Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Pauser

Family's statement on toddler's cruise death

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Newleno said:

I understand your argument, I guess my point is if this truly is an incredibly negligent accident, what would be best for the family?  Would it best serve the family by having Grandpa in Jail or would it make the situation worse?  We dont know what type of charges may be filed.  Bottom line is Grandpa's negligent act resulted in a death.  Could that not be some type of manslaughter?  This grandpa needed a lawyer not to sue nor profit but to help keep him out of jail.


Negligence in and of itself removes the concept of accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarnivalCruiser32 said:

well Puerto Rico has pretty strict laws about negligent manslaughter in which the grandfather could be charged for so they absolutely 5000% need a lawyer immediately...

 

not everything is about money...

 

So they need 50 lawyers? 😉

Share this post


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

I don’t know if I read that anyone blamed the cruise line, and thinks a lawsuit is a good idea.

 

 

The mother has been quoted as complaining that there were no warning signs about not putting a two year old child on a ledge with an open window 150' above a concrete pier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarnivalCruiser32 said:

No according to Puerto Rican authorities he'd be charged with negligent MANSLAUGHTER. for a tragic accident. Yes people should take responsibility when they make mistakes however this very much seems like an accident not you know...murder... so no I do not think that her grandfather should be in PRISON wasting tax payer dollars over a tragic accident that he's going to torture himself over as long as he lives anyway

 

 

Fallacy of equivocation.  No one has said it was murder.  It may well be manslaughter though.  Grandpas did not put that child ion the ledge accidentally.  He did so intentionally.  If in the eyes of the court (if it ever gets to that) his intentional act was the direct cause of the child's death then he may well be in serious legal trouble.  However there was nothing done accidentally here.  Saying it was not an accident does not mean it was murder though.  But YES if his negligence led to the death of another human being he absolutely should be in jail.  Lots, probably most,  of people in jail torture themselves the whole time they are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarnivalCruiser32 said:

sorry (not sorry) but your way of thinking is what keeps people in prison for minor infractions (just an example) for extended amounts of time wasting tax payer dollars and lets other very guilty people walk free bc our prisons are too overcrowded to keep them

 

 

manslaughter is a minor infraction?  wow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarnivalCruiser32 said:

No according to Puerto Rican authorities he'd be charged with negligent MANSLAUGHTER. for a tragic accident. Yes people should take responsibility when they make mistakes however this very much seems like an accident not you know...murder... so no I do not think that her grandfather should be in PRISON wasting tax payer dollars over a tragic accident that he's going to torture himself over as long as he lives anyway

 

Manslaughter is for when accidents cause death, but isn't murder. Like if you're the cause of a car accident that killed someone yet you weren't trying to kill them, they could charge you with manslaughter. It's above my paygrade to determine if he actually should be charged, but this meets the literal definition of manslaughter.

 

Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 5:50 PM, cruisinmeme said:

This is beyond sad but hello shouldn’t grandpa be able to tell the difference in glass and open air. This is how it goes these days, dont watch the kids and blame someone else. Before long people will have to sign wavers that they will not hold the cruise line responsible for what parents should be doing.

again it is awful this poor child died, i get that. 

+  1     Not too hard to tell when a window is open or closed.   Too easy to blame the cruise line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Birdie And Sue said:

 

 

The mother has been quoted as complaining that there were no warning signs about not putting a two year old child on a ledge with an open window 150' above a concrete pier.

Really there needs to be a sign saying this?  Reminds me of the McDonald's coffee incident.  Now there are warnings on take out coffee saying it hot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, nascarcruiser said:

Really there needs to be a sign saying this?  Reminds me of the McDonald's coffee incident.  Now there are warnings on take out coffee saying it hot.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Birdie And Sue said:


Negligence in and of itself removes the concept of accident.

hmm, I think this is one of the those moments where something is written that is just not accurate. it is the  negligence that causes the accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CarnivalCruiser32 said:

we're from New York City okay supposedly the rudest city in the world or whatever) as we did those two weeks at Disney World it was WILD

Just pointing out - at WDW you're not going to be surrounded by all locals.  Those people are from all over the world.  Could have been New Yorkers, who knows?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Manslaughter is for when accidents cause death, but isn't murder. Like if you're the cause of a car accident that killed someone yet you weren't trying to kill them, they could charge you with manslaughter. It's above my paygrade to determine if he actually should be charged, but this meets the literal definition of manslaughter.

 

Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

 

As part of this discussion, I think it would be prudent to clarify some misconceptions with respect to manslaughter, in both a general common law sense and what appears to be in the actual case of Puerto Rican law.

 

First, "manslaughter" is not plainly for situations involving accidents.  Most commonly manslaughter still involves an intentional act, but the mens rea (the mental element necessary for a crime) is less than that of murder (malice aforethought), or some mitigating circumstance may be present.  For instance, if a person's actions are intended to kill another but are done in the heat of the moment or in a fit of rage (classic example is walking in on cheating spouse), then the crime is manslaughter instead of murder because the killing was done intentionally but without prior thought (i.e., malice aforethought).  Of course, arguments exist as to how long something has to be considered to have been pre-planned--is one second enough... ten seconds... one minute... ten minutes...?  The law is almost never black and white.

 

While common law provides for the concept of involuntary manslaughter, it often still requires an intentional act.  Furthermore, although manslaughter by gross negligence is yet another concept under common law, see the argument earlier in the thread about the connotative vs. denotative meaning of "accident" as to whether gross negligence still requires intent.  In addition to these common law standards, there is a statutory concept known as negligent homicide, although the definition in various jurisdictions may essentially be involuntary manslaughter.

 

In any event, in a quick look, Puerto Rico defines manslaughter more in line with common law voluntary manslaughter.  That is, a crime that would be murder but for the fact that it is mitigated due to occurring "in circumstances sudden heat of passion or rage" per 33 L.P.R.A. § 4736.

 

Puerto Rico does have negligent homicide on the books under 33 L.P.R.A. § 4737.  It is defined as a misdemeanor, but is made subject to the same penalties as a fourth degree felony.  With respect to negligence, under 33 L.P.R.A. § 4652, "A crime is deemed to be committed negligently when it is performed without intent, but imprudently, when not observing the standard care that a reasonably prudent person would have observed in the same situation as the author in order to prevent the result."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cruisinmeme said:

 

 

Sadly to end the drama of a trial RC will probably pay a settlement to the family. Like my husband said RC should sue the family for the bad press they got over this.                       I can tell you right now if that happened to us once my daughter finished screaming bloody murder she would say “ ***** was you thinking putting my baby in an open window” not blaming a cruise line for an open window.  Warning signs- that is really crazy. A more appropriate sign would read “if you are too stupid to cruise stay home”

SO TRUE!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As tough as it is the grandfather has to admit he made a tragic mistake.  Can not blame the cruise ship for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I commented a few days ago that none of us really knows the exact details of the incident.  But one thing that doesn't seem logical to me is why Grandpa would have placed the child on the railing if the purpose for doing so was that the child wanted to bang on the glass like she had done at hockey games.  In looking at pictures of the window area of the site where she fell, I believe the glass window area is floor to ceiling.  Why not let the child stand on the floor (below the railing) look out and bang on the lower part of windowed area?  The lower floor area windows are fixed closed and do not open.  This would have been more like what the child would have experienced at a hockey rink.  So, now I wonder why grandpa would have placed this child on the railing even if he believed the window was closed when she could have just stood and banged on the glass.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the family is pushing the whole thing about him putting her on the ledge to bang on the glass like she did at hockey games.  That makes no sense.  The picture they showed of her banging on the glass at a game was her standing on the floor.  Being that the windows on the ship are in rows of 3 and start at the floor, If she wanted to bang on the glass, she could have without being lifted up.  I feel so bad for the family and can’t imagine the guilt of the grandfather.  And everyone felt this way and was grieving with them.  But their actions of going public with these ridiculous explanations and blaming the cruise line have turned the tide of public opInion against them.  Instead of memorializing their beautiful daughter’s memory, they come off as trying to benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cruise52 said:

I commented a few days ago that none of us really knows the exact details of the incident.  But one thing that doesn't seem logical to me is why Grandpa would have placed the child on the railing if the purpose for doing so was that the child wanted to bang on the glass like she had done at hockey games.  In looking at pictures of the window area of the site where she fell, I believe the glass window area is floor to ceiling.  Why not let the child stand on the floor (below the railing) look out and bang on the lower part of windowed area?  The lower floor area windows are fixed closed and do not open.  This would have been more like what the child would have experienced at a hockey rink.  So, now I wonder why grandpa would have placed this child on the railing even if he believed the window was closed when she could have just stood and banged on the glass.  

Wow, I was typing the exact same thing as you at the same time!

Share this post


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

Wow, I was typing the exact same thing as you at the same time!

I see that.  I was looking at a photo tonight and then it dawned on me - why place her on the rail.  The security / surveillance footage will hopefully show what transpired.  I feel for the grandpa and entire family.  It was a bad split-second decision that ended horribly.  I can't begin to imagine the pain this family is experiencing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shidah said:

Not sure why the family is pushing the whole thing about him putting her on the ledge to bang on the glass like she did at hockey games.  That makes no sense.

 

Because "I picked her up over the railing and leaned her out of the open window but lost my grip..." sounds worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the grandfather chose the location of where to place her granddaughter because it provided the clearest view.  Having been on many RCCL ships, that tinted glass is not very easy to see out of.  I have a gut feeling that the GF knew there was no glass there but decided to let his GD sit/stand on the rail so that she could enjoy the view.  The GD might have tried to bang on the glass where there wasn’t any and could have squirmed out of her GF’s grasp.  It just does not make any sense to me how anyone could not see that the window was open.  The wind and noise would give it away even if you weren’t looking.

Share this post


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

 I have a gut feeling that the GF knew there was no glass there but decided to let his GD sit/stand on the rail so that she could enjoy the view. 

 

Did anyone else read that there was an airplane flying by and that is what grandpa wanted the girl to get a better view of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 3 year old nephew has never been on a ship but he could point to the open windows in the pictures. I think the grandfather chose an open window because of the fresh air...it can be very hot on deck while in port. Poor baby...hope the family gets therapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a hard time believing he didn't know there was no glass there - I'm sure he would have felt the breeze.  I think he just lost his grip, or her reaching forward caused him to go off balance.  Definitely horrible judgement to put her up there but he would have to be a life-long monster to have had any malicious intent to harm her.

 

It's also not unusual, in the early stages of an investigation, for defense lawyers to raise the question of blame on any and all parties in an attempt to deflect it from their client.  Especially if charges have not yet been filed.  There's a difference between a "family spokesperson" who talks about how upset the family is and a defense attorney who hits the ground running in building a defense for their client.  If criminal charges are pending which could result in prison time, this is exactly what you would want a lawyer to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Did anyone else read that there was an airplane flying by and that is what grandpa wanted the girl to get a better view of?

No but I have heard different stories, I also was looking for different videos  of the ship with the area in question, I have cruised from Puerto Rico and embarked from a pier right across from this small airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, as a parent if I could ever forgive the GF?  Tragic for sure. Made worse by dragging it through the courts to relive it over and over again.  But I guess money might ease the pain for some.

 

I hope RCCL can counter sue.   And if they start putting signs up, what next? Signs in the balcony rooms? There is no substitution for common sense.

Edited by xcell

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...