Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[DragonOfTheSeas]

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

Let's say for the sake of argument, that wall is all glass, there are absolutely NO windows that open.  Would RCI still put a railing there?  Why would they need to?  The railing is the warning.  

I am not supporting the parents point of view,  the GF is at fault.

 

However, your railing comment is not correct.  There are lots of railings in hallways and on deck that are not beside windows that open. For example, I see these on the deck above the pool deck on many ships.  Some is along an open deck.  Other railings are along 12 foot glass walls with no moveable windows.   These are to allow stability during rough seas.  [I have not been on a Freedom class ship but this is true of all of the other  classes I have been on.] 

Edited January 29, 2020 by DragonOfTheSeas

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

4 minutes ago, DragonOfTheSeas said:

I am not supporting the parents point of view,  the GF is at fault.

 

However, your railing comment is not correct.  There are lots of railings in hallways and on deck that are not beside windows that open. For example, I see these on the deck above the pool deck on many ships.  Some is along an open deck.  Other railings are along 12 foot glass walls with no moveable windows.   These are to allow stability during rough seas.  [I have not been on a Freedom class ship but this is true of all of the other  classes I have been on.] 

Good point.  Hadn't thought of that.

[twins_to_alaska]

I guess I find it surprising that no other passenger stepped up to the stepGF and suggested putting that child back down. There was plenty of time.

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

3 minutes ago, twins_to_alaska said:

I guess I find it surprising that no other passenger stepped up to the stepGF and suggested putting that child back down. There was plenty of time.

30 seconds?  While it is a long time it's possible no one really noticed or thought he had a strong enough grip on her (if he had her in a bear hug even on top of the railing, I might think "that's not smart" but I don't know that I'd say anything *IF* I even noticed). 

[akcruz]

47 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

Come on. If you ever walked by one of those open windows you could be blind and know they are open. The wind alone coming through them is enough. Royal having the window open is not the question. It is the stupidity of the GF.

 

I agree with you, but saying you never know how a trial will end and what will be the repercussions of it.  People do stupid things all the time that cause silly warning statements.  I hope that doesn't happen here but can see it happening.

 

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

Let's say for the sake of argument, that wall is all glass, there are absolutely NO windows that open.  Would RCI still put a railing there?  Why would they need to?  The railing is the warning.  

 

Here is a picture of the bridge from a different ship.  Full glass wall with hand rails, have seen many other places but this us the picture could easily find. 

[coffeebean]

On 1/17/2020 at 4:08 PM, HBE4 said:

Of course, there is a cynical part of my mind that wonders if he is trying to "save face" be claiming he didn't know the window was open.

 

 

Is the GF deaf? Is the GF blind? If not.....he had to know the window was open. I don't care what the man claims, he is a liar if he says he did not know the window was open. I've been on the pool deck of that ship and there is no way one does not know when a window is open, even in port.

[mayleeman]

4 minutes ago, twins_to_alaska said:

I guess I find it surprising that no other passenger stepped up to the stepGF and suggested putting that child back down. There was plenty of time.

 

32 pages of postings and this is the first time I have seen this isolated!

 

I wonder if there are lots of witness statements gathered by the police. Questions might well be asked at trial along the lines of, "Did it look dangerous? If so, why did you not intervene?" 

 

Or the defense might simply argue that none of the nearby pax seemed concerned about danger, as a way to try to support the defense that GF did not act unrrasonably.

 

Please note, I am only wondering what the implications of possible bystander involvement could be. I am not advocating either way, and it is not directed to the civil case.

[coffeebean]

On 1/17/2020 at 4:24 PM, Two Wheels Only said:

.......Of course, the attorney will probably claim that grandpa didn't sit, stand, lay, or climb on or over anything.....

The Grandpa didn't do any of these things but he assisted his granddaughter to stand at the window. He must have taken a stupid pill that morning. Who in their right mind would lift a toddler up to a window that high above the ground? He should hae verified the window was closed before he lifted his granddaughter up to the window. Because of the stupidity of the GF, RCCL and the cruise industry may be impacted in one way or another and not in a good way for future passengers.

[coffeebean]

On 1/17/2020 at 4:59 PM, Robo1098 said:

A Mexican television show played security footage taken from two different angles. It is pretty obvious when viewing them that he leaned out the window before picking her up.

 

Then there can not be any chance in hell that the family will win this lawsuit. How can they? How can the jury possibly find the cruise line at fault for the carelessness of the GF? Windows are made to be opened for cross ventilation and for an clear vistas.

[coffeebean]

On 1/17/2020 at 5:11 PM, NLH Arizona said:

If he in fact lied about what actually happened to the parents and they have now seen the video and know how it really happened, you would think that they would cancel the suit against Royal Caribbean.

What did the GF initially tell the parents that was not the truth?

[Two Wheels Only]

19 minutes ago, twins_to_alaska said:

I guess I find it surprising that no other passenger stepped up to the stepGF and suggested putting that child back down. There was plenty of time.

 

If a passenger had said "Hey, what are you doing?" and startled Anello and Anello dropped Chloe, I GUARANTEE that some people would blame the passenger for the death. 

[rusty nut]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

What did the GF initially tell the parents that was not the truth?

That he put Chloe on the railing so that she could bang on the glass. Turns out, that was a lie. He actually dangled her outside the window, way beyond the railing, and even beyond the window ledge.

Edited January 29, 2020 by rusty nut

[Another_Critic]

1 hour ago, FloridaPalms said:

While open windows are clear to us who have cruised these ships (and easily extended our arms through these windows to take pictures with our cameras),  they argue the windows especially pose a danger to children who might climb on a chair or lounger and RCL was negligent in not protecting the passengers.

 

There are chairs or loungers on every open balcony, every open deck, the dining venues are full of chairs, cabins have chairs, lounges have chairs ... all of which could result in injury or death if common sense is ignored.

 

Looks like the cruise lines will need to remove every chair, lounger, ladder, etc from the cruise ship.  🙄

 

[jagsfan]

19 hours ago, ONECRUISER said:

I remember growing up anything over 40 was old. 40 is Middle Aged, 50 get AARP card, Discounts start. .... I'm 54 now, it's not old, just feel it some days. Always took care my Chevelle's, Cutlass/442 and Malibu Muscle Cars, maybe should done same with myself. At least retired my Speedo worn Cruises 35yrs ago, one that many older still Model...

I expect to become elderly July 4 when I turn 84. 

Till then I’ll still have all my marbles. 

[coffeebean]

On 1/18/2020 at 7:32 AM, S.A.M.J.R. said:

 

 

........However, the GF never said "I don't remember".  It's been "I thought the window was closed."  .........

He THOUGHT the window was closed? The GF should have VERIFIED the window was closed before putting his granddaughter in harm's way. There is no way this man should not be held responsible for the toddler's fall. That statement the GF is basing his defense on is so lame. It makes him look feeble.

[Robo1098]

Elderly seems to be loosely defined as over 65. I'm 55 and I have never remotely thought of myself as elderly. I'm pretty sure many 65+ year old people might be pretty offended by being called elderly.

 

[Kmangel]

15 minutes ago, Robo1098 said:

Elderly seems to be loosely defined as over 65. I'm 55 and I have never remotely thought of myself as elderly. I'm pretty sure many 65+ year old people might be pretty offended by being called elderly.

 

When I was in my mid fifties I was asked if I wanted the senior rate at McDonald’s.  That was the first time I had encountered being considered for a senior rate.  No way I thought at the time!  Now, ten years later I ask for the discounts!

[Robo1098]

It is hard to tell from the video but it definitely appears he put the childs feet on the window sill. There is no way at that point you can reasonably think there is glass there. Even if somehow a person could mistake the window being open there is no way after holding the child there for over 30 seconds to not realize it. 

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

19 minutes ago, Kmangel said:

When I was in my mid fifties I was asked if I wanted the senior rate at McDonald’s.  That was the first time I had encountered being considered for a senior rate.  No way I thought at the time!  Now, ten years later I ask for the discounts!

The comedian on the Sky asked if there were any children under 40 in the room?

[retiredgram]

1 hour ago, twins_to_alaska said:

I guess I find it surprising that no other passenger stepped up to the stepGF and suggested putting that child back down. There was plenty of time.

No one seemed to be paying him any attention from what the video shows. I have said something to parents before about how what they are doing or what the child is doing,could be harmful. Only have said a couple times, because it is ignored. Seems like people just don't care. IMO

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

 

32 pages of postings and this is the first time I have seen this isolated!

 

I wonder if there are lots of witness statements gathered by the police. Questions might well be asked at trial along the lines of, "Did it look dangerous? If so, why did you not intervene?" 

 

Or the defense might simply argue that none of the nearby pax seemed concerned about danger, as a way to try to support the defense that GF did not act unrrasonably.

 

Please note, I am only wondering what the implications of possible bystander involvement could be. I am not advocating either way, and it is not directed to the civil case.

Some passengers probably didn't want to say anything to him in case it distracted him and he lost his grip and they might feel it was their fault if he dropped her but as we now know,he did drop her anyway and he must take responsibility for this.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

Then there can not be any chance in hell that the family will win this lawsuit. How can they? How can the jury possibly find the cruise line at fault for the carelessness of the GF? Windows are made to be opened for cross ventilation and for an clear vistas.

Juries often find for the plaintiff in cases like this using logic like:  "Oh, the poor family.  They lost their grandchild and the cruise line has so much money.  Give the family a few hundred million."

[Two Wheels Only]

10 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Juries often find for the plaintiff in cases like this using logic like:  "Oh, the poor family.  They lost their grandchild and the cruise line has so much money.  Give the family a few hundred million."

 

"Royal Caribbean is willing to spend over 1 BILLION DOLLARS just to build another ship but isn't willing to grant this poor family 1% of that amount knowing how much this family has suffered..." - Winkleman's opening remarks, trust me. 

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

1 minute ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

"Royal Caribbean is willing to spend over 1 BILLION DOLLARS just to build another ship but isn't willing to grant this poor family 1% of that amount knowing how much this family has suffered..." - Winkleman's opening remarks, trust me. 

Would you pay it? It is the object of it. If I was on that jury it would be NO> Family gets nothing. Why should they? 

[flamingos]

1 hour ago, Robo1098 said:

It is hard to tell from the video but it definitely appears he put the childs feet on the window sill. There is no way at that point you can reasonably think there is glass there. Even if somehow a person could mistake the window being open there is no way after holding the child there for over 30 seconds to not realize it. 

 

The family are saying that they never expected windows that open on the children's play area; they assumed that it was jut solid viewing glass, not moveable windows.