Why Should You Choose a Personal Injury Lawyer When There Are No Legal Remedies in Case of a Cruise Ship Accident?

Pandocruises are British cruise lines, operating out of Carnival House in Southampton, England operated by Carnival UK. It was formerly an subsidiary of the Shipping Company P&O and so was established during a major restructuring of P&O’s commercial operations in 1977. It has been cruising in the Caribbean ever since. This line is one of the oldest and largest cruise companies operating in the UK. The ships of this line cater to a wide variety of passengers from families to groups of friends, corporate groups to Royalty. There are five Carnival ships that operate out of the UK, that have different destinations among them; Bermuda, West Indies, Mediterranean, Mexican and New Holland.

The complaints filed against Carnival Cruises, Inc. by the Complaints Registry Inc. has to do with several events that took place on board the ships of the company. Some of these were sexual harassment, discrimination and the inappropriate use of a scantily clad female staff. The complainants also claimed that Carnival did not maintain adequate safety standards on its ships. A letter of complaint was filed by the captain of one of the ships to the owner of the same, seeking information about the status of a complaint by the same customer and asking for an assurance that a complaint would be addressed.

The owner of the cruise ship named in the complaint responded that there had been no complaint filed by the captain of any such incident on board the said ship. He also said that he had taken steps to ensure that the same did not occur again. However, when we checked the complaint details with the complaining passenger, we found that the same customer had filed another complaint against the same ship, citing the same incidents. Hence, it was decided to include this complaint with the details of the same contentions. The next step in the process of reviewing the complaint was to find whether the contentions on the domain name related to any events which had taken place during the cruises. Accordingly, the domain name was changed to PANDOCRANS.

When we next went in search of a complaint related to the same incident that occurred on board the said cruise lines’ ship, we were informed that the complaint was lodged in respect to the same contentions that had been raised against Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. and they were not taking appropriate action. It was then that we came to know about the craze instigated by instagram, which automatically assumes that all content posted on the social media is authentic. Instagram then proceeded to remove the same photo and other related photos from all their accounts.

This news of the situation prompted several complaints being made against the cruise line and its chief executive officer, Captain Kate Murvis, by passengers on the said cruises. The complaints filed by the passengers alleged that the photographs which were posted by Captain Kate were altered or photoshopped. This news of the situation generated further interest as it could only be handled by the said cruise line if they received direct confirmation from the instagram account holder.

When the company received confirmation of the authenticity of the photograph submitted by the complainant, they immediately removed the post. After confirming this to Captain Kate, the cruise line made an announcement regarding the same and again directed that the complainants must contact them through their customer service desks for clarifications. On receipt of the information from Captain Kate, it was decided that the photograph posted by the complainant would not be displayed on the company’s Instagram page. The reasoning given was that since the complaint was made through Captain Kate Murvis, it was deemed that it came from an official representative of the company and therefore, it was not a personal account. Therefore, the complaint could not be seen as coming from the personal part of Captain Kate Murvis.

The cruises line further explained that they have different policies on the use of the disputed domain name. For instance, one policy would apply if the photo was a private image while another policy would apply if the photo originated from a commercial source like a magazine or newspaper. In this case, the complaint was found to be justified as it came under the heading of a commercial use of the photograph where the respondent had used the image for commercial purposes. It was then determined that the use of the photograph in the manner complained of was unfair and justified as a matter of public interest. Therefore, the complaint was unfounded.

Pandocruises has since rectified the situation by addressing concerns raised by its passengers and at the same time offered compensation to those who may have been injured due to the respondent’s mistake. However, in this case, the compensation offer was inadequate as it only addressed the monetary damages and did not address the public’s legitimate interests. As such, it is suggested that passengers who have been injured as a result of this mistake should approach an experience personal injury lawyer. Such lawyers are versed in handling situations similar to that confronting the cruise company.