It is not reasonable for any vessel to take 4,000 people to sea without provding sufficient backup systems to ensure safe return to port. Every sailor knows that marine equipment breaks, and all prudent sailors carry backup equipment and spares. The ‘fine print’ on a cruise ticket should not absolve any carrier from liability under the law of the sea. It is irresponsible to expose 4,000 people to danger on the open sea.
What backup system might you be referring? Are you saying they should have a back-up electrical supply system, like staff would carry little bus transfer packs on them? I was a prudent sailor, responsible for operating the back-up generators, but in the case of this ship, the electrical distribution system was disabled. This is the equivilent of a city losing power when something takes out a grid. It’s not a matter of lacking back-up. Then the toilets flooded and the place smelled like doody. So what, she’ll fail at proving she had “a fever” caused by exposure, and deserves to. Shame on her and her attorney. The only negligence angle would be the manufactoring or maintainence of the part that leaked the fuel, resulting in the fire. That’s not going to hapen either.
other than discomfort, the passengers haven’t suffered any real loss. the “cruise” isn’t costing them due to being fully refunded plus expenses. sure, it wasn’t fun – but nobody died, so get over it. if you want to be packed in a sardine can with 3,999 of your closest non-friends, then take a cruise. if you don’t want the risk, then stay home or drive. get over it.
I agree with Bob, there is no reason for any lawsuit. They were refunded their money, given another free ticket and $500 compensation – enough already. It’s just pure greed at this point.
Just like most people with insurance policies, these contracts are not read. Very few people read any contracts they enter into. They usually depend on their attorney to tell them what it says….AFTER THE LOSS!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It is not reasonable for any vessel to take 4,000 people to sea without provding sufficient backup systems to ensure safe return to port. Every sailor knows that marine equipment breaks, and all prudent sailors carry backup equipment and spares. The ‘fine print’ on a cruise ticket should not absolve any carrier from liability under the law of the sea. It is irresponsible to expose 4,000 people to danger on the open sea.
What backup system might you be referring? Are you saying they should have a back-up electrical supply system, like staff would carry little bus transfer packs on them? I was a prudent sailor, responsible for operating the back-up generators, but in the case of this ship, the electrical distribution system was disabled. This is the equivilent of a city losing power when something takes out a grid. It’s not a matter of lacking back-up. Then the toilets flooded and the place smelled like doody. So what, she’ll fail at proving she had “a fever” caused by exposure, and deserves to. Shame on her and her attorney. The only negligence angle would be the manufactoring or maintainence of the part that leaked the fuel, resulting in the fire. That’s not going to hapen either.
other than discomfort, the passengers haven’t suffered any real loss. the “cruise” isn’t costing them due to being fully refunded plus expenses. sure, it wasn’t fun – but nobody died, so get over it. if you want to be packed in a sardine can with 3,999 of your closest non-friends, then take a cruise. if you don’t want the risk, then stay home or drive. get over it.
I agree with Bob, there is no reason for any lawsuit. They were refunded their money, given another free ticket and $500 compensation – enough already. It’s just pure greed at this point.
Just like most people with insurance policies, these contracts are not read. Very few people read any contracts they enter into. They usually depend on their attorney to tell them what it says….AFTER THE LOSS!