Yes, I would venture to say that passengers on board the Triumph were at imminent risk. There is that little matter of an engine fire and the resultant loss of power along with that minor inconvenience of listing in the water and having parts of the ship backed up with sewage. To you that might have been just a little thing that they should have passed over but the fact is having unprocessed sewage standing in parts of a ship with over 4000 passengers and crew aboard does constitute an imminent risk
To which the company responded to and addressed to the best of the possibilities within the circumstances. The company didn't ignore them. The idea they should be sued because of an 'accident' is what I oppose so strongly. Ok, the company didn't respond according to reasonable thinking.. then you could go after negligence. But the idea that there is liability because bad things happened is just so wrong IMO.
But by all accounts we have so far - they did the best they could within the constraints of the situation. Do you not get any credit for doing the best you can and actually preventing actual loss of life and injury?
What do you feel the company did incorrectly to warrent such hatred towards them? What would you expect them to do differently?
Regardless of what anyone signed before embarking on this cruise, I doubt any of them ever felt that they would have the misfortune of having a vaction that could be compared to the examples you cited - living in a third world country, service in the military in a war zone or living through the Great Depression. I bet everyone probably had their hopes and standards set just a wee bit higher than that.
When someone is in a disaster situation - you shouldn't be comparing it to paradise and complaining it's not paradise. Apparently no one knows how to pick themselves up and make the most of what they have anymore. Heaven forbid when the government isn't around to do everything for you.