Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CARNIVAL Cruise included a prohibition against class action suits in the small print [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)44. I think you are too ready to say "Don't even try."
By all means, they can try. I'm sure they are not reading this thread.
But you seem to be aware that, except in one instance, Carnival skates on crew rapes. The one time they had to settle was after a remand from a federal circuit court indicated that they had asserted a procedural defense too late. They would have skated on that one too.
Letters, talk shows, etc. etc. don't mean jack in court, no matter what preening TV celebrity lawyers would have you believe. And Carnival owns a bigger chunk of the legislatures of the states where they have interests than you might think. But, again, there is no legislative action that would be relevant here anyway.
But let's get down to brass tacks, shall we.
Quantify the damages.
Let's do: lost wages, physical injury, and psychological injury.
Lost wages:
Even if you were to start taking the contract apart piece by piece, the notion that waiving damages for lost wages due to late arrival would be negated is, really, kind of silly. No carrier in the travel business is liable for consequential damages for you being late or being sent to the wrong place. Even without the contract, it is normal that shit happens which makes travel take longer than expected. Anyone who has ever been delayed by an airline knows this. Being late from equipment failure is, by itself, pretty mundane. Having passengers agree to waive consequentials due to equipment failure is not going to be found unreasonable by a court, and it doesn't matter if it is one passenger or all of them because, duh, if the ship is delayed from equipment failure, they are all late. There is no warranty your trip will depart or return at the scheduled time.
Physical injury:
I haven't even heard of any physical injuries. I think someone fell on some stairs, and there were some indications of bad food and nausea. Yeah... sue for suffering from nausea from an ocean voyage. A couple of years ago, Carnival poisoned a shitload of folks on one of their boats. Adverse verdicts: 0
Having to smell sewage is not a physical injury. Sure, it's unpleasant, sickening, gross, whatever. But, again, I went on an ocean voyage and smelled bad stuff. Really? And how did the ocean smell?
Psychological injury:
I know it is a popular belief that "something made me feel bad so I can sue", but in actual courts it simply doesn't work that way. First off, if your "pain and suffering" is not something for which you have had to seek medical attention and treatment, then saying "But it was really, really bad" is just not going to go anywhere. So, is the waiver unreasonable? Well, a lot of people will suffer from previously unknown susceptibility to claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and all kinds of things about being on a ship at sea which affects them in ways they didn't expect. There's a built-in risk of that kind of thing. But if you are talking about numbers, then I would be willing to bet that few people who signed up for a cruise, and have returned to their normal lives, are going to spend the hours it takes on a shrink's couch to establish a cognizable injury here. Of the 3K passengers, might some of them be suffering from some kind of treatable trauma? Maybe a few, that's pretty much statistically certain. But a lot... no. And the agreement says, in a nutshell "A lot of scary random crap can happen on a cruise that will scare the bejeebers out of you. You accept that." Is that kind of thing inherently unreasonable? No, not really. Read the back of your ticket at a sporting event some time - you'd think you were going to a Roman circus instead of a baseball game.
-------
Now before you accuse me of being callous and just not appreciating the hell these people went through, let me put it this way - I do a lot of travel and I am aware of the long legal history of cruise lines, which is why you wouldn't catch me dead on one of these salmonella palaces. These people went through hell, and I sure wouldn't trade places with any of them for a huge pile of money.
But contrary to what insurance companies want you to think -but claims of "something bad happened to me, I'm upset about it and have a full set of working limbs and organs, and therefore I'm entitled to a lot of money" don't get as much traction as people think they do. And it is even tougher when the parties have already agreed to a contract - a contract that has been battle-tested and refined through a lot of court cases and experience - that precludes a lot of claims for foreseeable stuff. Is it foreseeable that there can be a mechanical failure and an ensuing set of dire circumstances? Yeah, it is. It's almost a question of, what would you expect might happen on a ship at sea if a critical system fails? You had a contract in front of your face spelling this out for you, and you agreed to it.
The first thing you do when you board are learn emergency instructions and procedures. The lifeboats are not there for decoration. They are a huge hint that says, "Shit happens."
Was it a contract of adhesion? No. Bring me the guy who put a gun to your head and made you book a cruise.
I have no idea who these "lawyers of the north" you are familiar with. Having practiced in Philadelphia for a long time, I believe I am sufficiently northern, and also not licensed to practice in any jurisdiction relevant to this dispute.
And again, we are talking about civil claims arising on a Bahamian flag vessel in international waters. You can go on all the talk shows you want, but Oprah isn't re-negotiating the treaty relating to civil claims arising on vessels in international waters. These ships don't carry Bahamian flags because Carnival found the colors charming.
And then there is this: The current offer is full refund, vouchers for future equal credit, and $500. No, you don't get any of that unless you agree to waive any claims you have. So you can take your refund and $500 in cold hard cash right now - anywhere from a total in the neighborhood $1200 or so, sell your vouchers on ebay, and come out with, say, $1500 or so in your hands right quick. Or you can end up on a wonderful voyage through civil procedure for the next couple of years, with no certain result in sight and a lot of heartache along the way. Out of 3000 passengers, how many do you think you have left?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
CARNIVAL Cruise included a prohibition against class action suits in the small print [View all]
snagglepuss
Feb 2013
OP
Twenty grand per, plus refund and expense pay outs--that'll teach 'em to not pull that shit again.
MADem
Feb 2013
#8
If they all sue individually, they don't need to worry about a class action suit limitation.
MADem
Feb 2013
#41
The jury in the Court of Public Opinion is already weighing in on Carnival's offer, and they're
MADem
Feb 2013
#48
The terms of the contract probably require the guest to agree to hold Carnival harmless
Bake
Feb 2013
#15
Repealing the Jones Act would allow ships to use cheaper labor and ships build
davidpdx
Feb 2013
#67
Carnival also pays _Nothing_ in taxes, runs a casino on shipboard, and their backup plan...
sfpcjock
Feb 2013
#50
Still...I'd rather have engine trouble out at sea than engine trouble in the air
davidn3600
Feb 2013
#65
Two (legal) Words: Bad Faith ..... fine print won't work with something like this. -nt
democrat2thecore
Feb 2013
#71