harassed their people . I am one not to back down & challenged the supervisor to an apology or get sued fir negligence .

 

If any one thinks crime can't happen to them on a cruise ship then they are dreaming .

 

Yes & yes again laws must be imposed to protect all of us when we are on the high seas . Cruise lines personnel are not always what you think they are & the cruise lines management yes do cover ups including murder of that man on his honeymoon . Very sad that that can even happen .

 

Oh BTW what about cruise lines sailing in harms way to the Mexican Riviera ports where just July 1st ,2017 ,19 people were killed near the cruise port of Mazatlán Mexico .

 

Aboard ship there are cameras outside the ship ,so why not have cameras inside all public areas of the ships to protect . Imo ,when crew members or passengers know that they can be filmed , The end result would be much less crime . If that little effort will raise cruise prices so what is your safety worth to you ?

[chengkp75]

I/m finding the argument about the wording and limitations of the DOHSA fairly amusing, because both parties are correct.

 

Here is the exact cite from 46USC30303:

 

"The recovery in an action under this chapter shall be a fair compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the individuals for whose benefit the action is brought. The court shall apportion the recovery among those individuals in proportion to the loss each has sustained."

It does in fact state "fair compensation", but it also limits the award to "pecuniary loss", which as BUU states does not cover "pain and suffering" or "emotional damage" awards so common in US cases.

I will say, however, that I don't see this as something the cruise lines are "hiding behind". The law is what it is, and crafted in 1920. It was amended after the TWA 800 crash to include airline victims who died over international waters, and does allow for airline victims to claim for "pain and suffering". So, it took a disaster to amend the law to include airline passengers, but even in the face of the Concordia, Congress has not decided to amend the law for ship passengers or crew. So, how are the cruise lines hiding behind this law? Why would it be in their interest to actively support a change that would increase their liability? Obviously, cruise ship passenger deaths are not that important to our representatives, or they would have acted, and I would say it would be "hiding behind" the DOHSA if CLIA then lobbied to kill the amendment, but just letting an existing law stand is not "hiding"

Edited July 17, 2017 by chengkp75

[bUU]

It does in fact state "fair compensation", but it also limits the award to "pecuniary loss", which as BUU states does not cover "pain and suffering" or "emotional damage" awards so common in US cases.

Precisely. That's why I challenged those who thought they knew the law better to prove it by presenting case citations where damages for pain and suffering were awarded. It's a shame that they didn't simply admit that they couldn't do so.

 

I will say, however, that I don't see this as something the cruise lines are "hiding behind". The law is what it is, and crafted in 1920. It was amended after the TWA 800 crash to include airline victims who died over international waters, and does allow for airline victims to claim for "pain and suffering". So, it took a disaster to amend the law to include airline passengers, but even in the face of the Concordia, Congress has not decided to amend the law for ship passengers or crew.

As if people are "dead differently" if they die due to an airline's negligence versus a cruise line's negligence.

 

So, how are the cruise lines hiding behind this law?

The law shields them from that specific liability. What do you do behind a shield? "Hide." I did not mean that they were hiding the law itself from anyone (other than those posters earlier in the thread who denied the fact that liability was limited as I stated it was, perhaps). I solely meant that they were hiding behind the law that shields them from that liability.

 

Why would it be in their interest to actively support a change that would increase their liability?

You are correct that it wouldn't be in the cruise lines' interest to change the law. It would be in our interest as passengers and relatives of passengers - and as citizens of a fair, just and compassionate nation that places a higher value on the lives of its citizens than on the profitability of its businesses.

 

Obviously, cruise ship passenger deaths are not that important to our representatives, or they would have acted

You've said a mouthful there.

[jimbo5544]

I/m finding the argument about the wording and limitations of the DOHSA fairly amusing, because both parties are correct.

 

Here is the exact cite from 46USC30303:

 

"The recovery in an action under this chapter shall be a fair compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the individuals for whose benefit the action is brought. The court shall apportion the recovery among those individuals in proportion to the loss each has sustained."

It does in fact state "fair compensation", but it also limits the award to "pecuniary loss", which as BUU states does not cover "pain and suffering" or "emotional damage" awards so common in US cases.

I will say, however, that I don't see this as something the cruise lines are "hiding behind". The law is what it is, and crafted in 1920. It was amended after the TWA 800 crash to include airline victims who died over international waters, and does allow for airline victims to claim for "pain and suffering". So, it took a disaster to amend the law to include airline passengers, but even in the face of the Concordia, Congress has not decided to amend the law for ship passengers or crew. So, how are the cruise lines hiding behind this law? Why would it be in their interest to actively support a change that would increase their liability? Obviously, cruise ship passenger deaths are not that important to our representatives, or they would have acted, and I would say it would be "hiding behind" the DOHSA if CLIA then lobbied to kill the amendment, but just letting an existing law stand is not "hiding"

 

 

 

Hanks for the analysis, the honorable senator and rep from my state are not our best attribute......

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Aquahound]

I/m finding the argument about the wording and limitations of the DOHSA fairly amusing, because both parties are correct.

 

Prediction....neither will admit the other was right...or at least somewhat right. ;)

 

Anyways, pecuniary loss was greatly minimized in this thread because there is no pre-determined exact amount. These numbers have to be litigated in court. Pecuniary losses aren't limited to expenses related directly to the cruise. Pecuniary losses include the loss of financial support from that family member and the loss of care, nurture and/or guidance. That's where the numbers can really skyrocket.

 

I agree with your opinion that this isn't something the cruise lines hide behind. I don't see it that way at all.

 

But that's the civil side. The criminal side is a whole different ballgame. Look at Ketut Pujayasa from Holland America, who brutally attacked that woman on board. The system worked and he is serving 30+ years in a U.S. federal prison.

[Ocean Boy]

Hanks for the analysis, the honorable senator and rep from my state are not our best attribute......

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Your governor seems to be somewhat less than stellar too. However, you guys have a ways to go to catch up to RI's all star lineup.

[bUU]

I have a challenge for y'all. Scrolling back up in the thread:

Just a word of advice - bring the wording down to USA Today levels and you may have a better reception.;)

Here's the challenge: Suggest what words, brought down to the USA Today level, would you use to describe the limitation against damages for pecuniary loss. I would find that very instructive (or amusing, as the case may be).

[Biker19]

Suggest what words, brought down to the USA Today level, would you use to describe the limitation against damages for pecuniary loss. I would find that very instructive (or amusing, as the case may be).

A method used by some here on CC is to simply quote the dictionary definition.

[bUU]

A method used by some here on CC is to simply quote the dictionary definition.

Didn't one of my messages say that damages were limited to monetary damages? If I didn't (and assuming that that would have cleared it all up for those who disagreed with me) then I apologize for that omission.

 

It is water under the bridge. All that matters is that we're all on the same page now: DOHSA limits liability in a way that liability is not limited as compared to if whatever negligence that happened happened within the three-mile limit.