Read about it here.

I can see the lawyers gathering now. What a bummer, get a broken ankle on your cruise. Thankfully, most of the injuries were minor.

Well I can tell you this,
RCCL will not do anything for them if there are no lawyers on the case.
I know is not their foult but it was a Cruise company tour so they are responsable in some way.
My guess that $20 dollars ticket discount on the ships bars is not going to pay for the inconvenience they had...after all they ruin their cruise

I agree. They have a responsibility to do more than the cost of the excursion IMHO. Now, how much they'll do is another thing.

Dwayne

At least the accident occurred in a U.S. Territory and U.S Laws will preside. The injuries were suffered at the hands of a tour operator rather that the cruiseline itself. It is my belief that such cruise operators must file proof of liability insurance in order to provide tours. Even so, RCCL would not be completely absolved from legal liability - as has already been indicated in this post - There will be lawyers involved!

BillyBuzzy

I'm not very familiar with RCI's ticket contract. I know CCL's has a clause limiting their liability for shore excursions. I was saying they had a responsibility to do the right thing about some type of credit or something in my opinion. I think all of the tour operators should be required to have proof of liability insurance too.

Dwayne

Dwayne- I believe that virtually all the cruiselines have liability limiting clauses in their contracts - for the most part they tend to scare off the more timid litigants but in reality, in U.S. courts they are set aside in many cases. The Principal is frequently found liable for the acts of the Agent -contracts can be interpreted against the party that draws the contract,especially when the injured party has no choice in the actual drafting of the contract. The cruiselines have a continuing liability - but it usually takes the acts of Attorneys and the Courts to bring about a fair and just resolution! If human injury has occurred the judges and juries are most empathetic to the injured!

This gives the drafter of the contract great motivation to settle out of court with the injured party!

BillyBuzzy

Billy - Thanks. I don't have any experience or education with maritime agency law.

Dwayne

These words are familiar to me: "XYZ Company is vicariously liable under the legal theories of agency and respondent superior". This is akin to Ford being liable for something that happened at your local dealership even though Ford was not directly involved. Since they have a franchise contract with the dealership they can be found to have some liability for the actions of the dealership.

A lawsuit will usually contain unnamed defendants "whether real or fictitious" who may be named at a later time. This is just to cover all bases for someone or some entity which is identified during the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

I am familiar with the concept as it relates to real estate agency law in a way as well. Example; I can be liable for a defect with a property even if my principle (client) doesn't disclose it to me. I know this guy that got sued because he put in his listing that the master bath had a "Jacuzzi". It did have a whirlpool bath, but it wasn't "Jacuzzi" brand. What that has to do with this, I don't know.

Agency law can be very complicated. The most common misconception and confusion comes from people not understanding who works for whom.

I'm just glad that most of the injuries were minor.

Dwayne

Well, this past winter we had an "adventure" on a RCCL sponsored tour. We left the terminal at San Juan with the understanding that the driver would have us to the airport by 1:00. He drove between 18-21 mph, feathered (I use that term loosely) the gas continuously: we were all sick! slurred his words, told us nonsensical things. The line of cars behind us was endless. We had to organize at the first stop and demand to be returned to San Juan (he did not comply). We had people on board that of the 16 people on board 12 had 4 p.m. flights. We got to the airport at 3 p.m. --this after we demanded he turn around (he did go 40 on the way back, thankfully). Our party of 5 were the last 5 people to board the plane (we still had to go through security).

RCCLs official position: they only offer tours as a courtesy. They are in no way vetted by RCCL. They only drop a vender if they get "too many" complaints. They had no responsibility whatsoever for this dangerous and disconcerting disaster of a rain forest tour. By the way, he drove faster on the twisting roads in El Yunque than he did on the highway. I am sure a lot of people didn't get to where they wanted on time, stuck behind him.

I remember you posting about this before. That is no way to end a cruise! They need to get some kind of insurance/bond or something from these tour operators. Not a good business practice to sell something, then if something goes wrong - say I wash my hands of it. Just my humble opinion.

Dwayne

My, they lawyered this up quite nicely. Still, it could be ruled invalid by a court. As previously noted, the wording drives away many potential litigants but not all. I have to think all the major cruise lines have settled out-of-court for injuries sustained on "ship's tours". Frankly the language of the contract makes me want to consider whether I'd ever want to use a ship's tour again no matter the port.

Excerpt from RCI passenger contract:

All arrangements made for or by Passenger for .......shore excursions, tours,.....are made solely for Passenger’s convenience and are at Passenger’s risk. The providers, owners and operators of such services,........ are independent contractors and are not acting as agents or representatives of (the cruise line). Even though (the cruise line) may collect a fee for, or otherwise profit from, making such arrangements and offers for sale shore excursions, tours, ......,it does not undertake to supervise or control such independent contractors or their employees, nor maintain their conveyances or facilities, and makes no representation, whether express or implied, regarding their suitability or safety. In no event shall (the cruise line) be liable for any loss, delay, disappointment, damage, injury, death or other harm whatsoever to Passenger which occurs on or off the Vessel or the Transport as a result of any acts, omissions or negligence of any independent contractors.

I think my Birmingham lawyers could make mincemeat of this.

The simple fact that the cruiseline collects a fee and/or shares in the receipts collected by the tour operator is where the legal beagles can obtain a recovery from the company involved as well as the tour operator-all it takes is some degree of negligence by either the cruiseline or the tour operator. However, if it occurs off U.S. soil you will need local attorney involvement per the laws and customs of the nation in which it occurs! There is a baseline assumption here that the injured person is not him/herself the cause of the injury!


BillyBuzzy