Very disturbing lawsuit

[Jenal2]

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

 

 

 

No, I just don’t appreciate people telling me what to do. Why is everyone attacking me but nobody has a problem with another poster snidely telling me that I have to make up my mind? I don’t have to do anything.

 

I don’t start problems, but when attacked I will certainly defend myself. We have a bunch of people stating as a matter of fact what will or will not happen with the lawsuit, but nobody has a problem with it. My point was, and still is, that I were cross examining a corporate representative whose defense was, yes we have cameras but we don’t really monitor them, I would have a field day with them on cross-examination. I stand by that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Cruzaholic41]

What kind of lawyer are you?

 

That’s what I thought.

 

Probably the same kind.

 

Exactly.

[Jenal2]

That’s what I thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Some of you crack me up. You swear you know everything there is to know about everything. You got me, that law degree hanging from my wall must be fake...

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

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

No, I just don’t appreciate people telling me what to do. Why is everyone attacking me but nobody has a problem with another poster snidely telling me that I have to make up my mind? I don’t have to do anything.

 

I don’t start problems, but when attacked I will certainly defend myself. We have a bunch of people stating as a matter of fact what will or will not happen with the lawsuit, but nobody has a problem with it. My point was, and still is, that I were cross examining a corporate representative whose defense was, yes we have cameras but we don’t really monitor them, I would have a field day with them on cross-examination. I stand by that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

You say that, but then you said (when asked what you would use for precedence in order to "have a field day")...

 

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.

THAT'S why I was prompting you to make up your mind. I wasn't referring to this particular case.

 

I'm guessing you (among others on this thread) THINK you know how security cameras work (or should work). I, and others, have pointed out how things work "in the real world".

 

I believe YOU brought up how you're friends with RCI's head of security. I think it would be good information to have on whether RCI monitors all security cameras (on board as well as on land). The head of security would surely have that information. If you don't think it's worth asking him, that's fine.

[Aquahound]

My point was, and still is, that I were cross examining a corporate representative whose defense was, yes we have cameras but we don’t really monitor them, I would have a field day with them on cross-examination. I stand by that.

 

I hear what you're saying and I'm trying to keep it civil, but I'm still curious what your argument would be if there is no law, policy or duty to real-time monitor one's own cameras, especially when applied to a ship of a foreign state when on the high seas. On what grounds would you have a field day?

[xpcdoojk]

No, I just don’t appreciate people telling me what to do. Why is everyone attacking me but nobody has a problem with another poster snidely telling me that I have to make up my mind? I don’t have to do anything.

 

I don’t start problems, but when attacked I will certainly defend myself. We have a bunch of people stating as a matter of fact what will or will not happen with the lawsuit, but nobody has a problem with it. My point was, and still is, that I were cross examining a corporate representative whose defense was, yes we have cameras but we don’t really monitor them, I would have a field day with them on cross-examination. I stand by that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I read it the first few times you have posted it, Perry Mason, esquire.

 

Nobody is attacking you. However almost all cameras in public are not monitored so suddenly you are going to make hay in court attacking the concept that security cameras are not watched in real time? That makes me wonder if basic facts are so easily attacked in court that we should not be surprised when justice often fails to come from a verdict.

 

That and the fact that anyone can say they are a lawyer, doctor or Indian chief here, and it is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

So, let’s settle on healthy skepticism in stead of attacking you.:halo::evilsmile::')

 

JC

[Oceansaway17]

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

 

 

 

Great reply. Aquahound has experience in Maritime and investigations over 18 years. I would listen to this person more than others yapping.

[Jenal2]

I hear what you're saying and I'm trying to keep it civil, but I'm still curious what your argument would be if there is no law, policy or duty to real-time monitor one's own cameras, especially when applied to a ship of a foreign state when on the high seas. On what grounds would you have a field day?

 

 

 

No reason not to be civil.

 

First, let me say that I am not talking about arguing legal authority in court or winning the case, but rather cross examining someone who tells me that they think they are not responsible because even though they have security cameras they don’t have people watching them.

 

But what we are really talking about here is a claim for negligence, which can encompass millions of different actions. Just because there is not a specific law covering that specific action or non-action, doesn’t mean it doesn’t amount to actionable negligence.

 

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”. RCI’s Motion to Dismiss that count of the complaint was denied. Again, this does not mean that their actions definitely violated the law. That is ultimately for a jury to decide. But the point is that a reasonable argument can be made that they did, which brings me back to my point about cross-examine their rep.

 

Make sense?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Oceansaway17]

I still am amazed that a boy drowned during the day on the Anthem. He was found in one of the outside pools.

 

Now this is why we have lifeguards on ships.

 

Perhaps the library and and lot of various rooms not used much should be closed during the hours of 1 am to 6 am.

[Jenal2]

I hear what you're saying and I'm trying to keep it civil, but I'm still curious what your argument would be if there is no law, policy or duty to real-time monitor one's own cameras, especially when applied to a ship of a foreign state when on the high seas. On what grounds would you have a field day?

 

 

 

Another one where the court refused to dismiss the case is Doe v RCI from 2011. It’s a similar situation, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted on a ship. Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that “the cameras were operable and continuously monitored but that the employees watching the cameras were not paying attention or were not properly trained to react to what they were seeing”.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

You say that, but then you said (when asked what you would use for precedence in order to "have a field day")...

 

 

 

 

 

THAT'S why I was prompting you to make up your mind. I wasn't referring to this particular case.

 

 

 

I'm guessing you (among others on this thread) THINK you know how security cameras work (or should work). I, and others, have pointed out how things work "in the real world".

 

 

 

I believe YOU brought up how you're friends with RCI's head of security. I think it would be good information to have on whether RCI monitors all security cameras (on board as well as on land). The head of security would surely have that information. If you don't think it's worth asking him, that's fine.

 

 

 

I will ask him when I see him but please read what I just posted about negligence. Nobody has to make up their mind but the jury. I have simply stated what I believe based on my personal and professional background. I don’t know how cameras work but I know how the law works. And if I am not mistaken this thread is about a court case.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

I read it the first few times you have posted it, Perry Mason, esquire.

 

 

 

Nobody is attacking you. However almost all cameras in public are not monitored so suddenly you are going to make hay in court attacking the concept that security cameras are not watched in real time? That makes me wonder if basic facts are so easily attacked in court that we should not be surprised when justice often fails to come from a verdict.

 

 

 

That and the fact that anyone can say they are a lawyer, doctor or Indian chief here, and it is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

 

 

So, let’s settle on healthy skepticism in stead of attacking you.:halo::evilsmile::')

 

 

 

JC

 

 

 

I couldn’t care less what you believe. But you might want to read my recent posts about the law.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[toxicfairy]

Parents won't let their kids roam the city all hours of the day and night ( well most won't). But thats what a ship is. It is a city at sea. You do not know who is on this ship they do not finger print you or eye scan you. They simply take your cruise ticket and go. Now these parents want to sue the jerk that hurt their son. I get that but why weren't they proactive to begin with. In their cabin passed out?? Does your son normally roam the streets at 2am? Sorry that he was attacked there is just no excuse and hopefully besides jail this p.o.s is banned from a passport. That said these parents don't do THEIR JOB which is to pay attention and protect and look after their own kids. But they want everyone else to do their jobs plus do the job of the parent. Sad sad society!

 

Sent from my LGMP450 using Forums mobile app

[Milwaukee Eight]

No reason not to be civil.

 

First, let me say that I am not talking about arguing legal authority in court or winning the case, but rather cross examining someone who tells me that they think they are not responsible because even though they have security cameras they don’t have people watching them.

 

But what we are really talking about here is a claim for negligence, which can encompass millions of different actions. Just because there is not a specific law covering that specific action or non-action, doesn’t mean it doesn’t amount to actionable negligence.

 

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”. RCI’s Motion to Dismiss that count of the complaint was denied. Again, this does not mean that their actions definitely violated the law. That is ultimately for a jury to decide. But the point is that a reasonable argument can be made that they did, which brings me back to my point about cross-examine their rep.

 

Make sense?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

Yea. Been involved in court cases and lawyer arguments. It doesn’t have to be true or fact. You don’t have to argue the facts. It’s just like Fake News.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[xpcdoojk]

I couldn’t care less what you believe. But you might want to read my recent posts about the law.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Impressive legal insights from other bad cases. Google is awesome, not to mention working for law firms that specialize in suing cruise ships.

 

JC

[Milwaukee Eight]

I couldn’t care less what you believe. But you might want to read my recent posts about the law.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

Hey. I care what JC has to say. Don’t always agree with him but I pay attention.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Aquahound]

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”. RCI’s Motion to Dismiss that count of the complaint was denied. Again, this does not mean that their actions definitely violated the law. That is ultimately for a jury to decide. But the point is that a reasonable argument can be made that they did, which brings me back to my point about cross-examine their rep.

 

That was an interesting read. Thanks for the reference. The crux of that case, though, was the fact that the drunken victim actually did encounter crew and that they observed him staggering and disorientated, and they did nothing to address it. In fact, the crew even admitted "something was wrong." RCI later lied to the family and told them he committed suicide when in fact, he fell overboard from a service ladder that he attempted to climb down.

 

I believe the monitoring of cameras would have better standing in that case because the crew was aware of this person's condition and was aware he was wandering around unattended. The crew should have alerted security and they should have engaged the CCTV system to find him.

 

But like you said, the non monitoring of cameras was but 1 of numerous failures cited in the motion. In that case, I'm totally on the side of the plaintiff.

 

But what I'm curious of, is whether or not that particular piece was an element of the final decision. What I just read was a motion to dismiss.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Aquahound

[Jenal2]

Yea. Been involved in court cases and lawyer arguments. It doesn’t have to be true or fact. You don’t have to argue the facts. It’s just like Fake News.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

You clearly don’t understand

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jenal2]

Impressive legal insights from other bad cases. Google is awesome, not to mention working for law firms that specialize in suing cruise ships.

 

 

 

JC

 

 

 

It’s called Westlaw and I have never sued a cruise ship in my life. Any other profound insights?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[CruiseGal999]

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 love how people don't read the post they are referencing and spit out caustic replies. The post said "it takes 3 seconds to INITIATE ...". NOT always (but sometimes) complete, but INITIATE. OMG ... By today's standards I was sexully assaulted on a pretty regular basis when I was at work at the age of 16. The cops usually found a reason to bump &/or rub me, or just plain put their hand on my butt .... but this was mid-1970s.

[Eslader]

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”. RCI’s Motion to Dismiss that count of the complaint was denied.

 

A denial of a motion to dismiss is not a finding of fact, and so nothing in what you said counters the points you are trying to counter.

 

A motion to dismiss is pretty bog-standard. You get sued, you file a motion to dismiss. You probably won't get it unless you get lucky and plaintiff was a dipwad and messed up the procedurals, but hey, if you *do* get lucky you get to go home earlier and are spared the expense of a trial or a settlement.

 

They filed a motion to dismiss in the OJ Simpson trial for cripes sake.

 

Now the interesting thing about the case you cited is that the motion to dismiss was affirmed for some counts, and denied for others.

 

It was specifically denied on the negligence count -- the judge found that there was evidence that negligence had occurred because Royal overserved Tello, its staff members saw that he was drunk and staggering around the ship but they did nothing to assist him, and then after Royal discovered that he had fallen overboard, staff farted around for several hours before finally alerting search and rescue.

 

Nowhere in the discussion for the denial is "and they failed to watch the security monitors 24/7" mentioned despite as you pointed out the cameras having been cited by plaintiff as an act of negligence.

 

You might be further interested to know that despite what in my opinion was a much stronger case for negligence than "They were not psychic," plaintiff lost that case on summary judgment because the case boiled down to plaintiff claiming that her son was *going* to become a doctor and was *going* to give her money once he did and therefore Royal owed her compensation for pecuniary loss.

 

 

The judge, quite properly in my view, saw that as complete BS and tossed the case out.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Eslader

[Milwaukee Eight]

You clearly don’t understand

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

 

So you always argue the truth? I don’t believe so. What lawyers say or argue is not the facts/truth.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[TC1957]

Great reply. Aquahound has experience in Maritime and investigations over 18 years. I would listen to this person more than others yapping.

 

Or so he says...

[AmazedByCruising]

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”.

 

 

I can't find the case, do you have a link?

 

One crew member able to watch 10 cameras at once for 8 hours a day. Let's say 300 cameras. That's 90 crew extra crewmembers who need to sleep, eat, be managed. If plaintiff claims that's an "industry standard", I wouldn't believe anything else he said.

[kccrzr]

I hear what you're saying and I'm trying to keep it civil, but I'm still curious what your argument would be if there is no law, policy or duty to real-time monitor one's own cameras, especially when applied to a ship of a foreign state when on the high seas. On what grounds would you have a field day?

 

I don’t think anyone is going to have a field day in this case and like many situations there are no real winners at the end of the day.

 

If there are no actual observations by crew members of either the participants or monitors which plaintiff is able to establish through discovery, I think the argument will come down to whether RCI created a duty for itself which does not exist in the statutes through its marketing and website statements that it generally exceeds the requirements of the law. There may also be an argument that RCI with its superior knowledge of criminal activity on ships had a duty to warn.

 

RCI on its part will probably try to establish that plaintiff did not read or reasonably rely on any statements regarding elevated security. For example, in one case the plaintiff admitted she never read any marketing information prior to the cruise with her family. The difficulty here for RCI is that a minor was involved, so will not be held to the same standards.

 

Based on your experience you have much more knowledge about maritime standards and practices than does the average cruiser. It may be reasonable for someone else to believe something that you would never be found to have reasonably relied upon. I expect you are also more cognizant of the existence of cruise ship incidents than the average cruiser.

 

Knowledge is power and can change people’s actions. That is how many people know not to go to certain parts of town where crime is more likely to occur. Here RCI may argue that it is not so common on its ships as to raise a duty to warn and this criminal activity was not foreseeable.