This is exactly the sort of attitude that breeds these frivolous lawsuits ....who no longer take responsibility for themselves and their actions.Yes this bloated statement requires no treatment. The Cruise Line Company will not be utilizing any of that claptrap in their defense. You know why? Because it's irrelevant! The Archie Bunker Maxim doesn't hold up in court. Ultimately the Cruiseline is responsible for people it takes on board it's ships. That's why they'll settle handsomely with the girl. Find a better platform to rant about personal responsibility. This cruise ship example ain't it.
Some of these ships hold in excess of 3,500 passengers. Are you saying there need to be crew members walking around doing breathalyzer testing on each and every passenger and then then escorting them to a holding area to keep them under supervised detention for 8-10 hours until they sober up? To meet your goal that is exactly what they would have to do. Its ridiculous to expect a bartender to be able to tell who is dangerously intoxicated in a noisy cub full of people who are drinking. Enacting a program like the one I described above would be impractical, expensive, and inconvenient to the vast majority of passengers who are not doing stupid irresponsible things and who would be forced to endure the inconvenience and cost of doing this.All 3500 passenger are drinking? At the same time? I already said, there are plenty of legal grounds on the books(!) pertaining to bartenders responsibilities aboout over dispensation. It's a profession. That's part of their training and skills. Perhaps the cruiseline is hiring unqualified, miscreants? Quit over blowing the scenario Macgeyver. Everyday, all around the world, in the busiest bars and clubs bartenders cut people off! If the witnesses are able to show that this one bartender kept feeding the poor girl drinks.... :lol: Even that won't matter. Even it was 3 bartenders, the result will be the same. I told you. Cruiselines need to get the act together. A ship is a dangerous place. You can't let people just wander around all tuned-up. That's the ship's responsibility. 100%. Just like everywhere else! Bars and clubs get sued. Restaurants get sued. Sports arenas get sued, Caterers get sued. When you hold a liquor license, or dispense liquor, you have a great responsibility. That's why people don't need licenses to drink. Bars need licenses to dispense alcohol.
They are blaming the cruise ship company for two reasons only. She is embarrassed. It feels good to put the blame on someone other than yourself and not have to take responsibility for your own stupidity, and the cruise ship company has deep pockets which means there is a big potential payday.This is always the central theme in your arguments. You know "the insides" of people's reasonings. With your superior emotion, you are able to disclose the motives behind other people's emotions. It's amazing.
They are blaming the cruise ship company for two reasons only. She is embarrassed. It feels good to put the blame on someone other than yourself and not have to take responsibility for your own stupidity, and the cruise ship company has deep pockets which means there is a big potential payday.This is always the central theme in your arguments. You know "the insides" of people's reasonings. With your superior emotion, you are able to disclose the motives behind other people's emotions. It's amazing. Vyazma your responses are equally predictable. You want to blame big business for all the ills of the world and can place no blame at all on the individual when they screw up. Its not hard to figure out the motivation when you see these suits in the news day after day. In medicine we see this frequently. I have heard stories from dozens of patients over the years who want to sue a doctor in cases where i know all the details. In many cases the person got exemplary care but the patient ended up with a poor outcome. Despite the fact that everything was done right the family still sues. What could the motivation possibly be if everything was done perfectly? Its human nature to look for someone else to blame when life doesn't go well. How many people kick the chair and curse it when they stub their toe on the chair leg. It feels better to blame something else for your pain even if its an inanimate object. This is just a more public example of the same thing. And money is always a big part of the issue. if money isn't an issue then explain to me why this woman isn't suing her friends who stood by her side and helped her drink. You are absolutely correct that there is case law supporting the idea that servers can be held liable if people drink to excess and then get in an accident. Just because a judge has decided that this is the case doesn't make it right. Judges are lawyers and they have all bought into this idea of not putting the blame on the victim. Someone always has to be blamed and it's never the victim or mother nature because there is no money to be made there. Yes the cruise line will settle but not because the woman has a case. Settlements are rarely reached because the plaintiff thinks they did something wrong. Settlements occur either because defending a case would be too expensive or because the defendants lawyers are worried about jurors like you. Going to court is a total crap shoot. Cases are rarely decided based on merits. They are decided on factors that have more to do with sympathy. Jurors tend to be more sympathetic o the plaintiff because they can relate to the plaintiff. They have far less in common with a cruise company and may in fact have prejudices like your towards big corporations or may decide the case based on other unrelated incidence even though legally they are not allowed to. Juries are made up of average people and lots of average people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions so they decide a case according to the Vyazma code of ethics.. Its the big bad cruise line thats at fault not the poor girl who too weak minded to stop herself from drinking. The really tragedy of our society going down this path is that the cruise line wont even be paying for this. You and I will pay for these stupid cases. We will pay for it the same way we pay for all these lawsuits through higher cruise line fares, higher airline fares, play grounds that don't get built because the insurance is too expensive, Higher homeowners insurance rates, higher prices on nearly every product we buy, and higher taxes as a result of suits against the government.
Vyazma your responses are equally predictable. You want to blame big business for all the ills of the world and can place no blame at all on the individual when they screw up. Its not hard to figure out the motivation when you see these suits in the news day after day.No, I look at the cases one by one. I don't apply a blanket reasoning over this. I've seen cases of frivolity. This one doesn't appear to be one. We don't know any or all of the facts. We're shooting from the hip. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt using reason and past practices. You are crucifying the girl before you even know what happened.
This is just a more public example of the same thing. And money is always a big part of the issue. if money isn't an issue then explain to me why this woman isn't suing her friends who stood by her side and helped her drink.This is what you have...? Really? I suppose you could try that out in court. "Hey Your Honor, they're only suing us for money! If the girl didn't want money then our transgressions towards her wouldn't matter!" Are you capable of arguing fairly Mac? Seriously? Do you see the error of logic behind your statement here? And this without even going into the fact that the Cruise Ship Line is probably at fault! By all legal standards! I skipped the medical mal-practice stuff you stated. That's another ball of wax. Hey, if a court can show that the doctor wasn't negligent then he shouldn't be held responsible. It's not difficult. If the person has a bad outcome..oh well. As long as the court can't show negligence or malice or law breaking etc...
You are absolutely correct that there is case law supporting the idea that servers can be held liable if people drink to excess and then get in an accident. Just because a judge has decided that this is the case doesn't make it right. Judges are lawyers and they have all bought into this idea of not putting the blame on the victim. Someone always has to be blamed and it's never the victim or mother nature because there is no money to be made there.:lol: There's so much here. I'll just take the "victim" and "Mother nature" bits. Obviously a "victim" would never be at fault! Hence the word....victim! "Mother Nature" is used millions of times in incident investigations. It's often referred to as "an act of god" in legalese. That's why there are investigations and courts. It's an excellent system for determining cause and liability.
Yes the cruise line will settle but not because the woman has a case.Right! They just give money away.
Settlements are rarely reached because the plaintiff thinks they did something wrong.This seems like a wild, unfounded position...
Settlements occur either because defending a case would be too expensive or because the defendants lawyers are worried about jurors like you. Going to court is a total crap shoot. Cases are rarely decided based on merits. They are decided on factors that have more to do with sympathy. Jurors tend to be more sympathetic to the plaintiff because they can relate to the plaintiff.Jury selection is a legal process that involves the input of both sides. As far as sympathy...yeah, that's the whole idea of juries. What else would it be? A jury sympathizes with one side or the other based on facts and evidence shown in a court of law.
They have far less in common with a cruise company and may in fact have prejudices like your towards big corporations or may decide the case based on other unrelated incidence even though legally they are not allowed to. Juries are made up of average people and lots of average people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions so they decide a case according to the Vyazma code of ethics.. Its the big bad cruise line thats at fault not the poor girl who too weak minded to stop herself from drinking.Sounds like you're a little biased here. Perhaps because you are in an industry that has legal scrutiny too. In any case your argument is blatantly conspiratorial and ridiculous. It's a system Mac. It works just fine.
The really tragedy of our society going down this path is that the cruise line wont even be paying for this. You and I will pay for these stupid cases. We will pay for it the same way we pay for all these lawsuits through higher cruise line fares, higher airline fares, play grounds that don't get built because the insurance is too expensive, Higher homeowners insurance rates, higher prices on nearly every product we buy, and higher taxes as a result of suits against the government.Ehhhn, not really. The Cruise Ship has to stay competitive. The best way to do that would be having high standards of operating procedures. I repeat..High Standards of Operating Procedures. Any corporate executive would agree with that 100%! That is without a doubt the number one way a company survives and thrives. Running giant ships around the ocean on a some sort of an alcoholic booze cruise is not "High Standards of Operating procedures" It leads to events like the one we are discussing here. That's the bottom line.
Vyazma your naivete is a real weakness here. You obviously believe the standard line about how the civil courts work. As a physician who is married to an Ob/gyn we have a combined 50 years experience dealing with the the tort system. I also have reviewed both medical cases and non medical cases for a member of the family who is a negligence attorney. The system does not work the way it should. It relies far too much on people who are more than willing to give away huge amounts of money to plaintiffs who have a sad story even when no negligence has occurred. Its a messed up system that is a total roll of the dice. I could give you details of cases that were an absolute travesty of justice. They are common enough that insurers and lawyers put a lot of pressure on their clients to settle a case if there is even a remote chance that the rationale is not clear enough for a 10 year old to understand because if the jury can’t understand it and there is an injured party they will decide in favor of the plaintiff. Its a sympathy vote pure and simple. Juror bring all the same prejudices to the court room that the rest of us have and there is a general prejudice against big business out there.
You are also being naive to believe these costs are not passed on to all of us. If only carnival cruise lines had to pay the cost then they might have to eat it but thats not how it works. When carnival gets sued the insurance rates for all the cruise lines goes up so they all just pass it on. It may not be dollar for dollar but you can be sure it shows up in the cost of everything you purchase and every tax dollar you pay. This is not my theory this is an economic fact.
I’ve made my points. I don’t agree with yours.
I’m sorry you don’t like the system.
You should have named this thread-“Another example of someone blaming others for their own stupid opinions”.
My opinions on law and ethics will most likely be borne out in this incident.
I’m sorry you feel that’s a conspiracy.
But you’re in good company. You’ve got Tabloid Salivators and a guy who want’s to blackball the girl as an alcoholic.(as if that would even matter!)
P.S. Your posts are too long. I don’t read through them. You bloviate too much.
If I got drunk and did something stupid and dangerous, that’s my fault, plain and simple. Blaming someone else is just an attempt to duck responsibility for your own actions and choices which you are expected to be accountable for as an adult.
From you, yes.....no consideration is necessary. People who know what they are talking about can consider it.Authorities should be very suspicious of her claims that the bartender was “pushing drinks" on her, that’s usually an indication the person is an alcoholic. Those are your words! You obviously know what you're talking about. You're bright. So tell me genius, where did you come up with this information? Are people who hiccup alot alcoholics too? Like in the cartoons?The definition of Alcoholism and the behavior of alcoholics (which includes loss of self control) are well documented. The person claiming that they were forced to drink to dangerous levels is basically pinning the label "Alcoholic" on themselves.
A ship's Captain should never let crew members or passengers wander around willy-nilly, drunk off their asses. There's way too many dangerous conditions.That's why the passengers are there in the first place. They can do whatever the f*** they want. Ohhh. I didn't know that. Passengers do whatever the heck they want on cruises. So they can assault other passengers if they want? Can they steal food from the galley? Can they throw other passengers possessions overboard? Can they try to sabotage the ships engine room? Go ahead MidAtlantic....answer these. Can you answer these questions like an adult? Like a cogent adult?They can try, and many will. Reckless behavior is inevitable on cruises simply because the people who go on cruises want that type of experience. The ship has to tolerate some crazy behavior, or people won't pay in the future if they think it will be boring.
Ehhhn, not really. The Cruise Ship has to stay competitive. The best way to do that would be having high standards of operating procedures. I repeat..High Standards of Operating Procedures. Any corporate executive would agree with that 100%! That is without a doubt the number one way a company survives and thrives. Running giant ships around the ocean on a some sort of an alcoholic booze cruise is not "High Standards of Operating procedures" It leads to events like the one we are discussing here. That's the bottom line.The standards are high enough for the most part. And the people buying the tickets don't care much about that anyway, they care more about fun then safety.
Even if the bartender was offering her free drinks.. shes an adult. No one opened her mouth and poured the drinks down her throat. She willingly went to the bar with her friends and of her own free will picked up the glass and drank.If she was enticed to drink then the person who did the enticing is partly responsible. This is important otherwise it lets people off the hook for encouraging dangerous or harmful behaviour. In using the term free will I suspect you are using the term to mean contra causal free will. Well no she didn't have that and it's important to recognise that. The issue is really over how easy it was to fall over the railings after a few drinks. If it was too easy then she shouldn't have been enticed to have the drinks because of the danger, but I doubt that it was.
Even if the bartender was offering her free drinks.. shes an adult. No one opened her mouth and poured the drinks down her throat. She willingly went to the bar with her friends and of her own free will picked up the glass and drank.If she was enticed to drink then the person who did the enticing is partly responsible. This is important otherwise it lets people off the hook for encouraging dangerous or harmful behaviour. In using the term free will I suspect you are using the term to mean contra causal free will. Well no she didn't have that and it's important to recognise that. The issue is really over how easy it was to fall over the railings after a few drinks. If it was too easy then she shouldn't have been enticed to have the drinks because of the danger, but I doubt that it was. I completely disagree. Blaming the bartender lets the drinker off the hook for her dangerous and irresponsible behavior. There are very few actions that we take that aren't influenced by some outside force. Using contra causal free will as the defining measure for personal responsibility would mean that none of us are ever responsible for anything we do. The man who recently shot the young father in a movie theater is innocent because he was enticed into shooting the man when popcorn was thrown in his face, Every smoker who ever smoked could blame the movies that portray smoking in a positive light for the cancer and emphysema they develop. Soldiers who are killed or inured in war can blame the recruiter who enticed them to join the service. No one held that girl down and forced her to drink. She was not 10 years old. She was a grown adult. If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.
No one held that girl down and forced her to drink. She was not 10 years old. She was a grown adult. If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.I'm always amazed at your levels of reason and logic MacGeyver. It's what makes me doubt you're a doctor. Alcohol is a substance that impairs judgement and is dispensed by licensed people who have to use judgement-by law(!) in dispensing it. Whether it's being dispensed in a 7-11 or at a bar by a bartender. I already raised this point. Are you that dense that you forgot that part already? Because it's highly relevant. Where you lose any modicum of credibility is the last part of your statement... "If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink." Wow. That's mature reasoning. You're on the ball with that one.
I completely disagree. Blaming the bartender lets the drinker off the hook for her dangerous and irresponsible behavior.If you encourage someone to do something and they do it, you share some responsibility.
There are very few actions that we take that aren't influenced by some outside force. Using contra causal free will as the defining measure for personal responsibility would mean that none of us are ever responsible for anything we do.Right and if you don't use that definition you get the result I suggest.
The man who recently shot the young father in a movie theater is innocent because he was enticed into shooting the man when popcorn was thrown in his face,That just doesn't follow. The bartender, or the company were deliberately trying to get people to drink more.
Every smoker who ever smoked could blame the movies that portray smoking in a positive light for the cancer and emphysema they develop.Enticing people to smoke *is* wrong. The problem with your view is it allows people to encourage others to harm themselves and profit from it and then blame those who suffer by saying it's their own silly fault. Smoking is a great example of that.
Soldiers who are killed or inured in war can blame the recruiter who enticed them to join the service.The point is the recruiter is encouraging the person to become a soldier and does share some responsibility for that person becoming a soldier.
If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.I'm not sure why you think it was her own decision, clearly she was being deliberately influenced. But anyhow it depends upon whether it was wrong to encourage her to drink in those circumstances. I've said probably not in this case.
If you encourage a 5 year old to do something and they do it you are certainly responsible. If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves. Isn’t that supposed to be the difference between an adult and a child? An adult is supposed to be mature enough to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those decisions. If you are not willing to do that then you shouldn’t be allowed to make adult decisions.
Using the excuse that her judgement was impaired because she was drunk is ridiculous. She wasn’t drunk when she made the decision to get drunk. Once you make the unimpaired decision to take a drug that impairs your judgement you don’t really have the right to blame anyone for the decisions you make after that point.
If you encourage a 5 year old to do something and they do it you are certainly responsible. If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.I think you'll find this is based on your intuitions about free will macgyver. I'm going to leave it there since this is not a free will thread.
If you encourage a 5 year old to do something and they do it you are certainly responsible. If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.I think you'll find this is based on your intuitions about free will macgyver. I'm going to leave it there since this is not a free will thread. Of course you have to accept free will as a premise or the whole idea of assigning blame to anyone at all is irrelevant. How could you blame the bartender if there is no free will since he could not control his actions either? As you said this is not the place for that discussion. We will assume for the sake of this thread that everyone has free will.
If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.If I encouraged a bunch of senior citizens to invest in my "Capital Fund" which was fraudulent should those people have no recourse against me because they are adults and should have known better? If I'm the leader of a conspiracy to commit a crime and I encourage other adults to join me and do the deed, should I get away scot free? As straw man, or irrelevant as these examples might seem, they are relevant in ways. The best example is this: Long before Love Canal burst upon the scene, Hooker Chemical Co. sold the deed to the polluted land to the City of Niagara Falls for $1.00. They knew it was polluted, they knew the city knew it was polluted, and the city knew it was polluted. Hooker even warned N.F. about the dangers. In the end, Hooker was sued and lost.($$$ Now they are Oxy Chem) You know why? They had a higher responsibility. It isn't enough to just warn the party that the land is polluted. They were the stewards of that land and let a poisonous time bomb get passed along to another entity. It's that simple. That's what the court eventually said in their findings. It isn't enough to just warn and put disclaimers. A responsible, entity must ensure no harm comes out of a deal. An entity isn't doing due diligence when they knowingly pass along a poisonous, polluted plot of land. Even if they warned the other party. This goes for many other legal decisions. Commonly in product recalls or the like. If a company makes a dangerous product, it isn't enough to put warning stickers on the product.(warning toaster may overheat and cause fire) The same goes for cases like the cruise ship. I explained that already. The cruise ship has an inherent responsibility in making sure it's customers are safe and in a safe environment.
Using the excuse that her judgement was impaired because she was drunk is ridiculous. She wasn't drunk when she made the decision to get drunk. Once you make the unimpaired decision to take a drug that impairs your judgement you don't really have the right to blame anyone for the decisions you make after that point.No, it's not ridiculous. Alcohol impairs judgement. The bartender had a responsibility to cut her off because he knows that after a few drinks she is no longer capable of using sound judgement to stop herself from drinking more. Bartenders cut people off all the time. You would think a cruise ship would have stringent rules on letting their guests get hammered on a big boat way out in the middle of the sea. I'm sure they do have such guidelines. But these cruise ships are all about profit. Just a couple of weeks ago another one pulled into port with hundreds of people sickened with Listeria. Bad business. Bad Housekeeping. They can escape plenty of regulations by registering their ships under foreign flags.
If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.Yeah. Why should we have any laws at all? Safety laws? who needs 'em? Standards for automobile windshields? Too much expense. And advertisers, they should be able to say whatever they want, Budweiser should have ads of people completely impaired hooking up at 3AM then living happily ever after. And alcohol is a drug like any other, so let's stop doing any testing on any drug. I never read those little inserts anyway. And I should be free to buy drugs from any guy on the street, to heck with all those doctors.