Very disturbing lawsuit

[Aquahound]

+1, for all we know the kid's cabin could have been just down the hall from the library. Like the video system can't be monitored 24/7, there's not security staff roaming every hallway at all hours.

 

I don’t get this about Royal allowing the kid out after curfew. Let’s say your local town has a 1 am curfew, your child goes out at 2 am and the same thing happens as this child. Do you take your town to court because they didn’t enforce the curfew? It’s the same thing.

 

Exactly. There's a huge difference between allowing something and not catching something.

[Milwaukee Eight]

It is just too bad that the parent(s) failed to enforce the curfew rule. So blame someone else for their neglect. Can't fix stupid!

 

 

 

I mean, you really didn’t just say “parents(s)”....lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[alfaeric]

I don’t get this about Royal allowing the kid out after curfew. Let’s say your local town has a 1 am curfew, your child goes out at 2 am and the same thing happens as this child. Do you take your town to court because they didn’t enforce the curfew? It’s the same thing.

 

Equally, if your town had a solid monitoring system, where they have cameras all over the place, is it their fault that a crime is committed in full view of a camera? And they could not react in time?

 

That's the part I don't understand here- what is a reasonable reaction from RCI? Some think 1) they should have guards roaming the entire ship all the time to immediately catch people who should not be out and about, 2) there should be constant surveillance with eyes on all public locations 24/7. which leads to 3) preventing all crime in seconds of it starting.

 

It really sucks that this kid was assaulted, but the people who did it are in jail. RCI did as much as any law enforcement group could have done, as I see it. This isn't Minority Report where we have special powers to predict the future. Nor is this a prison where there are armed guards at every corner. You can't prevent everything.

 

And I have no expectation that all crime will be prevented. Anywhere.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Basically, if you throw a punch and it misses it is assault. If the punch connects, it is assault and battery. That is the exact example the judge gave in his instructions when I was on a jury.

 

 

 

I thought the question regarded “sexual assault “ and if the boy “might have committed” sexual assault on the girl, by offering to trade jewelry for sex?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Merion_Mom]

I thought the question regarded “sexual assault “ and if the boy “might have committed” sexual assault on the girl, by offering to trade jewelry for sex?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Please stop calling a keychain "jewelry".

 

Particularly since it was probably a Royal Caribbean plastic keychain.

[RDC1]

Basically, if you throw a punch and it misses it is assault. If the punch connects, it is assault and battery. That is the exact example the judge gave in his instructions when I was on a jury.

I believe that someone telling you that they are going to beat you up also qualifies.

[Milwaukee Eight]

I think some here have missed the point the criminal case is over, it was proved and the three men are serving time. This case is a civil case against Royal. But I do find is funny several posters here want to blame the 13 year he should not have been in a public area at that time. OK I agree he should not have been but Royal did not follow the rules in place and harm came to a child. Why try to blame the child.... would you blame a 13 year old girl out at 2:00 am in the morning if she was rapped? We are talking about a child here not a adult. Even if the child shares in the blame the Adults must be responible.

 

 

 

What “rules” did Royal break? Seems to me the curfew rules were broken by the legal parent and the boy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

I don't know why you're going crazy over this. To me, 'young adult kids' = 20s. Their her kids, but they're adults. But they're not 30s or older. I think it's a good description.

 

 

 

Really.... how are they “going crazy” over this? They stated their opinion just like you have. Nobody said your crazy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

The cruise line has a curfew, Royal agrees to enforce the rules they have in place. In this case they allowed a 13 year old to be in the library at 2:00 am. They broke their own rule that is in place.

 

 

 

Where does it say Royal enforces their rules? Some rules are common sense and in this case, it’s my opinion, that responsibility falls upon the parent, and/or on the one who who is out past the rule. Royal has many rules they do not enforce.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

Exactly. There's a huge difference between allowing something and not catching something.

 

 

 

+1 too

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Expat Cruise]

The case will be handle in Federal Court, really whatever members here think is just opinions and will not affect the case. I will wait for the judgement from the court. Because in the end all opinions here are meaningless.

[spunks]

I would think RCCL would only be liable if it can be shown that the camers WERE monitored in real time and nothing was done to stop it.

 

Seriously?...some expect a live monitor of the library?

 

I feel the perpetrators should have gotten decades more jail time , but the parents should have been cited for child neglect.

 

Doug

[John&LaLa]

Please stop calling a keychain "jewelry".

 

Particularly since it was probably a Royal Caribbean plastic keychain.

Could have been one from the jewelry stores on the islands. Laura gets these all the time from Effy store.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[MacMarauder]

This is a very sad and disturbing story. I am glad the people involved are doing jail time.

 

If this goes to a jury I think it will be tough for them to decide if RCCL is liable. I was in a mock jury where a family who lost their child was suing several different companies. We heard arguments from both sides and it was tough to come to a consensus with the other "jurors".

[broberts]

They allowed it? So you have proof that they knew he was out and they intentionally allowed it? I haven't seen that in the articles yet, so I'd be interested in seeing your source.

 

Yes, implicitly RCI allowed it because the ship did not enforce its curfew in this instance. What a court or the involved parties will have to decide is was this simply an unfortunate lapse or the result of a general policy of passive enforcement.

 

Even if RCI has a policy of passive curfew enforcement, there remains the question of its obligations with respect to providing a safe environment. It is not a given in my mind that RCI has a duty to actively enforce all onboard rules and regulations. After all, passengers agree to obey these rules before boarding. But this is muddied by the fact that a minor was involved.

[Eslader]

Yes, implicitly RCI allowed it because the ship did not enforce its curfew in this instance.

 

I don't think you're getting this. If RCI did not *know* about it then they didn't *allow* it. Allowing something involves an actual decision to allow it - a decision you can't make if you don't know about it at all.

 

 

It's very easy to wander a ship late at night and rarely encounter a crew member. If I can do it, a kid can do it. If staff doesn't see the kid, then they don't know he's out past curfew.

 

As far as negligently failing to monitor security cameras... Well I have security cameras at my house. If someone gets beaten up in my yard at 3am, am I negligent for not having been watching the cameras when it happened?

 

When you say that Royal is negligent because it "allowed" the kid to be out past curfew, what you are advocating is that Royal staff members be required to be psychic so that they know when and where rules will be broken and can be in place to stop it from happening. That's ludicrous.

[Aquahound]

Yes, implicitly RCI allowed it because the ship did not enforce its curfew in this instance. What a court or the involved parties will have to decide is was this simply an unfortunate lapse or the result of a general policy of passive enforcement.

 

Even if RCI has a policy of passive curfew enforcement, there remains the question of its obligations with respect to providing a safe environment. It is not a given in my mind that RCI has a duty to actively enforce all onboard rules and regulations. After all, passengers agree to obey these rules before boarding. But this is muddied by the fact that a minor was involved.

 

I'm still hung up on knowledge though. People keep saying "allowed" and "did not enforce." How do we know it was allowed and they were not enforcing the curfew? Again, just because he didn't get caught doesn't mean they were "allowing" it.

 

It's much more reasonable to believe the mother was the one who had knowledge of the kid being out past curfew. It's awfully hypocritical to allow a violation of the rules to occur and then turn around and sue the carrier for not catching it.

 

Maybe there's legal precedent in cases like this....I don't know. But until I see it, I just cannot agree there's negligence on RCI's part.

[BecciBoo]

She did know about it. I saw her on the TV interview saying she knew it was after curfew but "the boys wanted to stay out a little longer". She is the major one at fault. But after viewing

, doesn't surprise me at all.

 

And how is an empty library at 2:00AM in the morning a threat to someone's safety. It's the same argument as the gun control issue. You can't blame the library, the ship or anyone else on it. It was the ill bred people who committed the act and the parent who did not control her children that are completely to blame. The rest of you can beleive anything you want. But I wish RCCL the best. They have never failed me...yet...but then, I have a brain.....................

[gerif]

All of these posts that claim Royal was not enforcing its curfew rules and is therefore liable are pure BS. A kid can avoid security quite easily. Now, if he happened to be apprehended by security and they did nothing, that would be different. Heck, if a town has a speed limit and someone goes speeding through town but doesn’t happen to encounter a police officer and subsequently crashes into a tree due to his speeding, does that make the town liable because he wasn’t caught speeding? Does it make the entire speeding limit ineffective because no one witnessed him speeding?

[wolfganghowell]

I saw her on the TV interview saying she knew it was after curfew but "the boys wanted to stay out a little longer".

 

 

Boom- there's your case right there.

 

 

 

And please - can we stop calling this kid a "child". He was certainly old enough and mature enough to proposition a 12 yo girl for sex. The disgusting adults got well deserved jail time. The mother knowingly violated the cruise contract by allowing them to ignore curfew. I've seen security many times go after under-agers for curfew and escort them back to cabins. As others have said, there is only so much they can do. Most of us can probably recall how enterprising kids can be when trying to get around the rules. This time, it had serious consequences for all concerned. But Royal should not be liable in any way.

[broberts]

I don't think you're getting this. If RCI did not *know* about it then they didn't *allow* it. Allowing something involves an actual decision to allow it - a decision you can't make if you don't know about it at all.

...

 

I do get it. In different words, I said that RCI did allow the violation of curfew, either because of a lapse in its enforcement or because it did not actively enforce its rule. If a lapse, at some point one or more decisions were made that allowed for the enforcement lapse. If through non-enforcement, then decisions were made that permitted violation of the rule. A situation that any reasonable person could anticipate.

 

Ignorance is not a valid excuse if the party has an obligation to prevent an incident.

 

Notice, I am not judging the merits of the case. What I am saying is that contrary to the opinions of many in this thread, I do believe that RCI may bear some legal responsibility for the goings on aboard its ships.

[RDC1]

The case will be handle in Federal Court, really whatever members here think is just opinions and will not affect the case. I will wait for the judgement from the court. Because in the end all opinions here are meaningless.

Including yours, yet that doesn't seem to stop you from posting.

 

Each of us willing to post opinions should be willing to let others post theirs

Edited June 26, 2018 by RDC1

[RDC1]

I'm still hung up on knowledge though. People keep saying "allowed" and "did not enforce." How do we know it was allowed and they were not enforcing the curfew? Again, just because he didn't get caught doesn't mean they were "allowing" it.

 

It's much more reasonable to believe the mother was the one who had knowledge of the kid being out past curfew. It's awfully hypocritical to allow a violation of the rules to occur and then turn around and sue the carrier for not catching it.

 

Maybe there's legal precedent in cases like this....I don't know. But until I see it, I just cannot agree there's negligence on RCI's part.

 

Also one should keep in mind that notice of a curfew means that the passengers need to follow, just as with any other rule stated in the terms and conditions for travel. So you have a case of a passenger knowingly violating curfew (as the mother has stated in interviews), a rule intended to help keep passengers safe. Followed by an incident. I also believe that Royal does not have a consistent curfew, but allows curfews to be set my the Captain on each ship (sometimes 1am, sometimes 2am). So the set time of curfew is technically a direction of the ships captain.

 

For one to state that Royal Caribbean failed to enforce their curfew, they would have to demonstrate that the boy encountered at least one member of the crew tasked with enforcing curfew (i.e. security) and that that employee did nothing. Or they would need to demonstrate that the curfew was generally not enforced during that cruise.

 

All RCL needs to do is to pull video for the cruise in question and demonstrate cases of those underage being informed to return to their rooms to demonstrate general enforcement.

 

They could also pull any video of the kid to see if they show him encountering and security personnel.

[RDC1]

I do get it. In different words, I said that RCI did allow the violation of curfew, either because of a lapse in its enforcement or because it did not actively enforce its rule. If a lapse, at some point one or more decisions were made that allowed for the enforcement lapse. If through non-enforcement, then decisions were made that permitted violation of the rule. A situation that any reasonable person could anticipate.

 

Ignorance is not a valid excuse if the party has an obligation to prevent an incident.

 

Notice, I am not judging the merits of the case. What I am saying is that contrary to the opinions of many in this thread, I do believe that RCI may bear some legal responsibility for the goings on aboard its ships.

 

The first step in enforcement is to inform the passengers that the curfew exists and that, like many other rules, they have responsibility to comply. That step clearly seems to have been taken. That step by itself generates a fairly high degree of compliance. As stated in the passenger conduct section failure to comply with that section (which includes curfew if one is put in place by the Captain) can result in action being taken by the ship up to and included removal from the ship.

 

As the mother has said on interviews she was aware of the curfew and allowed her son to violate it.

[Milwaukee Eight]

.

 

 

 

As the mother has said on interviews she was aware of the curfew and allowed her son to violate it.

 

 

So I guess that makes it Royals problem.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums