Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Anello (the GF) is scheduled back in court Feb 24 and it's expected they'll assign the trial date at that point.  

 

The civil case from the family against RCI has been filed and RCI has filed a motion to dismiss.  

 

Or are you asking for a summary of what has happened since July? 

This answers my questions.  Exactly what I was looking for.

 

TY

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 2:10 PM, HalfHand said:

 

At least one pool and one hot tub were open 24 hours on all RCCL ships. I believe it was an 8 year old boy that drowned because the parents couldn't be bothered to watch their kid. The parents sued, won, now there are life guards and life jackets on all RCCL ships and the pools close at 8pm (I believe).

 

One lawsuit, industry changed.

Prior to having life guards at the pools, cruise ships had signs stating "No lifeguards on duty. Swim at your own risk" or something to that effect. A lot of good that did when RCCL lost that law suit.

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

Prior to having life guards at the pools, cruise ships had signs stating "No lifeguards on duty. Swim at your own risk" or something to that effect. A lot of good that did when RCCL lost that law suit.

Regarding those pools and children drowning unsupervised and lawsuits in the past, this does not relate to Royal Caribbean but other lines as well.

 

What I have noticed is that when parents are not properly supervising their children there is little initiative of the ships staff to enforce the rules and passage conditions they sign up for. If an underage child is roaming the ship unsupervised then the family should be disembarked at the first available port of call. I am guessing the reason why cruise lines lose lawsuits that involve unsupervised children is because of a lack of proactive actions in enforcing the rules. The cruise lines need to take a firm line here and if children are causing problems, using facilities alone when they should be supervised then it is a reflection of parental neglect. Cruise lines should call it out and send a strong clear message that it will not be tolerated and start disembarking the families  concerned.

 

That is just one small area I have noticed other cruise lines in particular are failing at. Princess for example are notorious for it. It has been getting better recently as I am aware they have been disembarking families in Australia as of recently for poor behaviour but it needs to be stepped up. By turning a blind eye to passengers breaking the rules is going to leave the cruise lines wide open to legal action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 2:10 PM, HalfHand said:

 

At least one pool and one hot tub were open 24 hours on all RCCL ships. I believe it was an 8 year old boy that drowned because the parents couldn't be bothered to watch their kid. The parents sued, won, now there are life guards and life jackets on all RCCL ships and the pools close at 8pm (I believe).

 

One lawsuit, industry changed.

 

@HalfHand   I can find no source for your statement.  Can you show your source that the family won a lawsuit against RC?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 7:50 PM, brillohead said:


Honestly, I think parents watch their children even less diligently now... "there's a lifeguard, I can take a nap / read a book while Snowflake Susie goes swimming alone..."  

At least if there is no lifeguard, more parents understand that their child's safety is always their responsibility.  

Tell RCI that. They lost the law suit when the child drowned. Where were the parents if they knew it was their responsibility to watch their child?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 8:05 PM, S.A.M.J.R. said:

........I think he put his head through the window to look around).  AND he held that pose for ~30 seconds before picking up Chloe.  That's a REALLY long time.   So now you're trying to tell me a grown man held his head 6-10" from an open window for 30 seconds and DIDN'T know the window was open?  Is that realistic?

Your timing is not quite right. From what I've read, Anello first leaned over to the window for 8 seconds then he picked up Chloe and held her at the window for 34 seconds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Tell RCI that. They lost the law suit when the child drowned. Where were the parents if they knew it was their responsibility to watch their child?

 

Again, can you show me your source for this claim?

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

Your timing is not quite right. From what I've read, Anello first leaned over to the window for 8 seconds then he picked up Chloe and held her at the window for 34 seconds.

It's possible I got my times backwards.  He was still awfully close to the window for a long time before she fell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 8:12 PM, TNcruising02 said:

......Anyway, I was happy to see life guards during my last Royal Cruise. It takes only minutes for someone to drown.......

 

 

 

What bothers me about the lifeguards on Royal ships is they must stand while they are on duty. What would it take to give the life guards a tall chair like the lifeguards have on beaches? Well, maybe not quite as tall as on beaches but taller than a standard chair. Maybe the height of a bar stool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

Again, can you show me your source for this claim?

 

https://www.local10.com/news/2016/03/30/mother-fights-to-have-lifeguards-on-cruise-ships-after-her-son-nearly-drowns/

 

I don't have a dog in this race....but google really is easy to use........  😉

There are more than 1 story of child drowning on cruise ship, lawsuits about it, and then life guards....this is just one....

 

But....as quoted in the article lawsuits for wrongful death wouldn't work with drownings

 

because of a law they had never heard of called the Death on the High Seas Act, which has been on the books since 1920. The law allows no compensation for pain or suffering, and only a reward for loss of income, like the death of a family provider.

 

So cruise ships 'i assume' added life guards because of other pressures

Edited by dodgestang
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

@HalfHand   I can find no source for your statement.  Can you show your source that the family won a lawsuit against RC?


I’d be more likely to think if there was a lawsuit, it would be settled out of court and no one would know. Settling is not a win, by any means. 
 

I’m thinking of the Italian Boy that was under water for 5-10 minutes in the swirly pool, on either Allure or Oasis, shortly after it left on disembarkation day around 5 years ago. That’s why there are none of that type of pool when Harmony and Symphony were built. I do not know if Oasis had their’s removed at their last dry dock. 
 

Turns out the beloved Winkleman was the Italian Families lawyer as well. Two years after their lawsuit life guards came to RC. 

 

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-based-royal-caribbean-to-add-lifeguards-on-cruises-9010502

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dodgestang said:

 

https://www.local10.com/news/2016/03/30/mother-fights-to-have-lifeguards-on-cruise-ships-after-her-son-nearly-drowns/

 

I don't have a dog in this race....but google really is easy to use........  😉

There are more than 1 story of child drowning on cruise ship, lawsuits about it, and then life guards....this is just one....

 

But....as quoted in the article lawsuits for wrongful death wouldn't work with drownings

 

 

 

 

So cruise ships 'i assume' added life guards because of other pressures

 

 

No, that says that they FILED a lawsuit, not that they WON a lawsuit.

 

That's my point.

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

 

 

No, that says that they FILED a lawsuit, not that they WON a lawsuit.

 

That's my point.


But as you can see in the story Disney unfortunately paid out to a family and then installed lifeguards somewhat setting a precedent. Felt horrible for these kids, but when the pools were posted no lifeguards, its the parents responsibility not the cruise lines to monitor the kids. 
 

Similar to this case, the cruise contract and common sense says railings are there from a purpose and no one should sit or be held above them. GF didn’t follow that and there were horrible consequences. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

What bothers me about the lifeguards on Royal ships is they must stand while they are on duty. What would it take to give the life guards a tall chair like the lifeguards have on beaches? Well, maybe not quite as tall as on beaches but taller than a standard chair. Maybe the height of a bar stool.

 

And they are standing in chlorinated water for hours at a time. What will that do over time?

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

Two years after their lawsuit life guards came to RC. 

The suit was still pending when Royal began adding life guards (2017). It was partially dismissed in 2018 on summary judgment (the part claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; affirmed on appeal 2019). I cannot find info on the outcome on the remainder of their suit (a negligence claim), but it was on hold at least until the 2019 ruling was issued--2 years after RC added lifeguards. (It might still be on hold.)

 

To say that lawsuit changed anything stretches the point. There had been at least a dozen drownings or near drownings of children at unattended pools throughout the industry in the previous decade. No single case forced the adoption of new measures.

 

The optics of letting kids die preventable deaths is what led to the change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dodgestang said:

 

https://www.local10.com/news/2016/03/30/mother-fights-to-have-lifeguards-on-cruise-ships-after-her-son-nearly-drowns/

 

I don't have a dog in this race....but google really is easy to use........  😉

There are more than 1 story of child drowning on cruise ship, lawsuits about it, and then life guards....this is just one....

 

But....as quoted in the article lawsuits for wrongful death wouldn't work with drownings

 

 

 

 

So cruise ships 'i assume' added life guards because of other pressures

Just says the family sued, not that there was an award

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, cgolf1 said:

Similar to this case, the cruise contract and common sense says railings are there from a purpose and no one should sit or be held above them.

 

Funny you should mention that. I was just reading the appellate court ruling where the court held that there was a jury question as to whether the family ever actually received the cruise contract. Royal said it was emailed, and the parents said they received a number of emails and did not know if they got that. It was important because Royal was contending that the contract required the suit to be filed in a particular jurisdiction, and wanted the negligence case dismissed. The court said that in the absence of clear documentary evidence of actual receipt, the issue could not be disposed of without trial.

 

Courts do not look lightly on presumed or constructive waivers of important rights. I think when booking we now have to check something acknowledging receipt and reading of the contract. But did GF? RC might have to prove actual receipt to hold GF to its provisions, but the dad or mom might have booked everybody.

 

Not that this is likely to be a determining factor in either case. If the case on negligence comes down to a paragraph in the contract, then there would have to be some amazing facts in GF's favor that no one has presented yet.

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

Not too far from a possibility this may happen. Look at baseball fields today. Too many people were hit with foul balls because they weren't watching and paying attention to the game so now there is net which protects the public from injury. Same can be said for ice hockey arenas. There are huge nets to protect the spectators.

 

There is a bit of difference between the baseball field/ hockey arena and a cruise ship. I  agree with what you are saying, at sports events.  In those environments, you are sitting peacefully drinking a coke/beer and whack you get hit by a 120mph baseball, and a cruise ship you are sitting drinking a beer and a coke and there is window or balcony railing in front of you and absolutely nothing coming at you at all.  In one environment you are in danger if you are sitting there, and in another you are in no danger unless you choose to be.  They are not the same.  So, yes, I say BS....

 

We go to a minor league baseball park next to where I work, we used to have season tickets way too close to the batter with no screen in front of us.  When a left handed batter would go to the plate, we made everyone (behind the visitors bench on the 3rd base side) watch every pitch because it was dangerous when a ball went off the end of the bat of a left handed batter.  Those were great seats.  Now there is a net.

 

Good sea lawyer though. 🤣

 

jc

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JennyB1977 said:

Once Mr. Anello picks her up off the ground and then places her on a railing he is at fault. He didn't hold her in his arms while standing at the railing. He placed either her feet or her bottom on the railing.


Just want to clarify a point.  Anello said at one time that he put her "on the railing", but as the video clearly shows, he bends his upper body OVER the railing quite significantly.  

As you can see in Winkleman's own photos, if Anello's shoulders are OVER the railing, it's not possible for the baby to be ON the railing -- she must be suspended in air at some point beyond the railing, in front of Anello.  

Here's Winkleman's re-enactment of Anello at the railing leaning over -- see where his head is?

 

23794548-7922419-image-m-70_1579817689034.jpg.e573236002e7b6e4556ad5c404e6c15e.jpg

Now here's Winkleman's re-enactment of Anello holding the baby past the railing (with her feet actually on the windowsill). 

 

23794542-7922419-image-a-71_1579817697155.jpg.9de9c54aefdd2377bc170fb11cd65fea.jpg

 

Maybe someone with some PhotoShop skills can superimpose these pictures on each other to show that when Anello's shoulders are leaned over the railing, as they obviously are in the videos, his head would be located where the re-enactor's hands are in the second photo above. 

 

So if Anello's head is past the railing (where the hands are in the second photo above), where would Baby Chloe's body be?

Plain and simple, in spite of what Anello may have claimed at some point, he did NOT put the baby ON the railing -- he put her SIGNIFICANTLY PAST the railing (and in all likelihood, significantly past the windowsill as well).  

 

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


Just want to clarify a point.  Anello said at one time that he put her "on the railing", but as the video clearly shows, he bends his upper body OVER the railing quite significantly.  

As you can see in Winkleman's own photos, if Anello's shoulders are OVER the railing, it's not possible for the baby to be ON the railing -- she must be suspended in air at some point beyond the railing, in front of Anello.  

Here's Winkleman's re-enactment of Anello at the railing leaning over -- see where his head is?

 

23794548-7922419-image-m-70_1579817689034.jpg.e573236002e7b6e4556ad5c404e6c15e.jpg

Now here's Winkleman's re-enactment of Anello holding the baby past the railing (with her feet actually on the windowsill). 

 

23794542-7922419-image-a-71_1579817697155.jpg.9de9c54aefdd2377bc170fb11cd65fea.jpg

 

Maybe someone with some PhotoShop skills can superimpose these pictures on each other to show that when Anello's shoulders are leaned over the railing, as they obviously are in the videos, his head would be located where the re-enactor's hands are in the second photo above. 

 

So if Anello's head is past the railing (where the hands are in the second photo above), where would Baby Chloe's body be?

Plain and simple, in spite of what Anello may have claimed at some point, he did NOT put the baby ON the railing -- he put her SIGNIFICANTLY PAST the railing (and in all likelihood, significantly past the windowsill as well).  

 

The challenge is accepted. Please excuse the crudity of it as I did not want to spend too much time on it but please bear in mind this is just an example. In the final photo I have allowed for a squashed gut against the guard rail to compress. Mind you these are just examples based on the actual size of this particular mans body in the photo whose height is unknown.

RCex.jpg

RCex1.jpg

RCex2.jpg

RCex3.jpg

Edited by Brisbane41
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
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team: New Ship Ultramarine
      • 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
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...