2 of 4
2
Another example of someone blaming others for their own stupid decisions
Posted: 19 January 2014 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
VYAZMA - 18 January 2014 09:21 PM

They aren’t going to get a medal Asanta.
When a ship loses a passenger or crew member overboard- it’s bad.

People don’t just fall off of big boats. They are either trying to commit suicide, or they are involved in an accident.

I’m sure there are witnesses to the bartenders negligent dispensation of booze to a poor, unwitting girl who’s a guest
on a large boat that qualifies as unfamiliar and dangerous territory for her.

Getting people drunk in unfamiliar, dangerous situations is irresponsible. A ships steward or medical officer should have been sent to escort her
completely to a safe area for detox. 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.

This is exactly the sort of attitude that breeds these frivolous lawsuits and precisely the thing that caused me to title this thread the way I did. Absolutely NO ONE forced this woman to drink. She is an adult not a 10 year old child. She also had friends with her. People go on these cruises to have a good time and often drink excessively as part of the fun. Its not the bartenders duty to play mommy to the people he is selling drinks to while at the same time trying to do his job in a busy noisy atmosphere. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. She went there to drink and thats exactly what she did. Her friends who claim to be outraged, stood right next to her and watched her drink and participated in the activity and did nothing. She isn;‘t suing them though.

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.

One other comment in regards to an earlier statement you made that she was too drunk to make a good decision. The law actually states that you are not absolved of responsibility for stupid decisions you make when you are drunk. If you drink and then kill someone you do not get a pass. Why should this person get a pass because the person she hurt when she was drunk was herself? I think its also a dishonest exaggeration that someone who is drunk cant make good decisions. Saying “I was drunk and didn’t know any better” is a crutch.  While alcohol reduces inhibitions it does NOT remove the ability to know right from wrong. Someone who is getting drunk knows perfectly well that drinking more will make them more drunk and also knows that getting drunk can result in loss of coordination and increases the chance of injury.

No one forced her to drink. She made a bad decision. She knew exactly what she was doing and did it anyway. She then made another bad decision and did something dangerous causing her to fall off the ship. The only people who made good decisions here were the crew of the ship who turned the ship around and miraculously found a small person in a huge ocean and saved her life. Now the people who will be punished if they win this lawsuit are the ones who made good decisions and the one who will be rewarded is the one who made nothing but bad decisions. Rewarding this sort of behavior is why we have a society of people who no longer take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
VYAZMA - 18 January 2014 09:21 PM

Getting people drunk in unfamiliar, dangerous situations is irresponsible. A ships steward or medical officer should have been sent to escort her
completely to a safe area for detox. 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.

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.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 19 January 2014 02:54 AM

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?

[ Edited: 19 January 2014 12:14 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 19 January 2014 02:52 AM
VYAZMA - 18 January 2014 09:21 PM

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?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 19 January 2014 06:59 AM

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.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 19 January 2014 07:10 AM

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.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 19 January 2014 06:59 AM

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.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
VYAZMA - 19 January 2014 12:57 PM
macgyver - 19 January 2014 06:59 AM

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.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 19 January 2014 01:45 PM

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.

[ Edited: 19 January 2014 09:31 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 03:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26

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.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 09:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

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.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2014 11:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02

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.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 01:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 19 January 2014 12:08 PM
mid atlantic - 19 January 2014 02:54 AM

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.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 01:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 19 January 2014 12:13 PM
mid atlantic - 19 January 2014 02:52 AM
VYAZMA - 18 January 2014 09:21 PM

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.

[ Edited: 20 January 2014 01:59 AM by mid atlantic ]
 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 01:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 19 January 2014 02:16 PM

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.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2