Injury getting back to port in Mazatlan

[Bill S]

This unfortunate woman suffered an injury in what is commonly called a "slip and fall" accident here in the US. These are amongst the most difficult cases to prove in litigation.

In US courts, there are several "elements of proof" that must be met by a personal injury claimaint, among which, are: did the defendant have a duty to provide a safe place or a duty to warn of an unsafe condition (if known by the defendant--in other words, if the defendant was not aware of the dangerous condition or it was not reasonable for the defendant to have known about the dangerous condition, then there is no duty to warn); did the defendant breach that duty (assuming that there was a duty to begin with); was the breach of that duty the proximate cause of the claimant's injury; and, did the claimant sustain the damages he or she claims? These are general elements of proof in such cases under US legal principles. I have no idea what Mexico law requires.

The bottom line, oversimplified question is: "what did the defendant do or did not do which became the proximate cause the injury?".

Generally speaking, under US legal principles, it is the land owner, whether public or private, to keep safe those portions of their property on which it is reasonably foreseeable that people may tansit and to warn such people of any known dangers or dangers which are reasonably foreseeable. I don't know what Mexican legal principles are in such matters.

Having visited Mexico several times and walking around Mazatlan, Cabo and PV, it is surprising that we do not read of a lot more of such sad incidents. None of us thinks we will sustain an injury on a cruise. This incident just points up how valuable trip medical insurance can be sometimes.

[kryos]

But since no charges were ever filed and the suit was never tried, you have to say that RCCL may have had some responsibility for his death. You are right about the "bargain" though. It's the American way. Sue for a billion... settle out of court for a million...

In this case, though, it truly was a bargain. I think if such a suit went to the jury, RCCL would have wound up paying considerably more than a million because I think most juries would have found them liable. Is there no security on the ship? How could so much noise be made in a cabin ... a body being picked up and hurled off a balcony ... without someone taking notice? Weren't there routine security patrols that would have picked up on such unusual activity taking place in the middle of the night?

 

Again, I am not saying RCCL was liable ... I am just saying that I think most juries would have found them liable ... hence, they did the prudent thing and ponied up the million bucks for the widow.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

Also if her own attorney said no go and didn't even make a referal you can be sure this case has no merit(in the legal sense). I am sure as a matter of public policy HAl is not responsible for the state of sidewalks on property it doesn't own or control in a foreign country no less....I hope you feel better but it is best to move on.

If this individual had been injured while on the shore excursion ... i.e., on the boat, bus, etc., she probably would have been covered. From what I understand, HAL requires all shore excursion providers to maintain a set level of liability insurance to indemnify HAL in the event of an accident. If an excursion provider cannot afford this limit of insurance, he is no longer an excursion provider that is used by HAL. That's why HAL offers very few SCUBA excursions anymore ... because most SCUBA outfits can't maintain HAL's required level of liability insurance.

 

So, if the OP was injured while participating in an excursion, she may have a case against the excursion provider. She could try suing HAL, who would then be indemnified by that excursion provider.

 

However, in this case, it sounds like a simple trip and fall while back at the pier. The person at fault would be the operators of the pier ... who did not properly maintain their sidewalks and parking lots. True, the OP can try to sue ... but considering that this accident took place in Mexico, I don't doubt that the OP's attorney realized that the chance of collecting is so small that it will not be worth the cost of mounting such a suit.

 

It's a shame for the OP, and just another reason why travel insurance is so important.

 

Frankly, I think HAL was very generous in not charging the OP for her medical treatment onboard ship. For that the OP can be thankful.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[k8russ8]

I personally agree that HAL went steps above their usual costly medical attention. I really wanted to have my traveling companion see this in writing. I was very sure that your answers were going to be in the manner that they were given. I have lived in Mexico in the past. In most cases we were very happy to have roads much less curbs. I love the country and always have felt that way. Perhaps the Stork was off track when he dropped me near Philadelphia. My heart has been south of the border for a long time. My loyalties lie here in my home country. We have the best democracy available. Many countries are gorgeous, warm and inviting. There is no place like home. Hmmmmmm seems I've heard that before somewhere. Where have I put my ruby slippers? Thanks again for your sage advice. Sail on sailors.

Sincerely,

[smeyer418]

If this individual had been injured while on the shore excursion ... i.e., on the boat, bus, etc., she probably would have been covered. From what I understand, HAL requires all shore excursion providers to maintain a set level of liability insurance to indemnify HAL in the event of an accident. If an excursion provider cannot afford this limit of insurance, he is no longer an excursion provider that is used by HAL. That's why HAL offers very few SCUBA excursions anymore ... because most SCUBA outfits can't maintain HAL's required level of liability insurance.

 

So, if the OP was injured while participating in an excursion, she may have a case against the excursion provider. She could try suing HAL, who would then be indemnified by that excursion provider.

 

However, in this case, it sounds like a simple trip and fall while back at the pier. The person at fault would be the operators of the pier ... who did not properly maintain their sidewalks and parking lots. True, the OP can try to sue ... but considering that this accident took place in Mexico, I don't doubt that the OP's attorney realized that the chance of collecting is so small that it will not be worth the cost of mounting such a suit.

 

It's a shame for the OP, and just another reason why travel insurance is so important.

 

Frankly, I think HAL was very generous in not charging the OP for her medical treatment onboard ship. For that the OP can be thankful.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

 

Just because someone idemnifies someone doesn't mean you can sue the one that was idemnified. While you can always sue, HAL would have to be either jointly and severably laible or independently negligent(in the selction of the operator for instance), for you to sue them in case of injury or the case would be dismissed on motion. Making a referral doesn't cost a lawyer anything, so unless the attorney was an expert and admitted in Mexico, I would have referred it someone who was(as long as the injuries were severe)- I don't know Mexican law, I doubt many US attorney's do. I can't think of anyway HAL would be responsible for the sidewalk outside a pier but you never know.

BTW in reviewing my health insurance there is some coverage for INJURIES to healthy teeth caused by accidents as well....

[smeyer418]

This unfortunate woman suffered an injury in what is commonly called a "slip and fall" accident here in the US. These are amongst the most difficult cases to prove in litigation.

 

In US courts, there are several "elements of proof" that must be met by a personal injury claimaint, among which, are: did the defendant have a duty to provide a safe place or a duty to warn of an unsafe condition (if known by the defendant--in other words, if the defendant was not aware of the dangerous condition or it was not reasonable for the defendant to have known about the dangerous condition, then there is no duty to warn); did the defendant breach that duty (assuming that there was a duty to begin with); was the breach of that duty the proximate cause of the claimant's injury; and, did the claimant sustain the damages he or she claims? These are general elements of proof in such cases under US legal principles. I have no idea what Mexico law requires.

 

The bottom line, oversimplified question is: "what did the defendant do or did not do which became the proximate cause the injury?".

 

Generally speaking, under US legal principles, it is the land owner, whether public or private, to keep safe those portions of their property on which it is reasonably foreseeable that people may tansit and to warn such people of any known dangers or dangers which are reasonably foreseeable. I don't know what Mexican legal principles are in such matters.

 

Having visited Mexico several times and walking around Mazatlan, Cabo and PV, it is surprising that we do not read of a lot more of such sad incidents. None of us thinks we will sustain an injury on a cruise. This incident just points up how valuable trip medical insurance can be sometimes.

 

There are different standards for the element of proof depending on whether one is a business invitee or a personal invitee.

If you are a business invitee the place has an absolutely duty to you for a defect whether its known or unknown. The example is if you are in a hotel and hit by a failing ceiling and the reason is a defect that was unknown to the hotl it doesn't matter, the hotel will be liable to you. If you are visiting someone's home and the same thing happens to you, you are a personal invitee and the owner only has the duty to warn you about known defects so the owner may or may not be liable to you(the issue of whether it was a known or unknown defect is a matter for the trier of fact to resolve i.e. a jury). This is the result of years of English common recognized different standards of care(and duty) among different tort feasors. That is why most of the information you get on these boards is over simplification of legal information.

 

BTW there is a policy reason for the difference duty standards between a business invitee and a personal one. It has to do with who should bare the risk in case of an injury. Policy dictates that if a business invites me into their place they have a duty to make sure it is safe both from patent(obvious) and latent(hidden) defects. Going into someones home policy dictates that the standard should not be absolute and only that you should be given notice of any defect that the owner(or the person who invites you in) knows. BTW sometimes you can be both a personal and business invitee to the same place an example is an rental apartment- to the rentor you a personal invitee to the buildings owner you may be a business invitee- see who gets held liable on a latent defect :)

[Bill S]

smeyer418: thanks for the additional info!