Judge dismisses lawsuit brought against RCCL

[STEVE-O]

1 minute ago, BecciBoo said:

I don't mind saying it at all....money grubbers with no case.

Yup.....just hoping Royal Caribbean throws them a few bucks to Go Away.

[BecciBoo]

I don't think they deserve a plug nickel after what they allowed to happen.

[dahirsh]

8 minutes ago, STEVE-O said:

Yup.....just hoping Royal Caribbean throws them a few bucks to Go Away.

I think it's more important they don't "throw them a few bucks"

 

[A&L_Ont]

51 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

I don't mind saying it at all....money grubbers with no case.  Takes some cheek to exploit and profit from the death of your own child.  But doesn't surprise me...that's the world we live in now.

You said what I didn’t type earlier.  If I remember correctly the mom is a district attorney and the dad is a law enforcement officer.  Some might say those professions are pillars of the community, but in this situation I beg to differ. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[livingonthebeach]

What I don't get is how the step grandfather, admitting he was color blind, would prop a toddler up to a window on a very high deck, knowing he couldn't distinguish the color of the window and determine whether it was closed or not. Case should be closed and shut like the window he claimed he thought he propped her up -- never to be reopened again. 

[BND]

15 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

What I don't get is how the step grandfather, admitting he was color blind, would prop a toddler up to a window on a very high deck, knowing he couldn't distinguish the color of the window and determine whether it was closed or not. Case should be closed and shut like the window he claimed he thought he propped her up -- never to be reopened again. 

Except if you watch the video, it appears he didn't prop her or sit her.  He literally lifted her up and over the railing and out the window.  She didn't fall off any edge, she was dropped.

[livingonthebeach]

Just now, BND said:

Except if you watch the video, it appears he didn't prop her or sit her.  He literally lifted her up and over the railing and out the window.  She didn't fall off any edge, she was dropped.

 

Wow -- that's even worse than I thought. A color blind old guy sticking a toddler out of a window 11 stories high. Whatever defense is used wouldn't hold water on land from a high-rise and it shouldn't at sea either. Pun unintended. Unbelievable that the case is reopened. 

[A&L_Ont]

3 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

Wow -- that's even worse than I thought. A color blind old guy sticking a toddler out of a window 11 stories high. Whatever defense is used wouldn't hold water on land from a high-rise and it shouldn't at sea either. Pun unintended. Unbelievable that the case is reopened. 

He was only in his mid-50s when this happened. He himself looked and leaned out the window before he put her out the window.  The video showed the child out there for over 30 seconds, before he lost grip.

[livingonthebeach]

1 minute ago, A&L_Ont said:

He was only in his mid-50s when this happened. He himself looked and leaned out the window before he put her out the window.  The video showed the child out there for over 30 seconds, before he lost grip.

 

So his preliminary defense that he was colorblind and didn't know the window was open is contradicted by the video? Wonder what new evidence there is to reopen the case? 

[njkruzer]

54 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

So his preliminary defense that he was colorblind and didn't know the window was open is contradicted by the video? Wonder what new evidence there is to reopen the case? 

The case isn't exactly reopened.  The trial court dismissed.  Parents appealed and appellate court said it should go to a jury to determine if Royal's design was negligent in it's design and did it contribute to the child's falling.  Even if the jury found some negligence on Royal's design,  and I don't think it's design contributed to what happened, the step grandparent's negligence could still be found to be more responsible and the cause of the child's death.  If you watch the video you wonder why he held the child out of a window 11 decks up.

[STEVE-O]

3 hours ago, STEVE-O said:

Yup.....just hoping Royal Caribbean throws them a few bucks to Go Away.

Meant to say....the parents are just hoping Royal Caribbean throws them a few bucks NOT that I think Royal should. Royal should not offer them a dime

[jwlane]

4 hours ago, Sunshine3601 said:

How horrible for the parents to have to re-live this event 3+ yrs later.  

They're the ones that are choosing to re-live it.  Horrible?  Self-induced.

[ZoeyVictoria]

I wonder if they hope that assigning guilt to Royal will somehow assuage the grandfather’s guilt?

[helen haywood]

The step-grandfather dangled the infant out over the window for 90 seconds.  I remember specifically counting out 90 seconds to myself.  It’s a long long time…

[mjkacmom]

I don’t think anyone thinks RCL is at fault, I wonder what kind of contract they entered into with the slimy lawyer. 

[njkruzer]

Back to the topic.  Lawyer is from Winkleman (sp?) firm which actively seeks clients who the firm thinks has a claim against a cruise line.  No fee unless they recover for client.   There's at least one other firm in Florida who runs after these types of cases.  

[mjkacmom]

29 minutes ago, njkruzer said:

Back to the topic.  Lawyer is from Winkleman (sp?) firm which actively seeks clients who the firm thinks has a claim against a cruise line.  No fee unless they recover for client.   There's at least one other firm in Florida who runs after these types of cases.  

That’s why I’m wondering if there was a clause allowing the lawyers to keep going, they have a very vested interest since I’m sure their costs were high. It seems crazy.

[njkruzer]

8 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

That’s why I’m wondering if there was a clause allowing the lawyers to keep going, they have a very vested interest since I’m sure their costs were high. It seems crazy.

These lawyers say no fee/costs unless we win in their engagement agreement.   The question is why the parents, where the mother is supposedly an attorney,  is even doing this.  She should know better.  There is a video showing what happened.  They've must have been convinced that there would not be a trial and that Royal would just pay them some big money.  Not likely to happen. 

[not-enough-cruising]

4 minutes ago, njkruzer said:

These lawyers say no fee/costs unless we win in their engagement agreement.   The question is why the parents, where the mother is supposedly an attorney,  is even doing this.  She should know better.  There is a video showing what happened.  They've must have been convinced that there would not be a trial and that Royal would just pay them some big money.  Not likely to happen. 

Especially after the Grandfather plead guilty to negligent homicide, what is left to decide?

[mjkacmom]

8 minutes ago, njkruzer said:

These lawyers say no fee/costs unless we win in their engagement agreement.   The question is why the parents, where the mother is supposedly an attorney,  is even doing this.  She should know better.  There is a video showing what happened.  They've must have been convinced that there would not be a trial and that Royal would just pay them some big money.  Not likely to happen. 

Right, which is why I wonder if they signed something making them legally blinded to continue this case. If this was my child, money would be meaningless to me, actually most things would be meaningless. I would want it to just go away. I’d never be in my right mind again. It’s hard enough to lose a child, but I can’t imagine a worse way.

[The Scurvy Pirate]

Usually, the PI firms say "no fee unless we collect".  Most PI attorneys will still charge clients for costs, which in a normal PI case involve copies of medical records, police reports, etc (very nominal type stuff) even if they lose.  But, in this case, they have to hire/pay "expert witnesses", scene re-creators, sometimes a mock jury/trial beforehand, probably had to hire an appellate attorney/firm for the first appeal.  At this point the law firm is probably pretty deep into the costs (which are probably tens if not a hundred thousand dollars).  The law firm may "advance" these costs, but will not eat them if they lose.  The parents know that they have to keep going to hopefully get some monetary settlement/award just to pay these costs.

[BND]

37 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

That’s why I’m wondering if there was a clause allowing the lawyers to keep going, they have a very vested interest since I’m sure their costs were high. It seems crazy.

They're hoping Royal will settle, like most large corporations do to avoid having to fight in court with the expenses and time involved.  I'm hoping Royal stands their ground.  The lawyers are hoping to get a judge or jury (not sure which applies in this case) that will act sympathetically to the family against the "big bad corporation".

Edited July 13, 2023 by BND

[smokeybandit]

I'm not sure RC would want to settle. While settlements always come with a "we're not admitting we did anything wrong" caveat, settling just opens the door for people to intentionally do more stupid stuff on board then sue RC.

Edited July 13, 2023 by smokeybandit

[BND]

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

I'm not sure RC would want to settle. While settlements always come with a "we're not admitting we did anything wrong" caveat, settling just opens the door for people to intentionally do more stupid stuff on board then sue RC.

They should not settle and I also doubt they want to.  I want them to make an example of this event.  It's already too easy to sue over really stupid things but this goes beyond to entirely only one person's fault.  

[cruiselvr04]

I’m sad to see this in the news again.  I wish the parents could find peace. 
 

Royal shouldn’t settle.  

Edited July 13, 2023 by cruiselvr04