Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[grapau27]

6 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

There would be. They are two different situations with no bearing on each other.

What about the obvious evidence in the OJ Simpson trial. There are times when innocent people are convicted and guilty people are set free.

Good point but the video evidence and the GF admitting what he had done at least should prove RC innocence.

[xcell]

The man in the picture with the tape measure is tall but is leaner than the GF.

 

Not saying it's not possible but best to use a man with the same body build for comparison.

 

 

[TNcruising02]

It really doesn’t matter The video shows the GF leaning over the railing while holding the little girl. If the little girl was on the inside of the window ledge when he dropped her, she would have fallen between the railing and the window. He obviously held her at a dangerous length. If his body was up against the railing, his arms could very well have been extended over the window while he was leaning.

 

I read somewhere that he may have seen a plane or something out the window and held her up to see it too. That sounds like a pretty good guess as to why he did it. Better than him being color blind, not knowing the window was open. He knew it was open. He leaned over the railing before he even lifted her up. 

[TNcruising02]

It really doesn’t matter if he held her up for 5 seconds or 30 or if she was at the railing or window. He held her in an unsafe position and caused her death. The video footage just incriminates him more and proves he knew exactly what he was doing. He knowingly held her in an unsafe position. 
 

His excuses about being color blind and not knowing the window was open are simply excuses. 

[tonit964]

48 minutes ago, Tapi said:

I bet that the voire dire process will start with this question by the prosecutor: “Have you ever sailed on a cruise ship, specially Royal Caribbean?”. If the answer is yes, the potential juror will most likely be eliminated by the prosecutor. They do NOT want a single person in that jury who knows how negligent you need to be and how out of your way you need to go to drop a child out of a cruise ship window. 

Wouldn't it be the other way around? The prosecutor would want a juror that has been on a cruise, especially RCI as they would probably be aware of those windows and how negligent you would have to be to drop a child out of one. I would think the defense would not want a cruiser on the jury. Unless I misunderstood what you meant.

[constable145]

On 1/18/2020 at 8:48 AM, S.A.M.J.R. said:

That's assuming the civil case came to a decision before the criminal trial.  I don't think that was ever going to happen. 

 

Civil and criminal matters have a different standard of proof. It is not uncommon for a criminal trial to find someone not guilty and them to be found at fault in the civil proceedings-- the OJ Simpson murder case is a classic example

[Tapi]

19 minutes ago, tonit964 said:

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Let me gather my thoughts for a sec...🤯

 

If it’s the criminal case against the grandfather, then I’d think that the prosecutor would want jurors who’ve been on a cruise. But if it’s the lawsuit against Royal Caribbean, then the prosecutor would want jurors who have NOT been on a cruise. Clear as mud? 😂

[tonit964]

12 minutes ago, Tapi said:

Let me gather my thoughts for a sec...🤯

 

If it’s the criminal case against the grandfather, then I’d think that the prosecutor would want jurors who’ve been on a cruise. But if it’s the lawsuit against Royal Caribbean, then the prosecutor would want jurors who have NOT been on a cruise. Clear as mud? 😂

I think the prosecutor would want jurors that have cruised in the suit against Royal as well as the grandfather. Most of the comments on the articles posted from people who have clearly not cruised are in favor of the parents. Since they are not aware of how a ship is or those windows or railings, and how the media portrays it to be a floating disaster waiting to happen. People that have cruised understand how it isn't and couldn't be the fault of the cruise line. Just my thought.

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

1 hour ago, grapau27 said:

If he is found guilty by the obvious video evidence surely there should be no civil law suit against RC who are totally innocent imo.

1 hour ago, grapau27 said:

Good point but the video evidence and the GF admitting what he had done at least should prove RC innocence.

The civil case won't have a finding of guilty/not guilty (innocence).  It will just be whether RC was negligent/responsible, in whole or in part, in the death.  

 

1 hour ago, Tapi said:

I bet that the voire dire process will start with this question by the prosecutor: “Have you ever sailed on a cruise ship, specially Royal Caribbean?”. If the answer is yes, the potential juror will most likely be eliminated by the prosecutor. They do NOT want a single person in that jury who knows how negligent you need to be and how out of your way you need to go to drop a child out of a cruise ship window. 

34 minutes ago, Tapi said:

Let me gather my thoughts for a sec...🤯

 

If it’s the criminal case against the grandfather, then I’d think that the prosecutor would want jurors who’ve been on a cruise. But if it’s the lawsuit against Royal Caribbean, then the prosecutor would want jurors who have NOT been on a cruise. Clear as mud? 😂

As I understand it, there is no prosecutor in a civil case.  It's just the "plaintiff" (in this case the family) and the the "defendant" (RC).  I would think the prosecutor in the criminal case would WANT people who have been on cruises, while the plaintiff's lawyer in the civil case would NOT want people who have been on cruises. 

 

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

I read somewhere that he may have seen a plane or something out the window and held her up to see it too. That sounds like a pretty good guess as to why he did it. Better than him being color blind, not knowing the window was open. He knew it was open. He leaned over the railing before he even lifted her up. 

From when the story was first reported, I had assumed he picked her up just to see outside from his level.  The "banging on the glass" reason NEVER made sense because she could bang on the glass on floor level.

1 hour ago, grandgeezer said:

There would be. They are two different situations with no bearing on each other.

What about the obvious evidence in the OJ Simpson trial. There are times when innocent people are convicted and guilty people are set free.

35 minutes ago, constable145 said:

 

Civil and criminal matters have a different standard of proof. It is not uncommon for a criminal trial to find someone not guilty and them to be found at fault in the civil proceedings-- the OJ Simpson murder case is a classic example

Aside from their being a criminal case and a civil case around the same event, this does not compare to OJ at all.  OJ was the defendant in both of his cases.  Here, the grandfather is the defendant in the criminal trial and RCI is the defendant in the civil case.  *IF* (although I think it's highly likely) GF is found (or pleads) guilty in the criminal case (which has a higher burden of proof), that will make it harder for the family to prove that RC is responsible in the civil trial.

 

How do you argue that the criminal case ended (again, with a higher burden of proof) that the GF was responsible, but that RCI is really the responsible one in the civil case?  

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by S.A.M.J.R.

[mayleeman]

@S.A.M.J.R.  It is a simple and logical argument (but not necessarily valid here). The theory would be that RC negligently designed, built, or maintained a window (or frame or sill or railing or whatever is pointed at as the flaw), or allowed one to exist, that created an unsafe condition allowing an undue risk of harm in a reasonably anticipated use.

 

Lots of elements they would have to prove, but in an unsafe condition or design case, it wouldn't matter if someone came along who acted in an unsafe manner. Think of a gravel spill on a sharp turn on a highway. A car at normal speeds might not slip, but if the highway is abnormally prone to slipperiness due to the gravel, it is reasonable to expect that some cars will be going faster and crash.

 

Similarly, think of the Tylenol tampering tragedy. Once they knew of the tampering that killed a few people (independent intervening cause), they took great care to redesign their packaging to try to ensure no one could argue they negligently allowed unsealed packages (unsafe condition) back on the shelves.

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

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

@S.A.M.J.R.  It is a simple and logical argument (but not necessarily valid here). The theory would be that RC negligently designed, built, or maintained a window (or frame or sill or railing or whatever is pointed at as the flaw), or allowed one to exist, that created an unsafe condition allowing an undue risk of harm in a reasonably anticipated use.

 

Lots of elements they would have to prove, but in an unsafe condition or design case, it wouldn't matter if someone came along who acted in an unsafe manner. Think of a gravel spill on a sharp turn on a highway. A car at normal speeds might not slip, but if the highway is abnormally prone to slipperiness due to the gravel, it is reasonable to expect that some cars will be going faster and crash.

 

Similarly, think of the Tylenol tampering tragedy. Once they knew of the tampering that killed a few people (independent intervening cause), they took great care to redesign their packaging to try to ensure no one could argue they negligently allowed unsealed packages (unsafe condition) back on the shelves.

Is holding a toddler near an open window a "reasonably anticipated use"?  I equate this to balcony cabins.  If a cruise line needs to anticipate, and take steps to prevent someone from holding a toddler up to an open window, shouldn't they have to take similar steps to prevent people from holding toddler's up to a balcony railing?  Is that really reasonable?  

[mayleeman]

@S.A.M.J.R. Remember, I did not state it was a valid theory in this case, only that the negligence of a person using something does not negate a finding that the thing being used could itself create liability.

 

Like many, I have serious doubts the unsafe condition could be proved here.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

How safe is safe. How stupid is stupid. Warning on the hair dryer. Do not use in the shower. Guess someone did and sued. You can sue anyone for anything. Does not mean you will win, but you will cause a lot of trouble to that person or business. 

[grandgeezer]

46 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

How safe is safe. How stupid is stupid. Warning on the hair dryer. Do not use in the shower. Guess someone did and sued. You can sue anyone for anything. Does not mean you will win, but you will cause a lot of trouble to that person or business. 

This is where settlements come into play. If you’re flush with money, it’s just not worth all the headache.

[TNcruising02]

I could see the window being ruled unsafe if the toddler had climbed up herself or if the safety railing had broken, but that's not what happened. The GF's actions caused her death.  If the GF had used the railing like it was intended, this wouldn't have happened.  I really don't see any way the ship can be held liable and I hope they don't settle.  If the GF thought the window area was unsafe, he should not have let the little girl anywhere near it.  Same with the parents.

[hal2008]

1 hour ago, grandgeezer said:

This is where settlements come into play. If you’re flush with money, it’s just not worth all the headache.

 

Thats what the family is counting on (or the lawyer advising them of).

Lawyer is doing his job of creating confusion/doubts and keeping story alive in public (it is just not CC) that RCL while nont-guilty, may pay some money to make it go away.

Girl is gone. Not coming back. Thats really sad and tragic.

But money can come their way.

For that they have to do what their lawyer tell them to do and lawyer knows the game.

[brillohead]

6 hours ago, xcell said:

The man in the picture with the tape measure is tall but is leaner than the GF.

 

Not saying it's not possible but best to use a man with the same body build for comparison.

There are two different guys; that one's not the one they used as their example.  But IMO the guy that they used as their "re-enactor" isn't built the same as Anello, either.

This is the guy with the tape measure:

 

And this is the guy they are claiming is the same stature as Anello.  They are claiming that the re-enactor's his head doesn't reach out the window, so Anello's couldn't either (no mention of the fact that the guy is standing a foot away from the railing and bent over and resting on top of the railing, of course, which is NOT what Anello was doing at the time):

 

They are claiming that the only way Anello's head could have been "out the window" is if he was hoisted up over the railing with his feet dangling off the ground (no mention, of course, that Anello on tip-toe could have been the same as what they are claiming is his feet 7" off the ground):

 

They also used a doll to show that he was holding the baby above the railing and well inside the window:

 

However, if you look at the video (it's much more obvious in the video than in the still), it's obvious that the grandfather has his whole upper body smooshed up against and over the railing, so obviously there was no room for the baby on the railing, and she must have been held a significant distance past the railing as a result.

The video also clearly shows that Anello's elbows are not on the railing, because he's bent over and past the railing, so this photo is in no way, shape, or form an accurate re-enactment of the event:



And I don't know how the lawyer thinks that the above photo in any, shape, or form, would exonerate the grandfather's culpability or place any of the blame on Royal's ship design.... it shows the baby's feet DIRECTLY ON THE WINDOWSILL, for crying out loud!  You can't claim he didn't put the baby on the windowsill and then show a picture of the baby's feet on the windowsill!!!!


This whole entire thing should be a slam-dunk for both the criminal prosecution of the grandfather, and also Royal's defense of the parents' civil lawsuit seeking damages.

Even a totally blind person would not have placed a baby on that window ledge without realizing there wasn't glass there.  It's twelve inches from the railing, there's a breeze, there's a difference in tint (color blind just means you can't name the color or differentiate it from another the same shade, not that you can't see the item at all!).

It's horribly, tragically sad, but Anello just had a massive brain-fart moment and killed the baby as a result.  

 

[perditax]

Yeah, the reenactor goes out of his way to always keep his hips/waist as far away from the railing as possible. 

[rimmit]

8 hours ago, Tapi said:

My family lives in Puerto Rico. EVERYBODY down there knows about this story. It’s been in the news incessantly, it’s widely discussed on various social media outlets, and the videos have even been dissected by a very popular TMZ-style TV show. It may also be harder to find a jury that’s unfamiliar with cruising since a significant percentage of people who live there have traveled by cruise ship, many on this particular ship. 

Just out of curiosity what is the general sentiment about this case in PR. 
 

And as many other have stated, imo, the photos the lawyer has provided seems to only Strengthen RCIs case that the design is not flawed.   Without a significant amount of adult assistance, there is just NO WAY for a child to fall out of that window.  I just don’t understand what their lawyer is thinking other than hoping for a settlement.

 

While there are other cases out there such as the IKEA dressers or the MCD coffee.   This is clearly not a case of either repeatable reproducible injuries or negligent standards. 
 

I have refrained from commenting on this thuw far,  but it’s just so mind boggling.

[jagsfan]

I asked my DH if he had seen any mention of the lawsuit lately on the news. He said he saw on TV, which would have been NBC, that the family’s attorneys are trying to get RCCL to release tapes. 

DH thought that meant the cruise line was trying to hide something. I hope he is the only clueless one! I explained the situation to him and he was surprised. 

So much depends on how information is disseminated. It’s scary. 

[perditax]

3 minutes ago, jagsfan said:

I asked my DH if he had seen any mention of the lawsuit lately on the news. He said he saw on TV, which would have been NBC, that the family’s attorneys are trying to get RCCL to release tapes. 

DH thought that meant the cruise line was trying to hide something. I hope he is the only clueless one! I explained the situation to him and he was surprised. 

So much depends on how information is disseminated. It’s scary. 

 To be fair, I asked a few days ago why on earth the family is trying to get more camera angles released (which they are) unless they show something that exonerates the GF. 

[TNcruising02]

I don't get how any other camera footage can exonerate the GF.  He lifted her up over the railing and dropped her.  No camera angle is going to change it.  I think the attorney is trying to take the focus away from that fact.  By the grandfather stating he is color blind and didn't know the window was open, he was admitting fault.

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

37 minutes ago, jagsfan said:

I asked my DH if he had seen any mention of the lawsuit lately on the news. He said he saw on TV, which would have been NBC, that the family’s attorneys are trying to get RCCL to release tapes. 

DH thought that meant the cruise line was trying to hide something. I hope he is the only clueless one! I explained the situation to him and he was surprised. 

So much depends on how information is disseminated. It’s scary. 

This is why the lawyer is asking for video from the other cameras.  RCI not releasing them makes people think they're hiding something.  But, there is now way there are 13 cameras with shots of the same area.  3-4 I would believe (counting externals).

 

[SherriZ366]

Have followed this case and will continue following this thread

[SherriZ366]

13 hours ago, mjkacmom said:

I sincerely doubt they contacted the attorney, a well known ambulance chaser who probably was at their side within 24 hours blaming the cruise line.

He hit them when they were vulnerable.  Do you think he traveled to San Juan on his initiative?