Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, coffeebean said:

The only way that could not happen would be to bolt the windows closed and not allow cross ventilation on the deck. It is a ship for crying out loud!

Royal Ships had these windows for decades, never an issue. Guess this was problem as Defense says also need to enclose all Balcony's and close off upper deck as they have just a railing. Or as suggested earlier, anyone outside needs have on a Leash/Safety Line

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

Royal Ships had these windows for decades, never an issue. Guess this was problem as Defense says also need to enclose all Balcony's and close off upper deck as they have just a railing. Or as suggested earlier, anyone outside needs have on a Leash/Safety Line

Where did you see that the defense said that?

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

If remember correctly Grandpa refused to do Alcohol/Drug Test

I wonder why the decision was up to him. Is it up to someone if they drive drunk and kill someone? I don't understand why the decision for the testing was up to the grandfather. Of course someone under the influence of something is going to refuse a test if that person is given a choice. It's really hard for me to believe he wasn't under the influence of something or didn't have some type of medical issue impairing him. And I'm not taking about being color blind.

Edited by TNcruising02
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

I wonder why the decision was up to him. Is it up to someone if they drive drunk and kill someone? I don't understand why the decision for the testing was up to the grandfather. Of course someone under the influence of something is going to refuse a test if that person is given a choice. It's really hard for me to believe he wasn't under the influence of something or didn't have some type of medical issue impairing him. And I'm not taking about being color blind.

I would bet that it would be on the advice of the mother and father.  She's a DA and he is a police officer if I'm correct.  That would probably be advice they would give knowing the legal system.  They may not have felt he was impaired but testing over the limit would be held against him.  Or even if he were taking meds for say cholesterol and mixed it with a drink that would be a reading they may not want in evidence.  That's just my thought, could be totally off the mark.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

I wonder why the decision was up to him. Is it up to someone if they drive drunk and kill someone? I don't understand why the decision for the testing was up to the grandfather. Of course someone under the influence of something is going to refuse a test if that person is given a choice. It's really hard for me to believe he wasn't under the influence of something or didn't have some type of medical issue impairing him. And I'm not taking about being color blind.

By having a driver license you give your consent to be tested for drugs and alcohol.

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

I would bet that it would be on the advice of the mother and father.  She's a DA and he is a police officer if I'm correct.  That would probably be advice they would give knowing the legal system.  They may not have felt he was impaired but testing over the limit would be held against him.  Or even if he were taking meds for say cholesterol and mixed it with a drink that would be a reading they may not want in evidence.  That's just my thought, could be totally off the mark.  

 

Unless this was a prior discussion between mom/pop and GF, I don't think this discussion could have happened immediately after the incident since it's been reported that GF was kept apart from mom/pop during the initial questioning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

 

Unless this was a prior discussion between mom/pop and GF, I don't think this discussion could have happened immediately after the incident since it's been reported that GF was kept apart from mom/pop during the initial questioning.

I would be surprised if they didn't have time to talk before GF being questioned by anyone with the authority to ask for a test.  Again, just my thought but I'm sure GF wasn't whisked off at that very minute.  It would have taken time for everyone to figure things out, what to do next.  He probably would have asked for the son/daughter and would most likely have been allowed to speak with them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Do you think a personal injury lawyer working on commission will care whether you have cross ventilation or not?

They will claim it isn't their problem and the money  grubbing cruise line should consider the safety of it's passengers before such mundane concerns.

I agree the personal injury lawyer would not care but the cruise line very much cares if an open non climate controlled deck has cross ventilation. They want to keep those passengers who have pulmonary conditions safe when the air is stifling. Even those passengers who do not have pulmonary difficulties need cross ventilation on an open non climate controlled deck. Royal's lawyers will argue that those passengers need to be be safe from ailments due to no ventilation. Those decks get mighty hot and humid in the summer months.

Edited by coffeebean
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Do you think a personal injury lawyer working on commission will care whether you have cross ventilation or not?

They will claim it isn't their problem and the money  grubbing cruise line should consider the safety of it's passengers before such mundane concerns.

Now I'll address the second part of your statement.......

The cruise line HAS considered the safety of their passengers. The windows that can be opened are four feet off the floor with a guard rail that is 12" in front. The guard rail is a {{{{WARNING}}}} to anyone with half a brain to stay clear of what ever is beyond them (windows included). This scenario Royal is dealing with has NEVER EVER happened before on any of their ships which have this windows design for as many years as these ships have been sailing. That is a lot of people and children who have cruised on these ships and not been dropped out of a window.

 

The ships are very safe, including those windows. It took one person to disobey the cruise line's rules of conduct which are presented at check in. Those rules of conduct specify not to stand or sit on the guard rails which are all over their ships. Those rails are to secure open balconies, open decks, open interior spaces which overlook other decks, and of course, open windows on the open decks. Safety precautions are in place. The cruise line did nothing wrong.

Edited by coffeebean
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

I didn't realize it before (guess I missed it), but the grand father said that he held her with one hand because he was trying to knock on the glass with the other hand.  He claimed that he leaned out farther because he thought the glass was farther out than he expected.  It really seems like the police would have required the grandfather to submit to a drug and alcohol test.

It is easy enough to see in the video that Anello was holding Chloe with one arm but I did not know he actually stated that. Do you have a link that includes that statement from Anello?

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

Now I'll address the second part of your statement.......

The cruise line HAS considered the safety of their passengers. The windows that can be opened are four feet off the floor with a guard rail that is 12" in front. The guard rail is a {{{{WARNING}}}} to anyone with half a brain to stay clear of what ever is beyond them (windows included). This scenario Royal is dealing with has NEVER EVER happened before on any of their ships which have this windows design for as many years as these ships have been sailing. That is a lot of people and children who have cruised on these ships and not been dropped out of a window.

 

The ships are very safe, including those windows. It took one person to disobey the cruise line's rules of conduct which are presented at check in. Those rules of conduct specify not to stand or sit on the guard rails which are all over their ships. Those rails are to secure open balconies, open decks, open interior spaces which overlook other decks, and of course, open windows on the open decks. Safety precautions are in place. The cruise line did nothing wrong.

Your points are very well taken.  The private attorney will ignore all your points and focus entirely upon the loss suffered by the family and will attribute it to a billion dollar corporation who ignored reasonable safety provisions.  He will show lots of pictures of the small girl and will describe how the grandfather adored the girl.  The attorney will compare the loss of the family to the wealth of the cruise line.  He will close with an argument that the compensation will send a message to the cruise line that all families are more important than profits.

Yes, your are logical and well taken but the attorney will appeal to the juries hearts and not their minds.  Unfortunately, many jurors might be swayed by this argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Your points are very well taken.  The private attorney will ignore all your points and focus entirely upon the loss suffered by the family and will attribute it to a billion dollar corporation who ignored reasonable safety provisions.  He will show lots of pictures of the small girl and will describe how the grandfather adored the girl.  The attorney will compare the loss of the family to the wealth of the cruise line.  He will close with an argument that the compensation will send a message to the cruise line that all families are more important than profits.

Yes, your are logical and well taken but the attorney will appeal to the juries hearts and not their minds.  Unfortunately, many jurors might be swayed by this argument.

The Miami ambulance chaser has already made many misleading statements (sometimes called lies) most prominently about the window configuration and its proximity to a childrens play area.  Historically, he tries to create enough negative publicity for his target to settle out of court.  Sorry for the family's loss, but I really hope that Royal successfully defends against the suit.

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

Only when operating that motor vehicle.

 

4 hours ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Correct, beyond that any testing is by consent or court order; otherwise it would be illegal

search and seizure and any results inadmissible 

I am sorry I wasn't clear.  The poster asked why someone pulled over for DUI is required to submit to a sobriety test/breathalyzer while the father in law wasn't required to submit to one during the investigation.

 

My response was in regards if the person in question had been driving vs this circumstance.  I don't know what the rules of law are in regards to requiring testing in this type of situation so didn't want to speculate. Just stating why someone who was driving is required to submit to tests.

Edited by gatour
adding a bit more info
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Your points are very well taken.  The private attorney will ignore all your points and focus entirely upon the loss suffered by the family and will attribute it to a billion dollar corporation who ignored reasonable safety provisions.  He will show lots of pictures of the small girl and will describe how the grandfather adored the girl.  The attorney will compare the loss of the family to the wealth of the cruise line.  He will close with an argument that the compensation will send a message to the cruise line that all families are more important than profits.

Yes, your are logical and well taken but the attorney will appeal to the juries hearts and not their minds.  Unfortunately, many jurors might be swayed by this argument.

Your points are well taken too. However.....Royal's defense team will appeal to the intelligence factor of the jurors or the judge if it is not a trial by jury. Pulling heart strings is all the plaintiffs attorney has got. I think the defense team will blow holes in their case.

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

Your points are well taken too. However.....Royal's defense team will appeal to the intelligence factor of the jurors or the judge if it is not a trial by jury. Pulling heart strings is all the plaintiffs attorney has got. I think the defense team will blow holes in their case.

And the plaintiff's attorney will do all in his power to disqualify any juror with any intelligence and fight to get jurors with the longest heart strings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread IS like watching a train wreck. Painful as it is it is almost impossible to look away. 

 

I read all about rights and such....and why no blood alcohol test and such, but there is an important point....make that 2 important points that are being ignored. One is that this happened on a ship....that is not US territory and does not necessisarily come under US law. Maybe he had a right to refuse such a test and maybe he didn't, but that leads me to point number 2....

 

You simply cannot legislate against stupid! His defense is that he didn't know the window was open??? Seriously???

I think the only place he has a case is right here on Cruise Critic! I doubt his lawyer can find 12 brain dead jurors to buy into his dumber than dirt argument.

 

 

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...