Judge dismisses lawsuit brought against RCCL

[MrMarc]

The appellate Court simply said a Jury should hear the facts and make the decision, not the Judge.  There is a question regarding the safety of the design.  While everyone here seems to have made their own decision, the fact that you are deciding is why it is a question of fact not law.  No matter how obvious it seems to people here, questions of fact ore for a jury.  Questions of law are for the Judge.  If Royal makes the business decision to settle, trust that their lawyers know what they are doing.  Every case that goes before a jury, no matter how obvious it may be to you, involves some risk.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

35 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

The appellate Court simply said a Jury should hear the facts and make the decision, not the Judge.  There is a question regarding the safety of the design.  While everyone here seems to have made their own decision, the fact that you are deciding is why it is a question of fact not law.  No matter how obvious it seems to people here, questions of fact ore for a jury.  Questions of law are for the Judge.  If Royal makes the business decision to settle, trust that their lawyers know what they are doing.  Every case that goes before a jury, no matter how obvious it may be to you, involves some risk.

So a Judge can't decide that the plaintiffs haven't proved their case and any reasonable jury would find for the defendants?  Have I been reading too many novels and watching too much TV?  

[MrMarc]

8 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

So a Judge can't decide that the plaintiffs haven't proved their case and any reasonable jury would find for the defendants?  Have I been reading too many novels and watching too much TV?  

No.  Actually I am an attorney.  I can see many questions of fact in this case.  While I would never have taken it, I think it should have survived summary judgment, even though I think the outcome is obvious.  Perhaps even a JNOV possibility, but not summary judgment.  What would be interesting would be for a Guardian Ad Litum or even RCCL to bring the Grandfather in as a defendant.

Edited July 13, 2023 by MrMarc

[S.A.M.J.R.]

20 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

No.  Actually I am an attorney.  I can see many questions of fact in this case.  While I would never have taken it, I think it should have survived summary judgment, even though I think the outcome is obvious.  Perhaps even a JNOV possibility, but not summary judgment.  What would be interesting would be for a Guardian Ad Litum or even RCCL to bring the Grandfather in as a defendant.

No?  So what's a "directed verdict"?  Or is that only for criminal trials?

[MrMarc]

14 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

No?  So what's a "directed verdict"?  Or is that only for criminal trials?

That's effectively what a JNOV is, but in both cases they still get a chance to prove their case to a jury first.  Summary Judgement is where there is no question of fact in the case at all.  While many people will think the answers to the questions are obvious, if there is a question of fact then a jury needs to decide it.  Without reading the pleadings I would wonder what the safety regulations were, and there are probably a number of overlapping ones.  Could the color of the windows been different for color blind people?  Could they have had other safety devices like a net?  Should there have been warning signs?  Again, most people will think they are silly questions, but they are questions.  If the baby's estate is one of the Plaintiffs, you certainly could not attribute any negligence to it, so I think under Florida law it could collect damages.

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by MrMarc

[Shipof6Fools]

So from my understanding they are trying to get Royal Caribbean by say that the company never posted signs or put up physical barriers.  This has worked in the past (see below.) Personally I think civilization has gotten ridiculous.  Every sane person knows an oven gets hot. Every sane person knows you should never stick a baby out of an 11 story window.  To say they should not have had an open window, or bars across the window is ridiculous.  This gentleman could have just as easily held his grandchild over the railing  anywhere on the ship. You cannot dummy proof life.

[smokeybandit]

I still have no idea how any reasonable person would see an open window and think "hey there's no sign saying it might be dangerous,  let me dangle a young child out the window" 

[neverbeenhere]

I think Ripcord by iFly has given people over confidence in their ability to fly. 
 

 

Tragic stuff happens.

[Old Fart Cruisers]

11 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I still have no idea how any reasonable person would see an open window and think "hey there's no sign saying it might be dangerous,  let me dangle a young child out the window" 

 

EXACTLY !

[MrMarc]

41 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I still have no idea how any reasonable person would see an open window and think "hey there's no sign saying it might be dangerous,  let me dangle a young child out the window" 

I seriously doubt the grandfather thought that.  We all have brain farts.  Like grabbing a hot pan or something in the oven.  Warning signs are for those moments that we all have .They are usually not to warn you but remind you.  But most of the time the results are not this tragic and the danger is not this obvious.

[smokeybandit]

Grabbing a hot pan is a brain fart.

 

Hanging your grand daughter out a window, any window, is sheer stupidity.

[dahirsh]

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

Grabbing a hot pan is a brain fart.

 

Hanging your grand daughter out a window, any window, is sheer stupidity.

for thirty plus seconds

[S.A.M.J.R.]

2 hours ago, MrMarc said:

That's effectively what a JNOV is, but in both cases they still get a chance to prove their case to a jury first.  Summary Judgement is where there is no question of fact in the case at all.  While many people will think the answers to the questions are obvious, if there is a question of fact then a jury needs to decide it.  Without reading the pleadings I would wonder what the safety regulations were, and there are probably a number of overlapping ones.  Could the color of the windows been different for color blind people?  Could they have had other safety devices like a net?  Should there have been warning signs?  Again, most people will think they are silly questions, but they are questions.  If the baby's estate is one of the Plaintiffs, you certainly could not attribute any negligence to it, so I think under Florida law it could collect damages.

 

I was talking in general, not in this case.  Can a judge decide, based on what's been presented, that the Plaintiffs haven't met the burden of proof (whatever the "level" is)?  If so, then they CAN decide on "facts", which you said they can't do.  

 

Have you seen the video yourself?  Have you been on the ship (the class if not the actual ship)?  Do YOU think there should have been warning signs and/or a net?  

[smokeybandit]

2 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Do YOU think there should have been warning signs and/or a net?  

If you have to put a warning sign that says "don't hang kids outside windows" then you need to put about 200 other warning signs on board for all sorts of blantantly obvious things"

On restaurant menus - "Steak knives are sharp, you may cut yourself"

In bars - "Your glass can break and cause injury. Use caution when partying"

In the bathroom of suites - "Stepping in and out of the tub can pretty much kill you" (and those who have used those tubs know what I mean)

 

[BND]

1 minute ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I was talking in general, not in this case.  Can a judge decide, based on what's been presented, that the Plaintiffs haven't met the burden of proof (whatever the "level" is)?  If so, then they CAN decide on "facts", which you said they can't do.  

 

Have you seen the video yourself?  Have you been on the ship (the class if not the actual ship)?  Do YOU think there should have been warning signs and/or a net?  

It's become the stupid need to be warned about everything.  Like the tag on a hair dryer saying not to use it in the tub.  As we've seen, they used to have small booklets for autos with basic info such as what fuses, battery, tire inflation and how often to do maintenance.  Now, they also tell you not to drink the coolant.  The fact that grown adults need to be told not to do something stupid is insane.  As someone who has been on Freedom and seen the video, they have zero case.   As far as I'm concerned the step grandfather should have received jail time.  To me, what he did is no different than something like running a stop sign and hitting someone and killing them.  Grown a** adults should not need to be warned with a sign to not dangle a child out a window.

[livingonthebeach]

I wonder if there have been cases like this one on land. In high-rise buildings in New York City they require child guards so the child cannot accidentally fall out the window, but there are no signs that inform parents or grandparents not to dangle a child from a high floor. Supposing an adult dangled a child from 11 stories or above for 30+ seconds and accidentally dropped the child, could this person sue for negligence on the building's part for not having a sign? This lawsuit is soooooo ridiculous! 

[MrMarc]

16 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I was talking in general, not in this case.  Can a judge decide, based on what's been presented, that the Plaintiffs haven't met the burden of proof (whatever the "level" is)?  If so, then they CAN decide on "facts", which you said they can't do.  

 

Have you seen the video yourself?  Have you been on the ship (the class if not the actual ship)?  Do YOU think there should have been warning signs and/or a net?  

Yes I've seen the video.  Personally I think only the grandfather was negligent.  But if I was an associate at a law firm and someone dropped this case on my desk, I think I could at least get it in front of a jury because there are some questions of facts.  I know people disagree with that, but if something happens to you, it might be totally different.  To get past summary judgment all you need is to present a question of fact.  It seems wrong when you look at some cases from the outside, but if you are involved it seems much different.  That's what courts are for.  We resolve our disputes in court.  We used to be proud of that, only recently has it been turned into something bad.  The question of getting a case before a jury is totally separate from who should win. When you start erecting barriers to getting what some one else believes is justice today, someone else can use those same barriers to  do the same thing to you tomorrow.  Just my opinion.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

23 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

If you have to put a warning sign that says "don't hang kids outside windows" then you need to put about 200 other warning signs on board for all sorts of blantantly obvious things"

On restaurant menus - "Steak knives are sharp, you may cut yourself"

In bars - "Your glass can break and cause injury. Use caution when partying"

In the bathroom of suites - "Stepping in and out of the tub can pretty much kill you" (and those who have used those tubs know what I mean)

 

The prime example is "coffee may be hot".  BUT, once I found out the facts (see what I did there @MrMarc?) about that case (https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts), I can side with the plaintiff.  BUT, in that case, McDonalds had settled other lawsuits, basically acknowledging they knew their product was dangerous.

 

I don't think that's the case with Royal.  I've seen threads about this case obviously here, another message board I frequent, and YouTube.  I've found ONE person saying Royal is at fault.  My understanding in a civil trial, you don't need a unanimous decision from the jurors.  I think it's going to be difficult for the family to get even 50% of jurors (can you have a hung jury in a civil suit?) to side with them.  They MIGHT get one, and at most two.  Just my opinion.

[smokeybandit]

4 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

The prime example is "coffee may be hot".  BUT, once I found out the facts (see what I did there @MrMarc?) about that case (https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts), I can side with the plaintiff.  BUT, in that case, McDonalds had settled other lawsuits, basically acknowledging they knew their product was dangerous.

 

I don't think that's the case with Royal.  I've seen threads about this case obviously here, another message board I frequent, and YouTube.  I've found ONE person saying Royal is at fault.  My understanding in a civil trial, you don't need a unanimous decision from the jurors.  I think it's going to be difficult for the family to get even 50% of jurors (can you have a hung jury in a civil suit?) to side with them.  They MIGHT get one, and at most two.  Just my opinion.

It's reasonable to think people will know coffee can be hot. In that case, it wasn't reasonable to think it could be hot enough to give you severe burns.

At least in the RC case, there's no reasonable threshold of dangling a child out a window that a reasonable person should find acceptable. We all have a different threshold of how hot coffee should be.

 

[livingonthebeach]

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

It's reasonable to think people will know coffee can be hot. In that case, it wasn't reasonable to think it could be hot enough to give you severe burns.

At least in the RC case, there's no reasonable threshold of dangling a child out a window that a reasonable person should find acceptable. We all have a different threshold of how hot coffee should be.

 

 

Exactly! How many cases have there been where a person dangles a child from an 11 story building and drops them (intentionally or not) then sues the building and wins. My guess is zero. 

[smokeybandit]

This reminds me of the Pepsi points case where a guy sued because Pepsi wouldn't let him redeem his points for a military jet like the Pepsi ad claimed he could.

 

[MrMarc]

45 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

The prime example is "coffee may be hot".  BUT, once I found out the facts (see what I did there @MrMarc?) about that case (https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts), I can side with the plaintiff.  BUT, in that case, McDonalds had settled other lawsuits, basically acknowledging they knew their product was dangerous.

 

I don't think that's the case with Royal.  I've seen threads about this case obviously here, another message board I frequent, and YouTube.  I've found ONE person saying Royal is at fault.  My understanding in a civil trial, you don't need a unanimous decision from the jurors.  I think it's going to be difficult for the family to get even 50% of jurors (can you have a hung jury in a civil suit?) to side with them.  They MIGHT get one, and at most two.  Just my opinion.

I totally agree.  But my point is that there are questions for a jury to answer.  My guess is they are going to try and get a jury to put at least a small percentage of the blame on RCCL and less than 50% on the parents and/or the child.  The damages numbers could be large enough that that small percentage could still be a substantial amount.  But I haven't read the pleadings at all, so I have no idea what their strategy is.  I would have never tried to say he didn't know the window was open, I would have come at it from a totally different direction, if I had to.

 

[dahirsh]

52 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

  I've seen threads about this case obviously here, another message board I frequent, and YouTube.  I've found ONE person saying Royal is at fault.  My understanding in a civil trial, you don't need a unanimous decision from the jurors.  I think it's going to be difficult for the family to get even 50% of jurors (can you have a hung jury in a civil suit?) to side with them.  They MIGHT get one, and at most two.  Just my opinion.

Lots of people who have never cruised think it's absolutely horrible that the poor child fell out of a window when her grandfather was just holding her up to tap on it and that there never should have been an open window in the "children's play area"    They have no idea the effort it took for him to hold her outside of that window, how far he had to reach to do it.  Those people will be on the jury

 

[ONECRUISER]

7 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I still have no idea how any reasonable person would see an open window and think "hey there's no sign saying it might be dangerous,  let me dangle a young child out the window" 

 

3 hours ago, dahirsh said:

Lots of people who have never cruised think it's absolutely horrible that the poor child fell out of a window when her grandfather was just holding her up to tap on it and that there never should have been an open window in the "children's play area"    They have no idea the effort it took for him to hold her outside of that window, how far he had to reach to do it.  Those people will be on the jury

 

Nope, Wasn't in Kids play area. He stuck his head out the Window for 20 seconds, then he lifts and holds her out Window for 30 seconds before dropping her. There was no Taping on Window. 

[Ocean Boy]

On 7/12/2023 at 7:04 PM, 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. 

I am quite sure that if I were color blind I would still be able to determine if a window was open or closed.