I would not call him "poor unfortunate." He did something stupid and
paid the price for it. Ether way, he was drinking whisky, not wine.
It would be hard to drink enough wine to get the same amount of alcohol
in a quart of whisky. I think RCI is overreacting. But, that may be
the prudent thing to do in our overly litigious society where nobody
is responsible for his own actions.
You would not want me on the jury for the family of somebody who claims
that RCI was responsible for somebody over indulging in smuggled liquor.
If it were an option, I would not only find for RCI, I would say that
the plaintiff's lawyer has to pay all of RCI's legal fees out of his own
pocket.
BTW, I am a bleeding heart liberal. I just believe people are responsible
for their own actions.
>
>>I doubt that he was drinking wine that he brought onboard with him.
>>This sort of thing will continue as long as you have people who won't
>>take responsibility for their actions and gullible juries.
>
>The "young men" who traveled with the "poor unfortunate" admitted to
>drinking a quart of smuggled whiskey that night. And the deceased
>apparently drank more than his share.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Its just a liability thing. They're probably getting sued by the
>>>relatives of the guy who fell off the boat while drunk. An inconsistent
>>> or non-inforced policy will get you into as much legal trouble as if
>>>they provided the booze.
>>>Allen
>>>
>>>john chapman wrote:
>>>> Yes, I agree. A puzzling move, to say the least., which may in fact
>>>> negatively
>>>> impact revenues if folks don't bother with wine at all. The $15 corkage
>>>> fee
>>>> seems to produce a reasonable profit IMO. This whole liquor thing is
>>>> getting
>>>> ridiculous and may come back to bite the cruise lines you know where.
>>>> JOHN
>>>>
>>>>
>--
>dillon
>
>When I was a kid, I used to think the horse's name was Bob
|