Very disturbing lawsuit

[broberts]

Its too bad that so many don't take the time to read the OP and its linked material.

 

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news-stories/lawsuit-against-royal-caribbean-claiming-negligence-in-sexual-assault-to-move-forward/

 

"... the 2015 sexual assault of a 13-year-old Maryland boy that took place aboard the Independence of the Seas..."

",,,attacker is serving a three year prison sentence for lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 16, while his friend was sentenced to two years for child abuse.,,,"

[Jenal2]

No doubt the parents bear some responsibility.

 

 

 

However, RCI is responsible for the amount of alcohol served to the perpetrators. There is also the question of how diligent ship security and other staff need be in protecting passengers, particularly minors.

 

 

 

The fact a judge allowed the suit to go forward is an indication that the cruise line may not be entirely blameless.

 

 

 

Actually the judge denying RCI’s Motion to Dismiss only means that the allegations in the lawsuit, if proven to be true, would constitute a viable cause of action. It doesn’t indicate anything in regard to whether there is any culpability or that RCI is at all to blame.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[ElaineKeagy]

I don’t care what time the curfew is set at, a parent allowing a child to be out and about at 2AM is exhibiting extremely poor judgement. Parents have had kids removed from their homes for less than this.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Jenal2]

If Royal is found negligent for not monitoring the cameras, this seems like it would set a dangerous precedent. Would that then mean that the cruise line would have to be responsible for the safety of every passenger in every area with a camera, at all times? That seems like an awfully tall chore.

 

 

 

What is the purpose of the cameras if not to be monitored and prevent or at least stop actions like this? If you were leaning up against the railings on the Lido deck and they just broke and you fell into the ocean, is it enough that they had railings there, or do you think they would be responsible because the railings weren’t operating properly?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

So are you saying they are making this up?

 

How exactly did they know this? They investigated that's how

 

Again it say NO.....it doesn't say MAY NOT

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

Those are just the allegations made by the plaintiff, they would not have provided any proof for it yet in all likelihood. Plaintiffs are able to plead allegations like that “based upon information and belief”, meaning they can’t say for sure that is what happened.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

"What's in the article" is just what's in the lawsuit. It may or may not be true. It's just what the plaintiff has indicated.

 

While it's on a Disney-ish website, it's not a "Disney article". Look at the bottom of the article; it cites its sources. In any event, whoever wrote it, why would I argue with them? They are stating what the plaintiff has stated in their lawsuit. I have no problem with that.

 

I suggest you read my posts again. I never said that the cameras were or weren't monitored. I stated that the only indication of whether they were or weren't monitored was provided by the plaintiff. You are the one that claims to know the facts based solely on what the plaintiff says, not me.

 

 

 

Exactly right

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

So the plaintiffs lawyers are making it up that the cameras weren't monitored?

 

 

My take is this....the plaintiff lawyers took their time putting together this lawsuit....sent out their investigators...and those investigators found evidence the cameras weren't monitored

 

 

Of course I'm not an idiot....and realize there is a lot of fake stuff out there....but the debate here is based on what this particular article says and it says they weren't monitored and that may well be true

 

Rccl is wrong as stated by other posters

 

Curfew

Alcohol

Cameras

 

Plaintiff will win

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

Like someone else said, we are just hearing one side of it. Cases always sound like open and shut slam dunks when you haven’t heard the opposing facts and argument. By the way, nobody will “win”, the case will settle and RCI will pay big bucks.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Cruzaholic41]

Its too bad that so many don't take the time to read the OP and its linked material.

 

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news-stories/lawsuit-against-royal-caribbean-claiming-negligence-in-sexual-assault-to-move-forward/

 

"... the 2015 sexual assault of a 13-year-old Maryland boy that took place aboard the Independence of the Seas..."

",,,attacker is serving a three year prison sentence for lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 16, while his friend was sentenced to two years for child abuse.,,,"

 

I read it. Nowhere does it say rape. You might want to do a little research to understand that rape is a specific and one of the most egregious forms of sexual assault.

[Cruzaholic41]

What is the purpose of the cameras if not to be monitored and prevent or at least stop actions like this? If you were leaning up against the railings on the Lido deck and they just broke and you fell into the ocean, is it enough that they had railings there, or do you think they would be responsible because the railings weren’t operating properly?

 

The presence of overt cameras is meant to be a deterrent and they are not a requirement. Railings are required by SOLAS and are a safety device. Not a good metaphor.

[Expat Cruise]

Seems to be to many arm chair lawyers here. How many of the members posting have ever even been involved in a lawsuit? Many factors here, many things people would not consider import the courts will, many things the courts consider important the guest will not. The only facts know know are what is represented within the case as fact and the criminal conviction of the three men already.

 

It is fact that: "... attacker is serving a three year prison sentence for lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 16, while his friend was sentenced to two years for child abuse."

Therefore it is a sexual assault just based upon the charge convicted of in the criminal case. It will be decided by the courts at this point.

Opinion: My opinion is Royal will loose this case, or it will be settled with a large payment and sealed agreement. The public may never know a result here.

[A&L_Ont]

Opinion: My opinion is Royal will loose this case, or it will be settled with a large payment and sealed agreement. The public may never know a result here.

 

It will be settled out of court and we will never know the final result.

[Jenal2]

The presence of overt cameras is meant to be a deterrent and they are not a requirement. Railings are required by SOLAS and are a safety device. Not a good metaphor.

 

 

 

You are saying that the cameras aren’t there for security personnel to actual watch what is going on, but just to make us think they are? I would love to see your support for that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[S.A.M.J.R.]

You are saying that the cameras aren’t there for security personnel to actual watch what is going on, but just to make us think they are? I would love to see your support for that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Most cameras (in the world, not just on a ship) are there to establish what happened AFTER the fact. They're not there to prevent crimes from happening in real time.

[Cruzaholic41]

You are saying that the cameras aren’t there for security personnel to actual watch what is going on, but just to make us think they are? I would love to see your support for that

 

Common sense. So it would appear as though I can’t help you.

[FloridaCrazy]

When I did the ship's tour last year, we spent quite a bit of time talking about the security cameras and monitoring. Mostly discussing people falling overboard and technology related to that. Because of those lawsuits, they monitor those cameras a lot... a camera in a normally very quiet area in the middle of the night statistically wouldn't be something that would top the list to watch in my opinion.

The software isn't working well. The "man overboard" software just picks up waves breaking whenever the weather ticks up at all. They tested software that should pick up an unruly crowd/fight but it only went off when people were dancing!

[xpcdoojk]

Cameras are not monitored. They are there solely for the purpose 1 of deterring and two figuring out what happened after the fact. Watching security cameras is exhausting pointless and unable to actually prevent a crime. What was the John Travolta movie 30 years ago, where he was shooting with cameras a house and a murder happened, but he couldn’t stop it? Then the murderer saw him and went after him.

 

Ah, memories of a bad old movie.

 

Stupid lawsuit by someone cashing in on their child’s bad actions that lead to worse actions.

 

We are screwed.:halo:

 

JC

[Merion_Mom]

Cameras are not monitored. They are there solely for the purpose 1 of deterring and two figuring out what happened after the fact. Watching security cameras is exhausting pointless and unable to actually prevent a crime. What was the John Travolta movie 30 years ago, where he was shooting with cameras a house and a murder happened, but he couldn’t stop it? Then the murderer saw him and went after him.

 

Ah, memories of a bad old movie.

 

Stupid lawsuit by someone cashing in on their child’s bad actions that lead to worse actions.

 

We are screwed.:halo:

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

That is the one.

 

If John Travolta can’t stop a crime what chance does RCI security have?

 

JC

[breezy270]

I don’t think that the amount of alcohol served should be a factor... how many here have committed a sexual offense simply because they were over served? I’m willing to guess none. The alcohol didn’t drive the attack the individual was already inclined to commit this attack imho. The cruise line has a curfew and anyone out after that curfew is supposed to be with an adult. I would say we need more facts about why he was not with his parents or in his cabin. The article as it is written certainly makes me believe the parents are mainly responsible for the situation not the cruise line.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Expat Cruise]

I don’t think that the amount of alcohol served should be a factor...

 

Really because if you Google Alcohol and effects on Sexual Abuse, you get almost 50 million returns and pages of cases saying that Alcohol is a factor in around 50% of the cases. The National Institutes of Health believes it is a factor below is the link

 

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm

[Jenal2]

Common sense. So it would appear as though I can’t help you.

 

 

 

So you have no support then, this is just your opinion? There are cameras and security personnel all over the ship. They have these things called walkie-talkies, or something similar. So, you see, if someone sees an attack taking place on a monitor, they call down to someone else who immediately runs to the location of the attack. Not that difficult of a concept for someone with minimal intelligence. So it would appear as though I can’t help you.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[ATC cruiser]

They see the attack, they didn’t prevent it.

[Biker19]

 

Biker, who is waiting for some other tangent for this thread.

[Jenal2]

Most cameras (in the world, not just on a ship) are there to establish what happened AFTER the fact. They're not there to prevent crimes from happening in real time.

 

 

 

Cruise ships are unique in that there are a massive amount of people together in a small space. I am friends with the head of security on RCI. I assure you that there are more security people than you would think (and you can see) on a cruise ship, and their goal is to act swiftly and immediately to ensure the safety of all of the passengers.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Aquahound]

So you have no support then, this is just your opinion? There are cameras and security personnel all over the ship. They have these things called walkie-talkies, or something similar. So, you see, if someone sees an attack taking place on a monitor, they call down to someone else who immediately runs to the location of the attack. Not that difficult of a concept for someone with minimal intelligence. So it would appear as though I can’t help you.

 

Perhaps I can help you out. I am a maritime criminal investigator who has worked with commercial and cruise ship security for about 18 years, and I have spent countless hours in court. CCTV cameras exist on cruise ships for 3 main reasons. One, they are made known and are highly visible, and their mere presence deters criminal activity. Two, the data collected from the cameras is used to reconstruct incidents after the fact (criminal and otherwise). And three, they exist for the protection of the carrier, mainly because people do make frivolous claims.

 

A large cruise ship has about 300 cameras. A cruise ship is a community with a very low relative crime rate. Nowhere is it stated in law that they need to have these cameras and monitor them 24/7, and it is very unreasonable to think they would be able to do so. I don't know how many security officers you think are on a cruise ship, but there certainly are not enough to be "all over the ship" as you stated, and still have the ability to stare at 300+ video feeds.