Brilliance o/t Seas passenger suing RCI over death of wife in storm off Alexandria

[RMM75]

Judging by the reports on this site written by people who were on this cruise there was no exageration in the tabloid paper. If you were not on the ship it is impossible to judge what it was like and what you could or could not see!

 

I guess you failed to read or understand the posts on this thread from the people who actually were on that cruise? But, if believing everything that the papers write makes you happy, I'm not going to deny you that pleasure.

[CruiseDawg2001]

Judging by the reports on this site written by people who were on this cruise there was no exageration in the tabloid paper. If you were not on the ship it is impossible to judge what it was like and what you could or could not see!

 

I don't need to have been on that particular cruise to know that someone claiming to have seen the propellers rise out of the water is preposterous.

That’s where the story lost me; it is physically impossible to see something under the ship whilst you yourself are on it. When someone claims to have witnesses something that you know they cannot possibly have seen it tends to call into question the validity of their other statements.

[PhoenixCruiser]

The women who's husband died on the BOS, was also left at a port with no contact info

 

Wow, I did not know that about her. In the media it sounded like RC was 100% in the wrong.

 

I do believe that the lady passing away is RC fault- just my opinion

 

Ok, so you realize now that what the media posted about the George and Jennifer Smith event was incorrect, right? Are you sure you want to be so quick to judge this event based on what the media has wrote?

 

Just asking!

 

###

[Rancher Dave]

Judging by the reports on this site written by people who were on this cruise there was no exageration in the tabloid paper. If you were not on the ship it is impossible to judge what it was like and what you could or could not see!

 

Perhaps you should go back and review the post by Dirtgirl who was not only on the ship but a respected member of the CC community. She has no reason to play up or down the event...yet what she and other credible members of the community posted directly conflict with the over the top reporting in the media.

 

Also, everyone should consider what Mommabean posted about strokes, and recognize that this entire case could just have bad timing. Heck, I was walking into Christmas Eve Services at Church about over 20 years ago and there was a group gathered around...turns out one of the older congregation members was on the street, as I was the first emergency medical tech on the scene, I helped him and based on my take it appears the gentleman had a stroke. Unfortunately I was 100% correct, and worse he lingers for a couple days before passing away...what a horrible Christmas season for that family. Strokes do happen and are not necessarily caused by rough seas.

[reallyitsmema]

Maybe someone should have notified the cruiseline they were being sued before going to the media.:rolleyes:

 

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/news/news.cfm?ID=4343&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+site%2Fccuk%2Fnews+%28Cruise+Critic%3A+News+RSS+Feeds%29

[PhoenixCruiser]

Maybe someone should have notified the cruiseline they were being sued before going to the media.:rolleyes:

 

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/news/news.cfm?ID=4343&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+site%2Fccuk%2Fnews+%28Cruise+Critic%3A+News+RSS+Feeds%29

 

Thanks for the link!

 

Now we hear about the pre-existing conditions...

 

###

[DrFUN]

Ok, so you realize now that what the media posted about the George and Jennifer Smith event was incorrect, right? Are you sure you want to be so quick to judge this event based on what the media has wrote?

 

Just asking!

 

###

 

Missed the media report about George and Jennifer Smith, so don't know to what this refers. Can you supply a link?

 

Thanks,

Mary-Lou

[billie5]

For what it is worth:

 

Simple fluid dynamics models predict that 70 knot winds should produce sustained 45 foot high waves, with occasional waves above 53 feet. That seems to agree exactly with what was reported by the ship. However, if RCI is to be believed, the international weather forecast was for winds no more than 40 knots. The fluid dynamics prediction for 40 knot winds is for 22 foot waves with occasional waves above 26 feet. These forecast waves (having only one quarter the energy of the actual waves encountered) would have caused no difficulty for a cruise ship the size of the Brilliance.

 

If one accepts these facts, I find it difficult to fault RCI for leaving Rhodes and sailing for Alexandria. It seems to me the only ones one might consider responsible are the weather forecasters, but I am sure we all understand that forecasting is not an exact science.

 

Bill

[MAZANDSTEVE]

Perhaps you should go back and review the post by Dirtgirl who was not only on the ship but a respected member of the CC community. She has no reason to play up or down the event...yet what she and other credible members of the community posted directly conflict with the over the top reporting in the media.

 

Also, everyone should consider what Mommabean posted about strokes, and recognize that this entire case could just have bad timing. Heck, I was walking into Christmas Eve Services at Church about over 20 years ago and there was a group gathered around...turns out one of the older congregation members was on the street, as I was the first emergency medical tech on the scene, I helped him and based on my take it appears the gentleman had a stroke. Unfortunately I was 100% correct, and worse he lingers for a couple days before passing away...what a horrible Christmas season for that family. Strokes do happen and are not necessarily caused by rough seas.

 

 

I read Dirtgirls report and it sounded horrendous and even she had injuries which she is having treatment for still. It seems too much of a coincidence that the woman had banged her head and then became ill and died.

But I dont supose its RC fault at all, it was fine for them to carry on in rough seas and risk passengers life:rolleyes:

[spanner14]

I read Dirtgirls report and it sounded horrendous and even she had injuries which she is having treatment for still. It seems too much of a coincidence that the woman had banged her head and then became ill and died.

But I dont supose its RC fault at all, it was fine for them to carry on in rough seas and risk passengers life:rolleyes:

 

There's SO much speculation about this. If the winds were twice as strong as the forecast, then it sounds as if the Captain made a reasonable decision about whether or not to proceed, based on the forecast and what he knew of his ship's capabilities.

 

Yes, it's reasonable to assume that the poor lady died as a direct result of her head injuries, but it also now looks as if she had previous medical issues. If it turns out that she could have had a (or another) stroke at any time, then *a court* is going to have to work out whether it's coincidence or not, not us.

[Aquahound]

For what it is worth:

 

Simple fluid dynamics models predict that 70 knot winds should produce sustained 45 foot high waves, with occasional waves above 53 feet. That seems to agree exactly with what was reported by the ship. However, if RCI is to be believed, the international weather forecast was for winds no more than 40 knots. The fluid dynamics prediction for 40 knot winds is for 22 foot waves with occasional waves above 26 feet. These forecast waves (having only one quarter the energy of the actual waves encountered) would have caused no difficulty for a cruise ship the size of the Brilliance.

 

If one accepts these facts, I find it difficult to fault RCI for leaving Rhodes and sailing for Alexandria. It seems to me the only ones one might consider responsible are the weather forecasters, but I am sure we all understand that forecasting is not an exact science.

 

Bill, this is a very good post, and having served in a sea going service and still live and work on and around the ocean, I agree with your points. What will need to come out in this lawsuit is the actual forcasted weather for that period. I would like to think RCI's account is credible, but let's just wait and see on that.

 

I live directly on the ocean and I know from experience the amount of error that can occur with ocean weather forcasting. Just last week, a storm system blew through with forcasted winds of 20 knots. The front of the system ended up blowing winds of 40+ knots and knocking over half my yard furniture. On the other hand, sometimes it's significantly less than forcasted.

 

Point is, I find it very hard to believe a Radiance Class ship would intentionally sail in to 45-50 ft seas and 70+ knot winds. Either way, it is impossible for anyone, at this point, to pass judgement based on the limited facts we know. By nature and career, I am a truth seeker, so I guess I find it easy to say I want to see all the facts before judging for myself.

[thelion]

I read Dirtgirls report and it sounded horrendous and even she had injuries which she is having treatment for still. It seems too much of a coincidence that the woman had banged her head and then became ill and died.

But I dont supose its RC fault at all, it was fine for them to carry on in rough seas and risk passengers life:rolleyes:

 

Having worked onboard several cruise ships, I am going to put my .02 in. In no way does it make sense to me that the Captain would have risked the safety of the passengers, his crew and himself in order to make port. If, in fact, the weather was 2x as bad as forecast it makes sense to continue to port. The Captain also quite likely was unaware that other ships decided not to continue forward. An important point as to why they didn't continue forward is: how big were those ships and how close were they to another port of call compared to how big the Brilliance is and how close she was to another port of call. It is likely that Alexandria was closer and safer then perhaps another port or staying at sea. Depending on how the storm was moving it might have been safer to sail through then try to out run it.

 

In addition, her previous conditions is relevant. I am very sorry for this man and the loss of his wife but if she was ill before RCI is not wholly responsible, and potentially not even possibly responsible. If it is true she did not tell the Dr. she hit her head, how they heck are they supposed to know? They are physicians, not psychics.

 

It will most likely end in a pre trial settlement (which does not mean RCI is at fault but rather they want to avoid the costs of trial).

[MAZANDSTEVE]

Quite a few of us, I imagine, have a disability or illness that normally would be fine and we could live to an old age but if thrown around a ship like in this instance, it could possibly kill us, previous illness doesn not come into it as far as I am concerned.

I would expect a captain to do the right thing and avoid troubled waters at all cost. In this day and age and the equipment they have onboard should have given him the correct info. Or is it a case of keeping to the schedual for the next cruise and taking risks??

[Aquahound]

Quite a few of us, I imagine, have a disability or illness that normally would be fine and we could live to an old age but if thrown around a ship like in this instance, it could possibly kill us, previous illness doesn not come into it as far as I am concerned.

I would expect a captain to do the right thing and avoid troubled waters at all cost. In this day and age and the equipment they have onboard should have given him the correct info. Or is it a case of keeping to the schedual for the next cruise and taking risks??

 

The on board equipment does not show sea state ahead of the ship's route, nor does it detect future wind speed. The radar system does show storms and precipitation, but for sea state and winds, they have to rely on external weather reports and forcasts.

[BecciBoo]

30% list in 45ft+ seas...deck ten would be almost on the waterline...so seeing waves hit deck ten windows is more than conceivable....

 

Smaller ship but same principle...

 

 

Watch the entire video, the ship leans right over, the sea height gets way up the sides. The video is from the Med too, incase anyone doubts that the Med can be so bad.

 

Or Diamond Princess...larger ship but with stabilisers deployed, no list as such but those seas certainly made it quite high....

 

 

Yes, you might see them from a helicopter above the ship but absolutely not possible from the balcony of a deck 10 stateroom. The azapods are totally unviewable and way under the ship. They wouldn't have been visable to the passenger even if the ship completely lay on her side in the water. Sorry, do not buy this totally bogus statement. Am very sympathetic to this persons' plight and loss, God bless him, but a series of strokes is not brain damage from blunt force trauma. She was complaining of headaches according to her husband way after the "incident". The stress of the incident may have contributed to them, but I don't think they will be able to prove the cause to RCCL. Just sayin....again, terrible tragedy though.

[Aquahound]

30% list in 45ft+ seas...deck ten would be almost on the waterline...so seeing waves hit deck ten windows is more than conceivable....

 

No, I do not find it concievable. Water hitting deck 10 windows are not waves. It would have been wind driven wash from the splash of the bow entering the water. If waves were to actually hit any balcony decks, the damage would be massive.

 

And I agree with the others. No matter what motion the ship takes, it is physically impossible to see the ship's propellers from anywhere on the ship. I am astonished anyone would think that is possible.

[BecciBoo]

I read Dirtgirls report and it sounded horrendous and even she had injuries which she is having treatment for still. It seems too much of a coincidence that the woman had banged her head and then became ill and died.

But I dont supose its RC fault at all, it was fine for them to carry on in rough seas and risk passengers life:rolleyes:

 

Nowhere in the report/interview with the spouse does it say she "banged her head". He said she was tossed about like a rag doll. Just pointing out that a lot of retoric here is completely being manufactured. If she indeed hit her head, why didn't she see the clinic about it. She obviously felt she was alright or she would've complained about it, is that not reasonable? If one doesn't know anything about sailing and weather conditions, that might seem reasonable, but it is not actually the case. Of course, I was not on the bridge nor have any right to make judgements on the Captain's decisions, but then, neither were you. It is all speculation as to RCCL's responsibility during an act of God such as weather on the high seas. I hope this man is able to move on with his life and is comforted in the passing of his wife. An unfortunate accident, but IMHO just that. And now we see she was treated by the clinic and released as unharmed.

[celle]

Absolutely...this will no doubt hopefully be a part of the investigation carried out by the gentleman's lawyers.

 

Why was this passenger not monitored more closely, especially as she appears to have been showing classic symptons of a serious head injury.

 

Leaving her husband to care for her in the cabin is not good enough, he has no medical background or skills. He probably would not have known that he needed to keep her awake and not let her drift off to sleep with a head injury, especially after she had been vomiting so much....the poor man must have been frantic...

 

The medical staff may have had over 130 people with a variety of injuries but as you ask, where was the triage, where were the staff to sort out who was the most injured and get them treated appropriately?

 

I feel really bad for this man and appreciate how grief-stricken he is.

 

However, unless he can provide more convincing evidence than what is in the newspaper report, he will have a hard time proving his case.

 

In the report, he says: "Barbara was tossed around like a ragdoll and was seriously hurt." He does not say that she hit her head, or that she had any visible head injury.

 

Moreover, nothing in the report says that he actually took his wife to the medical centre at all. This is what he says: "I took Barbara off the ship for a few minutes when we eventually docked at Malta, but she was feeling so ill. "In our cabin she became violently sick. Three days later, she lapsed into unconsciousness before my eyes, fell into a coma, and never woke up."

 

 

 

Did they seek medical help when her condition first started to deteriorate?

 

 

As reported in this article, "John says doctors believe the incident caused Barbara to suffer a series of strokes."

 

 

 

Now, a series of strokes may well have been caused by the stress of the incident (especially if his wife had pre- existing raised blood pressure) but they do not indicate a bleed due to a head injury. A post-mortem report would indicate clearly whether her death was due to an accidental bleed or a series of strokes.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to blame this poor man, just saying that his case will need to be much better prepared than it appears to be at the moment, or else RCCL lawyers will have no problem getting a verdict in RCCL's favour.

 

 

Of course, the whole matter could have been incompletely or inaccurately reported in the newspaper.

[xpcdoojk]

Judging by the reports on this site written by people who were on this cruise there was no exageration in the tabloid paper. If you were not on the ship it is impossible to judge what it was like and what you could or could not see!

 

Actually, anyone with a brain can judge if you could see the propellers from on board the cruise ship.:D

 

Judgement does not require participation.

 

jc

[flbeachmom]

Nowhere in the report/interview with the spouse does it say she "banged her head". He said she was tossed about like a rag doll. Just pointing out that a lot of retoric here is completely being manufactured. If she indeed hit her head, why didn't she see the clinic about it. She obviously felt she was alright or she would've complained about it, is that not reasonable? If one doesn't know anything about sailing and weather conditions, that might seem reasonable, but it is not actually the case.d.

 

I was thinking the same thing.... No report she hit her head, just thrown around. If you shake someone violently over and over that could very well cause siezures. The couple/ drs I'm sure did not realize how serious her problem was at the time. The vomit should have been a clue but maybe the husband just thought sea sick?

 

Either way there should be an investigation and no sense our "guessing what happened"

[bob278]

I feel really bad for this man and appreciate how grief-stricken he is.

 

However, unless he can provide more convincing evidence than what is in the newspaper report, he will have a hard time proving his case.

 

In the report, he says: "Barbara was tossed around like a ragdoll and was seriously hurt." He does not say that she hit her head, or that she had any visible head injury.

 

Moreover, nothing in the report says that he actually took his wife to the medical centre at all. This is what he says: "I took Barbara off the ship for a few minutes when we eventually docked at Malta, but she was feeling so ill. "In our cabin she became violently sick. Three days later, she lapsed into unconsciousness before my eyes, fell into a coma, and never woke up."

 

 

 

Did they seek medical help when her condition first started to deteriorate?

 

 

As reported in this article, "John says doctors believe the incident caused Barbara to suffer a series of strokes."

 

 

 

Now, a series of strokes may well have been caused by the stress of the incident (especially if his wife had pre- existing raised blood pressure) but they do not indicate a bleed due to a head injury. A post-mortem report would indicate clearly whether her death was due to an accidental bleed or a series of strokes.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to blame this poor man, just saying that his case will need to be much better prepared than it appears to be at the moment, or else RCCL lawyers will have no problem getting a verdict in RCCL's favour.

 

 

Of course, the whole matter could have been incompletely or inaccurately reported in the newspaper.

You think? :eek:

[celle]

You think? :eek:

 

Of course I do, and so do you, probably.

 

Many times, the papers go for sensationalism, rather than accuracy.

[dirtgirl]

Of course I do, and so do you, probably.

 

Many times, the papers go for sensationalism, rather than accuracy.

 

 

Say it isn't so!!! :rolleyes:;)

[wg6530]

Of course I do, and so do you, probably.

 

Many times, the papers go for sensationalism, rather than accuracy.

 

aided and abetted by the solicitors, perhaps?

[Blue Peter 2]

Hey, I was on that cruise. The ship had no problems on the way to Alexandria. There was some movement but the stabilisers kept the boat steady. Only when we were near Alexandria at 02.30 and only for five minutes or so was there violent movement. The ship had slowed down and turned so the stabilisers did not work. Immediately the ship increased speed it was back to normal. It is just my opinion but I do not think that turn was planned since the result would have been obvious to anyone.

 

I think Royal Caribbean were very generous, apart from that five minutes and missing Alexandria the cruise was great. I have missed ports before in bad weather without any refund. It's possible that the guy saw the stabilisers sticking out from the side but if he had a balcony then that would have been impossible unless he was outside against instructions.

 

I feel for him for losing his wife, One can only imagine what that was like but lets keep things in proportion please.