Royal Caribbean International was sued for $20.3 million and lost case ...

[princevaliantus]

... And guess who is going to pay the $20.3 million?? You got it!! We are!!!   See article below:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article212495699.html

 

[Matt]

Most companies have insurance against this sort of thing in the first place.  

[twangster]

If you are an American corporation, chances are you have or are being sued. 

People sue Apple weekly for things that make me SMH. No wonder iPhones cost $900.

No idea of the merits of this case, but welcome to America!

[DocLC]

McDonald's is currently being sued for not offering a Quarter Pounder without cheese which used to be on the menu. The plaintiffs claim they're being overcharged when they order it without cheese as they're not being compensated for that which they have taken off when ordering.

[NS8VN]

Person was injured on the job and then later fired because the company claimed the injury prevented her from doing her job.  I won't comment on the judgement amount, it will most likely come down upon appeal, but I wouldn't call this as frivolous as filing as suit against McD's for overcharging 30 cents on a burger.

[princevaliantus]

25 minutes ago, NS8VN said:

Person was injured on the job and then later fired because the company claimed the injury prevented her from doing her job.  I won't comment on the judgement amount, it will most likely come down upon appeal, but I wouldn't call this as frivolous as filing as suit against McD's for overcharging 30 cents on a burger.

Agreed.  Alas, someone who has no ignorance of the law. Very well stated. 

[DocLC]

40 minutes ago, NS8VN said:

Person was injured on the job and then later fired because the company claimed the injury prevented her from doing her job.  I won't comment on the judgement amount, it will most likely come down upon appeal, but I wouldn't call this as frivolous as filing as suit against McD's for overcharging 30 cents on a burger.

Agreed! My reply wasn't meant to imply that it was frivolous. I was responding to the fact that companies are sued every day of the week as mentioned by @twangster ; I wasn't passing judgment on this case. With regards to the employee, the injury resulted in chronic pain, potential malpractice in the treatment of her injuries, lost wages, minimal disability pay, and the like resulting from trying to prevent someone from being injured by a closing door. It also appears that there may have been a safety or design flaw in the way the doors operated, allowing someone's hand to be pulled into the pocket the the door slides into if his or her hand is operating the latch/handle.

I apologize if my reply wasn't taken as such.

[twangster]

I first read of this in a blog post of a lawyer who has displayed a trend in his coverage of such events.  It's one side of the story, written by a lawyer.  There are often two sides to a story but in this case the judicial process found with the victim.  Without being in the courtroom to hear the arguments I can't form my own opinion but I'm always careful to adopt the position of the media simply because the media said so. 

Personally I thought the $21M awarded to a man who walked into a sliding door on a cruise ship a few years ago was excessive.  Granted he was injured in the event but it seems like certain lawyers gravitate to these types of cases where a jury can develop an emotional connection to a victim versus the big faceless corporation.   Only in America.

Not saying that happened in this occasion because I don't know - I wasn't in the courtroom.  I simply don't know the facts of this case beyond what has been written by the media.  Fortunately they never get anything wrong or sensationalize so I guess we just accept what they say.

[F1guynz]

Apparently this will be one of the last cases of this kind for the cruise industry.

a quote from Us Martitime lawyer states “currently crew members are prohibited from filing lawsuits before a judge and jury because cruise lines like Royal Caribbean have inserted one sided arbitration provisions in ship contracts”

Because this happened in 2008 it was before this type of provision was inserted.

 

[JLMoran]

6 hours ago, F1guynz said:

Apparently this will be one of the last cases of this kind for the cruise industry.

a quote from Us Martitime lawyer states “currently crew members are prohibited from filing lawsuits before a judge and jury because cruise lines like Royal Caribbean have inserted one sided arbitration provisions in ship contracts”

Because this happened in 2008 it was before this type of provision was inserted.

I'm not at all a fan of forced arbitration. From the handful of leaked or very-after-the-fact reports I've seen on these things (because remember, it's also under a non-disclosure agreement where neither party is allowed to speak publicly about what happened or what was agreed to), it always works out in the favor of the corporation / employer / defendant, and leaves the plaintiff barely any better off than if they'd done nothing. And because it's never in the public eye / under NDA, it doesn't put the same level of scrutiny on the corporation / employer / defendant; and it's that level of scrutiny, public outcry, analysis by the press, etc. that actually ends up forcing the corporation / employer / defendant to actually make any meaningful changes that would prevent the same thing from happening again and lead to improved safety / working conditions.

[DunkelBierJay]

3 hours ago, JLMoran said:

I'm not at all a fan of forced arbitration. From the handful of leaked or very-after-the-fact reports I've seen on these things (because remember, it's also under a non-disclosure agreement where neither party is allowed to speak publicly about what happened or what was agreed to), it always works out in the favor of the corporation / employer / defendant, and leaves the plaintiff barely any better off than if they'd done nothing. And because it's never in the public eye / under NDA, it doesn't put the same level of scrutiny on the corporation / employer / defendant; and it's that level of scrutiny, public outcry, analysis by the press, etc. that actually ends up forcing the corporation / employer / defendant to actually make any meaningful changes that would prevent the same thing from happening again and lead to improved safety / working conditions.

As long as there are enough people willing to sign the NDA, Royal will continue staffing under those terms. It's a risk potential employees should take into consideration when considering an offer.

The article is so short, the tons of details that surround these cases are omitted, and we are left with hilites...Since Voyager is registered in the Bahamas, and the incident happened while in port in Barcelona, and Royal is based in Miami, I wonder how long jurisdiction was deliberated and if things like this typically go to company headquarters' location for adjudication.

I shuddered when I thought of getting fingers trapped in that door handle, and I hope this case drastically affects the design of water tight doors in future builds. Another thing that crossed my mind is having non-maritime crew attend to the doors during drills against how there's no sure way to guard against freak incidents like this. I'd love to know how this is affecting the company's policies in this area.

[Guest toodle68]

Nearly every contract now has forced arbitration. The issue is that corporations get to pick the arbitrator, and they wont pick an arbitrator who rules against them. So to make money being an arbitrator, you have to show a significant % ruling in favor of the corporation.

[princevaliantus]

Just now, toodle68 said:

Nearly every contract now has forced arbitration. The issue is that corporations get to pick the arbitrator, and they wont pick an arbitrator who rules against them. So to make money being an arbitrator, you have to show a significant % ruling in favor of the corporation.

Not true. BOTH sides must agree upon the arbitrator. It is not one sided.

[Matt]

Let's keep the discussion on the actual court case, and not the merits of employer/employee and legal relations in modern America please

[princevaliantus]

23 minutes ago, Matt said:

Let's keep the discussion on the actual court case, and not the merits of employer/employee and legal relations in modern America please

Agreed. Too many "jailhouse" lawyers.

[JLMoran]

29 minutes ago, Matt said:

Let's keep the discussion on the actual court case, and not the merits of employer/employee and legal relations in modern America please

You're right, Matt. Apologies for dragging the thread off-topic.

[Guest toodle68]

1 hour ago, princevaliantus said:

Not true. BOTH sides must agree upon the arbitrator. It is not one sided.

LOL .. Good one.. It's not one sided.. I got a chuckle from that one..  

Ok.. so another tack.  Considering everything this woman has been through, was the 20 million justified?  what about 10m?  and if so, does anyone believe she would have seen much of anything had she been forced into 'non' one sided arbitration?

[georgeh]

7 hours ago, toodle68 said:

Nearly every contract now has forced arbitration. The issue is that corporations get to pick the arbitrator, and they wont pick an arbitrator who rules against them. So to make money being an arbitrator, you have to show a significant % ruling in favor of the corporation.

Sounds like my property tax protest in Fort Bend County, Texas.   It is well-known that they they kept a blacklist of arbitrators who sided in favor of the homeowners.  ugh.  Now, we have the highest taxes in Texas.  just a quick rant-off topic.

[DocLC]

7 hours ago, toodle68 said:

LOL .. Good one.. It's not one sided.. I got a chuckle from that one..  

Ok.. so another tack.  Considering everything this woman has been through, was the 20 million justified?  what about 10m?  and if so, does anyone believe she would have seen much of anything had she been forced into 'non' one sided arbitration?

It's hard to say, but given how long it dragged on, the chronic pain that was inflicted resulting from poor treatment, job loss, and perhaps limited employability because of the injury, it might be warranted. There could be punitive damages included here, too, but I don't recall if that was specified.

It's also likely that the jury wanted to stick it to a corporation, which is why it will be reduced on appeal as stated by @NS8VN .

[princevaliantus]

1 hour ago, DocLC said:

It's hard to say, but given how long it dragged on, the chronic pain that was inflicted resulting from poor treatment, job loss, and perhaps limited employability because of the injury, it might be warranted. There could be punitive damages included here, too, but I don't recall if that was specified.

It's also likely that the jury wanted to stick it to a corporation, which is why it will be reduced on appeal as stated by @NS8VN .

'A "jailhouse" lawyer, who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.'  Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances. Punitive damages are considered punishment and are typically awarded at the court's discretion when the defendant's behavior is found to be especially harmful. In the case at bar, the defendant did not create an intentional act. Inasmuch, punitive damages are moot.  Lets leave the legal jargon to the professionals.

[DocLC]

1 hour ago, princevaliantus said:

'A "jailhouse" lawyer, who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.'  Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances. Punitive damages are considered punishment and are typically awarded at the court's discretion when the defendant's behavior is found to be especially harmful. In the case at bar, the defendant did not create an intentional act. Inasmuch, punitive damages are moot.  Lets leave the legal jargon to the professionals.

I'm just trying to have a conversation here and this is the second time you've been antagonistic in this thread alone. Notice that I said "could" rather than "were."

Perhaps we should follow the administrator's advice and stick to the topic of the case, which I was attempting to do.

[princevaliantus]

7 hours ago, DocLC said:

I'm just trying to have a conversation here and this is the second time you've been antagonistic in this thread alone. Notice that I said "could" rather than "were."

Perhaps we should follow the administrator's advice and stick to the topic of the case, which I was attempting to do.

Conversation versus interpretation of the law can be confusing to many individuals as statments made by non-legal professionals is considered bad advice or conversation and punitive damages were not discussed in the article that I shared with the group. It has been my experience that most take advice from this board literally.  Moreover, as Matt previously stated, "keep the discussion on the actual court case", I was simply clarifying a misnomer in your statement. Didn't mean to upset you, but educate you and everyone else whom didn't know the legal jargon.

[JLMoran]

1 hour ago, princevaliantus said:

I was simply clarifying a misnomer in your statement. Didn't mean to upset you, but educate you and everyone else whom didn't know the legal jargon.

Sorry, but having just now read the last four posts in this thread I don’t see any other way to interpret the intent than to either be antagonizing or at least patronizing. If you had left out the opening quote and the final sentence about “Let’s leave the legal jargon to the professionals”, I’d have absolutely taken the comment about punitive damages as a pure clarification and explanation with no other intent. But putting those two sentences as the bookends to your statement changes the perceived intent entirely.

[princevaliantus]

Just now, JLMoran said:

Sorry, but having just now read the last four posts in this thread I don’t see any other way to interpret the intent than to either be antagonizing or at least patronizing. If you had left out the opening quote and the final sentence about “Let’s leave the legal jargon to the professionals”, I’d have absolutely taken the comment about punitive damages as a pure clarification and explanation with no other intent. But putting those two sentences as the bookends to your statement changes the perceived intent entirely.

OK. I can accept your interpretation.

[DocLC]

For what it's worth, the plantiff did seek punitive damages according to the complaint (attached).  Count 4, #34 Whether that was factured into the award, I don't know. 

Spearman-Complaint.pdf

[DocLC]

5 hours ago, princevaliantus said:

 It has been my experience that most take advice from this board literally.  

Cruising advice, yes; legal advice, I doubt very much. 

[princevaliantus]

1 hour ago, DocLC said:

For what it's worth, the plantiff did seek punitive damages according to the complaint (attached).  Count 4, #34 Whether that was factured into the award, I don't know. 

Spearman-Complaint.pdf

Plaintiff sought to amend the S&C and add Punitive damages, which is not a factor since this is a negligence cause of action and not an intentional tort. Court denied their pleading since it's discretionary. See attached verdict sheet. Just sharing some knowledge.

Spearman-Verdict.pdf

[DocLC]

1 hour ago, princevaliantus said:

Plaintiff sought to amend the S&C and add Punitive damages, which is not a factor since this is a negligence cause of action and not an intentional tort. Court denied their pleading since it's discretionary. See attached verdict sheet. Just sharing some knowledge.

Spearman-Verdict.pdf

Thank you!