Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

Just now, cltnccruisers said:

Could you also confirm how far the window actually is from the H2O-Zone?  We'll be on Freedom again in April, 2021, but a lot can change before then.  As I recall it's a good 30 feet but my memory hasn't been so good lately - or is it ever? I forget.

I’ll do my best. 

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

Could you also confirm how far the window actually is from the H2O-Zone?  We'll be on Freedom again in April, 2021, but a lot can change before then.  As I recall it's a good 30 feet but my memory hasn't been so good lately - or is it ever? I forget.

One of the lawsuit attachments, the 101 page one, posted a few days ago has the measurements in it.  It was definitely over 30 feet but don't the exact number.

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

I've had jury duty a couple of times and seen the challenge rules work as you describe.  But do they work the same way for a civil case?  Does there even have to be a jury?

I have served on juries in both criminal and civil cases. Within my limited experience challenge rules are the same if not identical, although there are quite likely variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Both criminal and civil cases may be trail by jury or trail by judge, depending on pre-trail maneuvering by both the defense and the prosecution (or plaintiff). Most cases, both criminal and civil, are settled before going to a jury decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TravelerThom said:

I don't understand why RCI paid any compensation to the Smith estate. Sounds like he was drunk and accidently went over the side of the ship or was tossed over the side of the ship. Again......why should RCI have to compensate the estate?

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

I don't understand why RCI paid any compensation to the Smith estate. Sounds like he was drunk and accidently went over the side of the ship or was tossed over the side of the ship. Again......why should RCI have to compensate the estate?

Unless it was like the last bartender serving the last drink may be held liable for the drunk's actions afterwards?  I remember the story but wasn't into cruising then so never really followed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MalteseMama2 said:

I will be on Freedom for her first sailing since amplification, March 8. I’ll go by there to see. I’m betting it will still open. 

Agreed.  I think any change to the window system before the civil case is finished gives ammunition to Winkleman... "See, they knew the windows were dangerous, that's why they changed them!".  

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

Unless it was like the last bartender serving the last drink may be held liable for the drunk's actions afterwards?  I remember the story but wasn't into cruising then so never really followed it.

I think you are right about that. Just as a private citizen is responsible for serving liquor to guests and bad things can happen.

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

I think you are right about that. Just as a private citizen is responsible for serving liquor to guests and bad things can happen.

Agree.. Smith case was kind of a Unique situation also, Accidental/Murder ?, one the first real high profile missing at Sea cases. Was more questions then answers. The Wife and Mans Family though each thought they were only one entitled to a settlement. 

Edited by ONECRUISER
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eddeb said:

He is not a step-grandfather. He is the boyfriend 51 years old on G'ma. Her mom is 40.

The whole thing is nuts. RCCL will not lose a penny.  They never do. So glad when this

post goes away! Getting on the ship in one hour in Tampa! Yay!

By you adding to it doesn't help for it to go away. Don't post or read it if you don't like it. Simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Smith case is not too far off from this case.  Sure, the details vary greatly.  If either case spends a lot of time in the media, Royal gets some really bad PR.  If you take a cruise and drink too much, you may "fall" overboard and die.  If you bring your children on a cruise, they may "fall" out an open window.  The details around what really happened won't matter.  This is all many people will hear and they will mentally uncheck a Royal cruise from their future vacation list.

 

Whether Royal is really responsible/liable/guilty is only partly relevant.  The risk if they somehow lose at trial (which is always a real possibility in any trial) would be huge.  They want to make this go away and the family's lawyers know it.  I still stand firmly behind my opinion...this case WILL NOT go to trial.  If not dismissed, then some sort of settlement, no admission of guilt, NDA.

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

The Smith case is not too far off from this case.  Sure, the details vary greatly.  If either case spends a lot of time in the media, Royal gets some really bad PR.  If you take a cruise and drink too much, you may "fall" overboard and die.  If you bring your children on a cruise, they may "fall" out an open window.  The details around what really happened won't matter.  This is all many people will hear and they will mentally uncheck a Royal cruise from their future vacation list.

 

Whether Royal is really responsible/liable/guilty is only partly relevant.  The risk if they somehow lose at trial (which is always a real possibility in any trial) would be huge.  They want to make this go away and the family's lawyers know it.  I still stand firmly behind my opinion...this case WILL NOT go to trial.  If not dismissed, then some sort of settlement, no admission of guilt, NDA.

If the bolded is true, why would they not have settled already?

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

If the bolded is true, why would they not have settled already?

First trying to get the case dismissed.  That's the best outcome for Royal.  If that doesn't work, settlement will be plan B.

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

If the bolded is true, why would they not have settled already?

Because a settlement, although not in a legal sense, is basically an admission of guilt. Talk about bad press. RC wants to avoid that. 

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

Because a settlement, although not in a legal sense, is basically an admission of guilt. Talk about bad press. RC wants to avoid that. 

I disagree.  A settlement with no admission of guilt would avoid any legal precedent.  In the court of public opinion, this quickly disappears when the next big news item takes over.  That's if a settlement even gets broadly reported (and by broadly, I'm not talking about here).  The media gets eyeballs from the initial event/circus atmosphere.  Page one, above the fold, in big letters (for those who remember newspapers 😀).  The don't get nearly as much attention from a technical legal outcome.  Buried on page 4 in small print.  Just another of many corporate legal settlements that happen all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will settle too and that was the prosecution’s plant from the beginning. I would even bet money that persecution hasn’t even prepared for trial. They know big corps will pay large sums of money for things to quickly and quietly go away. It’s a win for the corp to have it cleared front the books (stock will go up) and obvious win for family. Sad reality of our legal system and getting sued in U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

I think this will settle too and that was the prosecution’s plant from the beginning. I would even bet money that persecution hasn’t even prepared for trial. They know big corps will pay large sums of money for things to quickly and quietly go away. It’s a win for the corp to have it cleared front the books (stock will go up) and obvious win for family. Sad reality of our legal system and getting sued in U.S.


I don't think you understand what's going on here. 

There are two different cases.  

Puerto Rican authorities charged Anello with negligent homicide.  That's a criminal case with a prosecutor (working for the PR government) and a defendant (Anello).

Chloe's greedy parents are suing Royal for monetary damages due to "faulty windows".  That's a civil case with a plaintiff (greedy parents represented by Winkleman) and a defendant (Royal). 


The prosecution in Anello's case had nothing to do with Royal's lawyers, and vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2020 at 10:39 AM, Heymarco said:

I think this will settle too and that was the prosecution’s plant from the beginning. I would even bet money that persecution hasn’t even prepared for trial. They know big corps will pay large sums of money for things to quickly and quietly go away. It’s a win for the corp to have it cleared front the books (stock will go up) and obvious win for family. Sad reality of our legal system and getting sued in U.S.

 

There are approximately 210,000,000 (million) shares of RCL stock outstanding. I can't imagine any settlement, or verdict, that would influence the stock price up, or down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parents' attorney is still sticking to the story that Anello had no clue the window was open, so it was a danger to children and that there was no indication it was anything but a wall of glass.  That attorney said it was a hidden danger.  Ridiculous.
https://www.docdroid.net/9xdhHwI/reponse-to-amended-motion-to-dismiss.pdf#page=11

Replies due by 3/4/2020. 

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

The parents' attorney is still sticking to the story that Anello had no clue the window was open, so it was a danger to children and that there was no indication it was anything but a wall of glass.  That attorney said it was a hidden danger.  Ridiculous.
https://www.docdroid.net/9xdhHwI/reponse-to-amended-motion-to-dismiss.pdf#page=11

Replies due by 3/4/2020. 

So they use this picture saying "it is incredibly difficult to tell which windows were open"

image.png.0ca3ac0cd9d0c9f03b66836e1f2a4769.png

I somewhat agree.  From that angle, it looks like all of the upper and lower levels of windows are closed and the middle row is all open.  

 

BUT, Anello was not looking at the windows from that angle.  That has to be what, 10-12' off the deck?  He'd be standing with a more direct view.  Didn't the lawyer complain about the angles being deceiving from the security cameras?

 

Also, this picture is almost midway across the deck.  Wasn't he AT the window when he made his fatal decision to pick her up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  Their example shows the windows across the deck, but they admit Anello was standing right in front of it and still said that he had no way to tell it was open because there were no decals.

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

Right.  Their example shows the windows across the deck, but they admit Anello was standing right in front of it and still said that he had no way to tell it was open because there were no decals.

I've said this before in a previous post......what about those large handles on the windows? The handles are a "dead" give a way that the "wall of glass" as the lawyer claims it is is actually a wall of glass and windows....the windows being the ones with the large handles. The Royal defense team should easily be able to prove this in court.

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
      • 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
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...