Very disturbing lawsuit

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

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

Where has anyone said anything counter to this? Of course RCI (and all companies) want to ensure the safety of their guests and employees. At question is WHY they have cameras. Why don't you ask your friends what they use the cameras for? The majority of cameras are used AFTER an incident takes place.

[alfaeric]

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

 

That also means that alcohol is NOT a factor in around 50% of the cases. Given a 50/50 toss up, you can't really make a conclusion if it's a factor or not. It's equally a factor and not a factor.

[Milwaukee Eight]

 

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

 

 

 

Not again.....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

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.

 

 

 

Thank you for a factual post but I suspect will do nothing to change others who have become dependent on Fake News.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[The Scurvy Pirate]

I would urge anyone interested in this to actually read the Court’s Order linked in post #57 on Page 3. It is very enlightening as to actual legal duties and obligations of the cruise line, without regard to what people “think” it should or shouldn’t be.

 

In short, the Plaintiff alleged two causes of action: 1) negligence and 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. RCI filed a Motion to Dismiss based simply upon the allegations in the complaint. This is a Motion usually filed within the first few days after the complaint was served, before any discovery has taken place, and most likely before RCI has filed an answer to the complaint. This is a motion filed extremely early in the judicial process.

 

RCI asserted that as a “matter of law” the Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that a cause of action even existed. The burden rested with RCI to prove that, taking all allegations in the complaint, viewed most broadly in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, that it failed to allege a cause of action. As noted by the Court in denying this Motion, the burden of proof is exceptionally high and difficult to prove at this early stage of the case.

 

RCI first argued that under established maritime law that placing a camera on board did not create a duty to monitor security cameras. The Judge noted that RCI had previously raised this in a similar case before the same Judge, in which the Judge likewise denied the Motion at this early stage of the case. As noted, the Court “at this time” declined to find that the Plaintiff failed to allege facts that could possibly create a duty. It should be noted that the Court cited to multiple cases where, at later stages, cases were dismissed because there was “evidence” there was no duty to monitor cameras. Again, at this early stage of the case, there is no “evidence” presented one way or the other, just simply the allegations in the Complaint taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.

 

The Court goes on to analyze the other “elements” of negligence that must be proven and finds that there is sufficient specificity within the allegations “at this stage of the litigation” to deny RCI’s motion.

 

As to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the Court noted that Florida law has evolved an “extremely high” standard of proof in demonstrating whether the Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently “outrageous”. Notwithstanding, the Court declined to dismiss this cause of action “at this stage of the litigation” as the “record is insufficiently developed”. Again, the Plaintiff made sufficient allegations against RCI (again taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff) to constitute a cause of action. Whether those allegations are ultimately determined to be true or false was not before the Court. For purposes of the Motion they are assumed to be true.

 

Again, it is extremely rare for any court to dismiss an action at this early stage based simply that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient. By denying this early motion, the Court is giving RCI an opportunity to file its Answer and for some discovery to take place. At an appropriate time RCI will file a Motion for Summary Judgment, attaching Affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support (which is not allowed as part of the present motion). Based simply upon the high legal standard the Plaintiff has to demonstrate as to each and every element of the cause of action, including the multiple cases cited by the Judge which were ultimately in favor of the cruise industry, it would appear that there may be one or more elements that cannot be demonstrated and that summary judgment could be appropriate.

 

Again, anyone interested should read the actual Order issued by the Court.

[Eslader]

The article as it is written certainly makes me believe the parents are mainly responsible for the situation not the cruise line.

 

 

That's definitely not the conclusion I'd draw. The people mainly responsible for the situation are the criminals who committed the crime. I do agree that mom was negligent letting kid out after curfew, but it doesn't follow that she is directly responsible for the criminal act.

 

 

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.

 

It takes less than 3 seconds to initiate a "sexual assault." Unless the guard is literally right there in the room, there's no way anyone can "immediately run" fast enough to stop the situation. So no, that wouldn't work, at all.

[Jenal2]

That's definitely not the conclusion I'd draw. The people mainly responsible for the situation are the criminals who committed the crime. I do agree that mom was negligent letting kid out after curfew, but it doesn't follow that she is directly responsible for the criminal act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It takes less than 3 seconds to initiate a "sexual assault." Unless the guard is literally right there in the room, there's no way anyone can "immediately run" fast enough to stop the situation. So no, that wouldn't work, at all.

 

 

 

So you are just assuming the entire thing took 3seconds? I love how people just make up facts to support their position.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

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.

 

 

 

Let me ask you this. You say you have been in court countless times. Have any of those cases gone to trial? Because I am an attorney and I can promise you that if I were suing RCI and their defense was, well we do have security cameras but we just don’t watch them that much, I would had a field day with that. I am wondering if any juries have bought that excuse and let them off the hook.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Eslader]

So you are just assuming the entire thing took 3seconds? I love how people just make up facts to support their position.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I'm going to suggest you look up the definition of the word "initiate" and get back to me...

[Aquahound]

Let me ask you this. You say you have been in court countless times. Have any of those cases gone to trial? Because I am an attorney and I can promise you that if I were suing RCI and their defense was, well we do have security cameras but we just don’t watch them that much, I would had a field day with that. I am wondering if any juries have bought that excuse and let them off the hook.

 

My cases rarely go to trial but I've sat through more motions than I can count. I don't remember that specific argument being brought up regarding on-ship cases, but it's been raised numerous times in other land-based venues. Not once did I see a ruling that said the business owner had a duty to monitor security cameras.

 

But let me turn this around. You say you're a lawyer and you would "have a field day," so you should be able to find precedent or a bench decision ruling that the owner does have a duty to monitor. If you're going to have a field day, you have to be able to cite something to this affect. I'd like for you to share that with me so I can read it.

[Jenal2]

My cases rarely go to trial but I've sat through more motions than I can count. I don't remember that specific argument being brought up regarding on-ship cases, but it's been raised numerous times in other land-based venues. Not once did I see a ruling that said the business owner had a duty to monitor security cameras.

 

But let me turn this around. You say you're a lawyer and you would "have a field day," so you should be able to find precedent or a bench decision ruling that the owner does have a duty to monitor. If you're going to have a field day, you have to be able to cite something to this affect. I'd like for you to share that with me so I can read it.

 

 

 

I don’t know whether I could or not, but I was curious as to your experience since you said you have been involved in cases like this. If I have time over the weekend I will check it out.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

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

Let me ask you this. You say you have been in court countless times. Have any of those cases gone to trial? Because I am an attorney and I can promise you that if I were suing RCI and their defense was, well we do have security cameras but we just don’t watch them that much, I would had a field day with that. I am wondering if any juries have bought that excuse and let them off the hook.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I don’t know whether I could or not, but I was curious as to your experience since you said you have been involved in cases like this. If I have time over the weekend I will check it out.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I would suggest making up your mind. Why not ask RCI's head of security what the cameras are for? Seems like an easy way to get the answer.

[Jenal2]

I would suggest making up your mind. Why not ask RCI's head of security what the cameras are for? Seems like an easy way to get the answer.

 

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

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

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Wow. Defensive much? It's a public message board. You don't want people commenting on what you post, don't post.

[Jenal2]

Wow. Defensive much? It's a public message board. You don't want people commenting on what you post, don't post.

 

 

 

There you go again telling me what to do again. Comment all you want but don’t tell me that I have it make up my mind, or that I have to do anything really. Intelligent people do the research before making up their mind. That’s what I intend to do.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Finbar127]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Sounds like someone getting defensive when asked to prove their point. FYI this is an internet message forum. If you don't want someone commenting on your "business" you shouldn't post it here.:cool:

[Cruzaholic41]

Let me ask you this. You say you have been in court countless times. Have any of those cases gone to trial? Because I am an attorney and I can promise you that if I were suing RCI and their defense was, well we do have security cameras but we just don’t watch them that much, I would had a field day with that. I am wondering if any juries have bought that excuse and let them off the hook.

 

You say you’re a lawyer and you would have a field day with this defense yet when asked, you don’t provide any reference or info on why not watching cameras is wrong. Exactly what kind of lawyer are you?

[Goodtime Cruizin]

13 pages over something that happened three years ago and a lawsuit that will likely never even make it to court in the first place. Royal will write a check and settle out of court is my guess, we will likely never hear the outcome and ALL of us will pay for it in the long run. Anyone have an idea of the monetary amount they are seeking?

 

This. So much.

[ElaineKeagy]

And the mother will be financially rewarded for her incompetence and the boy for his boorish behavior. Sounds like a win/win.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Toofarfromthesea]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

By what legal analysis is this YOUR business but not the poster who questioned you? Are you SURE you are an attorney, because it sure isn't coming across that way in your posts.

 

Somehow I won't be surprised if you never 'get around' to checking this.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

Wow.....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

There you go again telling me what to do again. Comment all you want but don’t tell me that I have it make up my mind, or that I have to do anything really. Intelligent people do the research before making up their mind. That’s what I intend to do.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

Why don’t you take this outside and once settled, come back and join us. You seem to have a quick tigger.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Jenal2]

By what legal analysis is this YOUR business but not the poster who questioned you? Are you SURE you are an attorney, because it sure isn't coming across that way in your posts.

 

 

 

Somehow I won't be surprised if you never 'get around' to checking this.

 

 

 

And you are judging me on what, your extensive knowledge about me, both personally and professionally? You are clearly just just trying out argue for the sake of arguing. If I say I will get around to it then I will.

 

If you were to take the time to read all of the posts you would see that I was responding to that person telling me that I had to “make up my mind”. Like I told them, I don’t have to do anything, but I certainly wont make up my mind until I am ready to.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

You say you’re a lawyer and you would have a field day with this defense yet when asked, you don’t provide any reference or info on why not watching cameras is wrong. Exactly what kind of lawyer are you?

 

 

 

What kind of lawyer are you?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[xpcdoojk]

What kind of lawyer are you?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

Probably the same kind.

 

JC