Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[rusty nut]

10 minutes ago, rimmit said:

Most people haven’t heard of the majority of lawsuits that set precedents but they are there and they are used in future trials.  The majority of law is based on legal precedents.  Once a precedent is set it tends to be used in the future.   The legal precedent at stake here is “Is it a businesses responsibility to protect people from a lack of common sense despite already taking appropriate safety precautions?”

 

I would argue that is “Huge” in the legal sense as I am not aware of any case that has ever set a precedent like that before.  It is definitely “huge” for ambulance chasers as they would now stalk nearly everyone with an injury.

 

It is definitely “Huge” in PR.  You’d be hard pressed to find someone on that island not aware of it.  
 

Is it OJ Simpson level “huge” in the US?  Not at this point nor will it ever be.  But it is definitely bigger than the average case, and has the potential to only grow as parents keep digging in their heels and the

lawyer keeps refuting.

Well said!

[ONECRUISER]

3 hours ago, rusty nut said:

With the times, just as ships are renovated every what, ten years?

Ship maintenance is done yr round. Do many B2B2B, on a turn around day watched them replace all mattresses on one Deck, another watched them do all dated Balcony furniture, when Serenade and Brilliance were returning ea yr from Europe/Canada to Florida they'd do all re-staining railings and painting ship. Now once every 5yrs they do Dry Dock, most whats done is Marine side maintenance. In past lucky if once in a ships Lifetime it was "Renovated" When Sovereign/Majesty was done(25yrs) it was to bring out of the 80's chrome/neon look and took 4+ weeks. In Future see ships kept longer with more updating as Royal has resent, but for most part they dont replace everything every 5 or even 10yrs

Edited January 29, 2020 by ONECRUISER

[akcruz]

22 minutes ago, rimmit said:

Most people haven’t heard of the majority of lawsuits that set precedents but they are there and they are used in future trials.  The majority of law is based on legal precedents.  Once a precedent is set it tends to be used in the future.   The legal precedent at stake here is “Is it a businesses responsibility to protect people from a lack of common sense despite already taking appropriate safety precautions?”

 

I worked at an insurance company for many years and one of the most frustrating claims I remember was someone attempting to break into a home when on the roof they fell through a skylight.  They sued the manufacturer of the skylight stating it wasn't built strongly enough to support his weight, guess what, he won.  I was not directly involved but heard about it from others that were so don't remember all the details, and yes there are many other such cases out there.   Common sense is severely lacking in today's society.

[rimmit]

9 minutes ago, akcruz said:

 

I worked at an insurance company for many years and one of the most frustrating claims I remember was someone attempting to break into a home when on the roof they fell through a skylight.  They sued the manufacturer of the skylight stating it wasn't built strongly enough to support his weight, guess what, he won.  I was not directly involved but heard about it from others that were so don't remember all the details, and yes there are many other such cases out there.   Common sense is severely lacking in today's society.

I briefly remember reading about that case.  I think part of the issue is they couldn’t prove that he was trying to steal (as obviously he fell before committing an act of crime).

I am sure the lawyers already have that case ready to reference.  This is my point, though.  Nothing is a slam dunk.  People assume that RCI will win.   Law is funny sometimes and based on previous precedents and legal wordings the attorneys can frame the law to prove that RCI should have done more to prevent the death.

[Another_Critic]

12 minutes ago, rimmit said:

... the attorneys can frame the law to prove that RCI should have done more to prevent the death.

 

Lawyer:  RCI should have known that GF had no common sense, so they were negligent in letting him on the ship.

 

Ruling:  Full background checks and common sense testing required prior to boarding.

 

Result:  Ships sail empty.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Another_Critic

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

2 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

Showing my ignorance here, but we flipped our security camera system in a day.  New hard drive and cameras, which were easy to do as the hard wiring was already there. Sure the ship is larger but some of the cameras could be done during a regular cruise and not even need a dry dock. 
 

Edit to Add: the costs have to be more economical than lawyers and a lawsuit. 

How many cameras do you have?  How big of a storage space?  Upgrading the cameras to better quality means you need more storage space.   Can you record on the new cameras on the old storage space?  Can you record the old cameras on the new storage space?  If there are truly 13 cameras in that area of the deck, how many do you think are on the ship?  Even if they can all be changed out relatively easily, how often should you change them?

 

1 hour ago, akcruz said:

 

I worked at an insurance company for many years and one of the most frustrating claims I remember was someone attempting to break into a home when on the roof they fell through a skylight.  They sued the manufacturer of the skylight stating it wasn't built strongly enough to support his weight, guess what, he won.  I was not directly involved but heard about it from others that were so don't remember all the details, and yes there are many other such cases out there.   Common sense is severely lacking in today's society.

That actually makes a little bit of sense to me.  If you ignore WHY he was on the roof (because it could have been the home owner or a contractor), then should a sky light be able to support a man's weight?  That jury said "yes".  

 

I don't think it's comparable to this case because there is no legitimate reason for someone to hold a child over the railing, whereas on the skylight issue, there are legitimate reasons for someone to be on the roof and potentially fall into the skylight.

[FloridaPalms]

Truly a tragic incident.  I pray for the baby and my heart goes out to the family. The videos show step-grandfather was truly stupid and negligent (and in violation of RCL’s clear policy regarding guard rails) for lifting her up and over the railing.  And, in view of his statement that he watched her fall ALL THE WAY DOWN, he clearly had hs head extended through the open window.  

 

BUT, in reading some of the comments posted in the various online videos, there are way too many people who feel RCL is to blame.  They feel there is a difference between safety rails on open decks and balconies because it is known there is nothing beyond those railings, and argue that the pool deck railings were in front of windows that should NEVER be opened.  While open windows are clear to us who have cruised these ships (and easily extended our arms through these windows to take pictures with our cameras),  they argue the windows especially pose a danger to children who might climb on a chair or lounger and RCL was negligent in not protecting the passengers. (No mention of parental responsibility - nope, only cruise line responsibility.)  If people like them are on the jury, it might not go well for RCL, or for us seasoned cruisers as well.

 

MY FEAR is that if plaintiffs win this case, not only will it set a precedent that allows people to hold the cruise lines responsible for its passengers stupidity and flagrant violations of rules and lack of proper supervision of their children, but the ships will be retrofitted into sealed cages.  

 

Perhaps RCL needs to further vet its passengers with signs at the terminals:

 

 

 

~ Judy

Edited January 29, 2020 by FloridaPalms

[rusty nut]

Here's another one.

 

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, rimmit said:

I briefly remember reading about that case.  I think part of the issue is they couldn’t prove that he was trying to steal (as obviously he fell before committing an act of crime).

 

But......the guy was trespassing. He had no business on the roof.

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

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

But......the guy was trespassing. He had no business on the roof.

So if someone was supposed to be there (the homeowner or a contractor), the skylight manufacturer IS responsible? 

[rimmit]

4 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

But......the guy was trespassing. He had no business on the roof.

I don’t remember all the details.  It’s been years since I heard about it.  Not saying it makes the lawsuit right.   Just stating one of the details.  I am sure there are many other arguments.  I am sure you can google the case without issue and read all about the details.

[A&L_Ont]

23 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

How many cameras do you have?  How big of a storage space?  Upgrading the cameras to better quality means you need more storage space.   Can you record on the new cameras on the old storage space?  Can you record the old cameras on the new storage space?  If there are truly 13 cameras in that area of the deck, how many do you think are on the ship?  Even if they can all be changed out relatively easily, how often should you change them?

We changed ours when the technology improved greatly. Perhaps it was 5 years and yes we had to change our storage. We did it because we wanted better coverage and quality. Obviously there ship is a larger situation than our 12 camera system on our house and garages.
 

I would tend to think that change of cameras for RC could be dictated for different reasons. Better coverage and quality can help in cases like this. Better might possibly help them in lowering insurance rates, or might be dictated by the insurance company.  For them it could be a cost/loss position. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[mayleeman]

@rimmit Precedents are set by rulings, not by settlements. 

 

 

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

6 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

We changed ours when the technology improved greatly. Perhaps it was 5 years and yes we had to change our storage. We did it because we wanted better coverage and quality. Obviously there ship is a larger situation than our 12 camera system on our house and garages.
 

I would tend to think that change of cameras for RC could be dictated for different reasons. Better coverage and quality can help in cases like this. Better might possibly help them in lowering insurance rates, or might be dictated by the insurance company.  For them it could be a cost/loss position. 

And they might do it during a dry dock.  I don't think changing the system on a ship is as easy as some make it sound.  For example, I don't think you can do it when guests are on board.  Obviously a camera needs to be "down" while changing it.  What if something happens in that area while the camera is being changed?  Then there's no video.  

[Two Wheels Only]

3 hours ago, Plum Happy said:

The video IS public record and CBS was then able to show it once Royal replied to their lawsuit against them.  

 

The person asked why didn't CBS show any video before it was public record. CBS could have shown whatever they had when they had it. CBS chose to not show anything at that time.

 

Begnaud did point out the discrepancy between what Winkleman provided and the truth which I commended him for but (IMO) Begnaud didn't put forth how the new information obliterated what Anello said in the interview.

 

 

 

[BeachChik]

14 hours ago, happicruzer said:

I saw the legal reenactment photos.  After watching the video, I played out a similar reenactment with my eleven pound cat.  From the end of my bed, I reached down, grabbed her with arms extended, pushed her out and up to my shoulder height - the video shows her head higher than the GF head - and lost my grasp on my cat.
 

My cat went flying but landed safely up by the bed pillows.

 

If you look closely at the video, the GF actually backs up from the window with, I believe, his elbows by his waist and then bends back over the window to look down.  
 

It is also noticeable that there are lounge chairs, tables, and folks dining at tables.  The mother may have been in the child’s play area, but her daughter wasn’t there.  She has to live with the guilt she didn’t watch her child.

 

RCI is not to blame.
 

*** observed another incident that could have ended in tragedy ***

 

I was docked in Cozumel looking across the pier towards an Oasis-class ship.  The lady beside me started screaming.  Staff came over - she pointed to a toddler standing on a chair on the opposite balcony.  The toddler could grasp the balcony railing but was unable - by five inches - to get her right leg up and over the railing.  Five minutes later a woman could be seen in the room, never looked out to check on the child. I left since staff was trying to figure out how to each someone in security on the othe ship.  Scary? Oh, yes.  If the child had stepped on the arm rest, there might have been a different outcome.

 

I'm sorry but no.

 

The mother doesn't have to live with guilt that she didn't watch her child, she has to live with the fact that a horrible accident occurred and her child is no longer here. Her daughter was being watched by someone she trusted and he made a terrible decision which resulted in the child's death. His bad choice to put her on the railings is not the mothers fault.

[Two Wheels Only]

24 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

Here's another one.

 

Why are there so many loungers in the children's play area?

[A&L_Ont]

14 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

And they might do it during a dry dock.  I don't think changing the system on a ship is as easy as some make it sound.  For example, I don't think you can do it when guests are on board.  Obviously a camera needs to be "down" while changing it.  What if something happens in that area while the camera is being changed?  Then there's no video.  

We both agree that dry dock would be the easiest time, but even then they might need coverage of what the contractors are up to as well.
 

At least the contractors are not as oblivious to the dangers that this family appear to be. A system down for repair or replacement is a calculated risk, but not as dangerous as holding a toddler out the window. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[akcruz]

41 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

That actually makes a little bit of sense to me.  If you ignore WHY he was on the roof (because it could have been the home owner or a contractor), then should a sky light be able to support a man's weight?  That jury said "yes".  

 

I don't think it's comparable to this case because there is no legitimate reason for someone to hold a child over the railing, whereas on the skylight issue, there are legitimate reasons for someone to be on the roof and potentially fall into the skylight.

 

But that is my point, at first glance you would say how could they ever win that but once you dig a bit further it does make sense.  As I said I dont remember the details, but the resolution could have been to put a warning on the skylight stating don't step or stand on.  Similarly here it could be found to put a warning somewhere that window is/could be open and do not out anything thru or out it.  Again common sense is lacking and it seems many need to be told what they should or should not be doing.  Do I think we should absolutely not but it does seem necessary for far too many people.

[retiredgram]

15 minutes ago, BeachChik said:

 

I'm sorry but no.

 

The mother doesn't have to live with guilt that she didn't watch her child, she has to live with the fact that a horrible accident occurred and her child is no longer here. Her daughter was being watched by someone she trusted and he made a terrible decision which resulted in the child's death. His bad choice to put her on the railings is not the mothers fault.

Apparently she does not think he is responsible.  IMO, they have not faced the facts and do not want him to take responsibility.

I would be yelling at him, why did you do this, but maybe they have asked him and he just keeps saying I did not know.

Also, someone explain to me that has knowledge, why are the parents giving interviews if this case is going to be litigated. They are having a public trial before the case actually goes to court or is settled. (should not be settled, IMO)

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

1 minute ago, akcruz said:

 

But that is my point, at first glance you would say how could they ever win that but once you dig a bit further it does make sense.  As I said I dont remember the details, but the resolution could have been to put a warning on the skylight stating don't step or stand on.  Similarly here it could be found to put a warning somewhere that window is/could be open and do not out anything thru or out it.  Again common sense is lacking and it seems many need to be told what they should or should not be doing.  Do I think we should absolutely not but it does seem necessary for far too many people.

Come on. If you ever walked by one of those open windows you could be blind and know they are open. The wind alone coming through them is enough. Royal having the window open is not the question. It is the stupidity of the GF.

[tinkertwo]

27 minutes ago, BeachChik said:

 

I'm sorry but no.

 

The mother doesn't have to live with guilt that she didn't watch her child, she has to live with the fact that a horrible accident occurred and her child is no longer here. Her daughter was being watched by someone she trusted and he made a terrible decision which resulted in the child's death. His bad choice to put her on the railings is not the mothers fault.

For this mother, I would live with the guilt that I didn't watch my child.  I would feel that guilt as if it was I who put her in that danger.  Sadly, I would carry that with me forever regardless of who my child was intrusted to.

Others may feel differently though and I understand.  Just wanted to make the point that the mother may hold onto that for a very very long time.  

[Two Wheels Only]

3 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

For this mother, I would live with the guilt that I didn't watch my child.  I would feel that guilt as if it was I who put her in that danger.  Sadly, I would carry that with me forever regardless of who my child was intrusted to.

 

The mother blaming Anello makes sense.

The mother blaming herself is understandable.

The mother blaming RCCL is ridiculous.

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

16 minutes ago, akcruz said:

 

But that is my point, at first glance you would say how could they ever win that but once you dig a bit further it does make sense.  As I said I dont remember the details, but the resolution could have been to put a warning on the skylight stating don't step or stand on.  Similarly here it could be found to put a warning somewhere that window is/could be open and do not out anything thru or out it.  Again common sense is lacking and it seems many need to be told what they should or should not be doing.  Do I think we should absolutely not but it does seem necessary for far too many people.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that wall is all glass, there are absolutely NO windows that open.  Would RCI still put a railing there?  Why would they need to?  The railing is the warning.  

[tinkertwo]

3 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The mother blaming Anello makes sense.

The mother blaming herself is understandable.

The mother blaming RCCL is ridiculous.

Could not agree more!

Having said that, it is still fresh for the mother so I'm sure she is reaching out to try and make sense of it all and blaming RCCL is just part of the grieving process.  She will get there, it just may take some time.  

I am not excusing anyone's behavior, just trying to understand from her point of view.  GF is at fault, no doubt.  Maybe she just can't handle it at the moment.