Thomas Cook abomination

muon · 17 May 2015 at 21:09

Pestilence said:
Honestly, I'd chase for the compensation of the lifetime earnings of an expected 'life'.

If those children had grown up, held an average-paying wage job until retirement age. I'd want that income. That's what a life is worth.

Problem is that those earnings are the children's. They aren't around to sue for it and if they were then there isn't much to sue over.

It's just the way it is. The fine isn't supposed to be punitive but reflective of the emotional distress of the parents and any monetary losses they have incurred. I believe the actions of Thomas Cook need to have been criminal for punitive damages to be considered.

Amnesia · 17 May 2015 at 21:16

doofer said:
Corporate Profits>People.

Anyone who doesn't think there's anything wrong in a Corporation getting £3.5MILLION for LOSS OF PROFITS over the deaths of two innocent children it had a duty of care to protect needs to go and have a long hard look at themselves in a mirror.

Ironically, all the clowns condoning this would be the first on here screaming for Compensation if someone pooed through their letterboxes.

Tragic. Truly tragic.

You do not think thomas cook should sue the hotel which was responsible for the death of 2 of its clients, which will greatly damage thomas cooks reputation ?

Surfer · 17 May 2015 at 21:19

Pawnless Endgame said:
Granted, the couple could have sued the hotel directly, but I think as it being part of a holiday package, Thomas Cook is ultimately responsible as the package provider.

+1 Indeed. The couple didnt go to hotel direct..they went through TC. So the couple are right to claim against TC as opposed to the hotel. But also TC are right to claim against the hotel (and subsequently won their case). I don't think the couple won their case against TC though...which is utterly abominable.....

Both the hotel and Thomas Cook should be held accountable. The hotel (and staff) have been but Thomas Cook have not. The millions that TC received from winning their case against the hotel was to compensate Thomas Cook for what exactly?

Ohh and

The manager of the hotel was found guilty of manslaughter by negligence and sentenced to seven years. Two other hotel workers were convicted too but, as far as the family is aware, none of them actually went to prison because of the Greek appeals process.

Not sure if this is still the case and basically no one is in prison for this..could be wrong though.

sanaxe1 · 17 May 2015 at 22:01

At the end of the day it should never be more profitable to kill your customers than provide them with a safe holiday.

muon · 17 May 2015 at 22:02

sanaxe1 said:
At the end of the day it should never be more profitable to kill your customers than sell them a holiday.

They didn't kill anyone.

If it was then the monetary amounts would be different and your statement would apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#England_and_Wales

Xordium · 17 May 2015 at 22:03

Amnesia said:
You do not think thomas cook should sue the hotel which was responsible for the death of 2 of its clients, which will greatly damage thomas cooks reputation ?

Well if it's their reputation they want to sue over then they should sue themselves because their actions look pretty shameful ...

Amnesia · 17 May 2015 at 22:17

Xordium said:
Well if it's their reputation they want to sue over then they should sue themselves because their actions look pretty shameful ...

They probably should have donated half the money they won to the parents, if they don't their loss in the long run i guess.

covenantuk · 18 May 2015 at 07:26

OldCoals said:
It wasn't an accident though.

Don't be stupid.

From what I've read of the trial, the hotel assured Thomas Cook that there were no gas appliances in the hotel rooms. This being the case the outcome of the trial seems pretty fair to me.

Were they negligent? No. They specifically asked about gas appliances.
Failed in duty of care? Yes, they could have checked that the hotel was telling the truth.
Have they handled the PR badly, yes.

arknor · 18 May 2015 at 07:48

benjii said:
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but what is a life worth? What amount of compensation will grieving parents be happy with? I'm not having a go at anyone, I'm genuinely asking.

avg salary * life expectancy = 2,119,000
seems fair enough

Cosimo · 18 May 2015 at 07:49

In the face of this PR disaster I think that Thomas Cook should take the brave option of giving their compensation to the parents and apologise publicly (not by some letter) for this terrible event but they'll probably just wait for it to blow over.

Arthur Hucksake · 18 May 2015 at 08:15

Are you sure it was £350k?

That was the compensation pay out through court, but there may have been a private settlement on top if the parents agreed to not press further.

Part of that £3.5m could have been other expenses, including that.

Danthus · 18 May 2015 at 08:17

covenantuk said:
Don't be stupid.

From what I've read of the trial, the hotel assured Thomas Cook that there were no gas appliances in the hotel rooms. This being the case the outcome of the trial seems pretty fair to me.

Were they negligent? No. They specifically asked about gas appliances.
Failed in duty of care? Yes, they could have checked that the hotel was telling the truth.
Have they handled the PR badly, yes.

Stupid?

Tefal · 18 May 2015 at 09:48

Pestilence said:
Honestly, I'd chase for the compensation of the lifetime earnings of an expected 'life'.

If those children had grown up, held an average-paying wage job until retirement age. I'd want that income. That's what a life is worth.

That's not your income though.

Ryan-3 · 18 May 2015 at 11:27

The best they could do now is pay whatever is extra from that compensation to the family.

Then destroy the hotel for lying.

antijoke · 18 May 2015 at 11:39

Meanwhile in America.

Family is awarded 21mil after hospital accidentally gives grandmother brain surgery

Makes £350k seem even more of an insult. Such a tragic story. Feel so bad for those parents.

No amount of money will get rid of the grief.

Locky · 18 May 2015 at 11:51

doofer said:
Corporate Profits>People.

Anyone who doesn't think there's anything wrong in a Corporation getting £3.5MILLION for LOSS OF PROFITS over the deaths of two innocent children it had a duty of care to protect needs to go and have a long hard look at themselves in a mirror.

Ironically, all the clowns condoning this would be the first on here screaming for Compensation if someone pooed through their letterboxes.

Tragic. Truly tragic.

Agreed. I bet the ones who condone it don't have children either..

Muz333 · 18 May 2015 at 11:59

benjii said:
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but what is a life worth? What amount of compensation will grieving parents be happy with? I'm not having a go at anyone, I'm genuinely asking.

Well the McCanns done well out of all those libel cases. One being for £357,953 for example.

All this and the McCanns are at best guilty of serious neglect, at worst murderers.

Hitman_Leon · 18 May 2015 at 12:06

covenantuk said:
From what I've read of the trial, the hotel assured Thomas Cook that there were no gas appliances in the hotel rooms. This being the case the outcome of the trial seems pretty fair to me.

TC may have been informed of that and the information was true to an extent in that the boiler was housed in an outbuilding attached to the holiday bungalow. It does show however that actual inspections of the accommodation had not taken place. From a safety point of view and also quality control of accommodation offered by a holiday company I always presumed before this case that everything was inspected.

ubersonic · 18 May 2015 at 12:17

covenantuk said:
From what I've read of the trial, the hotel assured Thomas Cook that there were no gas appliances in the hotel rooms. This being the case the outcome of the trial seems pretty fair to me.

Were they negligent? No. They specifically asked about gas appliances.
Failed in duty of care? Yes, they could have checked that the hotel was telling the truth.
Have they handled the PR badly, yes.

Pretty much sums it all up.

A personal inspection of the hotel by TC would have avoided this mess.

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2015 at 12:45

ubersonic said:
A personal inspection of the hotel by TC would have avoided this mess.

Doubtless they do visit the hotels they offer but when you offer thousands of hotels you can hardly visit every single one every single month just to make sure you are not doing business with dishonest liars. The reps are hardly qualified to perform independent inspections of every aspect of a hotel's electrical and heating system so it'd need to be entirely separate staff.

Lets also not forget how rare an event this is - the event in question took place almost a decade ago and has not happened either before or since with Thomas Cook.

This story has emotionally reported from the start which has had a huge effect on the tide of public opinion. Thomas Cook hardly got a £3.5m payday from the hotel, they were the victims of criminal negligence from a third party with whom they had a contract which resulted in them incurring costs and legal bills far in excess of the £3.5m. The compensation awarded wasn't a nice happy bonus, it was in reimbursement for the costs incurred.

Let us not forget it was the hotel which caused this tragedy. Could process improvement have reduced the chances of an incident? Very probably, but don't mistake this as being responsible for the death itself.