"Should cruisers be able to sue over rough seas"

Yea, I'm skeptical whether or not the captain was negligent here too. If this ever gets to a trial situation, which I doubt it will because there simply wasn't that much in the way of injury or damage for the plaintiffs to go after, the company might prevail. If it does end in a trial though, my guess is that it will hinge on the quality of weather forecasting available. Media accounts indicate that there was a lot of advance notice, however, from what I read, it appears to me that there is significant question about that and some of the accounts get a little loose with the facts and tend to grossly embellish. RCCL appears to be prepared to contradict argument that the storm was well forecast, on the other hand, they have acknowledged creating a newly organized weather assessment team, to prevent reoccurrences.

Based upon our cruising experiences I believe the industry in general does a darn good job of insuring cruising takes place on calm seas. People often ask me how we put up with the rough weather. I respond, we are about 25 days shy of 600 days cruising. We have done TAs six times. Up and down the Pacific four times, plus being all over the world's high seas. With the exception of three days, the oceans have almost always been like a mill pond for us.

The lone exception was on a TA in the spring, we left NY headed for the Azores and the swell was pretty high from a big storm to the north that had passed over New York the day before we departed. The captain deviated to the south and away from the great circle route to miss it. So there was really no wind and storm for us, just the left over ocean swell. That is what happens most of the time, the ship takes an alternate course and keeps all the guests comfy. Many times we have been on ships which made significant course adjustments due to stormy weather ahead, more than once adding a couple of days extra sailing and losing some ports. That is one reason I raise an eyebrow when I read negative reviews based upon someone criticizing the line for bypassing a port.

I agree with both of you, however I do not see a legitimate suit able to be filed. I have no doubt that several will be filed though.

(As far as "emotional distress", allow me to quote my father -- "Suck it up, boy. Life isn't always easy."

People will file for "Emotional distress" This is America where if somebody looks at you cross eyed you run and get an attorney!! Sorry I'm just jaded after 20 years of working for the defense of Insurance company's and seeing what people will sue over.

Well, my feelings were hurt and I am upset about it. So I have to sue somebody or my self worth will decline and I'll cry.......

Not that I believe the Captain was intentionally negligent, but for argument's sake we say he is. The other part of the lawsuit would be what loss did the plaintiffs suffer? The price of the cruise was completely refunded, as well as a 50% discount on a future cruise. There were only 4 minor injuries reported, and I am assuming that they were treated well by the shipboard medics at no additional cost to the injured.

Having flown commercially in Alaska for a dozen years and being born and raised in a marine and shipping environment on the coast of Alaska, I see may similarities between aircraft operations and seagoing passenger transport operations when it comes to difficulties with adverse metrological conditions. Many seem to believe that running into fowl weather is purely accidental and more like an "Act of God", therefore those involved in operating aircraft/ships shouldn't be scrutinized by government tribunals or held responsible by courts of law for negligence. I totally disagree.

Over the decades, the typical bullet proof weather pusher pilot has created an infamous sobriquet for light aircraft operations in Alaska. I used to say this about them: "The short care free life style of the scud runners." Today, Alaska aviation has gradually clawed back a more reliable reputation, but it has taken time and education. Not the least of which has been law suits for negligent weather related accidents which have put irresponsible operators out of business and made it very difficult for others to enter the field due resulting high insurance rates and increased standards by the insurers. However, the temptation to push the weather remains strong and both the public and aircraft operators must remain vigilant and cognizant of the contributing factors involved with inclement weather operations.

A typical scenario I have witnessed way to many times goes like this. A party of hunters/fishermen from the big city are scheduled to fly into a pristine wilderness location for a week. Upon arrival at the seaplane base or airport where they are to depart from, they are told by their chosen air taxi operator that the weather is pretty bad between here and there, so a delay of a day or so may be necessary. This news does not set well, since their time is limited and they must get back to work in the big city the following week. So they head down the flight line. Next thing the air taxi hears is the roar of Brand X's aircraft taking off, as that aircraft departs with the clients. More than likely all goes well, and the clients get their trip in without incident, they are happy campers. However, a year or so ago goes by, a Brand X aircraft augers into the side of a mountain in zero visibility conditions. All on board are fatal's, including the hunting party from the big city.

Nope, don't tell me operators and pilots should not be held accountable for operations into stinky weather conditions.

"The demands for reliable air service in Alaska can easily place pressures on pilots and operators to perform. An underlying factor is risk-taking, or "bush syndrome," is a response by pilots and operators to powerful demands for reliable air service in a operating environment and aviation infrastructure that is often inconsistent with those demands."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a6053/bush-pilot-crash-technology/

http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54d1501d06922_-_SS95-03.pdf

Rough seas are always possible, and in general beyond human control. If we can sue over this, someone has to pay - say it's the insurers, then all of us pay in higher premiums in the future.

The EU have legislation on flight delays giving passengers the right to claim fixed amounts after certain delay times (except when beyond the control of the airline). The problem is that this compensation can be higher than the flight cost initially paid, so then there is the moral argument as to whether to claim. Again, the payments have to come from somewhere - in the end we all pay for such claims

Is this a fit?

I believe I understand what you are driving at here: "Captain playing chicken with the hurricane and injuring passengers". That would involve proving an intentional act, in other words, the Captain would have deliberately and knowingly drove the vessel into a super storm. If so, never happened, I bet.

However, there is a huge difference between that scenario and a captain being negligent by underestimating forecasts, or overestimating the sea worthiness capabilities of his ship, all of which are fodder for lawsuits. I suppose though some could contend that through ignorance and irresponsibility the Captain "played chicken", but not in legal circles.

https://blog.shermanstravel.com/2012/passengers-sue-cruise-operator-over-rough-seas/

http://www.hickeylawfirm.com/2012/08/judge-rules-in-favor-of-stormy-seas-lawsuit

Did not mean that there are no current lawsuits, but rather that no instances of the Captain playing chicken with the hurricane and injuring passengers. The recent RCI incident(s) is not a fit.

It's ridiculous to try to sue for something no one can control.