Rock Center
Shortly after the Costa Concordia ran aground off the coast of Italy, leaving at least 32 people dead, Costa Cruises began offering settlements to the survivors of the accident.
Nancy and Mario Lofaro of New Rochelle, N.Y., said they were offered $14,500 by the cruise line following the Jan. 13 incident.
“Well, my first reaction was that I thought it was grossly insulting, but what upset us most is that it almost seemed like they wanted to do this very quickly and get it done so that it could all go away and that’s the part that we have a problem with,” Nancy Lofaro said. “They promised payment within two weeks, we would have had $29,000 between us in two weeks…That’s not what it’s about. This particular incident should not be forgotten and good should come from it somehow.”
The Lofaro family isn’t alone. Six months after the Concordia disaster, hundreds of survivors are challenging the settlements that Costa Cruises has offered.
Costa Cruise’s parent company, Carnival Corporation, is the world’s biggest cruise line. Citing pending litigation, Carnival Corporation denied Rock Center’s request for an interview. No one disputes that the cruise line is acting in accordance with the terms of agreement on each passenger’s ticket.
Getting access to the terms of agreement for a cruise ticket is a difficult and complicated process, said Marc Bern, an attorney for a number of passengers that were on the Concordia when it wrecked. “When you get on a ship, you are covered by the limitations that the law of that ship wants to apply to you and you can’t even find out what those limitations are unless and until you book your trip and you’ve paid for it and you’ve already accepted those limitations,” he said.
He said the print is “extraordinarily fine” and often “buried.”
Most cruise ships are registered in foreign countries which provides enormous tax advantages to the owners and also puts the ships outside U.S. jurisdiction once they’re a few miles off shore.
Bern said that the terms of agreement should be thrown out for those involved the Concordia wreck because of the egregious actions of the ship’s captain. In an interview this week, Captain Francesco Schettino admitted to being distracted on the phone when he navigated the ship off course, hitting the rocks near the Italian island of Giglio. Schettino could face manslaughter charges and was recently released from house arrest.
By the terms of the ticket agreement, passengers who want to challenge the $14,500 settlement offer have to do so in an Italian court. Liability for loss of life is limited to $75,000. That amount is incredibly low compared to what would happen in an airline accident, said Attorney John Arthur Eaves, Jr., who is representing more than a hundred Concordia survivors.
“They’ve offered the people $14,000. That would include their tickets, that would include their property and that would include all their future problems that they have received from this thing. I think that’s disrespectful and I believe it’s horrible to the value of life.”
Families of a person lost in a plane crash, are offered between $2 and $5 million, Eaves said.
Eaves said that the value is important because the higher the cost a company pays out after an accident, the more incentive they have on the front end to train crew members and better prepare for a disaster.
Remo Casilli / Reuters
The Costa Concordia, carrying more than 4,200 passengers, ran aground Jan. 13 off the coast of Italy killing 32 people - including two Americans.
Those on the Concordia on January 13 recount a harrowing night of confusion where crew members seemed ill prepared to help them.
The Lofaros have been on several cruises before and were excited to embark on their winter getaway. At the start of the cruise, they say there was no safety drill to practice what to do in the event of an emergency. When the cruise ship first hit a rock, they were in the ship’s theater.
“We looked at each other and we said, ‘We hit something,’” Mario Lofaro said.
No alarm was sounded until more than an hour after they felt the ship shudder.
The Lofaros said that they were shocked to encounter crew members who they said had no information. At first the passengers were told the ship had an electrical problem.
“With anything that you do in life, there are always risks. But you don't think that a half-a-billion-dollar ship that's almost 1,000 feet long, that does this route every week, week after week-- you would never think that this could happen, even though you know anything can happen,” Nancy Lofaro said. “But what is most concerning is that you put your confidence in the professionals in anything that you do.”
When they heard six short whistles and a seventh long one, the signal to abandon ship and board life boats, the Lofaros said that it seemed the crew members didn’t know how to navigate the boats. They described the life boats bumping into one another like “bumper cars.”
They say when the life boat they were in was lowered, it got hung up on the ship.
“Everybody is thrown to the other side. We went crashing against the ship,” Mario Lofaro said. “the lifeboat released and it went into a freefall.”
Nancy Lofaro added, “That’s the time I actually felt we could die.”
Joan Fleser and Brian Aho, both veteran cruisers, were in the middle of dinner when dishes began raining from the dining tier above them.
“People were screaming. A lot of people were getting up immediately and trying to leave, some people fell down, waiters that were carrying trays, food went flying, dishes and glasses were starting to slide off the tables,” Fleser said. Fleser, Aho and Aho’s daughter, Alana, clung to a pillar to prevent themselves from falling over as the ship began to list to the side.
Six months after the tragedy, it’s hard for the family to contemplate how people lost their lives when the ship was in relatively shallow water and so close to land.
“People died because of this for no reason. I mean, that’s the tragic thing about this,” Fleser said.
Of the ship’s captain diverting off course, she said, “And he was allowed to do this by the cruise line, by the corporation.”
The Aho family is being represented by Eaves and is battling Costa Cruises and Carnival.
“Some people just don’t want to have anything more to do with it and I completely understand that. All the trauma, you just want to get past it and continue on,” Fleser said. “We on the other hand, think that it’s important to try to change something.”
The family’s attorney recently took his fight to the seas. Eaves got the federal court in Texas to send U.S. Marshals to seize the Carnival Triumph which was about to sail from the port of Galveston. The federal court accepted a suit on behalf of the family of a woman killed on the Concordia, thus compelling Carnival to post a $10 million bond before the Triumph could sail.
“We asked the court to seize Carnival Triumph, a large passenger ship, and hold that ship as collateral for the judgment. Just much like you do with a criminal, you know, you capture him. Then he has to post a bond for him to go free, to make sure he'll return to court. We did the same thing with the ship,” Eaves said. “They had to post a bond to make sure that, out of that bond, when we get a verdict, we get a judgment, that they'll pay this family and help them rebuild their lives.”
Of his fight against the cruise line industry, Eaves said, “Oh, it's Goliath, it's Goliath times two…I'm throwing my little slingshot, and I got one or two pebbles that I can throw. I've done thrown a couple of them and I'm going to keep throwing until we find some way to make this better.”
Editor’s Note: Harry Smith’s full report airs Thursday, July 12 at 10pm/9c on NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams.
Leave a Comment:
I don't see the problem. There are already too many regulations on corporations, including these cruise lines. If people don't want to wreck, they'll simply stay off these ships, right? The market will decide. IMO, they should get back only about half the value of their ticket, since about half the promised cruise was accomplished successfully. If they were afraid of losing their carry-on stuff in a wreck, they should have taken out insurance on the trip.
Using your logic, GeneralEclectic, you would not have any issues or right to sue if you were on a flight from east coast to west when the pilot got distracted and flew the plane right into the side of the Rockies. Let's say you were lucky enough to get out of the wreck and survive, no thanks to the flight attendants who had no clue what to do or how to help. So no big deal, just pay you 1/4 the cost of your ticket because 3/4 of the flight was successfully completed. If you didn't want to crash, you shouldn't fly; incompetent crew and lack of communication and proper assistance in helping you survive is just an acceptable risk. Sound okay to you?
You have got to be kidding. Through the negligent actions of this captain, every person on that ship had their lives put in jeopardy and at least 32 people died. Countless more people were injured in the accident, some of them ending up with permanent medical problems or disabilities as a result. Add to that the emotional distress that the accident caused for the passengers and this company owes these people far more compensation than just half their fare back. The gross negligence of the captain, an employee of Concordia/Carnival should negate any liability limits that are imposed on compensation for an accident. I have a feeling that the company is going to end up paying far more than the $14,500 they have offered to each passenger. If they do not reach a settlement with the passengers, the arrest of the one ship in Texas and the subsequent need for the company to post a $10 million bond to get the ship released will only be the beginning of the problems for Carnival. I would imagine that the settlements for those who died will end up in the seven figure range and the settlements for others will range from probably something on the order of $25-50,000 per person for passengers who were not injured and possibly into the seven figure range for those who were injured based on the extent of the injuries and the person's long term prognosis. In the end I would expect that this accident is going to cost Carnival something around $200 to $250 million dollars just to settle claims.
And, it seems that you folks are too stupid to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
Darn right, we cannot and will not penalize the job creators.
Just another sue happy couple. Take the money and get out. They weren't hurt, they have to abide by the Country the Ship is registered. I hope that they get even less by dragging it out. The biggest thing that needs to be done is getting the ship out of the water without any more damage to the reef.
GeneralEclectic; You're a bleeping idiot... hell I hope you actually do need to file a claim under your own ground rules and suffer all the pain and consequences of that accident that you will not be adequately compensated for... Good Luck idiot.
Death on the High seas act, Warsaw limitation of liability, rules attached to your cruise ticket; when you take passage on a ship or plane that is international waters, you are limited to the amount of recovery you can expect;
loss of life 75 thousand to 150 thousand, (depending on where your ticket was purchased;
If you travel in or over international waters, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, buy a personnel insurance policy to cover injury ,death or loss property, it is your only protection.
i know a man who is being sued for $47.000 because his dog ran toward a mail carrier .the dog did not touch her . it just scared her and she fell down. i think we are gettin a bit carried away with the amounts of some lawsuits.$14.000 seems to be more than fair for being scared out of your wits,but only $75.000 for the loss of a life seems to be a slap in the face.for cryin out loud some people pay good money to be scared to death.grow up and get over yourselves
They got their money back, they got out alive, what more do they need?!
You got it wrong. There needs to be MORE regulations not less, and the CONSUMERS need protection not giant corporations that don't give a damn about anything but profits. Your way of thinking is what is wrong with this country right now. People before profits.
Hmmm...well, for what it's worth, which isn't much, my thoughts are that those that weren't injured should take their settlement. It comes across as greedy to not take a $15k settlement, which covers your fare and the property that was destroyed, when you are physically just fine. Besides, if these people were smart, they should have taken out travel insurance which would have covered the cost of their property and travel back home, and quite possibly part (or all?) of their fare. Carnival will learn their lesson just fine without these folks jumping into the lawsuit.
The only people that should be involved in a lawsuit against Carnival are the ones who were injured, and hence have long term medical problems, and the estates of those who died.
I just love where the attorney had the Federal Marshals seize the Triumph. Nothing like holding 3000 vacationers hostage just to put the squeeze on Carnival. Please, the ship really was going to come back in 5 days so all those people could get off and another 3000 could get on. The Federal Judge in this case should get a clue and tell this clownazz lawyer to just file his suit and quit being cute. No wonder that lawyers have such a bad name with Bozos like this running around.
As far as the $14,500 settlement offer is concerned, it is quite fair as long as there weren't any serious injuries sustained. If your new Rolex went down with the ship, well that's what insurance is for. If you don't like the liability rules that these ships operate under, then don't get aboard.
to GeneralEclectic You are an idiot and too stupid to know it. They had just left
port. I took a Royal Caribbean from the same port two years back. We did not have an Italian captain thank God.
Styro: And they still can't recognize it even after you pointed it out.
"They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
LMAO- well. it's folks like you that get on these boats, and then get extremely pissed off when you darn near die. It's always easy to say the people onboard the ship should have expected and planned for the worst possible scenario, however that's irrational. Every passenger has a reasonable expectation, according to the law, for a safe and uneventful trip, so far as the professionals in charge can effect. If you think it's not at all egregious to put a boat into harms way so someone can wave to family, and as a result sink it and cause loss of life and trauma, then I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell ya.....naive is the word that comes to mind.
So much hate for the cruise company from the libs. They are job creators and this class warfare against the wealthy needs to stop. The cruise line and its investors should be allowed to sue the greedy passengers who feel they are entitled to free money and are putting them through stress with all these frivolous lawsuits.
TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!! Romney 2012!!!
Really, everything is Pres. Obama fault! Romney is an idiot without a personally thougth in his brain.
Are you joking Rhazes!? IDK how much is enough in a situation like this but for anyone to say they should be paid anything less than what they spent is ridiculous. Not all of us are our own bosses and can do whatever the hell we like without consequence of losing our job or putting our families on the streets and if/when we have the chance to take a vacation in a situation like this, anything less than what you paid for having to take the time off work; probably use the vacation time you've been saving for over the last 12 months; again at least the full amount should be repaid.
And every corporation that provides service in these kinds of manors should HAVE to include in their pathetic Terms and Conditions that staff is provided proper training and if in the event of human error or misjudgment their would be reconciliations and if anything goes wrong that the staff will be able to properly respond to the situation; whatever it may be. I understand their is always a risk for things like this; but if I'm on a cruise line and something happens I don't wanna be the next Titanic; I expect the multi-billion dollar companies staff to be properly able to evacuate ship in a timely, orderly manor.
There you go stereotyping Rhazes. I'm a Democrat, and I fully agree that those that were not injured shouldn't receive more than what they've already been offered.
If the Federal Gov't in the US required US registration on all passenger ships sailing from US Ports things would get better, but then the price would go up and people would complain about that. In essence you pays your money and takes your chances, life is not guaranteed. When you travel on Foreign regestered ships you should realize they are registered in those countries to reduce liability cost.
I don't want to talk about the ship, I want to talk about my failure to comprehend how anyone can miss the sarcasm. I don't understand how people can be so reactionary that they fail to think through even the most blatantly sardonic posts. This is a common problem and it is a reflection of the stupidity out trolling the internet. Sure, GeneralEclectic's post was a poorly thought out, convoluted attempt to preemptively denigrate an opposing viewpoint but the absurdity of his post should have made it obvious to thinking individuals that his intent was to mock those with the nerve to challenge his opinions. I don't see how you could miss it.
They say when the life boat they were in was lowered, it got hung up on the ship.
“Everybody is thrown to the other side. We went crashing against the ship,” Mario Lofaro said. “the lifeboat released and it went into a freefall.”
Obviously the person who made this comment has no idea about what happens when a large ship is badly listing and an attempt is made to lower lifeboats on the high-side of the ship. Yes, there might be a way to mitigate this problem some if lifeboats had some kind of retractable wheeled arrangement that would allow them to in essence drive down the side of a listing ship.
Yes, Carnival, its subsidiary Costa, and its captain made a very poor choice taking the safety of its ship, passengers, and crew into very risky territory trying to perform a very ill-advised salute. Imagine if the driver of an 18-wheeler wiped-out a bus or a bunch of pedestrians trying to get as close as he could to impress his friends on the sidewalk? Yes, I do believe that because of the degree of recklessness involved, that the passengers should be due some compensation over and above the stipulated contract value.
Now, once we have hit the rocks, what is the most-prudent course of action? Do we immediately stop our engines, and work on lowering the lifeboats in deep and choppy cold water at night in the winter, like the captain of the Titanic did, knowing full well that there was no possibility of getting more than 40% of the people aboard onto the lifeboats, even though there was the light of another ship plainly visible off of the starboard bridge wing?
Or do we try to quickly head for port, thereby saving the ship from foundering and dumping its passengers and crew into waters where their survival isn't guaranteed?
Isn't it interesting that if Captain Smith had began to take steps toward the safe evacuation of the ship at the same time that he had continued steaming toward the distant light, that within 45 minutes he could have had the Titanic alongside the California, and most likely everyone aboard would have lived, though the ship would have been lost?
Once a large ship is damaged below the water line, it takes some time to ascertain the breadth of the damage, and then the officers try to ascertain the severity and potential consequences of possible action. There are numerous examples in history of a badly-damaged ship making it to a dock thereby avoiding fatalities.
One of those examples happened here in the US, where in 1936 the large Great Lakes excursion steamer Tashmoo hit a submerged rock late one night in the lower Detroit River and instead of the captain immediately trying to evacuate his 1400 passengers for which he had less than enough lifeboats for, he instead raced for a coal dock on the Canadian side of the river, and everyone aboard made it off safely before the ship sank in only 18 feet of water, instead of sinking completely in the shipping channel.
http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/ships/id149.html
Like the captain of the Tashmoo, the captain of the Concordia had to make a very critical choice, based on incomplete and possibly erroneous information about the ship's condition, and his choice was to try to make it to a dock once the condition of the ship became apparent. Unfortunately, the handling capability of the ship when it was full of water and listing badly, proved to be beyond the captain's ability to make turns in time, and plan B once it became impossible to make the dock, was to beach the ship in shallow water as close as possible to land to better facilitate a night rescue operation.
Would you tell everyone on board that they were in imminent danger right away before the breadth of the damage to the ship was known, thereby quite likely causing a mass panic? That would be like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. The way that I look at it, the captain of the Concordia made a decision under extreme stress that allowed for the rescue of all but 32 of the 4000 people aboard, kept panic to a minimum until the very end, and also allowed for the eventual salvage of his ship too.
Yes, history will fault him for choosing to follow his employer's reckless direction to sail far too close to land, and it will fault him for leaving the ship while there were still passengers aboard awaiting rescue, but, the initial decision that he made to try to dock the ship before it sank quite likely saved many lives and saved a mass panic out to sea where a night rescue would have been much more difficult too.
Remember that United Airlines captain who managed to crash land his damaged DC-10 and save more than half of his passengers after he lost hydraulic power in Sioux City some years ago? He is thought of as a hero even though over 100 people died.
The captain of the Concordia had to make a critical decision, and his decision saved many lives too. Yes, he is probably guilty of reckless manslaughter for the 32 deaths, a fact which will haunt him for the rest of his life, but he did manage to save almost 4000 people too.
Yes, evacuation procedures and safe operating practices aboard cruise ships need to be looked at and improved, so that another accident like this one because of reckless behavior out of the ship's captain or his employer never happen again. Faulting Carnival for operating its ships flagged in other countries ignores that similar practices are employed by many American companies trying to avoid our higher safety, wage, and environmental compliance costs. Even within the US it is quite common for the trucking industry to license its trailers in the lowest-cost State, which for many years was Maine.
If everyone wants to insist that cruise ships serving US ports be forced to comply with US safety regulations perhaps we will also insist that products sold in the US be manufactured in the US, subject to US laws and regulations too, though both proposals would drive-up prices considerably too?
@Old Timer-88224
Yes he did. He got on a lifeboat, and effectively said 'F*CK YOU' to all those passengers still aboard.
Just let Costa pay what's fair. $14K for being scared for your life plus all the other costs (cruise, travel, accommodations, higher-cost last minute travel home) isn't reasonable.
Given the rampant disrespect for their customers, I'd say this incident alone proves you completely wrong.
Re@son@ble in MD
Yes, I do believe that I mentioned your complaint too:
Yes, history will fault him for choosing to follow his employer's reckless direction to sail far too close to land, and it will fault him for leaving the ship while there were still passengers aboard awaiting rescue, but, the initial decision that he made to try to dock the ship before it sank quite likely saved many lives and saved a mass panic out to sea where a night rescue would have been much more difficult too.
Enough said.
Look, I don't want to be unpopular here- but I live in Italy so I have some particular insight into the system...and the liability market...14k IS undoubtedly more than they'd get here looking at bodily injury tables applied in the Courts of Rome and Milan and considering the general litigiousness of the population. Plus, going through courts- they would get that in about 10 years time (with no regard to interest et al- and lawyers fees would be taken out). Does it seem like a low ball number in America? Absolutely- is it pretty on par considering this was a Costa cruise and it would be difficult to tie liability that directly to Carnival to get the jurisdiction changed to the states? Yep. Sad but true.
In other news, theres a travel agency under my apartment that has Costa Concordia cruises for the summer listed for like 250 euro all inclusive if you know how to swim...
Hey, the plantiffs attorneys are eating Dry-Aged, 26 oz.,T-Bones at Smith and Wollensky. Can't be all bad....LOL
just kidding!!!!
KYEngineer: What if 14K doesn't cover all the passengers lost in the accident as well as their expenses and medical costs? Are they wrong to expect full reimbursement for their ticket, fare, lost clothing, jewelry and travel expenses?
Carnival should reimburse them for everything to be fair and equitable since the captain of the ship was negligent and careless. That's how the law works in most countries.
You are so right KYEngineer. No way on a European cruise would 14K cover it. I used to work for Carnival Cruise Lines from 2001 to 2007. When they didn't renew my contract, I found out that they are not required to pay unemployment insurance, even though I am a USC and they are based in the US. They have it down on how to get out of sticky situations, believe me. I have seen it first hand.
I hope those unfortunate passengers and families of passengers get justice.
You've got to be kidding, GE. The purpose of punitive action in a case like this is to provide incentive for companies who are entrusted with the lives and safety of countless people to do so professionally & competently. The negligence and lack of training are stunning. I don't think any of these people would have purchased a ticket on this cruise and risked their lives and those of their family had they known that the people running the ship weren't qualified or trained to do so.
We do have laws against ripping people off, against deception. You usually succeed in doing this when you conceal things from the customer so that they are making an uninformed decision.
This wasn't some "skate at your own risk" kinda deal.
Keen....100% spot on! The very fact that the ship's top officer tried to run off in the middle of this fiasco is simply mind-boggling!
@Generalapologist,
The ticket creats a bailment. A bailment is supposed to benefit both the bailor and the bailee. Most bailments attempt to create a situation that is of benefit to the bailor only. Unfortunately for them this is a very fine line to walk and if any condition of the bailment is breached, such as the safe transit of passengers or cargo under bailment, the entire bailment can be argued to be breached.
You can make all the self-serving agreements in the world but they really have to be on the up and up. The lack of access to the conditions of the bailment alone are good grounds for showing bad faith and abrogating the bailment.
That's the purpose of punitive damages: to make companies change their ways of doing business. Punitive = punishment. Otherwise they'll continue doing the same thing over and over again and their customers continue being harmed.
That was the real reason for the McDonald's coffee lawsuit damages being so high. They'd been warned before to change their packaging and their coffee service and ignored the warnings. It cost them, and so it should have done.
I think people forgot that lives were lost in this tragic incident, and that the survivors should count themselves lucky and be thankful to be alive, not be trying to get as much money possible. Yes there cruise holiday was cut short but they survived be happy with what they are given you and move on, it could have been a lot worse for you.
So by your thinking, the families of those who died should get nothing because, after all, they weren' there.
So, you your logic, passengers should have the option of only paying say $10 for a ticket and the cruise line should be happy to get anything at all?
I want you to picture in your mind for a moment, that you are onboard this ship, it is 1000 feet long (that's ten football fields), calmly going about your business when you feel a sudden shudder. No information is forthcoming. Things appear to be getting more and more confused and still no info from the crew. Then boat starts to roll over, we are talking ten story building rolling over on it's sid. You are inside this huge cavern and it is sinking. You cannot get through doors, still no crew help, and what help they give is erratic and error prone. you can't get off the boat even if you make it outside, because they don't know how to launch the lifeboats in this situation. It is getting dark, and everyone is disoriented. Someone sees the Captain leave the ship but there are a 1000 people left onboard. Ultimately, through the grace of God and a good deal of luck, you make it to shore. If you don't think that is life altering and a dramatic psychological impact, you are insane and naive. It's not about covering your costs, its about compensation for dangerous actions by the Captain and an untrained crew that resulted in near death. Now that, my friend, is worth more compensation that they are offering. This should be extremely painful and long lasting or it will happen again. I don't agree with your naive and uncaring comments. Passengers have a reasonable expectation with the purchase of a ticket (bailment) to a safe and uneventful cruise with competent crew who will take reasonable steps to insure that is the case. That was not the case - I say sue them and make it hurt.
Let me get this straight. You think that a $14,000.00 settlement is fair? First, there is the cost of the fare. Second, there is the cost of the return airfare home on a moments notice. Third, the cost of replacement clothes, jewelry, and personal affects. fourth, the interuption of vacation time lost. Time you cannot replace.
Now lets talk about the loss of human life. $75,000 is a joke! If this had been a mechanical malfunction thats one thing, stupidty is another!
Gino............don't skip math class again.....Math Police on the Alert
You get an F for today.....1000 feet is NOT 10 football fields unless you have some strange football in mind;
FYI a field is 100 YARDS not 100 feet
Perhaps the "Par 3" version of football...
OBXRon--well, if you want to be nasty--football fields are not 100 yards long. They are 120 yards long (inclusive of the endzones); the goal lines are 100 yards apart. By my math, 120 yards is 360 feet. The Costa Concordia was about 952 feet--so, this would be approximately 3 football fields total.
And, don't get me started on your use of punctuation.
While it is the case that the ship was not 10 football fields long, it is also the case that a field is not 100 yards long. If you are going to scathingly correct people, it is best to be a tiny bit more precise in your own calculations.
These are people who weren't even hurt or lost their life. Why do they think their entitled to anything more. They took a pricey cruise and I don't feel sorry for them at all.
and Da doo doo
So you're okay having your life negligently endangered when you make a contract with a professional?
First of all they didn't actually get the cruise that they paid for, secondly they lost belongings, third the ship broke their contract by operating unsafely, fourth they were actually endangered, fifth it is a matter of principle -- a huge corporation shouldn't be able to pay off negligence with chump change.
This wasn't a case of an accident, it was negligence at multiple levels. Even after the initial negligent grounding there was no need for anyone to die or even suffer any trauma. An orderly, professional evacuation was quite possible.
Let me get this straight. You think that a $14,000.00 settlement is fair? First, there is the cost of the fare. Second, there is the cost of the return airfare home on a moments notice. Third, the cost of replacement clothes, jewelry, and personal affects. fourth, the interuption of vacation time lost. Time you cannot replace.
Now lets talk about the loss of human life. $75,000 is a joke! If this had been a mechanical malfunction thats one thing, stupidty is another!
And so when you have a contractor come to your home for a kitchen remodelling that you are splurging on, and he does something to cave in your house (and nearly kills you), you will be happy to be alive and not prosecute the crap out of him for damages in addition to the repairs required? They are entitled to compensation for the losses in real money, and the near death that resulted from negligence on the part of the crew. This is not an act of God, it was an overt act that endangered people and put them through hell. I suspect you have never been in a car accident or house fire or anything that darn near killed you or you'd understand this kind of thing alters your life. Get a grip and grow up. You sound envious and that you are happy these folks who took a "pricey" cruise were unable to enjoy it. Sad for you -
So - people who are on vacation and something goes wrong should be compensated for how much???? Why not 14500 each - this couple would get $30000 and could take another vacation, but greed took over and they want how much? What is fair? Fair vs greed.
gino,
You would get compensated for the damages to your house AND THAT'S IT!!! You don't get extra money because you were scared.
If someone crosses the double yellow line in a car and comes right at me....then recovers and swerves to avoid me at the last moment....can I sue him because I was scared for my life????
If someone's viscous dog escapes their yard and growls at me....then runs away...can I sue because I was scared????
This litigous society we live in is pathetic. Only people injured or killed should be entitled to additional compensation.
Westbury,
I disagree because that's not what happened.
Say you get in a cab. The driver has been drinking. He decides to swerve over to say hi to a friend and wrecks the cab with you in it. As the driver walks away, you find yourself trapped. You can't escape because one door is jammed and the other is pinned shut underneath you. Oh, and the cab catches fire.
Rescue crews get you out of the cab and it turns out you are physically ok without a scratch or a bruise. Cab company offers you your fare back and a little extra to cover your expenses.
So you would be cool with that?? Not me.
I would be grateful that I'm alive and look to criminally prosecute the driver for drunk driving. What exactly should I get "extra" for???
PS - There is no evidence that the people in this article had that type of experience. Many of the people simply stepped onto life boats and went to shore.
Some people are pointing out that many of the passengers were not hurt and so what is the problem. Let's try a different situation. A person is in their house and two people break-in and start threatening them with guns, repeatedly threatening to kill them, and then take some of their valuables. In the process they do not actually hurt anybody they simply give them a good scare. How many people here argue that in such a situation once the people who broke in are made to repay the cost of the things they took that should be the end of it. After all no one was hurt.
Andy,
Depends on how much extra. In this case it seems that it would be several thousand dollars extra. Yes, I would be cool with that.
Russell,
After they get out of prison, they should pay for restitution. The extra they pay would be jail time.
Life boats weren't lowered til the ten story building was on it's side, I doubt they just simply stepped onto the lifeboat lmfao at your statement.
Westbury,
You, my "friend" are so far removed from reality that trying to have a logical discussion with you would be like trying to swim UP Niagra Falls (with your hands tied behind your back). If you almost lost your life, if jewelry that had been in the family for generations or of sentimental value, if clothing and other possessions had been lost, if a vacation was ruined, you think the passengers should receive nothing because they weren't physically injured?
Get a grip on yourself...you are either losing it or trolling.
You're delusional. Or a sock puppet. Every one of those people didn't know if they were going to live to see the next day. The person in the article stated when the boat released from the side of the ship "that they thought they were going to die".
The cruise line was profiting from the lack of supervision and incompetence of it's management and employees. They endangered their customers and put their lives in peril. The cruise line must be made to pay the price for their incompetence and actions. Otherwise, they will continue on the same path with potentially the same results.
Logic,
What a stupid response. I agree they should get compensated for their lost items, but that's it. They're looking for a big payday because they "could have" died.
National Geographic aired a great documentary about the accident. If anyone doubts what some of these people went through I urge you to watch it. I personally had no idea how bad it got for some until I watched the program.
Case in point, as the life boat deck was slipping under water, people had to jump at the last minute and swim to shore before they became trapped (and most likely drown). Other people had to hike up through the interior of the ship (while the ship was on its side), climb a rope ladder and then climb down the side of the ship into life rafts - in the middle of the night!
There is no question in my mind the people who went through this have every right to sue.
Regarding the lifeboats. As the Concordia started rolling on it's side the angle became to steep for lifeboats to be lowered. On the other side the lifeboat deck ended up underwater. There were still plenty of people on board when it became impossible to get to a lifeboat.
Correction, it was the Discovery Channel and the entire video is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKIYCCWyqck
Reply to Russel Williams what planet did you fall from, first off "two people broke in to their home" That means they defiled the sanctity of their save haven which is what " your home" is suppose to be now how can you put a price tag on safety and security? You can't. Now threatening someone with bodily harm is not a joking matter and can cause some with a weak heart a heart attack. I would say the robbers are just lucky nothing happened. I also think the robbers should pay dearly for violating the sanctity of anothers home. Come down to earth you can not compare apples to oranges
GeneralEclectic - Half the cruise was not completed. The ship sank within hours of people boarding the ship for a 7 day cruise. Refunding them their entire cost is a no-brainer!
You realize that GeneralEclectic was joking right? It's called "trolling" -- where someone makes outrageous statements on a forum in order to provoke reactions like yours ...
I don't see the joke in it but agree GE likes to provoke folks. The real questions is why. What could you possibly get from it? Do you like sleep better at nights knowing your a jerk? Do you pump your fist into the air knowing you bent a bunch of folks off? I would call it inane. To each his own I guess.
Alan--Two answers: first, there are people who are paid by the post to create comments on a thread like this one. The number of posters to a given thread are factored into the "viewership" rate for a given site, and this affects how much money the site can charge people to advertise on that site.
A person who posts trolling comments gets others to respond, and perhaps respond frequently--thus generating more money for the company which runs the site.
Second answer: yes, there are people who sit around and challenge one another to get the highest number of responses or greatest number of seriously angry responses to their posting. Some of them just work by themselves and get a kick out of getting people to respond to them.
It's a bit like the children who run around with cameras making video of their friends as the friends run up and slap people and then run away--and then they post the videos on YouTube. This is how the grandmother who was serving as a monitor on a bus got her 15 minutes of fame--some children decided to bait her to the point that she cried, post it on YouTube, and then laugh at her reaction. That's not what they got--what they got was suspended--but their goal was simply to get attention.
Back in the day, pre-teens and teens used to ring people's doorbells and run away or call them on the phone and do prank calls. It's the same intent.
So--most trolls are either being paid by the post (and the number of responses they get), or they are children (or people with child-like mentalities) who sit in their parent's basement and enjoy provoking people. The saying is "don't feed the troll"--but, you know, it's really hard not to.
The only thing that stops the idiots who run up and slap people is for someone to pull out a gun and shoot one or more--which has happened, by the by. An Internet troll only gets hammered when s/he goes too far and says something that gets the FBI or Homeland Security to come to the door and haul them off. Otherwise, the anonymity protects them.
MSN won't do much because trolls make them money--so, there you go.
POS Attorney John Arthur Eaves, Jr.
Yeah I am helping the family.
DO WHAT??? Make more money for yourself. Low life.
Oh my God...what a tragic accident...and I didn't die!!! I certainly deserve a lot of money for surviving!!! They didn't wreck on on purpose to try and kill you.
since when does "on purpose" have to do w/anything. Oh so u robbed a store on accident, dear sir. Please take your stolen goods and leave; we are sorry.
they didn't help keep the people alive either from the sounds of it. the captain certainly didn't since he LEFT THE BOAT and had to be forced to go back.
So you're driving your car and sending a text message at the same time. You run over and kill a pedestrian.
It's just a tragic accident because you didn't intend to kill anyone. So you're not responsible.
Actually they pretty much DID wreck it "on purpose". Basically a long series of negligent, purposeful actions caused the tragedy. Every step was avoidable. They purposefully were off course, the captain purposefully didn't inform the crew, they purposefully didn't train the crew well enough for evac procedures, the captain purposefully abandoned his lawful duty. Even after the initial collision there was no reason for anyone to die -- except for the continued negligence.
severed,
If the person texting swerves and doesn't hit the pedestrian..can the pedestrian sue anyway because they were "scared"?? That's what this couple is doing. They survived. Take your settlement and go home.
Whynot, it's fairly obvious that you understand neither the meaning of a contract when a ticket is purchased between two parties or that of negligence. When you grow up and go to college you may learn these things or not. Either way, you're clearly out of your depth with this discussion.
If you go to the cruise lines web site the cruise contract is posted there. How hard is that to find?
I think Concordia should pay survivors 1 million each and for the death of a loved one 5 million. That seems fair.
That's not fair. They should take the cost of the cruise and incidentals. I read my cruise contract before I paid and went.
@Been There
The cruise contract is only valid if they hold up their end of the contract. In the case of negligence, contracts are void. For example, if you sign a waiver at a hospital about risks of a procedure, you can still sue if the surgeon operates on you while drunk. Just by driving off safe course (an expectation of a cruise contract is that the ship will be operated according to maritime safety rules) voided the contract.
But why do they expect more? How much more? Attorney get 30% + expenses and he has 100 plaintiffs. Who is the most greedy?
BeenThere..... the big corporation is being victimized? The cost to a colossal corporation for colossal failure and loss of life is not incidental. Their colossal failure is in not protecting their colossally deep pockets by adequately training their personnel to provide the level of professionalism that made them so colossal in the first place. Concordia and Carnival deserve every bit of liability they have opened themselves to with this fiasco.... a perfect storm of their own making.
BeenThere, I congratulate you on your safe return. Others had a very different experience which you seem unable or unwilling to accept.
So now it's all about money, which wins little sympathy from me. Yes, it was a harrowing experience, but you made it out safely. Take your $14,500, which comfortably exceeds your expenses, and be thankful you were one of the lucky ones.
And what should the families of the unlucky ones get?
Severed Head, that's not the point. The people this article focused on, are people who survived and they come across as money-hungry. I have little sympathy for them either. At no point did Ted say people who were injured or the families of those who died shouldn't sue Carnival.
Horse Crap! He said it's all about money. Read the damn article - these people are trying to make Carnival make changes to prevent it from happening again. The only thing that motivates these cruise lines is money, so they are hitting them were they will get a response. Let the courts hammer it out. I am in favor of awarding actual and punitive damages that far exceed the "contract" limit on the ticket because Carnival breached that contract with repeated negligent acts. End of story - that must've been a harrowing experience indeed and I empathize with the passengers.
They wan't to prevent it from happenning again? Once they get their money let's see how involved they are in efforts to reform the cruise industry. They are hoping to sue and get dopes like you on the jury.
$15,000 to step into a life boat ???? Why are they complaining ?????
Sick Greedy people.
cause thepeople running the life boats didn't know how to and almost got at least a few people killed when lowering them. i guess you didn't read the part about the life boat free falling to the water with people in it?
You'd take $15k to have someone take pot shots at you with a gun? Basically this is what happened -- they were endangered at many levels: the original crash, the delay in evacuation, then the improper evacuation. I think people are being dismissive about this due to a cruise being a luxury item. But imagine if you were on a plane that crashed and found out that the company and/or pilots consciously endangered you. It doesn't matter that you made it alive, punitive damages are warranted.
People are being dismissive because it's someone else's problem as well. It's real easy to pass judgement on others. Most of the people here would want Carnival out of business and mental anguish compensation for the rest of their lives had they broken a finger in this incident themselves.
But yes you're right about your reason. It's the same as how anyone who makes more money than the average or is a celebrity should simply remember that fact while they are treated horribly by their employers (like Ann Curry was), chased mercilessly by cameramen or having them rifling through their garbage cans and looking through their bathroom and bedroom windows, etc. No expectations of human decency and respect allowed. It's absurd.
...or that many of the survivors had to swim to shore because lifeboats couldn't be launched. Amazing how many people shoot off their keyboards without reading the articles, isn't it?
You pay the price of the cruise expecting a certain level of safety and security. You are paying for a good time and memories. The money offered is an insult. The cruisers all expected safety and I imagine this was absolutely the most fearful time in most of their lives. The captain jumped ship after being distracted and not watching that the ship he captained continuing safely through the passage. The CEO of Carnival is not being smart to insult so many people and continuing the Concordia in the headlines with the way his corporation is minimizing the accident, deaths, injuries and fears of a ship full of human beings. How would CEO Micky Arison like it if his mother, wife, child, grandchild, sibling were on the Concorida at the time it sank and someone he loved died as a result of negligence?
I would think it would be a great story to tell the kids. Why should they get millions of dollars? Your in a boat on the sea, from the looks of it they could have swam to shore. What a bunch of money grabbing people these are.
Well, absolving Carnival of any financial liability probably isn't going to encourage them to re-examine their safety practices.
"Been There" - you aint' been in a boat like this and had it sink around you. It's like trying to escape a 10 story building that is leaning over 45 degrees, and in water to boot. You're terribly naive. Go do some volunteer work with victims of disasters that are otherwise okay physically and take a first hand look at the result. To realize this all was avoidable except for the negligence of the crew is what makes the lawsuits even more palatable in my mind.
PTSD's real, and many of the survivors will doubtless have issues for years. Carnival should pay their medical bills.
Tragic accident. The company is liable for lack of training/preparation in the event of a catastrophe such as this one. Clearly a lawsuit against this corporation is warranted for the shear fact so many lives were in danger. I'm not saying people should just sue for suing, but this case is so different. 32 lives were lost and the number could have been much greater. There is a price to pay for that. I hope all these dirtbag lawyers representing the families of victims and survivors gauge this company for as much as possible. Then maybe next time they'll be better prepared for an accident for fear if they're not, it'll cost them much more.
General Electric is an idiot
Except that he was joking ... a point that seems to have bypassed you.
How do you know he was joking? he hasn't said so - I think you're naive. Sarcasm has it's foundation in real feelings.
The people in this story were not hurt, are being offered the cost of their entire ticket, cost of their "stuff", and an extra amount. They were not hurt. They did not die. They just want more money.
If they tryly wanted to punish the cruise line, they would make an ironclad, non-reversable agreement to give anything they get, beyond actual out of pocket expenses and depreciated value of their "stuff" to some worthy cause, say a victim's fund or cancer research. Anything else just shouts greed and greed and more greed.
They may not have been physically hurt but they were probably all mentally and emotionally injured. If a person hasn't been in the same, or similar, type of situation, that person wouldn't know what it was truly like. Continuous nightmares, new fears appear, lack of trust can develop, etc. They went on the cruise with a certain amount of trust for security and wellbeing but didn't get it. That plus the way the employees handled things...well, I believe they need more than just the price of their tickets and "stuff".
I generally hate lawyers and suits (both kinds of suits), but in this case, the passengers need to clean Carnival's clock. Reckless operation, dereliction of duty, totally criminal negligence, abandoning his post/cowardice in command - they all should take this company on, and if they do in Italy, I can't believe they would not all come out of it millionaires. Unless of course, Carnival gets in with the judge and jury (surely nothing like that could happen in Italy).
Its simple, don't want to pay correctly Carnival, then you can't dock in the US. How quick would that settle the issue
take the money and go - by the time the liars-oops meant lawyers get through the plaintiffs will get pennies on the dollar
Just stop to imagine for a moment what kind of a fiasco and tragedy this would have been if the water had been just a bit deeper and the ship had fully submerged.
Some may argue the Ships Captain was heroic for grounding the ship in shallow water.
I see that act as the only sensible thing he did and even then, we cannot be certain that he ordered it done. He remains the biggest coward of modern times.
I believe these Cruise Ship lines have way, way too much autonomy and basically play an international "shell game" to avoid ever being responsible for errors committed.
There should exist some international law and Justice system that governs all of these Cruise ship lines.
Your "international law" suggestion is the most thoughtful, productive one here.
As it turns out the Captain had nothing to do with the grounding of the ship. It was pushed toward shore by the wind - it would have gone down in deeper water.
Discovery Channel documentary...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKIYCCWyqck
Costa is primarily a cargo carrier. In ocean transportation, there's a concept called "General Average" - in a clause on each and every ocean bill of lading. It's existed since the 1600s/1700s, when pirates were on all the high seas.
The law of General Average states that cargo owners who have freight on a vessel are responsible for anything that happens to the ship. Cargo loss, container loss, ship damage, whether due to a storm or an unintentional beaching, it's the cargo owners who have to pay for the vessel.
Costa, heads up their butts as usual, are trying to get away with criminally negligent homicide using this philosophy.
Passengers, hold out for as much as you can get. Costa's more than happy to screw you if you give 'em the chance.
I don't think that the survivors should get a million dollars each but $14k for what they went through is insulting. Some of them will have physical, mental or emotional issues for years to come.
But NO ONE on that ship should have died. As soon as the reef was struck, for safety's sake everyone should have been evacuated until it was determined to be safe for them to be on the ship. Which of course, they weren't. The captain jumped ship as soon as he could and WOULD not go back even when ordered to. He is definitely guilty of these peoples death and the cruise line is guilty of not training their crews properly.
The comments are mind boggling. The PTS (post traumatic stress) alone would warrant more than 14K per person. There was a lack of management, a lack of authority, a stupid crew. This is one time where I believe all these people should get a considerable settlement. Especially those whose loved ones were dead on that ship for weeks.
I don't see a problem with a quick settlement. They should be glad to receive the money and move on with their lives. i am sorry lives were lost but the world continues to go around. move on people....it's over and all has been forgotten - it was an accident - the captain will be punished. what do they want? the first born? this is not important to the world, just the survivors..
It wasn't an "accident".....it was a planned deviation off the prescribed course, undertaken by the captain of the ship without the permission of the employer (Costa Cruise Lines/Carnival Cruise Lines) so that a crew member could wave to family living there! Not only did these "survivors" have their vacation disrupted, lost all of the personal belongings (clothes, medication, money, cameras, jewelry, etc.) they all went thru an experience they will never forget (and not in a good way). They were scared and scarred. Then when they finally got on land, they had no money or passports and from the news accounts I read it didn't appear anyone from the Cruise lines was doing anything to help them Thankfully the locals opened their homes and churches to house and feed these people. They then had to obtain replacement documents to travel and purchase last minute/expensive plane tickets to return home. They went thru HELL instead of having a pleasant vacation. They deserve more than just to be compensated for the price of the cruise and their "stuff" as others have stated!
And Costa Cruises/Carnival should be hung out to dry for not having life boat drills sooner. Some of those vacationers had been on that ship for 3 or 4 days before this happened. I have only been on one cruise in my lifetime. And our life boat drill was conducted within hours of casting off at the port.
The couple says, in this article, that they want to change something.
Then if it's not about the money, but to "change" something and make it better for future cruise passengers, then...
Every dime they get goes to a charity--not to them.
Bet that doesn't happen--it's all about greed, greed, greed.
Good luck--Italian courts are not American courts--they'll be lucky if they make it out with the original $29,000 and of course most of that will go to the lawyers.
You assume risk everytime you get behind the wheel of a car, hop on a train, get on an airplane, go out on the lake to fish, etc. These are all conscious choices, you don't have to do them, you don't have to assume the risk.
Sometimes I hate this country and people's ability to sue over everything, people spend so much time pointing the finger at someone else I'm surprised it's not permanently stuck there.
wrong wrong wrong. Your assumptions are inane. No one onboard that boat assumed risk that was brought about by negligence of the crew and it's captain, you dolt!!! The bought a ticket and had reasonable expectation, according to the law, that the craft was sound, the crew competent, and the cruise would be uneventful and as safe as the crew could effect. In your line of reasoning, you buy a new car, and if the wheels fall off on the highway, you crash into a barrier and are injured, killed or scared to death, it's not the fault of the car manufacturer or dealer. You assumed the risk when you bought the car - right??? Terribly nearsighted and uninformed on what is real, legal and right in these situations. Study up on bailments and contracts and then make a comment. You are way off base.
This is a case of criminal negligence that killed over 30 people. Had it been an accident - freak wave, hurricane, lightning strike, pirates - I would expect that people wouldn't be so upset about it.
In this case, not only did the captain sail the ship into a rock, he failed to abandon ship in a timely fashion, and ran away as fast as he could - and it sounds like he had the company's blessing to sail that course.
The huge lawsuit is to teach everyone a lesson about safety - apparently laws and regulations didn't work.
I think you're right - most families still won't see much more money than they were offered, but it's a case of punishing the cruise ship company for allowing an accident that was so preventable to happen in the first place.
''Had it been an accident - freak wave, hurricane, lightning strike, pirates - I would expect that people wouldn't be so upset about it.''
Your right but at the same time these freak accident's you mention. That in a sense the companies try to dismiss liability for, before hand, with a ticket purchase disclaimer. Should be allowed individual investigation by incident dispite any so called agreement to limited liability by purchase.
Because while no one can control a wave or other act's of nature or even pirate's. Should the crew dismiss warning's or not know how to respond to avoid danger. Then any loss is greatly increased by human error or company failure to provide the proper safety measure's or trained people.
Anytime they do not take the appropriate measure's to insure the safety that is expected upon purchase of a ticket. Should and must be open to investigation of liability to insure the highest level of safety. Or as it stand's disclaimer's by purchase of a ticket can foster reckless and carefree behavior. If no one will be held accountable for their part in the responsabilities of customer care, satisfaction and above all else safety.