Se Habla Espańol, Nous Parlons Français

Free Consultation

1 (800) 215-7117

Fighting for the safety and security of you and your family

1401 Brickell Ave, Suite 510 • Miami, FL 33131

John H. (Jack) Hickey

Testifies before Congress

Hickey testifies before congress about crimes on cruise ships

Click here to read more



Archive for November, 2011

Hickey Case Profile: Anita “Eileen” Mann vs. Carnival Cruise Lines

Sunday, November 27th, 2011

 

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

Carnival Corporation, doing business as Carnival Cruise Lines, provides medical care for its passengers. Carnival utilizes its medical staff, including nurses and doctors, as its agents.  Carnival Corporation, doing business as Carnival Cruise Lines, holds out these doctors and nurses as Plaintiff’s agent, employees, and shipboard officers.  Carnival makes representations also about the quality of this medical care.

Relying upon these representations, passenger Henry Mann took a cruise on or about the date indicated above on the Carnival Glory.

Mr. Mann experienced, while on the cruise, blood upon urinating. He reported to the ship’s infirmary, whereupon the ship’s  nurse, an employee of Carnival,  inserted a catheter into his penis and injected saline or sterile water into the catheter. The nurse in the infirmary, an employee of Carnival, injected an excessive amount of saline or other solution into the catheter into the Plaintiff’s bladder. The Plaintiff expressed pain and screamed out loud. Yet, the nurse did not stop and injected even more saline or other solution into the catheter. The nurse’s actions resulted in his bursting the bladder of the Plaintiff. This resulted in an emergency medical situation, and a permanent injury including surgery and a urostomy bag.

As a result of this incident, Mr. Mann suffered serious, debilitating, and permanent injuries including surgery to repair and recreate a new bladder, permanent use of a urostomy bag for urination, painful bowel movements, constant and excruciating pain in his urethra, and urinary bladder surgery as a result of the negligence of Carnival Corporation by and through their medical staff.

Charleston Cruse Ship Row Drags On

Saturday, November 26th, 2011

An op-ed published over the weekend by the ThePostandCourier.com shows that there may be some time yet before the Charleston cruise ship situation is brought to a convincing close.  If you remember, the city of Charleston, South Carolina, is home to an ongoing debate about the role that cruise ships will play in the future of the historic town.

Many citizens groups filed suit over the summer to try to effectively force the cruise ships out.  Citing the fact that Carnival Cruise Lines ship “Fantasy” has made their city’s downtown pier its home port, residents complained about pollution, traffic, and other nuisances relating to the docking of the ship.

But, local authorities hit back, hard.  The mayor of Charleston took to local newspapers, writing op-eds of his own, extolling the virtues of the cruise business and explaining why Charleston should welcome the cruise ships.  The Ports Authority also engaged in the fight.  According to the op-ed in the Post and Courier this weekend, citizens feel the Ports Authority has taken things too far – with the op-ed saying the State’s Ports Authority characterized citizens as “elitist” and “anti-business,” framing the issue as “jobs, not snobs.”

The fight has really gotten heated, probably because of the nature of what’s being fought over.  Having followed many of the developments through news articles, it seems that what is really at stake is the ability of Charleston residents to determine the future of their city – as they see fit.

On the other hand, the government seems to fight on the side of big business, with the promise of jobs and economic bounty as their cause.  In a time with staggering joblessness and economic uncertainty, government forces seem to wish to win the debate by standing on the high ground of economic development.

What I see is something different.  I see yet another instance of cruise lines throwing their weight around.  Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and other cruise lines are engaged in negotiations with the highest levels of government all around the world.  These are immensely powerful corporations, which don’t always operate in the best interest of their passengers or host cities.

Let’s hope the outcome of the Charleston situation is resolved to the best interest of the residents.

 

Primary Source: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/nov/26/26agnew/

Hickey Case Profile: Nancy Osborn vs. Norwegian Cruise Lines

Friday, November 25th, 2011

DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT.

The cruise line crew member named Pius committed sexual assault and battery on the Plaintiff and falsely imprisoned the Plaintiff who at the time was a cruise line passenger.  Sometime around 10:30 p.m. on the cruise ship, this crewmember forcefully shoved the Plaintiff, a passenger walking in a hallway, against her will into a utility closet which was located outside of the theater on the Norwegian Spirit cruise ship.

After the crewmember had the Plaintiff cornered in the closet, he shut the door of this utility closet.  The door locked or jammed.  The crewmember put his hands on and around the Plaintiff, who was struggling to get away but could not physically go anywhere.  The crewmember then grabbed the Plaintiff, pulled her close to him, kissed her and put his hands on her buttocks.  The Plaintiff pushed the crewmember away and put her hands on the door in order to open the door and flee.  The crewmember then pulled the hands of the Plaintiff down off of the door to prevent her from leaving.

The latch or lock to the door was either broken or not designed to be opened from the inside.  The Plaintiff screamed and yelled to draw the attention of anyone nearby.  The crewmember forcibly put his hands over her mouth to stop the screaming.  All of this struggle went on repeatedly over the more than 4 hours that the crewmember held the Plaintiff captive in the closet.

The Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to leave, but the lock of the room was broken or unable to be opened from the inside by design.  The Plaintiff banged on the wall of the utility closet in order to make it known that she was trapped in there with this crew member. Pius, the cruise line’s employee, took the stick which the Plaintiff had been using to bang on the door away from her.  Pius-aided by the broken lock on the door- trapped and imprisoned the Plaintiff inside this supply room for more than 4 hours.

People outside the closet finally heard the commotion in the closet. When

that happened, the crewmember Pius then took a condom out of his pocket and hid it in the utility closet.

After the Plaintiff was freed from the closet, the Plaintiff advised the cruise line’s security personnel on the ship about what had happened.  The Plaintiff told the security personnel where this occurred and advised the security personnel of the condom in the closet. The response of the security personnel was:  “Things happen. Doors break.”  The security personnel even refused to secure or maintain the condom as evidence.

All of the touching, groping, manhandling, and kissing by the crewmember was not consensual and was against the express wishes of the plaintiff.

The crewmember restricted the movement of the plaintiff against her will by shoving the plaintiff into the closet and by keeping her there for more than 4 hours, and thus falsely imprisoned the plaintiff.