Judge dismisses lawsuit brought against RCCL

[Ocean Boy]

8 hours ago, MrMarc said:

We resolve our disputes in court.  We used to be proud of that, only recently has it been turned into something bad.  

So why to you think that opinion about the legal system in the U.S. has changed so drastically?

[BND]

9 hours ago, MrMarc said:

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.

Oh I know.  The McDonald's coffee case was actually different than what most people think it was.  It was more than just hot coffee served to someone.  It was so hot it caused permanent burns that never would have happened had it been served at a proper temp.  We met a lawyer on a cruise that knew the lawyers involved and a lot of the case.  He'd read the entire thing.  He told us all the things that the media never reported.  That said, this case is a little different.  The step grandfather did what he did entirely of his own volition.  There were no extenuating circumstances except those caused by him.  As I said, I (and others here) have been on Freedom and know exactly where this happened and how it couldn't have happened without the step grandfather doing what he did.

[BND]

58 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

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

The video also shows that the step grandfather stuck his head out the window before lifting the girl out so that argument doesn't hold any water.  But, color blindness doesn't apply to window tint.  Color blind people can see variations in darkness and light.  They just can't differentiate between colors themselves (worst case).  

Edited July 14, 2023 by BND

[Reina del Mar]

I don’t understand why Royal would be accountable.

 

Obviously it was a dreadful accident.

 

Surely the Grandfather cannot feel any worse than he already must feel ?  

 

Bringing the whole situation to the fore time and time again will not help anyone.

[A&L_Ont]

24 minutes ago, Reina del Mar said:

Surely the Grandfather cannot feel any worse than he already must feel ?  

One would logically think that, but there is no logical reason to hold a child out of a window.  Had they gone to Miami Beach for vacation would he have lifted her over their hotel room balcony rail there too?  

 

The grandfather was 50 when this happened. He was not an elderly man which one could think by the terminology.  He was also her grandfather by marriage, not that it changes anything.  It makes me wonder what other dangerous things he allowed her to do for example, like steers the car from his lap while going down the road?
 

I’m 51 and I would never ever consider lifting a child out a window at any age, unless it was to escape a fate worse than falling such as getting out of a burning building. 
 

Edited July 14, 2023 by A&L_Ont

[Ocean Boy]

15 hours 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.

There is a question about safety of design? Here is my uneducated take on your statement.... Thousands of people have been going to sea every week for countless years on cruise ships yet it is beyond rare that a child is dropped, climbed, or somehow fallen out of a window located on the pool deck of a cruise ship. I'm not sure that I could manage to climb out of one of those windows even if I wanted to. This tells me that there is no design flaw at all. And for RCI to have to defend itself, at cost no less, against this travesty of a law suit is ludicrous especially when video exists to tell the story. An educated judge reinstated this case, educated attorneys took the case and you ponder as to why the American legal system is viewed as it is in this day and age.

[Orsino]

His point is that the design is a question of fact and therefore needs to be decided by a jury. He isn’t making an opinion on what that decision should be, only that the decision should be made by a jury, not the judge. 

[Ocean Boy]

15 minutes ago, Orsino said:

His point is that the design is a question of fact and therefore needs to be decided by a jury. He isn’t making an opinion on what that decision should be, only that the decision should be made by a jury, not the judge. 

My point is that officers of the court should never have let this gotten so far. If losing parties had to pay the expenses of the winning party this sort of stuff would not be happening.

[Orsino]

Well that’s something that would impact the entire legal system. In a world of unintended consequences, I don’t think it is wise to point to one case as proof that the entire legal system should change. 

[ONECRUISER]

3 hours ago, BND said:

Oh I know.  The McDonald's coffee case was actually different than what most people think it was.  It was more than just hot coffee served to someone.  It was so hot it caused permanent burns that never would have happened had it been served at a proper temp.  We met a lawyer on a cruise that knew the lawyers involved and a lot of the case.  He'd read the entire thing.  He told us all the things that the media never reported.  That said, this case is a little different.  The step grandfather did what he did entirely of his own volition.  There were no extenuating circumstances except those caused by him.  As I said, I (and others here) have been on Freedom and know exactly where this happened and how it couldn't have happened without the step grandfather doing what he did.

At time all McDonald's coffee was served at that Temp, 20 degrees warmer then say Burger King was. Micky D's lost case but In end final amount was settled out of Court 

[BND]

1 hour ago, Ocean Boy said:

There is a question about safety of design? Here is my uneducated take on your statement.... Thousands of people have been going to sea every week for countless years on cruise ships yet it is beyond rare that a child is dropped, climbed, or somehow fallen out of a window located on the pool deck of a cruise ship. I'm not sure that I could manage to climb out of one of those windows even if I wanted to. This tells me that there is no design flaw at all. And for RCI to have to defend itself, at cost no less, against this travesty of a law suit is ludicrous especially when video exists to tell the story. An educated judge reinstated this case, educated attorneys took the case and you ponder as to why the American legal system is viewed as it is in this day and age.

The angle of the window (top and bottom) along with the height of the railing would make it virtually impossible for anyone to "fall" out.  The design is actually the way it is to prevent it.  I don't know of any other case where anyone has gone out of a window on the pool deck.  The cases I've seen are people who go over go from the railing on a balcony or from an upper deck with a railing.  I'm sure though that if this goes to a jury trial, the defense will do their best to only get jurors who have never been on a cruise ship.

[Ocean Boy]

51 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Well that’s something that would impact the entire legal system. In a world of unintended consequences, I don’t think it is wise to point to one case as proof that the entire legal system should change. 

I said nothing about the entire legal system. However, as it stands right now plantiffs' cost is nothing unless winning and the lawyers take their cut. The defendant has no choice but to pay the cost of their defense. 

[smokeybandit]

26 minutes ago, ONECRUISER said:

At time all McDonald's coffee was served at that Temp, 20 degrees warmer then say Burger King was. Micky D's lost case but In end final amount was settled out of Court 

Funny (not funny haha) thing is she ended up getting not much more than the $20k she had originally asked for.

[Orsino]

15 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

I said nothing about the entire legal system. However, as it stands right now plantiffs' cost is nothing unless winning and the lawyers take their cut. The defendant has no choice but to pay the cost of their defense. 

'losing parties having to pay winning party's legal fees' would be a change to the entire legal system.
Furthermore, I believe one can ask for legal fees in certain circumstances currently.

[FTLCruiseGal]

Reading what @MrMarc said makes sense in that the appellate court feel this should be decided by a jury. The contract the parents have with the lawyer may very well state that they don’t have to pay if the matter goes to court (meaning being heard by a jury); however, if it gets dismissed before going to trial, they would have to pay. This may be why the parents continue to pursue. Also, even though they don’t win, they could still be forced to pay fees (court filing fees, expert witness fees, etc.). 

Just curious if the parents will go after the lawyers for legal malpractice if they lose the case. They can always say they were convinced the case had merit and were forced to keep going. Mom is a lawyer, so anything is possible.

[karmamule]

5 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

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

 I am moderately color blind and this is absolutely true. I have trouble distinguishing red from green (and a couple other color pairings) and that has NOTHING TO DO with seeing whether or not a shaded window is open or closed because that involves distinguishing light from dark, which is completely different and not affected by color blindness. 

[MrMarc]

5 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

So why to you think that opinion about the legal system in the U.S. has changed so drastically?

In my opinion, the system hasn't changed, people's opinion of the system has changed based on a few misreported real cases and a huge number of totally imaginary cases reported and/or misreported by the press.  Just look at how many people have already decided the outcome of this case based on media reports.  Trials were never meant to be held by vote of public opinion.  

[Ocean Boy]

19 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

In my opinion, the system hasn't changed, people's opinion of the system has changed based on a few misreported real cases and a huge number of totally imaginary cases reported and/or misreported by the press.  Just look at how many people have already decided the outcome of this case based on media reports.  Trials were never meant to be held by vote of public opinion.  

Of you re-read what I wrote I didn't say the system changed, I said opinion changed. Personally, I think all the lawyers with 800 numbers advertising on TV has a big role to play in today's perception of the system along with things you mentioned.

[Ocean Boy]

1 hour ago, Orsino said:

'losing parties having to pay winning party's legal fees' would be a change to the entire legal system.
Furthermore, I believe one can ask for legal fees in certain circumstances currently.

Your and my definition of "entire" seems to be different but that is fine.

[RobInMN]

1 hour ago, Orsino said:

'losing parties having to pay winning party's legal fees' would be a change to the entire legal system.

I absolutely believe in this concept. 

[Ocean Boy]

3 hours ago, Orsino said:

His point is that the design is a question of fact and therefore needs to be decided by a jury. He isn’t making an opinion on what that decision should be, only that the decision should be made by a jury, not the judge. 

How many thousands of dollars do you suppose is being spent so that a jury can tell us what most rational people already know?

[A&L_Ont]

20 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Just look at how many people have already decided the outcome of this case based on media reports. 

 

I'm not sure if you are referring to RC or the family.

 

The family's representation was going to the media, to sway public opinion.  It is part of the "routine".  The small fraction of the general public here on CC discussing it would have no sway in the outcome of this case.

 

20 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Trials were never meant to be held by vote of public opinion.  

 

However making details public about the accident is what the family's lawyers were doing, to sway RC to avoid going to trial.

[MrMarc]

9 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

Of you re-read what I wrote I didn't say the system changed, I said opinion changed. Personally, I think all the lawyers with 800 numbers advertising on TV has a big role to play in today's perception of the system along with things you mentioned.

Sorry. I read too quickly.  And that plays a part in it also.  But ask anyone that has actually been involved in a personal injury lawsuit, the public's perception is very different from reality.

[MrMarc]

18 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

I'm not sure if you are referring to RC or the family.

 

The family's representation was going to the media, to sway public opinion.  It is part of the "routine".  The small fraction of the general public here on CC discussing it would have no sway in the outcome of this case.

 

 

However making details public about the accident is what the family's lawyers were doing, to sway RC to avoid going to trial.

And RCCL released the video to do the same thing.  Ever see the TV ads where corportions basically say how good and safe they are?  If you looked you would most likely find a case going to trial in that area.  My point is that defendants do the same thing, I do not like either.

[MrMarc]

2 hours ago, Orsino said:

'losing parties having to pay winning party's legal fees' would be a change to the entire legal system.
Furthermore, I believe one can ask for legal fees in certain circumstances currently.

So if you are injured, you should only be able to file a suit if you have as much money as the other party has to spend on attorneys?  If you are hit while stopped at a stoplight, juries return verdicts against the person that was just stopped all the time.  This basically closes the courts to everyone except the extremely wealthy.