Carnival Cruise Lines has been in the news several times in recent years for accidents at sea. Most recently, a family brought a lawsuit after an electrical fire on the Carnival Dream in February of 2012, causing an extended period of time that passengers could not disembark or board the ship.
Passengers were forced to stay onboard for almost a full day while crew tried to fix the problem. Although they provided food and entertainment, this was a very stressful situation for many people. Some even had to sleep in their clothes due to fear of being stuck on the ship overnight.
The case before you concerns a different Carnival Cruise Line ship: the Splendour. In January 2010, this ship encountered heavy winds and waves en route to its destination port of Brisbane, Australia. Over 300 passengers became ill as a result of rough seas, and twenty-one passengers required medical treatment by medical personnel onboard the Splendour. Nine passengers were treated at a hospital upon arrival in port due to their symptoms-including vomiting and headache-but all recovered within 24 hours.
Violation of passenger’s right to disembark
A second type of forced disembarkation occurs when a passenger is prevented from disembarking the vessel, even though he or she has the legal right to do so.
In such cases, a court may find that a maritime tort has occurred if a passenger is prevented from disembarking the vessel due to actions (or inactions) of the master or crew, crew members, passengers, other individuals aboard the ship (e.g., security personnel), or some combination thereof.
For example, security personnel may prevent passengers from entering certain parts of the ship or certain areas of the ship by restricting access to certain doors or stairs. Such action may be taken out of safety concerns.
Likewise, crew members may prevent passengers from entering certain parts of the ship for safety reasons. Both scenarios could be legitimate reasons for preventing a passenger from disembarking the vessel.
Violation of passenger’s right to safety
A significant number of sexual offense cases involve people who have a history of sexual offenses, or those who are in custody for a crime. These individuals often receive tours from correctional facilities, giving them access to the outside world once again.
When they do so, they are given permission to travel via cruise ships. This is due to the ease of security checks on board the ship, and the 24/7 surveillance that takes place.
However, this also puts unsuspecting passengers at risk. Since there is no way to thoroughly check someone’s background before boarding the ship, people with criminal records can easily get on.
In addition to this, people can also bring weapons and drugs onto the ship, making security even more difficult to establish. Unfortunately, this leads to more safety concerns for passengers onboard cruise ships.
Failure to provide lifeboats for all passengers on board
Another cause of action is the failure of the ship to provide enough lifeboats for all passengers on board. As mentioned before, a ship must have enough lifeboats for every passenger on board and able to evacuate all of them in a few minutes.
In this case, the court found that there was not sufficient evidence to show that Carnival failed to provide adequate safety measures in regard to the number of lifeboats onboard the Costa Concordia.
However, it was found that Captain Schettino failed in his duty by causing a dangerous situation and failing to take appropriate measures. This is why he was sentenced to three years in prison.
Another important note is that while ships are required to have enough lifeboats for all passengers, people who sail often know how difficult it is to evacuate a ship quickly due to waves. Therefore, many ships include drills for emergency evacuations due to this threat.
What are the duties of a cruise line?
Cruise lines have several responsibilities when it comes to the safety of their passengers. First and foremost, they have a responsibility to provide a safe ship.
They do this by hiring qualified personnel to perform safety checks and by investing in safety equipment. They also have security personnel who monitor the ship and take precautions against security threats.
Furthermore, they provide safety training for crew members and communicate safety procedures to passengers. Cruise lines also have evacuation procedures that are practiced regularly.
In the case of an accident or disaster, cruise lines have liability insurance that covers damages and injuries caused by the ship. This includes medical bills and compensation for lost income due to injury or death.
Finally, cruise lines offer emotional support such as contacting family members and providing information about the incident.
Were the defendants in violation of any maritime law?
At this point, it is important to note that the defendants were not in violation of any maritime law. The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, not because the Carnival Corporation and other defendants were found guilty.
The case was dismissed by Judge Engelmayer due to his opinion that there was no connection between the incident and United States soil. He stated that “the alleged negligence took place entirely outside U.S. territorial waters and airspace,” and that “no element of the claimed negligence occurred within U.S. territory.”
He also noted that since the ship is registered in Panama, it is not subject to U.S. law unless it enters U.S. waters or contracts with a U.S.-based company for a service, which neither happened in this case..
Judge Engelmayer concluded by stating that although he sympathized with the family and their desire for justice, he could not let his personal feelings interfere with his judicial responsibility.
Were there any violations of the Passenger Ship Act?
Yes, there were several violations of the Passenger Ship Act. The court found that Carnival Corp. and its subsidiaries violated several provisions of the act, including ones concerning safety training, passenger evacuation procedures, and security training for personnel other than security personnel.
Specifically, the court found that Carnival failed to provide adequate safety and security training to members of its crew and failed to adequately train non-security personnel in how to respond in an emergency situation.
It also determined that Carnival failed to provide all passengers with life jackets during the emergency when it should have done so. Finally, it found that Carnival failed to conduct a required crewman review of the ship’s emergency plan prior to the accident.
The court determined none of these violations were intentional but that they did occur.
Was there any negligence present?
The next step in determining if the accident was Carnival’s fault is to determine if there was negligence present. Negligence is the failure to fulfill a duty of care, which can be either a legal or moral duty.
In this case, Carnival had a legal duty of care to ensure the safety of its passengers. This means that Carnival had an obligation to take appropriate measures to prevent accidents that may cause serious bodily injury or death.
If Carnival showed no signs of negligence, then they are not legally liable for any injuries or deaths caused by the disaster.
An important element in proving negligence is establishing whether an accident could have been foreseen and prevented. If it could have been predicted, then there was negligence on the part of those responsible for preventing it.
Can a cruise line limit their responsibility?
Most cruise lines include a limitation of liability clause in their terms and conditions. This clause limits the amount of money a cruise line will pay you in cases of negligence.
Typically, this amount is only a few hundred dollars per person for a trip. This is probably because they only intend for you to enjoy your time on the ship, not to get into any accidents or suffer any injuries.
The average cost of a cruise is around $1,000 per person, so why would they put a limit of liability at $200? Because most people don’t take legal action due to the low cost of the trip.
You might have heard stories from people who had bad experiences on ships, but none of them ever take legal action because it is not worth it. The average cost of therapy is much higher than the cost of a cruise, so people decide to go to therapy instead.
Leave a Reply