It’s not going well for the Carnival and Princess Cruise Lines class action case underway in the Federal Court in Sydney.
Lead plaintiff Susan Kaprik told the court she was naïve to expect the Ruby Princess would be COVID free.
“We had assumed there would be no coronavirus on that ship when we boarded … and I recognise now that was probably very stupid,” Ms Kaprik said.
Read: What to wear while flying
“We might have been terribly mistaken, but we felt that the cruise company had an obligation to us as customers that screening would happen.”
Ms Kaprik’s husband contracted COVID during the cruise and was in a coma for four weeks but survived.
The case is expected to last four weeks and is focused on the Ruby Princess cruise of March 2020.
Of the 1679 Australians on that cruise, 663 contracted COVID, a total of about 900 cases were linked to the ship and there were an estimated 28 deaths.
Read: How to be a better passenger, from a flight attendant
Previous inquiries into the incident have declared that state health officials made “inexcusable, inexplicable” and “serious mistakes” in the way the Ruby Princess was handled including allowing passengers to disembark and travel to onward destinations.
Shine Lawyers, which brought the class action, has alleged that Carnival and Princess Cruise Lines broke Australian consumer law by engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceptive.
The firm will also allege that the operators of the cruise ship were negligent and failed in a duty of care to provide passengers with a safe environment.
Class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said the firm will allege the operators of the Ruby Princess failed in their duty of care.
“We say the owner and operator knew of the risks that passengers may contract coronavirus before the ship left and they failed to take steps to ensure their passengers were safe and protected,” Ms Antzoulatos said.
Read: How Australia’s rough golf course is driving Nullarbor tourism
Singapore Airlines breakthrough for female staff
In a move we can’t believe is still an issue, Singapore Airlines has promised not to sack pregnant flight attendants. Good to see they have come out of the ’50s.
Previously, if a flight attendant became pregnant they were immediately put on unpaid leave and then sacked when they had the baby and had to apply for their old job back, with no guarantee of re-employment.
The new policy provides that pregnant crew members be given 16 weeks of unpaid parental leave before automatically being put back on the roster.
Once they announce the pregnancy, they will be reassigned to a ground role.
Singapore news site Mothership said the Association of Women for Action and Research said the former policy was “discriminatory and unfair” and the new direction was a “major improvement”.
Is 16 weeks enough? Singapore Airlines has an international reputation for hiring a certain body type, I hope there is not too much pressure to shed the baby weight in that time.
Should cruise owners be held responsible for any illness on board? Have you caught something on a cruise? Why not share your experience in the comments section below?
