Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

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. 
 

While the FBI felt that the disappearance was homicide, the wife sued that her husband had an accident due to intoxication, and sued RCI on that basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought...

 

One of these two things must be true...

1) Anello did not actually hold Chloe outside of the window frame.  I don't think the security footage that is out in the public shows that (it doesn't show he didn't, but it doesn't show that he did).  The most I could say it shows is he might have Chloe standing on the window sill.  I see her arm reach out to the sill to steady herself, but that's about it.

2) RCI must not have video from the exterior showing the accident.  Surely if they did, they would have included a still with their motion to dismiss showing Chloe being held outside.  That image would eliminate the argument that Anello didn't know the window was open. 

 

Does anyone disagree? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Another thought...

 

One of these two things must be true...

1) Anello did not actually hold Chloe outside of the window frame.  I don't think the security footage that is out in the public shows that (it doesn't show he didn't, but it doesn't show that he did).  The most I could say it shows is he might have Chloe standing on the window sill.  I see her arm reach out to the sill to steady herself, but that's about it.

2) RCI must not have video from the exterior showing the accident.  Surely if they did, they would have included a still with their motion to dismiss showing Chloe being held outside.  That image would eliminate the argument that Anello didn't know the window was open. 

 

Does anyone disagree? 

 

To me, it doesn't matter.  The RC video that was released clearly shows that Anello spent some time looking at the window before he lifted her.  You would have to be an IDIOT to lift a child up to those railings, even if the window were closed.  RC has ZERO fault here and I hope that they do not pay out for this ridiculous lawsuit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Does anyone disagree? 

Yes. If you look real close there is a person who is sitting down in a white shirt who appears to bump into GF as he is standing up.  The GF turns with at least one hand not on his GD and you can clearly see right before that the GD with her head out the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the parents probably initially believed the grandfather when he claimed he thought the window was closed. However, since there is video footage clearly disputing his claims, I am sure they have knowledge of the truth. I think they are continuing with the lawsuit and sticking by the grandfather because that's their best option for a settlement. They want someone to pay for the loss of their daughter.

 

After all is said and done, I would not be surprised if they cut ties with the grandfather.  Especially Chloe's dad. I can't see how he could ever forgive what his step father-in-law intentionally did. I don't think he intentionally dropped her. I think he intentionally held her in an unsafe position for 34 seconds.  He had 30 seconds to bring her back to safety and chose not to. His actions were just as if he placed that little girl in the middle of a busy street.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JsMom2 said:

As part of the scheduled dry dock, Squeeze is coming out and a Loco Fresh is going into that area.  

 

I like Loco Fresh.  You can make a great taco salad there.

 

26 minutes ago, Wordell1 said:

You would have to be an IDIOT to lift a child up to those railings, even if the window were closed.  RC has ZERO fault here and I hope that they do not pay out for this ridiculous lawsuit.

 

Agree with you but sometimes paying is just easier than the lawsuit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Junkhouse said:

Yes. If you look real close there is a person who is sitting down in a white shirt who appears to bump into GF as he is standing up.  The GF turns with at least one hand not on his GD and you can clearly see right before that the GD with her head out the window.

 

I'm surprised the family isn't also blaming this person for causing the accident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Junkhouse said:

Yes. If you look real close there is a person who is sitting down in a white shirt who appears to bump into GF as he is standing up.  The GF turns with at least one hand not on his GD and you can clearly see right before that the GD with her head out the window.

Sorry, I don't see that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

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

 

Thinking out loud.... if he had great wealth there might be other guests on the ship suing him.  It was his actions that could have trauma/lasting mental effects on their lives.

 

4 hours 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.

 

I think the family will eventually have to come to resolve after the suit is finalized, either be it dropped, won or settled out of court.  For some reason I don't think it will be a positive outcome, but maybe they are truely forgiving.

 

As for what I bolded above in red, they should never leave a child unattended with that man again.  That has to be the obvious elephant in the room when they get together as a family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

While the FBI felt that the disappearance was homicide, the wife sued that her husband had an accident due to intoxication, and sued RCI on that basis.

So....... the cruise line is responsible for a passenger injury or death resulting from intoxication? A passenger can bring alcohol on board and get plastered in their cabin and the cruise line is still responsible for injury or death resulting from intoxication? That just does not seem right. 

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

So....... the cruise line is responsible for a passenger injury or death resulting from intoxication? A passenger can bring alcohol on board and get plastered in their cabin and the cruise line is still responsible for injury or death resulting from intoxication? That just does not seem right. 

I can make that argument...

 

1) Bar tenders over served him allowing him to get to that level of intoxication.  No different than bar tenders on land continuing to serve someone over intoxicated.

2) RCI didn't do enough security checking to prevent the guest from bringing enough alcohol on board to get that drunk. 

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

So....... the cruise line is responsible for a passenger injury or death resulting from intoxication? A passenger can bring alcohol on board and get plastered in their cabin and the cruise line is still responsible for injury or death resulting from intoxication? That just does not seem right. 

 

Guests aren't to bring it on board.  RC security screen should catch it and stop them.  If RC over serves then they can be held responsible. They same type of intoxication training is held on land for bars, and they too can be sued.  

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

So....... the cruise line is responsible for a passenger injury or death resulting from intoxication? A passenger can bring alcohol on board and get plastered in their cabin and the cruise line is still responsible for injury or death resulting from intoxication? That just does not seem right. 

Yes, just like a bar can be held liable for a customer who gets in their car and kills themselves in a car crash.  "Dram Shop laws", existing in 38 states, hold a bar or private host (your party) liable if they serve alcohol to a person who is obviously, or nearly intoxicated, for injuries not only to the intoxicated person but also anyone who that person injures.

 

While a cruise ship is not covered by Dram Shop laws, the "Death on the High Seas Act" requires that the carrier (cruise line) provide a certain "standard of care" to protect the passenger, and this has been held to include over serving of alcohol.

Edited by chengkp75
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the bottom line is that this poor child was always going to be a goner if left in the care of such an irresponsible adult.

It could have been being left in a hot car. It could have been dropped into the lion enclosure at the zoo. It could have been being unsupervised at the pool. But when you have a person with a serious lack of common sense watching a toddler, it was going to happen.

So the moment happened to come on a cruise ship. Not the ship's fault. People have sailed on ships for thousands of years without accidentally holding their children over the railing and dropping them overboard.

The problem begins and ends with the caregiver lacking in common sense who actively put the child in harm's way.

I wish him peace. But that cant change that the blame is his.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Another thought...

 

One of these two things must be true...

1) Anello did not actually hold Chloe outside of the window frame.  I don't think the security footage that is out in the public shows that (it doesn't show he didn't, but it doesn't show that he did).  The most I could say it shows is he might have Chloe standing on the window sill.  I see her arm reach out to the sill to steady herself, but that's about it.

2) RCI must not have video from the exterior showing the accident.  Surely if they did, they would have included a still with their motion to dismiss showing Chloe being held outside.  That image would eliminate the argument that Anello didn't know the window was open. 

 

Does anyone disagree? 

I disagree.

 

Mostly because people still assume that it was RCI that released the video, and the assumption that since they have not released it, that means they don't have external video.

 

First, I seen no real evidence that RCI was the one who leaked the video in the first place- so to make assumptions based on what hasn't been released by RCI is flawed, IMHO.

 

Second, having some thought for the family, why in the world would RCI release a video showing a child falling to their death?  That seems rather sickening of a thing to see, and if I were on corporate affairs, I would do everything in my power to make sure that the video would never, ever be released to the public domain.

 

So because 2 is a flawed "fact", that means 1 is still up in the air.  He very much could have held her outside of the window.  We just don't know.  Seeing someone lean that far out over the rail, where you can't see his head anymore sure makes it look like that.  Which means it's still quite possible.

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

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?  

 

This incident happened once in how many years there has been cruise ships built the same way.  Doesn't that tell you something?  It tells me that one idiot made a deathly mistake, not that the way the ship is built is dangerous.

 

If you were to move the railing 2 feet more, which would make it 3 feet from the window, I would be my bottom dollar that adults and children, would be going under the railing to look out the windows or going under the railing and using it and the window to raise themselves up to look out and that would make it dangerous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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.

 

Why on God's green earth would you find blame with the other passengers?  

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

 

 Two more people fell to their deaths on Carnival since October.  Someday changes will come, its inevitable.  

 

Words have meaning and this is the typical way cruise ship deaths are described.

 

Yes they FELL, just like the child FELL but that is just misleading. 

 

It is sad that opinions are formed without knowing or checking out Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story.

 

One day there will be a warning sign on almost everything there is that we come across in our lives, and lawyers ready to jump on the next injury caused by stupidity or lack of common sense and blame the service provider, manufacturer or WARNING SIGN MAKER. . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nuts!

If left unattended this little girl would of went up to the window under the railing just as she did looked it through it and possible banged on the glass as she did at hockey games.   Making it a safe environment for children.

For whatever reason that was not good enough for the grandfather.  He took her out of a safe situation and put her in a dangerous  one.    If he would of just watched her do what she loved to do at the hockey games she would still be here today.

This is 100% on the grandfather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

His story changed once he was around his family.  The first report said he told the police he had her out the windows and she fell.  Then, it changed to he didn't know the window was open.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

His story changed once he was around his family.  The first report said he told the police he had her out the windows and she fell.  Then, it changed to he didn't know the window was open.  

And then once challenged by the tint of the open and closed windows, he was then colorblind. 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

I disagree.

 

Mostly because people still assume that it was RCI that released the video, and the assumption that since they have not released it, that means they don't have external video.

 

First, I seen no real evidence that RCI was the one who leaked the video in the first place- so to make assumptions based on what hasn't been released by RCI is flawed, IMHO.

 

Second, having some thought for the family, why in the world would RCI release a video showing a child falling to their death?  That seems rather sickening of a thing to see, and if I were on corporate affairs, I would do everything in my power to make sure that the video would never, ever be released to the public domain.

 

So because 2 is a flawed "fact", that means 1 is still up in the air.  He very much could have held her outside of the window.  We just don't know.  Seeing someone lean that far out over the rail, where you can't see his head anymore sure makes it look like that.  Which means it's still quite possible.

Please go back and read my post again. 

1) I never said RCI was the one who leaked the video.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, they DID release the videos that were already in the public as part of their motion to dismiss.  

2) I said the videos that are out in the public (whether leaked or released) do NOT show definitively (at least from what I can see) that Anello held Chloe outside the ship.  I also said they don't show that he didn't.  I would think an exterior camera might.

3) I said IF there is exterior video footage AND it shows Anello holding Chloe outside the skin of the ship, that I would think a STILL frame of that would be part of their motion to dismiss.  Nowhere did I say they should release that video.  

 

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

 

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.  

 

If he is an old man that gets confused, then the parents are responsible for leaving their toddler in his care.

 

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...