Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[coffeebean]

On 1/18/2020 at 4:30 PM, BND said:

Royal has no reason to settle this case.  It will either be dismissed or go to court and RCI will win based on the evidence.  Settling would set a horrible precedent in this particular case and there's no reason to settle.

I can see it now......all balconies on all cruise ships will be screened. I will have a screened lanai just like I have at home. Sure hope it doesn't come to that.

 

Then, how do cruise ships contain the open pool deck? Talk about a horrible precedent!

[BND]

7 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I can see it now......all balconies on all cruise ships will be screened. I will have a screened lanai just like I have at home. Sure hope it doesn't come to that.

 

Then, how do cruise ships contain the open pool deck? Talk about a horrible precedent!

Well, hopefully any judge or jury will get a tour of the ship to show how it's set up.  Considering the only way to get to those windows to fall out is climb up and over the railing and reach a distance that small children can't to even get to where the window frame is shows how this is more than just an accident.  Heck, I'm 5'3" and I can't lean out those windows enough to fall out without climbing on the railing.  As others have pointed out, the code of conduct was not followed.  Screens won't stop anyone from falling out a window.  Plenty of kids have fallen out of windows in homes and apartments while leaning against a screen.  

Edited January 29, 2020 by BND

[Robo1098]

13 minutes ago, flamingos said:

 

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.

I have heard that but at the very least when the childs feet pass through where I thought glass would be I may doubt that there is glass there.

[Two Wheels Only]

12 minutes ago, flamingos said:

 

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.

 

I wonder how the family feels about a bar that serves alcohol being in a "children's play area"?

 

 

[alexkrn46]

I am unclear how is this man related to the toddler? Is he the step father of the mother or father ? I have read ( not confirmed ) that he is not married to the grandmother only a boyfriend. 

[not-enough-cruising]

5 minutes ago, alexkrn46 said:

I am unclear how is this man related to the toddler? Is he the step father of the mother or father ? I have read ( not confirmed ) that he is not married to the grandmother only a boyfriend. 

What difference does it make?

[Two Wheels Only]

6 minutes ago, alexkrn46 said:

I am unclear how is this man related to the toddler? Is he the step father of the mother or father ? I have read ( not confirmed ) that he is not married to the grandmother only a boyfriend. 

 

From what I've seen, Sam and Patricia are married and Patricia is Kimberly's mom. Kimberly is Chloe's mom. 

 

I don't know if there is a marriage certificate or not. 

[NLH Arizona]

3 hours ago, coffeebean said:

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

If you read my post, I said:  If he in fact lied about what actually happened to the parents.  IF being the operative word.

[FloridaPalms]

2 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

 

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.  🙄

 

 That’s why I said my fear is if plaintiffs win this case, not only will it set a precedent that allows people to hold the cruise lines responsible for its passengers stupidity and flagrant violations of rules and lack of proper supervision of their children, but the ships will be retrofitted into sealed cages.  Balconies completely screened in and reinforced with impenetrable vertical bars; same for any openable windows on the pool deck with only authorized crew having the means to open/close; solid 8’ or higher railings on all ocean accessible decks (like Freedom’s deck 12) so there are no horizontal rails to climb; eliminating passenger access to any decks that cannot be secured to prevent stupidity by adults or unsupervised access by children (outside promenade deck and helipad on those ships currently allowing it come to mind);  6’ or higher plexiglass panels completely surrounding all pools/whirlpools/water parks with a single guarded entrance; and the list goes on and on.

 

But even if the whole ship were encased in barbed wire, There is no way Royal, (or any person or business for that matter), can foresee and take precautions against every act of stupidity that is humanly possible nor those who do not properly supervise children in their care and take responsibility for their actions or inactions.  

 

~ Judy

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, twodaywonder said:

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? 

You would never be on the jury.  Jury selection is an art form designed to ensure sympathetic jurors.  Used to be in this area, anyone with more than a high school education would not be selected.

[RocketMan275]

13 minutes ago, FloridaPalms said:

 That’s why I said my fear is if plaintiffs win this case, not only will it set a precedent that allows people to hold the cruise lines responsible for its passengers stupidity and flagrant violations of rules and lack of proper supervision of their children, but the ships will be retrofitted into sealed cages.  Balconies completely screened in and reinforced with impenetrable vertical bars; same for any openable windows on the pool deck with only authorized crew having the means to open/close; solid 8’ or higher railings on all ocean accessible decks (like Freedom’s deck 12) so there are no horizontal rails to climb; eliminating passenger access to any decks that cannot be secured to prevent stupidity by adults or unsupervised access by children (outside promenade deck and helipad on those ships currently allowing it come to mind);  6’ or higher plexiglass panels completely surrounding all pools/whirlpools/water parks with a single guarded entrance; and the list goes on and on.

 

But even if the whole ship were encased in barbed wire, There is no way Royal, (or any person or business for that matter), can foresee and take precautions against every act of stupidity that is humanly possible nor those who do not properly supervise children in their care and take responsibility for their actions or inactions.  

 

~ Judy

It would be simpler to just ban children.

I think there is a law against that.

[lovemylab]

3 hours 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.

 

Perhaps nobody noticed?  When I'm on a cruise I pay very little attention to what other people are doing.  Especially on the first day of a cruise.  If I pass someone near a window I assume they're just enjoying the view.  Even if I saw someone reach down to lift a child, I would assume this is simply to hold them.  I wouldn't think for a second that somone was lifting a child to place them out the window.

 

Unless the child was screaming, I doubt many people even noticed what was happening.  Arnello is a very large man so someone standing behind may not have noticed that she was outside the window as his body would have blocked what was happening.  From side on, it may not have been possible for someone to see her due to the tinted glass.

 

The video that shows her being dangled out the window was taken from above.  From behind or to the side, people would've had a different view.  

 

If was onboard and noticed, the most I would have done is notified a staff member onboard.  No way would I approach someone and tell them to stop doing something to their child.  It's not my job to be cruiseship security.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by lovemylab

[coffeebean]

On 1/18/2020 at 10:51 PM, HOSKI said:

I just saw a video from another angle than the first one I saw and I am surprised how clear it shows him lifting her out the window.  Wow, I could not even imagine someone doing that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/royal-caribbean-says-video-shows-081943671.html

 

The article states the GF held the child up for 34 seconds. Isn't that enough time to realize the WAS NO GLASS for her to bang on? What a lame defense this man has. I don't believe his story for a second.

[happicruzer]

My building just installed signage, outside and inside, each elevator.  
 

*** Watch your step entering and exiting the elevator. ***

Yes, I was told one elevator didn’t align properly and someone tripped.  
 

This type of signage now amounts to over 30+ Safety signs to remind each of us in the building how to remain/be safe.

 

I will be honest, I ignore the majority of the signs due to familiarity- this one was new and I will probably trip if the elevator is out of alignment sometime in the future.

 

I believe it has definitely become a society of blame someone else and, don’t forget to pass go and collect as much money as you can on your way.  
 

I had sympathy for the parents but not as much now since they only appear to care - from latest news articles reiterating false statements - to collect money.  I can’t  believe spending a settlement will keep them happy in the long-term future. Then the divorce and who gets to keep the remaking funds will make another lawyer a hefty paycheck.

[Baron Barracuda]

33 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

It would be simpler to just ban children.

I think there is a law against that.

 

Nope, Viking and Virgin both proudly proclaim that they don't allow anyone younger than 16 to sail with them.

 

 

[TNcruising02]

5 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The mother blaming Anello makes sense.

The mother blaming herself is understandable.

The mother blaming RCCL is ridiculous.

I agree.  

I assume the mother saw the children's water park area and the surrounding tables and chairs.  It would have been hard for her to miss the open windows.  I bet she saw them and never, in a million years, thought her stepfather would dangle her daughter out of one of them.  If she thought the windows were a danger to her daughter, she never would have left her toddler in the care of her stepfather.

Since she knows the truth by now and is sticking to her story, I can only guess it's about the money.

Edited January 29, 2020 by TNcruising02

[BND]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

You would never be on the jury.  Jury selection is an art form designed to ensure sympathetic jurors.  Used to be in this area, anyone with more than a high school education would not be selected.

I've been called for jury duty several times and actually had to go in twice.  I wasn't selected either time.  I'm educated, well dressed and work for a US Gov agency that apparently defense attorney's do not like lol.  I know others in the same situation.  In our county in NoVA they'd be hard pressed to find enough people who don't have at least a Bachelor's degree to serve on juries every year.   My husband has been called a couple of times and selected a couple of times.  Once he was the foreman.  He's a professional (engineer) and retired US Navy Captain so that idea of anyone with higher than a HS education isn't selected isn't correct.  I know several people who have been selected in our county and they all had college degrees and professional jobs.  There's a difference between what the lawyers want and what they get since they can't dismiss everyone.  Now, a criminal case in PR will be a bit different.   My husband's family is from PR and I can only imagine what the jury room would be like.  

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

2 hours ago, flamingos said:

 

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.

Really? The family is saying that? The family did not put her in harms way. They have no say so what so ever. They did not see it they did not do it.

[TNcruising02]

5 hours 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.

I read that the prosecution has witnesses on and off the ship, so I am wondering if someone off of the ship saw him dangling the little girl.

[VicRock]

5 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

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). 

Or they were afraid to startle him & cause him to drop her.

[TNcruising02]

2 hours ago, flamingos said:

 

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.

Are they all claiming to be color blind and that NONE of them knew there were open windows in that area?  I wonder if there is video footage of either of the girl's parents at one of the windows.

[robtulipe]

6 minutes ago, VicRock said:

Or they were afraid to startle him & cause him to drop her.

That was my immediate thought about possibly doing that.

[Brisbane41]

2 hours ago, alexkrn46 said:

I am unclear how is this man related to the toddler? Is he the step father of the mother or father ? I have read ( not confirmed ) that he is not married to the grandmother only a boyfriend. 

 

2 hours ago, not-enough-cruising said:

What difference does it make?

If the man is not a blood relative and stranger to the immediate family then one would assume they would treat him with some higher level of suspicion or blame than a direct relative whose blood and DNA is in the person. Both parents are supposedly in law enforcement. Even they should know from their work the first "suspect" is always the first person or immediate person in the vicinity. Instead they have blind faith in this man that he did no wrong, refuse to believe was negligent and despite video evidence that proves it they are sticking by him 100% and pushing through with a lawsuit.

 

It would have been far easier for them to lay blame entirely at this man and launch a lawsuit against him and maybe ask Royal Caribbean to help out with some sort of compassionate act of grace payment which they may have done out of generosity and from a PR perspective if they companies name had not been trashed.

 

The fact that they are sticking by him makes them look suspicious which is why people are asking questions.

[madiaka]

4 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

 

If the man is not a blood relative and stranger to the immediate family then one would assume they would treat him with some higher level of suspicion or blame than a direct relative whose blood and DNA is in the person. Both parents are supposedly in law enforcement. Even they should know from their work the first "suspect" is always the first person or immediate person in the vicinity. Instead they have blind faith in this man that he did no wrong, refuse to believe was negligent and despite video evidence that proves it they are sticking by him 100% and pushing through with a lawsuit.

 

It would have been far easier for them to lay blame entirely at this man and launch a lawsuit against him and maybe ask Royal Caribbean to help out with some sort of compassionate act of grace payment which they may have done out of generosity and from a PR perspective if they companies name had not been trashed.

 

The fact that they are sticking by him makes them look suspicious which is why people are asking questions.

Agree. I was just about to type something similar. The fact that the family doesn’t even want to see what happened - not to see the fall, but to see him hold her in the video or his actions before the fall —makes them look even worse. If he’s not a man that raised the father or the mother, then I really don’t see the purpose in trusting his word blindly. I’d even have to step away from my parent in this instance. I’d forgive eventually, but I wouldn’t be blaming anyone other than him. Since he is her moms husband, I especially don’t see the dad’s point in supporting him. I’m sure I’d be in divorce court before the verdict for or against Royal if I had that type of blind faith in a person - relative or not. 

[brillohead]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

Jury selection is an art form designed to ensure sympathetic jurors.

A few years ago, I was on a jury for an Open Murder charge. Of fourteen jurors (12 plus 2 alternates), a full FIVE of us were nurses.

 

I definitely don't live in an area where a third of the residents are nurses, so it's pretty obvious that both the prosecution and the defense were more than willing to have nurses on the jury, likely because nursing involves objective, unemotional observation of facts and critical thinking skills.
  
In the civil case against Royal, the parents would NOT want nurses on the jury, because they are wanting jurors who will be emotional about the loss of the baby, rather than objective about Anello's complete and utter disregard of every possible safety measure known to mankind and just basic common sense when it comes to small children.