Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Pauser

Family's statement on toddler's cruise death

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Peachypooh said:

This whole thing has so many facets.

Not really .

3 hours ago, Peachypooh said:

The grandfather did an irresponsible thing and a child died as a result.

Exactly ! It all boils down to this . Really and truly it's this simple . Oh and the family wants to sue .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, in general, the USA is too prison-focused in its attempts to combat crime. The rates of incarceration here vs other countries is mind boggling - even more so when you realize that those high rates haven't forced crime rates below other countries with lower incarceration rates. 

 

In this case I would be much more inclined to just letting his punishment be living with the guilt if not for the 1) drastic change in story (originally admitting to holding her out an open window and her slipping vs banging the glass on a supposed closed window) and 2) the family going after RCL. Those things point towards them wanting to push the blame on someone else vs accepting what went wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smplybcause said:

I think, in general, the USA is too prison-focused in its attempts to combat crime

 

3 minutes ago, smplybcause said:

Those things point towards them wanting to push the blame on someone else vs accepting what went wrong. 

 

Unfortunately, in the US, the second part often causes the first.

 

When someone does something wrong and gets caught, their initial reaction is to blame someone else. When people are unwilling to accept personal responsibility, crime will increase. With increased crime comes increased incarceration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peachypooh said:

This whole thing has so many facets. The fact remains that the grandfather did an irresponsible

thing and a child died as a result. I agree with the poster that said if a crew member lifted

the child up to see out the window there would be no discussion. It's just because it's

the grandfather. It would make me sick to my stomach to try to profit off the death of

my child. That said...grief makes people do and say irrational things and I do believe

they are being influenced by the attorney. I was on a sister ship to this one with a three

year old. NO WAY would I have lifted her up to an open window to look out.

I agree with you that the family is being influenced by the attorney.  I remember reading that he was in San Juan either the day of the accident or the next day.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, smplybcause said:

I think, in general, the USA is too prison-focused in its attempts to combat crime. The rates of incarceration here vs other countries is mind boggling - even more so when you realize that those high rates haven't forced crime rates below other countries with lower incarceration rates. 

 

In this case I would be much more inclined to just letting his punishment be living with the guilt if not for the 1) drastic change in story (originally admitting to holding her out an open window and her slipping vs banging the glass on a supposed closed window) and 2) the family going after RCL. Those things point towards them wanting to push the blame on someone else vs accepting what went wrong. 

I agree with you especially with the family going after RCCL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a completely horrible accident. Yes, it was an accident. I think most agree on that...no one thinks the grandfather did this purposefully. Were they right to charge him? Yes, unfortunately. At the end of the day, it was negligence...sadly, this act of negligence resulted in a terrible outcome. Accidents happen, sometimes with unfortunate outcomes that have consequences.

 

The main issue here is with trying to place blame on RCCL and all the statements being released against them. I understand a lawyer's job is to do everything they can in their power, but anyone with two eyes and half a brain can see these statements are all smoke and mirrors. The family saying "open windows in a children's area," for instance...this didn't make sense to me, because I couldn't see where any children's area on a ship would be near the edge where a child could fall. One look at the ship video someone posted, and you realize it's not a children's area...it's just the lounge area that all cruise ships have lining the side of the ship, that happens to be next to the children's pool. So, I'm sorry, but they don't have that as a valid argument. It's not like she was playing in the children's area when this happened.

 

Also, their rebuttal of "having open windows where someone could fall out." Firstly, those open windows are way too high for any child to accidentally fall out on their own. Even and older child who slips and falls. Even an adult, to be honest. I don't know many adults that are so top-heavy that if they fell near the railing of a ship, they would topple up and over the railing instead of down onto the ground. Secondly, does that mean ships shouldn't have balcony rooms then? Because someone COULD fall off?

 

It's just sad to see them scraping at clearly invalid reasons that it's RCCL's fault. I understand them not wanting to accept the grandfather's conviction, but if not that, just say overall it was an accident. Don't try to blame the other party with poor excuses.

 

(Plus, as someone said before...they don't want to convict the grandfather or say he was negligent...but we all know that if anyone outside that family picked the girl up and did the exact same thing, that person would for sure be negligent and at fault and all the other words they don't want the grandfather to be. Again, unfortunate but...reality.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was interested to find this thread on the NCL boards.  I had looked on Royal's board after hearing the charges were being pressed.  I was only on the NCL board to read TheDougOut's live review of Encore.

 

I do wonder if the charges had been filed if the family had never allowed themselves to be talked into filing a suit against Royal.  If it were treated as the terrible tragedy it is and the family quietly went home.  (I'm not saying the grandfather is not to blame nor the charges not justified.)  I mean, in other cases where a child has been injured or died on a cruise ship I am unaware of a parent being sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, helen haywood said:

I was interested to find this thread on the NCL boards.  I had looked on Royal's board after hearing the charges were being pressed.  I was only on the NCL board to read TheDougOut's live review of Encore.

 

I do wonder if the charges had been filed if the family had never allowed themselves to be talked into filing a suit against Royal.  If it were treated as the terrible tragedy it is and the family quietly went home.  (I'm not saying the grandfather is not to blame nor the charges not justified.)  I mean, in other cases where a child has been injured or died on a cruise ship I am unaware of a parent being sued.

Do you really think this?     Absolutely not-   Law enforcement obviously has determined there were acts of a chargeable crime committed by the grandfather.      They would have NOTHING to do with any lawsuit or be influenced by it.     

 

They have facts from the cctv that have resulted in the change 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t be too sure that the family was manipulated into suing RCL. Chloe’s mother is a lawyer turned judge, and her father is a police detective. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, that they would sue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, StillPooh said:

I wouldn’t be too sure that the family was manipulated into suing RCL. Chloe’s mother is a lawyer turned judge, and her father is a police detective. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, that they would sue. 

Then as a lawyer turned Judge she should have seen where the blame goes. FIL was responsible, not NCL.

 

The windows are

1) High enough a toddler can't reach them

2) Pretty sure they open for ventilation 

3) Most people can tell an open window from a closed one.

4) There is a railing before the window 

5) The window wasn't in the kids area

 

It was a tragic situation there IS NO DOUBT about that. It all goes back to FIL not using common sense.

 

As far as her father being a police detective, this should be a very simple case to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beerman2 said:

Then as a lawyer turned Judge she should have seen where the blame goes. FIL was responsible, not NCL.

As far as her father being a police detective, this should be a very simple case to solve.

You're kidding right ? As a judge & detective they have both know how things can be manipulated and that justice is just a naive ideal . The best defense ....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richstowe said:

You're kidding right ? As a judge & detective they have both know how things can be manipulated and that justice is just a naive ideal . The best defense ....... 

Still doesn’t make it right to use their titles to manipulate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beerman2 said:

Still doesn’t make it right to use their titles to manipulate!

True !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, beerman2 said:

Then as a lawyer turned Judge she should have seen where the blame goes. FIL was responsible, not NCL.

 

The windows are

1) High enough a toddler can't reach them

2) Pretty sure they open for ventilation 

3) Most people can tell an open window from a closed one.

4) There is a railing before the window 

5) The window wasn't in the kids area

 

It was a tragic situation there IS NO DOUBT about that. It all goes back to FIL not using common sense.

 

As far as her father being a police detective, this should be a very simple case to solve.

I was on the cruise PRIOR to this incident (we got off the day they got on), the window in question, along with MANY OTHERS were open for most if not all of the cruise.  I have pictures that prove this.  The pictures also clearly show that the window are high enough for someone to have to actively TRY to fall out of them, much less a toddler.  They also show CLEARLY which windows are open and which are closed.  And since it is just forward of the smoking section, they were most likely open for ventilation.  It was also right in front of the juice bar and not in a kids area.  There may have been a pool in the middle, but it certainly isn't a kids area.  Like someone said, it's a lounge area.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 12:19 PM, RunBikeCruiseDC said:

Now back to the subject at hand.  I'm so saddened the grandfather was given criminal charges.  I was hoping for manslaughter.   Tragic accident but he didn't mean to kill the child.  This family has been through so much already.


Intent isn't necessary for a charge of homicide.  

A few years ago I sat on a jury for an Open Murder case (the open charge meant we could have found the defendant guilty of First Degree or Second Degree Homicide, or not guilty).  

The way it was explained to the jury is that homicide is when a person's action causes a death and that action was something that a "reasonable person" would think could reasonably result in death, regardless of intent.  

For example, if you kick someone in the leg, nobody is going to expect that to kill someone. You'd expect a bruise, possibly a broken bone, but not death.

If you asked the average person at your local mall if they thought it was reasonable to think someone could die as a result of getting kicked in the shin one time, everyone's going to say that they would not expect a single kick in the leg to cause someone to die.  While it COULD result in a bruise/blood clot that COULD break off and it COULD travel to the brain and COULD kill someone, that would be an unexpected result from getting kicked in the shin -- it's not reasonable to expect that type of outcome.  

On the other hand, if you asked the average person at your local mall if they thought it was reasonable to think someone could die as a result of getting bashed in the skull one time with a baseball bat / tire iron / golf club / pipe / whatever, everyone's going to say that they would not be surprised if getting bashed in the skull with an object caused someone to die.  They might survive and be fine, or they might survive and be brain-damaged, or they might die -- all of those are within a reasonable realm of possibility.  Even if you didn't INTEND for the baseball bat bashing to kill the person, it's totally reasonable to think they could die as a result of getting bashed in the head with a baseball bat.


So, let's put that same test to this grandfather's actions.  

Grandfather placed toddler on the railing.
Railing is four feet from the floor, and 100-ish feet from the concrete pier below. 
Grandfather did not have an adequate hold on the toddler to prevent her from falling off the railing. 

Now ask the average person at your local mall if they thought it was reasonable to think that a toddler could die from falling off a railing that was 4' above a hard floor on one side and 100' above a concrete pier on the other side -- anyone with half a brain is going to tell you that a toddler falling off a railing could hit their head on the floor and die, or plummet to the pier below and die -- and there you have your grounds for homicide.  

It's totally within the realm of possibility that an unrestrained toddler could fall off a railing that is 4 inches wide -- even professional gymnasts can fall off the balance beam, so it wouldn't be the least bit surprising for a toddler to fall off a railing that size.  It's also within the realm of possibility that the toddler could die from falling off that railing, regardless of whether they fall the four feet to the floor or the 100 feet to the pier.  If she fell to the floor instead of the pier, she MIGHT be fine or she MIGHT be brain-damaged or she MIGHT die -- all are within the realm of reasonable possible outcomes, so it wouldn't be surprising if she died as a result.  

 

A reasonable, responsible person would not place an unrestrained child on a railing, whether it was 4' above the floor or 100' above the pier, because a reasonable / average person would expect that serious bodily harm including death could be the result of that action.  

You may not have intended to kill the guy when you smashed him in the head with a baseball bat, but it was reasonable to think it could happen, so you shouldn't have swung the bat unless you were willing to be charged with homicide. 

The grandfather did not intend to kill the child when he placed her on the railing, but it was reasonable to think it could happen, so he shouldn't have placed her there unless he was willing to be charged with homicide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 8:29 PM, RCLcruiser2012 said:

Drinking and driving is ILLEGAL.  Completely different situation.  Now, I see the family is still determined on trying to sue.  Ridiculous.

 

Um, ok.  Last time I checked, negligent homicide (what the grandfather is charged with) is illegal too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the suit filed against RCCL is dismissed.  This should go no further.

 

 

The Step-Grandfather?  I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how (a) he thought it was "OK" to put the granddaughter on the narrow ledge, so high above concrete 100 feet down?   (b) how he didn't know the window is open?  The ship was moving and the wind had to be hitting him right in the face, and finally, if the little girl really wanted to bang on the glass, why not let her do it while she was standing in front of it, where the glass wasn't open?

 

That amount of negligence is just inexplicable to me.  To exacerbate everything, the family wants to go through a trial?  They sound like they're being their own worst enemies at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

I hope the suit filed against RCCL is dismissed.  This should go no further.

 

The Step-Grandfather?  I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how (a) he thought it was "OK" to put the granddaughter on the narrow ledge, so high above concrete 100 feet down?   (b) how he didn't know the window is open?  The ship was moving and the wind had to be hitting him right in the face, and finally, if the little girl really wanted to bang on the glass, why not let her do it while she was standing in front of it, where the glass wasn't open?

 

That amount of negligence is just inexplicable to me.  To exacerbate everything, the family wants to go through a trial?  They sound like they're being their own worst enemies at this point.

 

Among other things, I never understood why the family allowed - or perhaps even encouraged - a small child to "bang on glass" (windows/dividers/doors/etc.).

 

Not all "glass" is reinforced with the expectation that someone will "bang on it".  At what age would they stop the child from an activity that had been allowed/encouraged?

 

Separately, as an aside, about that photo at the hockey (was it hockey?) game, where the child is standing up on someone's lap/knees/or such... that's incredibly thoughtless... and also teaches the child that interfering with the views of others is... zippo - "no problem"... just ignore the others.

Sure, help her to be high enough to *see*!  But full body standing in front of the "glass" and banging on it?  More than a bit distracting for others nearby, and especially where the child is in the main line of sight, or perhaps right next to them.  (Never mind the cruddy handprints that are probably left all over that area.)

 

It's all just odd in my mind.

I always taught my children that glass is fragile, and when it breaks, it can be "very, very sharp".

 

Now, that hockey rink divider was probably not actual glass, but some sort of synthetic that is strong enough for a strong hit from a hockey puck, or the helmeted head of a player!  (Either that, or some very special and sturdy glass.)
But a very young child cannot be expected to grasp the difference, or to accurately make the distinction for some time in the future.

 

And as to "whether this type of behavior could ever lead to harm"?  Well, we've all just seen this horrific example.

Who knows, had this not happened, the child may have had some other adverse outcome from "banging on glass".  And especially given that the family (or at least the grandfather) all too obviously allowed/encouraged this in other situations...


Very odd.

 

GC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 8:29 PM, RCLcruiser2012 said:

Drinking and driving is ILLEGAL.  Completely different situation.  Now, I see the family is still determined on trying to sue.  Ridiculous.

 

well......so I criminal homicide last time I checked.

Edited by ray98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, gooch47 said:

graphicguy:  the ship was still at the dock.

I've been on those Royal Ships.  Even still at the dock, you'll feel the breeze.  Plus, the glass is blue.  Extremely easy to see if it's open or closed.  The claim the Step-Grandfather didn't know it was open isn't even slightly believable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...