Royal Caribbean liability for volcano deaths may turn on 'act of God' defense

submitted by magnora7 from reuters.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That is quite the headline.

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

[Non-US] Legally speaking, Act of God is a watertight defence.

Especially if you attempt to disprove it to an insurance company.

[–]beermeem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's even more watertight in the US. Unless you can find some other negligence, they simply aren't responsible. It may be cheaper to settle anyway.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

may not be watertight here.

Maori consider the volcano itself to be an entity, but it isn't 'god', which is IO, it is a volcano. Not even an atua.

So this is an act of a vainglorious showoff blast mountain, not god