Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kearney said:

No one should ever place a child on a railing... ever... not on a ship, not on your patio... no where.... If you look at the gap between the window and the railing.. even if closed the child could fall between them or the child could have fallen backward and hit its head on the floor... that too could have killed the child. There is no way Royal can fix stupid or careless. Perhaps they need to add something to the contract that states.. no sitting of standing on railing...  This story is very sad, parents are still in denial ... 

The cruise contract does include wording about safety including no sitting or standing on railings. 

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

It’s not about RCI’s public image.  It’s about the GF making millions by accidentally killing a child and the legal precedent it sets for the future.

 

GF is not going to make millions.  The parents and their lawyer(s) are the ones looking to "make millions".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So legal, people reading, tell me this,  it appears the majority of us here  are thinking  this is a frivolous type of law suit,  there is verbiage in the contract not to do this, not a act of cruise ship negligence, the direct unauthorized result of a incorrect human action, ( who besides Michale Jackson dangles a baby outside  a window many stories up ). Can a judge dismiss this as a invalid suit ?  If it goes to court  Can you imagine the cruise contract we will now have to sign, which will cover anything any idiot might litigate for. Thank u in advance 

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

The cruise contract does include wording about safety including no sitting or standing on railings. 

I should have looked... did not know that.... Frankly it should be obvious... Guess they should add... 'overeating at the buffet could result in weight gain' etc. 

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


As i stated in my post,  the purpose was not so much as to assist in fee payment, but to let RCI know that the general public is on their side and that we believe they shouldn’t settle. We could email Michael Bayley, it’s mbayley@rccl.com I think.  But actions speak louder than words.  And nothing is louder than money to a business.  

I reread your post and nowhere did I see a reference to letting RCL know the general public is on their side. I don't think they would care.

Maybe you should start that gfm, according to their 2018 annual report, they only had a profit of $1.86 billion. Earnings for 2019 are expected this week and should be higher. Every little bit counts.

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

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

I’ve spoken to my parents, and their sentiment is similar to what I’ve read here. Tragically sad but the grandfather is ultimately responsible for what happened. There wouldn’t be criminal charges filed in PR against the grandfather if evidence and local sentiment pointed in a different direction. 
 

CBS reporter David Begnaud is highly regarded in PR (he is one of the few reporters who fully covered hurricane Maria as well as the recent earthquakes on the south part of the island), so people in PR respect him and pay close attention to what he says. When he first reported about this tragedy (which was biased in favor of the family and grandfather), some people in PR wanted to be on his side as well, but once more evidence started surfacing, local TV shows started showing and dissecting the videos, and Begnaud started analyzing things in a different light once he had more information, then the general sentiment now overwhelmingly condemns the grandfather’s actions and supports Royal Caribbean. Everyone agrees that this is a horrible tragedy, and that the grandfather didn’t act maliciously, but he’s still responsible. 

Edited by Tapi
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

I reread your post and nowhere did I see a reference to letting RCL know the general public is on their side. I don't think they would care.

Maybe you should start that gfm, according to their 2018 annual report, they only had a profit of $1.86 billion. Earnings for 2019 are expected this week and should be higher. Every little bit counts.


I apologize,  but given the general sentiment of the posts on this forum, and the fact I stated they did not need the money, I had inferred that the purpose was not to give them cash,  but to let them know how strongly we felt about the topic.  It is a “read between the lines” kind of thing.  Many posters subsequently also posted without and further posts from me that they did not believe the main intent was to financially support a company with billions in revenue.  I will attempt to be clearer next time.   
 

I respectfully disagree that they do care about public opinion.  I find it hard to believe they don’t care about the public perspective of why a child died on one of their cruise ships.  If the public was overwhelmingly on the side of the grandparents and viewed that RCI was negligent they would be under a significant amount of pressure to settle.  Given they have public opinion on their side they can leverage that to put pressure on the lawyers.  
 

The release of the videos indicates to me they do care in that they are fighting back publicly.  The lawyers also care about public opinion in that they attempted to refute the video with photos.  


Both sides clearly care or they would leave this evidence to the courtroom rather than releasing it to the public.  They are in a battle of public opinion right now based on their actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nadinenurse1 said:

So legal, people reading, tell me this,  it appears the majority of us here  are thinking  this is a frivolous type of law suit,  there is verbiage in the contract not to do this, not a act of cruise ship negligence, the direct unauthorized result of a incorrect human action, ( who besides Michale Jackson dangles a baby outside  a window many stories up ). Can a judge dismiss this as a invalid suit ?  If it goes to court  Can you imagine the cruise contract we will now have to sign, which will cover anything any idiot might litigate for. Thank u in advance 

I’ve read that RCI has filed a motion to dismiss, which I assume would be a 12(b)6 motion alleging the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action in their complaint. If the Judge grants that then yes, the case is dismissed, although sometimes plaintiffs are allowed to file an amended complaint to correct whatever defects there are (dismissal w/out prejudice.)

During discovery RCI can also file a motion for summary judgement and if the Judge grants the summary judgement motion the case is dismissed as well. Summary judgement is a ruling on the merits, so that ends the case, but plaintiffs can appeal the ruling.

Personally I would be somewhat surprised if a motion to dismiss was granted, but I would not be surprised if the Judge granted a motion for summary judgement in RCI’s favor in the future.

But I’m no expert in federal civil litigation - my only experience w/ it was when a guy I convicted at trial and sent to prison for several years sued me, the cops & our agencies pro per in federal court for convicting him. That case was dismissed via summary judgement. 

 

 

Edited by sndral
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sndral said:

But I’m no expert in federal civil litigation - my only experience w/ it was when a guy I convicted at trial and sent to prison for several years sued me, the cops & our agencies pro per in federal court for convicting him. That case was dismissed via summary judgement. 

 

Good heavens, what a waste of everyone's time, not to mention the cost of such a silly suit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have sailed on the FOS (4) times. Everyone is saddened by the tragic death of this child. The one thing that drove me nuts in the early (and in my opinion biased coverage against RCCL) stages of this incident was the reporting of it occurring in a "children's play area". This was repeated over and over again. The lawyers for this family still reference it.

 

There is a children's pool area on this level of the ship. But to keep speaking about having open windows on a cruise ship adjacent to this pool is irresponsible reporting in my opinion while constantly saying that it was a children's play area is just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance, from my understanding Puerto Rico is a protectorate of the United States.  When GF stands trial in PR, does he get extradited or just has to show up?  What happens if he doesn't?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lawyer's for the family are going to keep pushing this as far as they can until a trial because more than likely there will be a settlement.  There will almost always be some offer on the table to make this go away.   It doesn't cost the lawyer's that much to keep this going until trial time.

 

 

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

I should have looked... did not know that.... Frankly it should be obvious... Guess they should add... 'overeating at the buffet could result in weight gain' etc. 


Lawyers have made the excessive safety demonstrations and safety placards almost overbearing at the flow-rider.  
 

I can just see the new video coming for muster.... “don’t go anywhere near the edge of a rail, anywhere on the ship. In fact just stay in the washroom and wash your hands”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a territory, not a protectorate. He has been released to go back to Indiana on bond, I believe. If he doesn't show up, I assume he forfeits the bond and a fugutive warrant would be issued. If extradition is necessary, it is likely only a pro forma process since he has already been indicted and posted bond in PR.

 

I cannot imagine any challenge to jurisdiction arising.

 

People with more knowledge of the extraterritorial reach of PR's courts should feel free to correct anything wrong here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Magicat He had to post bail of $80,000. I think you usually pay the bondsman like 10% and they ensure you'll appear.

 

"If a defendant fails to appear in court, the court issues a bench warrant for that person’s arrest and they are considered a fugitive. Generally, the bail agency is authorized by the court to arrest the individual." - https://www.expertbail.com/resources/bail-bond-faqs#How_does_a_bail_bond_work

Edited by JennyB1977
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this thread since it started.  It’s made me sad.  Sad for the little girl, her parents and all her other relatives including the grandfather.  

 

This was a horrid accident.  I don’t believe in any the wild theories out there that this was planned or malicious.  

 

It was reckless behavior that resulted in a death.

 

 I’m not buying he didn’t know the window was open.  If that’s true he was impaired in some way.  ( Alcohol, mentally or with drugs.) I’ve stood at those windows many times.  I’m 5’4” and have easily reached those windows to close them when it started to rain.  Even if you can’t see color you can hear, smell and feel the breeze.  He may not remember exactly what happened as the mind can change the way it remembers due to trauma.  He placed the child outside the railing, picking her up almost over his head.  She probably leaned forward and he did not have a secure hold of her.  He DROPPED her.  He didn’t mean to but if she hadn’t been placed outside the railing it would not have happened.  It’s HIS fault.  He started the train rolling with his interpretation of what happened to the family to save face and kept it going because he can’t face the reality of what he did.  

 

I hope RCCL stands strong with this one.  The way this could have been prevented is for the grandfather to not put that poor little baby at risk.

 

 

Edited by cruiselvr04
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tinkertwo said:

Good heavens, what a waste of everyone's time, not to mention the cost of such a silly suit.  

I am just about sure their attorney is doing it on a percentage basis. He does not want it to go away or he gets nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My heart goes out to this family for their loss.  However, they need grief counseling and family therapy instead of a lawyer.  Their misplaced anger is toxic and will just make this tragedy worse for them in the long run.  This is 100% the GF's fault and he needs to find a way to process this and find a way to deal with it.  Winkleman is disgusting - all he seems to do is chase any litigation he can against a cruise line.  I too hope Royal does NOT settle this.  Sadly, this family is not due any financial gain but rather our sincere condolences and the hope that they can find some healing to continue in the face of this tragic accident.

 

Wasn't there a court date today in PR?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:


Lawyers have made the excessive safety demonstrations and safety placards almost overbearing at the flow-rider.  
 

I can just see the new video coming for muster.... “don’t go anywhere near the edge of a rail, anywhere on the ship. In fact just stay in the washroom and wash your hands”. 


But don't use the hot water while washing your hands because it might be too hot.

It really is getting ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, cruiselvr04 said:

She probably leaned forward and he did not have a secure hold of her.  He DROPPED her.  He didn’t mean to but if she hadn’t been placed outside the railing it would not have happened.  It’s HIS fault.  He started the train rolling with his interpretation of what happened to the family to save face and kept it going because he can’t face the reality of what he did.

 

I've been following this case since it happened. I agree with your points. 

 

I don't believe that this was planned.

I don't believe that Anello intentionally let her fall to her death. 

I know that she was less than 4.5lbs when she was born and spent some time in intensive care. Some people believe that she had other medical issues but I find that to be irrelevant. 

I don't believe that Anello was frustrated with having to babysit while the rest of the family started the vacation. 

 

I don't know if alcohol was a factor. 

I don't know if 50 year-old Anello (DOB 09/26/1968) had any medical (physical or mental) condition at the time (275lbs when charged).

 

I do believe that Anello knew that the window was open before he even walked up to it. The man with a hat was looking out of/leaning on the railing in front of the exact same window right before Anello walked over there. 

I do know that Anello leaned out of that window.

I do know that Anello picked Chloe up, over, and beyond the railing. For me, the case ends right there.

 

Anello knows that the window is open and he puts her up/out to give her a view and (perhaps?) tease her/give her a scare. He keeps her there for over 30 seconds as he holds her with one arm. He even switches from one arm to the other. 

I believe that Chloe leaned forward when Anello wasn't holding her securely and Chloe fell. I don't believe that she was pushed. 

 

After the death, I believe that Anello's "...I thought that there was glass there..." is based more on Anello's belief that if Chloe fell, she'd fall between the window and the railing and that the glass at the lower level would prevent her from falling out. The "bang on the glass" theory wasn't heard until after the family's lawyer got involved. Winkleman probably asked "Is it normal for you to put her up to glass?" and Anello mentioned the hockey story and Winkleman went from there. 

 

Depending on when the general public latched onto the story, the public has been led to believe many different things. Some people believed that grandpa picked up the child to a window that's in the children's area and leaned her to a window that he thought was either closed or was a wall of immovable glass. He lost his grip, the window was open, and she fell...a simple mistake.

 

The VIDEO shows that the window is next to a bar (Squeeze) and that there is a 42.5" high railing  between the guests and the window. Anello easily leans over the railing before picking the child up. People shorter than Anello can easily lean out and see the side of the ship and the concrete dock below. At the very least, the sunlight differs when outside vs. inside due to the tinted windows. I can easily see when she/he is outside because the sunlight hits them directly. The sun is on their right and it's late afternoon based on the angle. 

 

I've found a photo of Chloe's impact spot before the tent covered the scene but after a sheet was used to cover the body. That could traumatize someone who was on the ship and just happened to look out of their balcony. I'm sure that there of pictures of the actual body uncovered but I haven't found them, yet. The family is risking those photos becoming public record or at the very least being posted online if they aren't already. If there is video of the fall and impact that RCCL hasn't released, the family is risking that video becoming public, too. 

 

 

Edited by Two Wheels Only
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Magicat said:

Forgive my ignorance, from my understanding Puerto Rico is a protectorate of the United States.  When GF stands trial in PR, does he get extradited or just has to show up?  What happens if he doesn't?   

He has already turned  up once and is on $ 80,000 bail .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 3:58 PM, 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.😲

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
      • Q&A with Chris Prelog, President of Windstar Cruises!
      • Register Now for Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Royal Caribbean
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...