Even in cases of utter meltdown, experts say cruise lines are protected by a shield of immunity that can be difficult for plaintiffs to break through., which lost power and plumbing in the Gulf of Mexico in 2013, leaving passengers stewing in human feces for several days. Most lawsuits went nowhere, attorneys say, and the ones that did resulted in small financial awards.
That dramatically undercuts the normal range of incentives for companies to improve conditions, experts said. What is reasonable “may depend on where you are going, who are the passengers, what kind of things you are encountering,” Karcher said. “ ‘Under the circumstances’ leaves a lot of room for factual questions on both sides.”
The Grand Princess was held off the coast of California for five days waiting for authorities to allow it to dock on its return from what was supposed to have been a roundtrip from San Francisco to Hawaii. After docking in Oakland, California, it took another week to get everyone off the ship. For instance, an investigation by USA TODAY found that Princess Cruise Lines had a problem with health long before the coronavirus outbreaks. Nearly 5,000 people aboard Princess ships in the past decade have suffered from bouts of vomiting, diarrhea – or both – in numbers widespread enough that government health officials issued alerts on 26 outbreaks.
Carnival Corp denies the allegations of negligence, saying in a statement that at the time of the sailing of the Grand Princess,"the only cruise ship with guests who had tested positive for coronavirus was the Diamond Princess in Japan ." , Aronfeld says the only clients who saw any money were those who suffered from injuries like dehydration or a fall due to the blackout onboard. Most were small rewards.
“If that’s not enough,” Aronfeld said, “I don’t how being confined to a luxury cabin on a Princess trip is going to be enough to survive a motion to dismiss.”One of the most controversial pieces of maritime law is the Death on the High Seas Act.