Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[momofmab]

3 hours ago, Domino D said:

Someone a few pages ago mentioned reasonable doubt in talking about the Grandfather, you should also know that there will be a question of reasonable care.  Could Royal have anticipated this type of accident and reasonably prevented

 

Could her parents also have anticipated this type of accident then?  Given their knowledge of her propensity to bang on window glass?  What was their duty of care?

 

There are many places children can fall from and be seriously injured or die.  It's impossible to bubble wrap the whole world.  I grew up in the footloose and fancy-free 1970's, where moms opened the door and kicked you out in the morning and didn't check on you until she called you in for dinner at 5:30.  I used to climb trees that were 20-30 feet in the air, climb up an old grain elevator shaft at an abandoned chicken coop, wander for miles in the woods - somehow I survived  (man, childhood in the 70's was great!)

 

Whether we want to call this an accident or negligence on someone's part, it is indeed a tragedy for the family and a reminder to the rest of us reading about it to be thankful that we haven't been made to suffer in a similar fashion.

[rebeccac]

1 hour ago, brillohead said:

Untold millions of people with children have cruised on ships with these exact window designs.  Anello is the VERY FIRST person to drop a baby out one of these windows.  It's not a design flaw issue with the ship -- it's a brain function flaw issue with Anello.  

 

Amen!

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

6 hours ago, Domino D said:

Someone a few pages ago mentioned reasonable doubt in talking about the Grandfather, you should also know that there will be a question of reasonable care.  Could Royal have anticipated this type of accident and reasonably prevented it?  If the hand rail was further from the window, the window was higher, the windows restricted from opening fully, does this happen?  How hard would it be to prevent even a careless person from being injured?  I am sure that there are ways for the engineers at Royal to make it less likely this type accident ever happens again without completely closing off the decks.  Whether they win or lose the lawsuit, it is likely changes will be made, its a bad image. 

In my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer, a legal scholar, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, if you're going to use this argument, then you need to put 8' (minimum) barriers on all exterior accesses.  That means decks that are open to the ocean, balcony cabins (both ocean view and neighborhood), and atriums.  Also make sure you do away with steak knives as well as other sharp objects.

 

If the window couldn't have been open would the accident (and I do consider it an accident, I don't believe it was intentional) have happened?  No.  But if Anello wouldn't have held Chloe over the railing (a safety barrier) OR thought for a second "it's not a good idea to hold anyone (much less a toddler) next to an open window 100+' above the ground", this wouldn't have happened.  

 

I've said it before, anytime you make something "idiot proof", God will make a better idiot. 

[A&L_Ont]

6 hours ago, Domino D said:

 I am sure that there are ways for the engineers at Royal to make it less likely this type accident ever happens again without completely closing off the decks.

 

The only way I see it happening is glass tall glass like in this photo. Nit has to be on all inner and outer balconies. That would have to include anywhere there is a drop; Royal Promenade views from the deck above, pool decks, rising tide bar, public stair wells, no more open balconies because of a drop, even the tiered MDR etc.  Anywhere someone can go over the edge it will be needed, like a zoo.  Keep the animals safe from themselves.
 

Yet, as others said here, there will be a new level of stupid to find a way. Sadly the Darwin Awards were created because of those individuals.   It’s all perfect until there is an emergency, such as a fire, and folks can’t get over the high glass to save their lives.
 

Maybe a Hotwire like a farm electric fence would be good enough. Just enough voltage to keep one back, and they can do harm yourself or the innocent. 
 

EDIT: @S.A.M.J.R. Good minds. 😉

Edited February 5, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[mayleeman]

Jalousie windows! (But they would have to be closer spaced to ensure heads and hands can't get stuck because you know some nitwit will try to get through them....)

 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by mayleeman

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, Domino D said:

Someone a few pages ago mentioned reasonable doubt in talking about the Grandfather, you should also know that there will be a question of reasonable care.  Could Royal have anticipated this type of accident and reasonably prevented it?  If the hand rail was further from the window, the window was higher, the windows restricted from opening fully, does this happen?  How hard would it be to prevent even a careless person from being injured?  I am sure that there are ways for the engineers at Royal to make it less likely this type accident ever happens again without completely closing off the decks.  Whether they win or lose the lawsuit, it is likely changes will be made, its a bad image. 

Yes, there has to be a standard of "reasonable care" on the part of the cruise line, but this "standard" is based on the risks that "a reasonable person" would take.  I doubt if many would consider it "reasonable" for a person to hold a child above a railing and even near an open 11th story window, let alone outside of it.  Whether there are ways for the windows to be redesigned to prevent this unlikely instance from happening again, it is a matter of whether the cruise line was in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards, and whether they should have to spend additional money, and restrict the access or enjoyment of all future cruisers, because one person did not practice "reasonable care" in the care of the child.  Even if RCI did change the window design (and I seriously doubt they will), no other cruise line would be required to do so, and they wouldn't.

 

Their lawyer argues that there is no sign on the handrail not to sit on it (though the cruise ticket contract specifically mentions it), but again, what would a "reasonable person" do when faced with a 39" high railing?  Would you climb up on it to sit?  No.  Now, that does not preclude some idiot from doing so, but that idiot is not being "reasonable", and so becomes outside the limits of liability by the cruise line.

[A&L_Ont]

24 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

Jalousie windows! (But they would have to be closer spaced to ensure heads and hands can't get stuck because you know some nitwit will try to get through them....)

 

 

Great idea but I see the chance of the small panes of glass to break.  Not safe enough for the foolish.  It would however allow air movement. I can only imagine how hot the pool decks will be glass 10' tall all around the ship.  

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

Great idea but I see the chance of the small panes of glass to break.  Not safe enough for the foolish.  It would however allow air movement. I can only imagine how hot the pool decks will be glass 10' tall all around the ship.  

I see the maintenance nightmare of salt encrusted pivot points not working, someone forcing the mechanism and breaking it, so the window does not close or open any longer, and the corrosion of all the moving parts.  And since they would be required to be tempered glass, I see folks accidentally striking the edge of an open slat and shattering it, allowing larger openings again.

[A&L_Ont]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

it is a matter of whether the cruise line was in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards, and whether they should have to spend additional money, and restrict the access or enjoyment of all future cruisers, because one person did not practice "reasonable care" in the care of the child.  Even if RCI did change the window design (and I seriously doubt they will), no other cruise line would be required to do so, and they wouldn't.

 

Chief, as always you make valid points.  

 

The piece that I highlighted does make me think about one item though.  I would think that if RC did make a change safety/design change it would open other cruise lines to more lawsuits.  The idea being RC had "fixed" what was in a the lawyer's eyes a design flaw, on every cruise ship at sea. 

 

I almost wonder if the major cruise line players are working together behind the scenes with RC to fight this to the end in court and share the costs.  A shared legal bill will be cheaper than future impending lawsuits for all the lines on top of revamping the ships where ever anyone can go over a rail.  Just thinking out loud.

[A&L_Ont]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I see the maintenance nightmare of salt encrusted pivot points not working, someone forcing the mechanism and breaking it, so the window does not close or open any longer, and the corrosion of all the moving parts.  And since they would be required to be tempered glass, I see folks accidentally striking the edge of an open slat and shattering it, allowing larger openings again.

 

Agreed, not to mention that screen is flimsy and easy to rip/break.  Inoperable windows could be just another reason to sue.  They were not functioning, there fore they were not safe.

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

Chief, as always you make valid points.  

 

The piece that I highlighted does make me think about one item though.  I would think that if RC did make a change safety/design change it would open other cruise lines to more lawsuits.  The idea being RC had "fixed" what was in a the lawyer's eyes a design flaw, on every cruise ship at sea. 

 

I almost wonder if the major cruise line players are working together behind the scenes with RC to fight this to the end in court and share the costs.  A shared legal bill will be cheaper than future impending lawsuits for all the lines on top of revamping the ships where ever anyone can go over a rail.  Just thinking out loud.

No, because what RCI has in place is in accordance with the design standards applicable to ships, and therefore completely legal, and unless the IMO changes the SOLAS requirements, no other cruise line would change anything.  And, this is why I doubt that RCI would change the design of the windows, because if they did win and subsequently changed the design, it would "appear" that they were correcting a flaw.  Even if they lose, it would not mandate a redesign of the windows, since they are according to code, but it might require more "idiot signs" like "do not hold your infants out the open window".

[A&L_Ont]

5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, this is why I doubt that RCI would change the design of the windows, because if they did win and subsequently changed the design, it would "appear" that they were correcting a flaw.  Even if they lose, it would not mandate a redesign of the windows, since they are according to code, but it might require more "idiot signs" like "do not hold your infants out the open window".

 

I fully agree if they win, no changes at all.  RC lawyers will insist on more stickers as they are so cheap either way.  Lord knows there are enough safety demonstrations at the flow rider and it only costs time. 

 

I think their insurance provider might insist on structural changes if there is a drastic influx of individuals going over the rail like this situation and added lawsuits.  That being said this type of situation does not happen anywhere near as often as people adults going over in the middle of the night. 

 

 

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

5 hours ago, rusty nut said:

Does anybody have, or can someone post the link of the "actual" broadcast video?

I found it again, I didn't have it bookmarked.  

 

I'm not positive that we're allowed to directly link the video, but searching in google brought it up.  Use these search terms:

"site: facebook.com lacomaytv freedom".  You might need to then click on the video tab and it should be the first video. 

 

The video is in Spanish.  If you jump ahead to ~3:30 and you'll one camera (the one from "behind" the windows, and at ~8:50 is the video from the side.

 

[chengkp75]

36 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

I fully agree if they win, no changes at all.  RC lawyers will insist on more stickers as they are so cheap either way.  Lord knows there are enough safety demonstrations at the flow rider and it only costs time. 

 

I think their insurance provider might insist on structural changes if there is a drastic influx of individuals going over the rail like this situation and added lawsuits.  That being said this type of situation does not happen anywhere near as often as people adults going over in the middle of the night. 

 

 

Well, given that the P&I insurance that would cover these suits is a mutual insurance (the shipping companies own the insurance "club"), I doubt they would require anything over the legally mandated requirements.

Edited February 5, 2020 by chengkp75

[A&L_Ont]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, given that the P&I insurance that would cover these suits is a mutual insurance (the shipping companies own the insurance "club"), I doubt they would require anything over the legally mandated requirements.

And that would make total sense, now that I know. 

[Domino D]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, there has to be a standard of "reasonable care" on the part of the cruise line, but this "standard" is based on the risks that "a reasonable person" would take.  I doubt if many would consider it "reasonable" for a person to hold a child above a railing and even near an open 11th story window, let alone outside of it.  Whether there are ways for the windows to be redesigned to prevent this unlikely instance from happening again, it is a matter of whether the cruise line was in accordance with the applicable design and construction standards, and whether they should have to spend additional money, and restrict the access or enjoyment of all future cruisers, because one person did not practice "reasonable care" in the care of the child.  Even if RCI did change the window design (and I seriously doubt they will), no other cruise line would be required to do so, and they wouldn't.

 

Their lawyer argues that there is no sign on the handrail not to sit on it (though the cruise ticket contract specifically mentions it), but again, what would a "reasonable person" do when faced with a 39" high railing?  Would you climb up on it to sit?  No.  Now, that does not preclude some idiot from doing so, but that idiot is not being "reasonable", and so becomes outside the limits of liability by the cruise line.

 

Chief, I always appreciate your input and experience.  It was not my intent to imply that Royal wasn't following the industry standards, I am sure they are.  I am not as certain as you, that a court will find the only factor in this accident is the carelessness of the Grandfather.  It is the primary cause, but will it be determined to be the only cause?  If we could count on people being reasonable we wouldn't need signs like: "Don't leave valuables in your car"  "Don't exit the ride vehicle while it's in motion"  "No Diving"  "Don't feed the animals" "Don't stand on the top step"

 

I'm sure that Royal's lawyers are top tier.  If you and everyone else is right, then there is nothing to be concerned about.  I do think that we will likely see additional signage.  I'll be surprised if there isn't a sign someday that says ""Warning keep children away from open windows".  It would be advisable to do so for the public relations bump.  It is also never a bad thing to be the first to exceed requirements.  I am not saying they will, I have no idea, but they would silly not to consider it.  Of course that said, they have to wait for the lawsuit to come to a conclusion, otherwise it will be used against them. 

 

I am always glad to be wrong, mainly because I am paid to be extremely suspicious and pessimistic.  I would never grab a hot toaster.... but someone clearly has.

 

 

Or imagine what lead to  this one

 

[ReneeFLL]

23 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

I am guessing they would have to redesign the entire area to prevent it from becoming some sort of horrible memory for passengers and crew who know of it. Once something tragic like this has happened the ship is tainted and the area needs changing. There will probably be something completely unrecognisable designed into its changes.

I don't see any need for them to change anything. If the crew are traumatized then change them to a different ship and have counseling for them. As for any passangers that are traumatized also give them counseling and they should avoid the FOTS. I don't think they did anything to change George Smith's cabin on the Brilliance after he was killed.

[ReneeFLL]

16 hours ago, Domino D said:

Liability is not the same as blame.  It is entirely possible that the Grandfather will be found guilty, and Royal still found liable or negligent.  Royal is a big company and they will survive.  I was involved  in a case where a guest at a hotel got drunk and decided to dive into the 4 foot pool.  He was in his 20's, broke his neck, and was paralyzed.  The hotel lost that lawsuit.  Now most US hotels with indoor pools have doors that require key entry. 

 

Someone a few pages ago mentioned reasonable doubt in talking about the Grandfather, you should also know that there will be a question of reasonable care.  Could Royal have anticipated this type of accident and reasonably prevented it?  If the hand rail was further from the window, the window was higher, the windows restricted from opening fully, does this happen?  How hard would it be to prevent even a careless person from being injured?  I am sure that there are ways for the engineers at Royal to make it less likely this type accident ever happens again without completely closing off the decks.  Whether they win or lose the lawsuit, it is likely changes will be made, its a bad image. 

 

I realize that many of you have a high degree of passion for this story, but for me, the family lost a child and gets a pass on any action they take. If it was my child, you all would have a lot more to talk about, because I would make what this family has done look like nothing.   While the grandfather is the primary cause of this child's death, it is also true that Royal could have done more to prevent this type of accident.  Sorry, that's just a legal reality.  There's a reason windows in US public buildings don't open.  Yes I know those are different regulations, but regulations evolve and change.  I remember people saying similar things about personal responsibility when seat belts and car seats became the norm.  Whether Royal is "to blame" or not they should want to make the ships safer.  Safer as in more safe, not that they are unsafe now.  There is an old saying in loss analysis, if you don't prevent something from happening, eventually it will. 

 

Prayers for the family, including the Grandfather.  Regardless of what the courts rule he has to live with this and I don't how.  Finally, hope that Royal can find a way to increase safety without ruining our experience.   In the end, a child is dead.  EVERYTHING that can be done to prevent it from happening again should be done.  Fix problems not blame. 

So you're saying that if something like this happened to you you would also be blaming Royal and not taking responsibility for your own actions? That's what's wrong with this country.

 

Royal can do something to make it more safe. They can just enclose the entire ship like a box, but then someone would trip on their own 2 left feet and sue Royal. What is this world coming to? 

[Brisbane41]

1 hour ago, ReneeFLL said:

I don't see any need for them to change anything. If the crew are traumatized then change them to a different ship and have counseling for them. As for any passangers that are traumatized also give them counseling and they should avoid the FOTS. I don't think they did anything to change George Smith's cabin on the Brilliance after he was killed.

Apparently it is being changed I am let to believe which is why the family demanded their lawyers assess the site as it is said to be unrecognisable after the alterations? I could be wrong but that is what I am led to believe is happening.

[Domino D]

19 minutes ago, ReneeFLL said:

So you're saying that if something like this happened to you you would also be blaming Royal and not taking responsibility for your own actions? That's what's wrong with this country.

 

Royal can do something to make it more safe. They can just enclose the entire ship like a box, but then someone would trip on their own 2 left feet and sue Royal. What is this world coming to? 

 

Yes mam, that is what I am saying.  I would never be able to shake the quilt of not protecting my child, no matter how he or she fell to harm.  That said, I am pretty sure that I would also be able to find blame with Royal, the person who built the ship, the people who create the regulations, the port authority, the other passengers, and lastly God.  While this is unfair, it is also honest.  Unfortunately, I have friends who lost children in tragedies and have watched them take on many issues and institutions as a result.

 

So, yes I would want to push for changes to prevent it happening to anyone else.  This is not about who is responsible, it is about prevention.  It would likely become my mission to change cruise ship regulations and policies to make this less likely to happen again.  30 Years ago people were not required to wear seat belts or place children in car seats, people were expected to simply drive carefully.  Unfortunately, tragedies are the way that laws, regulations, and policies evolve.  Why would anyone be opposed to more signage?  Why would anyone care if the hand rail were pulled 2 feet further from the window, making it even less likely that anyone could lean far enough out to fall over or drop something?  Why would anyone be opposed to them putting a bolted window stop to keep the window from being completely open?  

 

I think there is a lot wrong with this country, including our newly found inability to tolerate anyone with a different opinion.  You are welcome to your opinion and to express it, as am I.  One of the best things about America is that you and I have the right to discuss this, and the family has the right to challenge if Royal should have done more to protect their child.  The courts will decide this, the family will be in pain no matter what, and Royal will be fine no matter what.  

 

My thoughts are not who is to blame, or if a reasonable person would do this.  My thoughts are only about, "How do we keep this from happening again?"  A child is dead, and Royal does not need any of our protection.  I believe the family has ever right to raise the issue, you do not.  Reasonable people can disagree without destroying a while county.  

 

I hope I never have occasion to find out how one acts in this situation, I sincerely hope you never find out either. 

[voyager70]

Wow, words fail me.

 

[boscobeans]

28 minutes ago, Domino D said:

 

Yes mam, that is what I am saying.  I would never be able to shake the quilt of not protecting my child, no matter how he or she fell to harm.  That said, I am pretty sure that I would also be able to find blame with Royal, the person who built the ship, the people who create the regulations, the port authority, the other passengers, and lastly God.  While this is unfair, it is also honest.  Unfortunately, I have friends who lost children in tragedies and have watched them take on many issues and institutions as a result.

 

So, yes I would want to push for changes to prevent it happening to anyone else.  This is not about who is responsible, it is about prevention.  It would likely become my mission to change cruise ship regulations and policies to make this less likely to happen again.  30 Years ago people were not required to wear seat belts or place children in car seats, people were expected to simply drive carefully.  Unfortunately, tragedies are the way that laws, regulations, and policies evolve.  Why would anyone be opposed to more signage?  Why would anyone care if the hand rail were pulled 2 feet further from the window, making it even less likely that anyone could lean far enough out to fall over or drop something?  Why would anyone be opposed to them putting a bolted window stop to keep the window from being completely open?  

 

I think there is a lot wrong with this country, including our newly found inability to tolerate anyone with a different opinion.  You are welcome to your opinion and to express it, as am I.  One of the best things about America is that you and I have the right to discuss this, and the family has the right to challenge if Royal should have done more to protect their child.  The courts will decide this, the family will be in pain no matter what, and Royal will be fine no matter what.  

 

My thoughts are not who is to blame, or if a reasonable person would do this.  My thoughts are only about, "How do we keep this from happening again?"  A child is dead, and Royal does not need any of our protection.  I believe the family has ever right to raise the issue, you do not.  Reasonable people can disagree without destroying a while county.  

 

I hope I never have occasion to find out how one acts in this situation, I sincerely hope you never find out either. 

So would you push for better warning signs?

 

How about signs on the open decks.. "  DO NOT DROP CHILDREN OVER THE SIDE OF THE SHIP " ?

 

Sounds stupid doesn't it?  But that is exactly what the GF did. 

 

You can't cure STUPID with laws or signs.

[not-enough-cruising]

47 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

Apparently it is being changed I am let to believe which is why the family demanded their lawyers assess the site as it is said to be unrecognisable after the alterations? I could be wrong but that is what I am led to believe is happening.

Have not heard anywhere that anything is being changed or remodeled. Freedom looked exactly as she always has 2 weeks ago. 

[jagsfan]

2 hours ago, ReneeFLL said:

I don't see any need for them to change anything. If the crew are traumatized then change them to a different ship and have counseling for them. As for any passangers that are traumatized also give them counseling and they should avoid the FOTS. I don't think they did anything to change George Smith's cabin on the Brilliance after he was killed.

We were in that cabin a few weeks later. 

It was just a balcony cabin. The lifeboat below us was just a lifeboat. 

I thought about him before the cruise but once aboard it was ok. 

 

[ReneeFLL]

8 hours ago, Domino D said:

.....I am not as certain as you, that a court will find the only factor in this accident is the carelessness of the Grandfather.  It is the primary cause, but will it be determined to be the only cause?.........

I can't imagine that there would be something else that contributed to this accident except the stupidity of Anello. It will be a sad day if Royal is found to have contributed to it.