Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Domino D said:

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?  

What about balconies (inside and outside)?  Are you saying you would want them to be fully enclosed?

 

Moving the handrail out 2 feet would just encourage people to stand between the handrail and the window, instead of behind the handrail.

 

You mentioned more signage.  What if someone doesn't know the language that the sign is written in?  What then?

Edited by time4u2go
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Do you have any links to this info? I haven't heard anything about it.

 

1 hour 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. 

You said it right there "I would never be able to shake the quilt of not protecting my child, no matter how he or she fell to harm." For YOU not protecting your child. That's something YOU didn't do so why would it be Royals fault when they have met the industry standards? To me that's someone not taking responsibility for their own actions. 

 

It is about who is responsible because Royal has in place the measures that a reasonably thinking person would know what NOT to do. 

 

After rereading your post again because I was thinking surely I must have misread about who you would also blame, I'm beginning to think that you must have posted that as a joke.

Edited by ReneeFLL
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

Freedom is in her pre-scheduled dry-dock right now.  

While there may be changes being made to the pool deck as part of the "amplification" process, they would have been scheduled FAR in advance, just as all renovations are in dry-dock.  And while that specific area may be different (a new bar or eatery, for example), the window design in the rest of the pool deck area will in all likelihood be completely untouched.  

Those same type of windows exist on both sides of the ship and on both sides of the kiddie pool, regular pool, and Solarium. While the exact "Chloe death window" may be changed as part of the previously planned renovations, the design format will still be in use everywhere else on the pool deck, as well as on all of Royal's other ships.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2020 at 7:44 PM, 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.

 

The ship is being refurbished as part of a previously scheduled dry dock.  A cruiseline is not going to spend $116 million to upgrade a ship just because someone dropped their grandchild out a window.

 

Independence had a similar upgrade in 2018.  More info can be found here:  https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/4366/

 

Tragic events happen every year on cruise ships.  I have yet to hear of any of them doing a remodel as a result.

 

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

 

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?  

 

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. 

Following your logic every cabin will be an inside cabin. 

 

Do you book inside cabins for your own protection?  

 

Balcony's in the showrooms would be verbotem (even though they are common in most arenas etc).

 

Can I go on.

 

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

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.

 

If they were my client, yes I would encourage them to put up more signs.  You can't cure stupid at all, but you can increase your ability to win lawsuits with additional signage and safety measures.  You win lawsuits like this by showing all the measures you have in place.  Every sign and warning you see is there because someone did something stupid.  A business does not care about curing stupid, they want to protect the value.   I get your feelings, I do, but ask McDonald's how the "It's not our fault.  A reasonable person would have been okay" defense worked for them.  Again, I get that this is a passionate issue to many of you, but that is not the way the law works.   They were offered to settle that case for something like $4,000 in medical expenses and said "NO, were right".  That was stupid. 

 

I promise you the other side will argue:  The window in question was in close proximity to a children's area.  There is no practical reason for the windows to open.  No employee stopped him from lifting the child over the railing.  While the grandfathers actions were a factor in the accident, the opportunity for such an event should not even exist on a ship marketed to families.  Forget fault.  Forget stupidity.  Think about 12 people who aren't Loyal to Royal hearing a grieving mother asking for what sounds like a reasonable list of changes.  Then where you see an "idiot", they will present an old man who got confused and now has to live with the pain of an honest mistake.  A mistake that is 100% preventable.  

 

I am also sure that you all are more upset about this than Royal.  This is a part of doing business.  Two more people fell to their deaths on Carnival since October.  Someday changes will come, its inevitable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry for upsetting so many of you.  I will bow out of this conversation.  @ReneeFLL my comments were not a joke.  Grief is a powerful thing, and I would not expect myself or this family to react with logic in this situation.  I expect they are heart broken and grasping for anything they can.  

 

This is clearly not the place for this conversation, and I apologize to anyone upset by having an alternate opinion.  

 

Again, prayers for the family, including the Grandfather.  Hope that some talented ship engineer might find a way to  protect people from themselves someday.  Things can and should always get better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager70 said:

Wow, words fail me.

 

Totally agree. My jaw hit the floor and shattered my teeth and no I don't wear dentures. As I'm picking up my shattered teeth I'm thinking about who I can sue. Domino D since he/she is the one who made my jaw drop and shatter my teeth? Maybe the floor company since it isn't padded? If it would have been padded maybe my teeth wouldn't have shattered and I wouldn't be in such pain. 😂  Oh wait, I must not forget the home builder and the people that sold us the house!!! The more I think about it Domino D is either joking, an attorney for them or just trying to get people riled up. 😁😁😁  Me? I'm just having a good laugh about their comments and pointing out imo their silly points that were said all the while shaking my head. 🙀

 

 

1 hour ago, jagsfan said:

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. 

 

I also wouldn't have any problems staying in that room. I would probably give it a thought about how horrible it was for him, that he died fast without much pain suffering and that I wished they would find out who is responsible for his death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Domino D said:

A mistake that is 100% preventable.  

 

...by Anello. 

 

Without him, millions of people have managed to not drop a human being out of those windows. 

 

50 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

You mentioned more signage.  What if someone doesn't know the language that the sign is written in?  What then?

 

Don't forget "What color?" since some people won't see anything but a white sign. 

 

23 minutes ago, Domino D said:

While the grandfathers actions were a factor in the accident, the opportunity for such an event should not even exist on a ship marketed to families. 

 

A factor?

There is no such possibility of an accident-proof ship. There will always be an opportunity for the Anellos of the world to kill someone via stupidity. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Domino D said:

Things can and should always get better.

 

I respect your right to bow out, but I find your conclusion completely in disagreement.

 

The problem with this philosophy is:

-          A belief that it can always get better means things actually get worse, when they’re already very good, just because someone thinks they have to change to be made better

-          A dissatisfaction with the state of affairs when things are good, and enjoying what you have, instead of fussing about things ‘to improve’ that don’t actually add any value.

 

Sometimes, if there is a fault, it is with something else, not the “thing that can be made better.”

 

Stop looking for someone else to blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Domino D said:

I am sorry for upsetting so many of you.  I will bow out of this conversation.  @ReneeFLL my comments were not a joke.  Grief is a powerful thing, and I would not expect myself or this family to react with logic in this situation.  I expect they are heart broken and grasping for anything they can.  

 

This is clearly not the place for this conversation, and I apologize to anyone upset by having an alternate opinion.  

 

Again, prayers for the family, including the Grandfather.  Hope that some talented ship engineer might find a way to  protect people from themselves someday.  Things can and should always get better.

Why do you think I'm upset? Just because I have pointed out the absurdity in what I'm reading? I'm not upset at all and I see no need for you to bow out. It has been very interesting. Again the only way that I can see any engineers fixing it is to enclose the whole ship, but then people will find something else stupid to do. They just need to stay home and let the rest of the world enjoy themselves. This is my opinion and I believe you have a right to yours. I'm just truly amazed at what I have read here today. As they say to each their own. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 11:51 AM, BeachChik said:

It still was an accident. He didn't deliberately drop her.

But that in no way makes it Royal's fault.  Apparently, this family not only began grieving for the loss of their child, but also, began looking for deep pockets to sue and profit from their loss.

 

The grandfather will have to live with the guilt, and the parents have lost their child, and that's sad for all.  But having something unfortunate happen doesn't necessarily mean there's someone rich to sue for the occurrence.  Royal is right to put the pictures out for all to see:  they have a business to protect, and Royal has been unfairly accused of being responsible for the grandfather's lack of judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Domino D said:

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.  

I agree with you. The parents do have the right to sue Royal but the question is should they?

Chloe's death was a tragic stupid accident. I understand that the parents are trying to prevent another child dying the same way as Chloe but what about their own other children?  What message are they sending out to their other children?

"Hey kids it's ok to do something stupid because we will find someone to sue, as they should have known you would have done something stupid" 

 

4 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 If Anello was a billionaire, I think that Anello would have gotten sued, not RCCL (perhaps both).

I don't think this is the case. I think the family cannot come to terms with the fact that GF did something so stupid. 

The family may not be able to come to terms with the stupidity of the GF actions until after his court case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try to improve the safety regulations as much as you like- there never- ever will be a 100 % garantie that there will be no idiotic human beeing who will manage to get over them. Human beeings are prone to to idiotic things- some learn of them some don´t! I myself have done the most stupid things- some once- some more then once. LOL.

Would any court or anyone here on these board believe the old geezer ( well not to old - obviouly) that he thought the window is closed when standing right in front of it- even leaning out in this angle as seen in the videos- and feel the cool breeze???

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bloodgem said:

I agree with you. The parents do have the right to sue Royal but the question is should they?

Chloe's death was a tragic stupid accident. I understand that the parents are trying to prevent another child dying the same way as Chloe but what about their own other children?  What message are they sending out to their other children?

"Hey kids it's ok to do something stupid because we will find someone to sue, as they should have known you would have done something stupid" 

 

I don't think this is the case. I think the family cannot come to terms with the fact that GF did something so stupid. 

The family may not be able to come to terms with the stupidity of the GF actions until after his court case.

Anello is the Step grand father and no blood relation to the child.

The only facts we know are what the video shows and it is clear he walked to the window and stuck his head out to look.

He then bent down and picked Chloe up and held her outside the window from a high deck and unfortunately she fell.

This was Anellos fault and not RCs.

Hopefully the real truth of his actions will come out and justice will prevail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bloodgem said:

I agree with you. The parents do have the right to sue Royal but the question is should they?

Chloe's death was a tragic stupid accident. I understand that the parents are trying to prevent another child dying the same way as Chloe but what about their own other children?  What message are they sending out to their other children?

"Hey kids it's ok to do something stupid because we will find someone to sue, as they should have known you would have done something stupid" 

 

I don't think this is the case. I think the family cannot come to terms with the fact that GF did something so stupid. 

The family may not be able to come to terms with the stupidity of the GF actions until after his court case.

Personally I do not think it is normal/reasonable or sane human behaviour to hold a child outside a window. So therefore I do not think they have a right to sue.

 

So they are sticking to the step-grandfather like glue. I recall from a few true crime documentaries that people are profiled that in situations like this the family normally breaks apart blaming each other unless it was some sort of pre-meditated action in which they stick together like glue. I also make reference to the McCann incident in Portugal who detectives in that case wrongly labelled the parents as suspects as they stayed close together. What I am trying to say is with experts claiming that with "accidents" the blame game begins and families are torn apart, it would be reasonable to assume that the step-grandfather not being of any biological relation to any of them would be the immediate target for blame. Looking at news reports afterward the ship even decided to separate him from the rest of the family.

 

From the very start the ships crew were suspicious of this. It beggars belief that they are not going after him with the same level of anger and animosity that they are throwing at Royal Caribbean. Surely the step-grandfather would have some assets, houses, insurance policies or anything financial that they could sue for and claim of him. He has been charged after all with negligent homicide. It is even quite bizarre that they paid up his bail.

 

Personally I am thinking something else went on in this case and it will only be a matter of time given the lawsuit before it all comes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

So they are sticking to the step-grandfather like glue. I recall from a few true crime documentaries that people are profiled that in situations like this the family normally breaks apart blaming each other unless it was some sort of pre-meditated action in which they stick together like glue. I also make reference to the McCann incident in Portugal who detectives in that case wrongly labelled the parents as suspects as they stayed close together. What I am trying to say is with experts claiming that with "accidents" the blame game begins and families are torn apart, it would be reasonable to assume that the step-grandfather not being of any biological relation to any of them would be the immediate target for blame. Looking at news reports afterward the ship even decided to separate him from the rest of the family.

 

From the very start the ships crew were suspicious of this. It beggars belief that they are not going after him with the same level of anger and animosity that they are throwing at Royal Caribbean. Surely the step-grandfather would have some assets, houses, insurance policies or anything financial that they could sue for and claim of him. He has been charged after all with negligent homicide. It is even quite bizarre that they paid up his bail.

 

Personally I am thinking something else went on in this case and it will only be a matter of time given the lawsuit before it all comes out.

Why do you say the ships crew is suspicious?
 

In all honesty, I was originally very much against this line of thinking.  Given the American mentality being known for its inability to accept responsibility and to sue for everything, I just assumed they wanted to make some money out of a tragedy.

 

However, Upon further thought I am slowly reconsidering my original thought process. I work In a field where unfortunately infant death occurs semi regularly.  Not due to accidents but typically circumstances beyond anyone’s control.  A child or infant death is ungodly painful and one of the most stressful events that could occur in life.  Observation of parental reaction after the initial shock of such an incident typically does lead to a blame game and in many cases divorce.  
 

Many families become quickly divided.  It is interesting that they are all standing beside each other.  Especially standing by the step grandfather....

Edited by rimmit
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rimmit said:

Why do you say the ships crew is suspicious?
 

In all honesty, I was originally very much against this line of thinking.  Given the American mentality being known for its inability to accept responsibility and to sue for everything, I just assumed they wanted to make some money out of a tragedy.

 

However, Upon further thought I am slowly reconsidering my original thought process. I work In a field where unfortunately infant death occurs semi regularly.  Not due to accidents but typically circumstances beyond anyone’s control.  A child or infant death is ungodly painful and one of the most stressful events that could occur in life.  Observation of parental reaction after the initial shock of such an incident typically does lead to a blame game and in many cases divorce.  
 

Many families become quickly divided.  It is interesting that they are all standing beside each other.  Especially standing by the step grandfather....

One of the news articles a few pages back quoted the Ships Doctor as stating that "they separated the step-grandfather from the immediate family and did not let the immediate family anywhere near the vicinity of where they were keeping him" The article also states that they removed him from the scene very quickly to get him away from the other passengers. It also says he refused a sedative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

One of the news articles a few pages back quoted the Ships Doctor as stating that "they separated the step-grandfather from the immediate family and did not let the immediate family anywhere near the vicinity of where they were keeping him" The article also states that they removed him from the scene very quickly to get him away from the other passengers. It also says he refused a sedative.


Actually, separating witnesses / involved parties is a common thing -- you don't want to give them a chance to either coordinate their stories, or to taint each others' memories with their own perspective.

In a previous life I was a bank teller, and one of the first things you are taught to do after a robbery, assuming nobody is injured, is to keep all witnesses away from each other, don't let them speak to each other, etc.  It's very common for people to "fill in the blanks" (things they didn't actually see or witness, or didn't happen to take notice of at the time) in their memories with what someone else says happened.  

Separating the grandfather from others was basic incident management, not anything to do with suspicion of guilt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

Surely the step-grandfather would have some assets, houses, insurance policies or anything financial that they could sue for and claim of him. He has been charged after all with negligent homicide. It is even quite bizarre that they paid up his bail.


Anello may not be a blood relation to Chloe, but he is still married to her maternal grandmother.  Going after him financially would be placing Chloe's mother's mother in dire financial straits.  

The same for paying his bail -- if he's in jail, he can't go to work and earn his salary, which likely is needed to help pay the mortgage and utility payments on the house that Chloe's grandmother lives in.  

Anello isn't a blood relative, but he's very ingrained in the family dynamic.  Plus, if they go after him, they can't get the Big Bucks from the deep corporate pockets of Royal Caribbean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Domino D said:

30 Years ago people were not required to wear seat belts or place children in car seats, people were expected to simply drive carefully. 

I don't think this is a good example.  How many died who would have lived if they were wearing seat belts?   Thousands?  Hundreds of thousands? Now, how many people would have lived if the windows were shut?  One.

 

Of course the family has the right to sue.  And I'm sure they don't want this happen to any other family.  Neither do I.  But, I still haven't heard an answer to what should be done with balcony cabins?  They are open to the outside, with a railing/barrier about as high as what was on the pool deck.  So how do you say "the pool deck should be enclosed for safety" but not demand balcony cabins need to be enclosed?  Aren't those just as dangerous?  What about atriums? 

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


Anello may not be a blood relation to Chloe, but he is still married to her maternal grandmother.  Going after him financially would be placing Chloe's mother's mother in dire financial straits.  

The same for paying his bail -- if he's in jail, he can't go to work and earn his salary, which likely is needed to help pay the mortgage and utility payments on the house that Chloe's grandmother lives in.  

Anello isn't a blood relative, but he's very ingrained in the family dynamic.  Plus, if they go after him, they can't get the Big Bucks from the deep corporate pockets of Royal Caribbean.

Usually insurance is what pays out in lawsuits.  Family members sue each other all the time to get insurance settlements.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the Wiki page about George Smith. There were blood stains in his cabin and blood on the side of the ship. RCI compensated George Smith’s Estate after what appeared to be a homicide. What?????????? Why should any company have to compensate in this circumstance? This truly baffles me. 
 

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
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: American Queen Steamboat Company
      • 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...