Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

Obviously, RC doesn't have any video taken from outside the ship that shows Chloe held outside the window. Clearly, if they did, this case would not be moving forward.

Why is that obvious?  

 

The case against RCI is a claim that he should not have been able to do that, apparently.  Not that he didn't do it.  At least that's what it appears to claim.

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

no, you are not explaining yourself clearly.  If one must be true, then both can't be false.  And now both can be false.   Hard to follow a question when the possible outcomes change.

 

I think it's safe to assume they included the video in the public domain was used, but not having court documents, it's an assumption.  But just because they used that video does not also mean they did or didn't use the pictures outside.  Again, RCI may have took those pictures, but given the criminal case would MASSIVELY impact the civil case, I really don't see them violating any orders surrounding any pubic release.  Which means that whatever they used to dismiss the case was not let out. 

 

I honestly don't think that the video is the original, anyway- the resolution is pretty bad for what it's supposed to do.  Having seen some of the security cameras videos when we have visited the bridge, I really don't think that's it.

OK. You win. I'm moving on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

Obviously, RC doesn't have any video taken from outside the ship that shows Chloe held outside the window. Clearly, if they did, this case would not be moving forward.

This is not meant sarcastically, but why would they need that? She wasn't held inside.  If he is colorblind or 

has poor vision, poor depth perception then it is his responsibility to be even more careful.

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

I was on the Carnival Legend and the windows at the pool area can only be opened approximately 6 inches. There is a permanent block of wood installed to prevent the window from being opened fully. I am pretty sure that is in response to the tragedy on the Freedom of the Seas when the toddler fell from the pool deck this past summer.
 

2378F0F7-E2B5-450C-B31F-D1B70C505E4B.jpeg

70D7FADC-DA3C-4DB2-B36D-A71DE341D14F.jpeg

 

The windows serve a purpose. Windows are there to provide ventilation. A window opened 6” is not enough to provide ventilation for people on a hot and humid day, even if every window on the deck was opened. In cooler weather, that may be enough ventilation but in hot and humid weather, I would not want to be up on that deck sweltering with poor ventilation. In that scenario, there will undoubtedly be people wanting to sue the cruise line for bringing upon an asthma attack or some other pulmonary problem. 

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

 

Plus there's no handrail barrier.

Yikes! Without those blocks of wood, those windows are very dangerous. RCI’s design is very safe for the average person who would not ever consider putting a toddler in danger as Anello did. I said many pages ago in this thread, how could it possibly take anyone to realize there was no window glass after over 30 seconds of holding the child at the window? It is inconceivable to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ONECRUISER said:

Agree, totally different from Royal, Railing, height, access

Is it possible Carnival had those blocks of wood in place when the ship was built? With no guard rail in place, how could the ship have passed inspection to be safe?

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

Is it possible Carnival had those blocks of wood in place when the ship was built? With no guard rail in place, how could the ship have passed inspection to be safe?

Good question, wonder if was an after thought

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

Is it possible Carnival had those blocks of wood in place when the ship was built? With no guard rail in place, how could the ship have passed inspection to be safe?

 

11 minutes ago, ONECRUISER said:

Good question, wonder if was an after thought

Actually, with a solid wall, whether glass or steel, there is no requirement for a handrail according to SOLAS.  The window on Carnival appears to be the mandatory 1 meter (39.25") above the deck to where a handrail would be required.  Any opening over 1 meter above the deck does not require a rail on the inside, so RCI's design goes above and beyond the requirements for SOLAS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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. 
 

From what I understand and correct me if I am wrong is that it appears to have been a homicide. There was enough complaints to justify security barging in the cabin and preventing a murder. That did not happen. While I do not agree that the wife deserves compensation and it is questionable as to her movements, I think Royal Caribbean or specifically the ships security team should have taken proactive action and burst into the cabin upon hearing such complaints. That'ts my thoughts on that one. I personally think the murdered mans family as in parents deserve the compensation and not his wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every update to this story ticks me off more, and I've beyond had it with these people. I assume they're just going to keep going and try and get anything they can, even if it's just Royal settling for a small amount to make them go away. It's probably at least as much on their lawyer's head as on the family's.

 

I have yet to see any way in which Royal would be responsible in the slightest (barring any failing in their response after the event or something, but I don't see anyone suggesting that), whatever version of the story is floated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, squick64 said:

Every update to this story ticks me off more, and I've beyond had it with these people. I assume they're just going to keep going and try and get anything they can, even if it's just Royal settling for a small amount to make them go away. It's probably at least as much on their lawyer's head as on the family's.

 

I have yet to see any way in which Royal would be responsible in the slightest (barring any failing in their response after the event or something, but I don't see anyone suggesting that), whatever version of the story is floated.

US Judge D L Graham disagrees with you , Motion to dismiss denied ..

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7974255/Parents-toddler-fell-death-Royal-Caribbean-ship-proceed-lawsuit.html

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one question and I don't know if it been asked . But he held the baby up and over the railing for a good  20 or 30 seconds  before she fell . Why did it take him 20 or 30 seconds to let her bang glass . Remember the family said she did it at her brothers hockey game. Would seem  to me she would have fallen the second she was put over the railing to bang in the supposed glass that the grandfather said he couldn't see because of his color blindness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parents:"We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way,' they said last week,"

 

I would love to know what their idea of harms way is if they think hanging a child out a window isn't...

 

 

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

The parents:"We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way,' they said last week,"

 

I would love to know what their idea of harms way is if they think hanging a child out a window isn't...

 

 

I really hope they lose now that it will proceed. Personally I hope Royal Caribbean hires private detectives and does a complete background check on the entire family including insurance policies held........

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Actually, with a solid wall, whether glass or steel, there is no requirement for a handrail according to SOLAS.  The window on Carnival appears to be the mandatory 1 meter (39.25") above the deck to where a handrail would be required.  Any opening over 1 meter above the deck does not require a rail on the inside, so RCI's design goes above and beyond the requirements for SOLAS.

So..... more fuel for RCI to win this law suit without question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The step-Grandpop not only stood her on the railing at an open window, but what was the temperature in Puerto Rico that day?  A sweating child and an adult with sweaty hands can lose a child in an instant!  Such a horrible mistake made by this man!  There is no defense.  A sad, sad situation all the way around.  God Bless these grieving parents. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy picked a toddler up and put her on a 54” high railing and let go of her, he is solely responsible for what happened. Even if the window was closed it was irresponsible what if she fell backwards? He will lose the lawsuit and be criminally prosecuted and locked up for what he did. Welcome to 2020 where everyone Sues everyone for their own stupidity. He would get sympathy if he wasn’t pushing a frivolous lawsuit. 

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

US Judge D L Graham disagrees with you , Motion to dismiss denied ..

 

If my google-fu is correct, the judge is 20 years older than Anello. 

 

I also found a quote from the judge....(2017)

 

Favorite Quote:

"Excuses are tools of incompetence that build nothing..."

 

...interesting...

Edited by Two Wheels Only
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GarlicBread said:

The parents:"We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way,' they said last week,"

 

I would love to know what their idea of harms way is if they think hanging a child out a window isn't...

 

 

 

Oh, that's cool then. They should also drop the case against RCL as they should also 'know that RCL would never put Chloe in harm's way either...'

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!
      • 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...