What Recourse Does One Have?

[PittsburghJack]

I read, with interest, Granny's post about the gentleman having difficulty controling himself in the dining room.

We've cruised many times on many lines and have only encountered this once before, some years ago.

Our passenger was chronically intoxicated, was abusive toward other passengers and staff and finally slipped into unconscious in front of the Purser's desk. The gentleman was collected by two officers and taken "somewhere". The next day, he was escorted off the ship by the Master.

My point is, this passenger never physically touched another (like Granny's gentleman in the Restaurant).

What recourse would one have?:confused: Jack

 

PS Mrs. Jack tells me Maritime Laws are very complex

[Host Dan]

I read, with interest, Granny's post about the gentleman having difficulty controling himself in the dining room.

We've cruised many times on many lines and have only encountered this once before, some years ago.

Our passenger was chronically intoxicated, was abusive toward other passengers and staff and finally slipped into unconscious in front of the Purser's desk. The gentleman was collected by two officers and taken "somewhere". The next day, he was escorted off the ship by the Master.

My point is, this passenger never physically touched another (like Granny's gentleman in the Restaurant).

What recourse would one have?:confused: Jack

 

PS Mrs. Jack tells me Maritime Laws are very complex

Interesting dilemna. On a med cruise on the Legend 2 years ago, I was accosted by an intoxicated woman at The Club. She physically grabbed me, and started shaking me while ranting and raving. I knew not to retaliate, and was able to free myself of her. The bar manager saw the whole thing, and escorted a madwoman out of the Club. As I saw her the next day, there obviously wasn't any "punishment" for her behaviour. I wonder if the same thing happened man to woman or man to man, what the outcome might have been.

 

Host Dan

[Iamboatman]

These instances really are not ones involving maritime law in the sense of it increasing or limiting one's rights. An assault (whether it be technically a fear of being inappropriately touched) or a battery (being offensively touched) is what it is. However, even with the aspect of intent or implied intent not getting involved, the focal point is "reason".

 

There is no excuse for either situation, but there can be circumstances that may lend to one type of corrective action rather than another. An inebriated person may be an offensive drunk or someone who had a drink not knowing it would react with a new medication...and it thus is a one-off situation.

 

An aggressive diner wishing to maintain quiet while dining might have just heard terrible news and reacted with extremely poor judgment as a result...or he could be a truly troublesome individual.

 

That is where reason and discretion by the officer(s) in charge come into play. Whether it be a warning, a remand to their cabin, the brig or disembarkation it must be done on a case-by-case basis...not matter how upsetting to the offended/touched person. (And whether the person is disciplined in some fashion - or how - probably is not the business of the offended person...regardless.)

 

If there was physical injury or certain particularly offensive language/threats, that would obviously be considered....again on a case-by-case basis.

[PittsburghJack]

Interesting. Mrs. Jack seems to have another opinion:

 

In a case of battery, a meeting with the Master would be arranged. Discussion and a list of witnesses would ensue along with a written report, along with pictures of any physical injuries.

 

Options would be discussed between the complaintant and Master.

 

The Master would schedule a meeting with witnesses.

 

A second meeting would be scheduled with the defendant and a resolution inacted. Jack

[Iamboatman]

Jack:

 

Yes, that could be done, but there is no maritime law (or, frankly, substantive reason IMO) requiring same. Discretion is a very valuable tool. And I am certain most guests do not want to be forced into being witnesses is a "legal" proceeding while on their holidays.

 

As I tell many of my legal clients: Think about what the cost is to be "right". Only you can decide if it is worth it.

 

Personally, if I had such an instance I would focus more on avoiding the offender rather than making it a bigger deal. If I became more concerned or if I was approached a second time then alternative action might be appropriate. I also note that many times people that act in an offending manner actually are embarrassed themselves and tend to hide...aleviating much of the concern.

[PittsburghJack]

Boatman,

Interesting points, but I must say I would go to no extremes to "avoid" said individual. Why allow one schmuck to interrupt your vacation.

 

Anyone else had this experience? Jack

[Iamboatman]

Jack,

 

I agree. It is when it gets to that point that things need to happen.

 

As for taking a poll on who else has run into such a person, I am afraid that with any experienced cruiser it has probably happened to them or they have seen it happen to someone else on a cruise. I would hate for this to be a thread about "those guys".;)

[CruisinMatt]

Remember that one report, was it last year, regarding an altercation at the BBQ dinner and the victim was saying it was discrimination from the security staff? I wonder what ever happened with that.

[Martita B.]

Matt

Yes, I remember the incident. Nothing happened! If I remember correctly it was "he did and said" and "she did and said" ~~~

In the end "a free cruise was requested" ~~no cruise was offered or given.

MB

[PittsburghJack]

Boatman,

My intial point was not "those guys". I'm sure the "he said-she said" senerio has been played many times, (Thanks Martha:) ); but actual physical contact such as Host Dan experienced. Jack

[Iamboatman]

Jack, I was just saying that wasting effort or time discussing the bad guys really isn' worth it IMO. I am not sure what good could come out of discussing the limited incidents over the years of inappropriate contact, but that's me. (What I do know is that what is said, what is posted and what actually happened usually are very different...just as with the incident discussed above my Matt and Martha. The true story is not as posted on this board, so why go through that...again?)

 

If you guys want to do it, obviously, go for it. I just expressed my opinion.:)

[lord of the seas]

Well said Eric,

Yes, Sleeping dogs and all that stuff.

[wripro]

The incident referred to above was not a "he said, she said" one. It was clear abuse of two passengers by another and the ineffective and wrong response of the security officer to that aggression. Even Captain Gern agreed. Eventually though the front office including the president did apologize though, as Marta said, no free cruise was offered. I was on that cruise and imo it was a total fiasco on Seabourn's part to have a prejudiced security officer on board. That has been corrected.

 

In general, I believe it is best to avoid troublemakers as much as possible. On a ship with 200 passengers that often is not so. It ruined the rest of the cruise for the two people mentioned above. It is the duty and job of the staff to insure safety for all passengers and when they do not they have failed.

[Iamboatman]

I don't want to get into this, as I said, but your information is wrong. (And I am sure you will demand that my information is wrong. Fair play!!!!:) )

 

Getting into who said what, who saw what, who confirmed what with whom is just another unproductive disaster waiting to happen. Do we really want to get into "she said she was sorry" when she really said, "I am sorry that you are upset". :confused:

 

I would, however, suggest that considering all the patently wrong, fabricated and just plain mistaken versions of what happened...and the fact that it is long ago history (though history should not be forgotten!)...it underscores the limited nature of the troublesome events.

 

No cruise line, be it Carnival, NCL or Seabourn, can prevent an outrageous act. Armed guards walking the dining room is not worth purported benefit...Nor, IMHO, is a one off offense becoming so consuming that it invades and destroys a ship's worth of holidays when it was offensive, but injurious. That doesn't mean turn a blind eye. It means deal with it other than by sledge hammer.

 

How to deal with it is more a matter of art than science. Just imagine the consequences if offense A (he brushed my jacket) is an demanded to be an offensive touching and one is slammed into the brig.

 

IMO, making demands for "corporal" punishment is not the most responsible or appropriate solution. Case by infrequent case is the course taken in this imperfect world.

 

A debate over whether Seabourn handled one particular incident in a way that our mighty board might think should or should not have handled it is IMO less than productive.

[PittsburghJack]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My initial post was not intended to cause "confusion within the ranks". Rather, what recourse would one have if PHYSICALLY accosted by another.........(not brushing against one's clothing, accidently stepping on another's shoe, etc., etc.)

I'm talking about grabbing, kicking, punching, slapping, throwing (fill in your own PHYSICAL aggression).

This inquiry is not about Seabourn or any other cruise line and I apologize for any misunderstanding. I'm certain a vast majority of passangers are ladies and gentlemen and conduct themselves accordingly.

lord could be right....................woof-woof.:) Jack

[Iamboatman]

Ruff, Ruff. I want the bone! Throw me the bone! Come on! I really, really want it!!! Pleeeeze!:D