Tacoma Personal Injury Lawyer - Holland America

Duty of Care on Board Holland America

Michael Myers — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:43:10 GMT

A lot of people go on cruises over the holidays. Many of these people will cruise on Holland America. Holland America is one of the “high end” cruise lines.

Passengers develop the expectation that they deserve more from Holland America. And, quite frankly, they do.

Passenger expectations primarily relate to customer service. But certainly cruise passengers, and particularly those on Holland America should also receive the highest standard of care when it comes to on board and excursion safety.

Many passengers are legally owed the highest standard of care. This applies to passengers on trains, buses, etc. However, the law has evolved in such a way that cruise lines, including Holland America, owe their passengers only an ordinary duty of care.

Duty of care is important because it sets the parameters by which negligence claims are judged. The bar is set much higher for the defendant if the defendant owes the plaintiff the highest duty of care rather than simply an ordinary duty of care.

The majority of claims against Holland America involve falls and food-borne illness. The majority of claims involving falls require a "mechanical" analysis to determine whether the fall could have been prevented had Holland America exercised ordinary care towards the injured passenger. Food-borne illness cases are somewhat more complicated because they involve a two-step process. First, was the illness in fact food-borne (did passenger contract the illness while eating aboard the ship as opposed to on shore) and second could the exercise of ordinary care, insurance of hygiene and food handling process have prevented the passenger's illness?

Many passengers – no doubt due, in part, to the high fares charged by Holland America – have the expectation that if they get hurt on a Holland America vessel the cruise line will compensate them. This expectation, while perhaps reasonable, does not align with the law. In order to recover for an injury suffered aboard Holland America it is necessary to prove that the cruise line was negligent. This requires the not only an attorney but also the intelligent utilization of experts.

Without an attorney, passengers injured or who become ill while cruising with Holland America are not going to receive an offer from the cruise line that approximates the actual value of their case. In order to maximize value, the injured person needs to retain counsel familiar not only with personal injury law but also with its application to cruise lines and, in particular, Holland America.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Foreseeability and Medical Negligence Redux--Holland America on the Hook

Michael Myers — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:28:41 GMT

I received a comment from a local emergency room physician about the scope of foreseeability (espeically as it pertained to medical negligence).

The basic rule of liability for harm resulting from treatment of injuries caused by a tort-feasor's negligent conduct appears in Restatement (Second) of Torts s 457 (1965):

If the negligent actor is liable for another's bodily injury, he is also subject to liability for any additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid which the other's injury reasonably requires, irrespective of whether such acts are done in a proper or a negligent manner.

As the Washington judiciary has observed:

This rule has long been applied in this state. See Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 58 Wn.2d 659, 669, 364 P.2d 804 (1961); Martin v. Cunningham, 93 Wn. 517, 518, 161 P. 355 (1916). See also DeNike v. Mowery, 69 Wn.2d 357, 368-371, 418 P.2d 1010 (1966). The rationale of the rule as applied to medical treatment is that negligent or harmful medical treatment is within the scope of the risk created by the original negligent conduct. See Restatement (Second) of Torts s 457, Comment b at p. 497 (1965).

Lindquist v. Dengel, 92 Wash.2d 257, 595 P.2d 934 (1979). Hopefully this clarifies and expands on my earlier entry.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Medical Negligence in Port--Holland America May be Responsible

Michael Myers — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:49:30 GMT

We recently communicated with a family who suffered a tragedy. Their mother slipped and fell on a Holland America vessel. Treatement was provided at a hospital located at the next port city. Unfortunately the mother died. Concern existed regarding the division of responsibility between Holland America and the hospital.

The inquiry touched on pretty common issue in personal injury litigation: what happens when a person is injured and is made worse by her providers.

There is a body of law that provides that medical malpractice is a foreseeable consequence of injuring someone. As a result, the party that caused the initial injury is liable for not just the initial injury, but any additional harm that’s caused in the course of treating that injury.

In most cases it doesn't make sense to pursue a medical malpractice action in a foreign country. Fortunately, however, there’s a good argument that Holland America should be held responsible for the the additional harm caused at the hospital when its negligence was the casue of the initial injury.

Note: Our firm has handled approximately 50 cases against Holland America. All cases against Holland America must be litigated in Seattle pursuant to the terms of the ticket purchased by passengers. The ticket provides that written claims must be submitted to Holland America within six months of the incident and suit must be filed within one year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Rogue Waves--Vessel Owners Contort a Dubious Defense

Michael Myers — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:36:10 GMT

One of the most frequently asserted defenses in cruise ship litigation, not only by Holland America, but also by regional cruise lines, sightseeing vessels and whale watching boats is the “rogue wave” defense.

Rogue or “sneaker” waves are a natural phenomenon. They are waves which are unexpected and, definitionally, at least three times bigger than other waves in the vessel’s vicinity.

There is significant debate whether a defendant can avoid liability because the vessel was struck by a rogue wave. Rogue waves have been acknowledged for hundreds if not thousands of years. They’re clearly foreseeable.

But even if defendants could legitimately defend on the unexpected nature of rogue waves (which can be caused by a variety of factors), any validity associated with this defense has been destroyed by its gross overuse by defendants.

The “rogue wave” defense has been contorted by defense attorneys to the point that it is no longer recognizable. In almost every case where passenger falls and is injured because of defendant’s operation of a vessel and/or the nonexistent safety precautions like railings and handholds, the defense invariably interposes the “rogue wave” defense.

In these situations defendants argue, essentially, that the rogue wave that caused the vessel to lurch, roll or yaw was an act of God and that they shouldn't be held responsible.

Waves are foreseeable. Rogue waves are foreseeable. Vessel owners and operators need to anticipate rogue waves and safeguard their vessels.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers