Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Anello is taller than you, is seen leaning through the window for several seconds, and still claims that he didn't know that the window was open before placing a child on the window sill, holding her with one hand, and leaving her there for over 30 seconds.

I didn't realize he was only holding her with hand, both is bad enough. That is just insane! There has to be something wrong with him.

Share this post


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

This reminds me of the McD lawsuit over the the "hot" coffee.

 

Are now going to put signs everywhere?  Even on our Balconies?  Please keep back 2 feet for your own safety?

 

The only winners (if you really want to call them that) are the lawyers.

 

We must be missing something if the mother and father are still pushing forward on the lawsuit.

In fairness.. the McD lawsuit was entirely justified.  As a former employee during that era, I can attest that the temperature it was being served at was  a good 30 degrees hotter than safe.  The roof of my mouth is still dead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 12:41 PM, BSocial said:


yes - that is the photo I was referring to in the link above.   Thanks for showing this photo.  I wasn’t sure  how to upload the photo vs. the link. 

That window looks extremely low compared to the windows in the video. In fact that window is so low it’s a danger.....is the man that tall?
Am I the only one who has a hard time making much out on the video, I’m only seeing snapshots of the video not a running video and have a hard time telling anything, it’s very unclear or at least the one I’ve seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Midwestgal said:

That window looks extremely low compared to the windows in the video. In fact that window is so low it’s a danger.....is the man that tall?
Am I the only one who has a hard time making much out on the video, I’m only seeing snapshots of the video not a running video and have a hard time telling anything, it’s very unclear or at least the one I’ve seen. 

Read post 516 you will be informed. The bottom of the open window is just about even with the railing. Railing the same height all over the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the video and have a better understanding now. What was her GF thinking. I know he didn’t mean for this to happen and bottom line how absolutely tragic.

My heart break for all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MaritimeR&R said:

I am enraged that some journalists are still reporting (Chicago Tribune as of yesterday) that the child fell out of a window in a child's play area, which she did not. She fell from a window located next to a Bar which is in no way part of the children's play area. What ever happened to the ethical responsibility of a journalist to exercise due diligence in their reporting? 

Ethical, responsible journalism died a long time ago, its all about sensationalization and sales

Share this post


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

Not one penny to the family, and drop criminal charges unless there is evidence this was planned. Done.

Why in God's name should they even consider dropping criminal charges? This is the picture of criminal negligence

Share this post


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

Just watched the video and have a better understanding now. What was her GF thinking. I know he didn’t mean for this to happen and bottom line how absolutely tragic.

My heart break for all of them.

Just a guess. He held her out there to be funny and give her a scare.. She got scared and started squirming and yelling, like just about any child would. Those on land heard hear screaming and looked up to see her fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d still like to see the other angles as to get the full truth, angles can be misleading .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Midwestgal said:

I’d still like to see the other angles as to get the full truth, angles can be misleading .

It is very clear on what was happening. You can see him perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

It is very clear on what was happening. You can see him perfectly.

I realize that but I still think the other angles need to provided to give a completely clear picture. Not to the media but to the attorneys and law enforcement, I’d imagine they have them ? 
also I’m surprised with being at the dock and 11 decks up anyone on the ground could hear her screaming, not saying they didn’t it’s just surprising 

Edited by Midwestgal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Midwestgal said:

I realize that but I still think the other angles need to provided to give a completely clear picture. Not to the media but to the attorneys and law enforcement, I’d imagine they have them ? 

There are multitudes of cameras all over the ship. You are probably correct. That they have more videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DaniDanielle said:

The people on the ground should sue the family

I can only imagine the trauma they went through. It would be embedded in my mind forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom was killed by a sanitation truck.  I, thankfully, didn’t see it, but it is embedded in my mind nonetheless.  The poor people who actually witnessed this have to be suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DaniDanielle said:

My mom was killed by a sanitation truck.  I, thankfully, didn’t see it, but it is embedded in my mind nonetheless.  The poor people who actually witnessed this have to be suffering.

So sorry to hear about your mam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom was killed by a sanitation truck.  I, thankfully, didn’t see it, but it is embedded in my mind nonetheless.  The poor people who actually witnessed this have to be suffering.

 

Thank you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

There are multitudes of cameras all over the ship. You are probably correct. That they have more videos.

Not all cameras work how you expect them to work. Some are on zoom, some on wide angle, some are dummy cameras to give a sense of security (admitting they have dummy cameras would be a security risk). Then there is the resolution, how good the sensor is, was there direct sunlight hitting the camera, glare, reflections unclean coverings. It all matters. Not all cameras you see can actually see and record what you think they are recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

Not all cameras work how you expect them to work. Some are on zoom, some on wide angle, some are dummy cameras to give a sense of security (admitting they have dummy cameras would be a security risk). Then there is the resolution, how good the sensor is, was there direct sunlight hitting the camera, glare, reflections unclean coverings. It all matters. Not all cameras you see can actually see and record what you think they are recording.

Wow. Amazing. So some how you know for sure they have dummy cameras. I see no glare or sunlight causing problems with the recording. I do see old cameras with low resolution. 

Share this post


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

I’m only seeing snapshots of the video not a running video and have a hard time telling anything, it’s very unclear or at least the one I’ve seen. 

Security video is rarely going to be "smooth".  They'll take 3-4 pictures each second, maybe 10.  For "smooth" video, you need 25-30.  Here's an explainer... https://dicsan.com/Security_Cameras/security_cameras_frame_rate

 

Someone said earlier if we post links to the security video, that could cause the thread to get locked.  In Youtube, just search for "Grandfather Royal Caribbean".  CBS put a video out a week ago with the title "Grandfather knew window was open".  

 

Share this post


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

Just a guess. He held her out there to be funny and give her a scare.. She got scared and started squirming and yelling, like just about any child would. Those on land heard hear screaming and looked up to see her fall.

She had on a bathing suit so you know what that means. Her mother had her covered head to toe with sunscreen. Ill bet in all the excitement that old grandpa did not realize she was greased up. I have a 13 month old grandson and no way would he be running around without someone holding his hand 100% of the time. Putting her out a window.😲

Share this post


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

Wow. Amazing. So some how you know for sure they have dummy cameras. I see no glare or sunlight causing problems with the recording. I do see old cameras with low resolution. 

You see no glare or sunlight from the cameras providing the image but where were the cameras and where were the other cameras?

 

Yes I work in a workplace where I am on security camera the entire time I am at work. Not all cameras are recording and there are dummy cameras. It is standard industry wide and there are multiple reasons why.

 

One example is the hard drives used to record video. Do you know how much these hard drives cost? Do you know how large they have to be to record video and still have the video after an event they are trying to find. Most videos will just keep rewriting over the hard drive in a loop. Eventually they will wear out.

 

Also if for a very low end example they were purchasing hard drives for $150 and had 120 cameras around the ship then that could be up to $18,000 in costs for hard drives if they are married to the camera. Cost would go up considerably if they are using a massive hard drive in a central location. Even then defects happen and drives stop working.

 

Just the other week I replaced the old hard drive in my laptop with a brand new solid state drive. It was expensive but the new solid state drive increased the speed of the laptop to start up in 15 seconds to what was taking over 3 minutes with the old drive.

 

Just because the lawyers say there are 30 cameras does not mean that they are all recording and all captured the event. It is just basic common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

I work in a workplace where I am on security camera the entire time I am at work. Not all cameras are recording and there are dummy cameras. It is standard industry wide and there are multiple reasons why.

 

Do you work at a company with the potential liability exposure of a giant cruise line?

 

The cost for video storage is absolutely trivial to a company that size in 2020. If they have nonfunctional cameras it’ll be due to basic incompetence/negligence, not cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, perditax said:

 

Do you work at a company with the potential liability exposure of a giant cruise line?

 

The cost for video storage is absolutely trivial to a company that size in 2020. If they have nonfunctional cameras it’ll be due to basic incompetence/negligence, not cost. 

The cost adds up when you multiply it by the number of ships, cameras etc. Sometimes it is not practical or possible to have a camera every where. In such situations dummy cameras suffice to create a psychological reaction that people think they are being watched and feel safe. It has always been like that. 

 

Cost would definitely come into it. No cruise line on this planet would install a camera system they could not afford. If cost was not an issue we would have multiple hidden cameras in all public areas with 100% coverage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case against RC may well be frivolous (I think it is too early to say since I have no idea how the atty plans to proceed), but I just want to give a comment and background about the McD case that is always brought up as an example. A couple posters have already mentioned thst it was not frivolous, but I thought some details might explain why. (Ignore this if you don't like footnotes in books!)

 

The Wall Street Journal wrote a great front page feature article about the McD case demonstrating overwhelmingly why the lawsuit was justified. 

 

Among other things, they interviewed the jurors who almost all thought initiaally the lawsuit was ridiculous--until they heard the evidence (summarized here from my memory of that article and other sources):

 

--the plaintiff, a passenger in the car, suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns on a significant area of her groin (total of 6% of her body) when her coffee spilled.

 

--McD coffee was 20 to 30 degrees hotter than coffee from other retailers who operated drive thrus (someone above has referenced the temp, too).

 

--the plaintiff originally requested McD to pay only her medical expenses without any request for pain and suffering.

 

--McD had paid medical expenses of 700 or so people burned previously, but decided not to pay this plaintiff her $20,000 claim to "take a stand" to discourage claims.

 

--McD had been warned that its coffee temperature could severely injure someone. In a drive-thru, a spill could go directly into someone's lap who would have no realistic chance to jump up, dump it off, or otherwise douse the hot liquid since they would be in traffic.

 

--McD was advised that they could still serve excellent coffee without it exceeding industry-standard temperatures, but decided they had built their coffee reputation on the temp/flavor combo so they rejected the safety advice.

 

When the jury heard about the other injuries, and McD's intentional disregard of the safety warnings, they got angry. Besides compensatory damages, they chose punitive damages. There were no guidelines for punitive damages provided to them, so they chose an amount equal to something like 2 days worth of coffee sales revenue -- that was the amount that got the press, something like $2.7 million. The plaintiff never sought that amount, and it was reduced by the trial judge and/or on appeal.

 

Anyway, the WSJ, not exactly sympathetic to consumer protection lawsuits, demonstrated quite clearly how the victim got unjustifiably raked over by public perception. And further, that the case had absolutely NOTHING to do with labels.

 

I don't know about others here, but I ain't letting my skin in my groin get boiled away for a few million--or even $70 million!

Edited by mayleeman
corrected some of the facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 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

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...