Toddler Death Law Suit Update

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

32 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

When looking up this lawsuit, I noticed that cruise ships actually get sued a lot.  

Probably like any major company/building. 

[grapau27]

2 hours ago, jagsfan said:

Years ago I was standing next to the lifeguard’s chair calling my kids to tell them it was lunch time. I glanced down and there was a child lying underwater. The lifeguard would have had to stand up and look straight down to see him. 

I jumped in with floppy hat, sandals and purse and grabbed Billy, held him over my head and shook him. Got a gallon of water in my face but he started crying. Not exactly the right procedure but I reacted because I couldn’t think. 

His mother came out of the restroom and yelled at me for making him cry. She left him sitting on the steps and was only gone a few minutes. 

I was ready to cry myself because it was pure luck that I looked straight down at him. 

A lifeguard chair didn’t help in that instance. 

Even if our lifeguards were walking back and forth, they tended to look out over the pool, not straight down. It only takes a few seconds for a child to drown and they don’t make any noise, not even a splash. 

It all boils down to parents have got to watch their kids. 

I hope the mother thanked you for Saving her child's life.

The actions of the lifeguard was a little worrying though.

[neverbeenhere]

52 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

When looking up this lawsuit, I noticed that cruise ships actually get sued a lot.  

Yes, deep pockets attract many attorneys. 

[October17]

16 hours ago, brillohead said:

 

Many thanks, @Brisbane41.  

Even just this photo shows plenty, IMO.... 

With Anello's shoulders bent over the railing (as is evident from watching the videos from both angles), THERE IS NO SPACE FOR THE BABY between his head and the window glass.  —-

this is so true, and also remember that he is not at the first wondow, but standing by the next window, so even closer than the photo @Brisbane41 edited, IMO

 

[October17]

* even closer than it looks in the edited photo 

 

sorry, missed a few words, and edit time ran out

[TNcruising02]

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

Probably like any major company/building. 

Definitely true and that's where video footage is extremely helpful when the person's claims are false.  It's a good thing Royal has video footage of the grandfather.  Based on the lawsuit and the public relation's message of the parents' attorney, one would think the grandfather lifted the little girl up for a second and she lunged forward out of the window.  That's what I originally thought happened.  Then I heard he claimed that he didn't even know there was an open window.  The video footage completely disputes the grandfather's claims and those of the parents' attorney.

Large companies get sued all of the time and it's always beneficial to have video footage so that the truth can come out.

[coffeebean]

11 hours ago, robtulipe said:

I suspect the port bridge wing also has a similar video camera. I recall when doing bridge tours on Anthem and seeing similar cameras with both bow and aft views on the port side bridge wing which we visited on those tours.

Location where this occurred was beside pool bar which is forward mid-ship. Windjammer cafe is aft on deck 11 on that class of ship.

I have no idea where the camera are placed on any cruise ship but.....I would think all areas of the exterior of the ship are covered with a surveillance camera.

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

1 minute ago, coffeebean said:

I have no idea where the camera are placed on any cruise ship but.....I would think all areas of the exterior of the ship are covered with a surveillance camera.

Why?  

 

And back to my point, even if they do have cameras looking at the exterior of the ship, would there be enough detail of this specific location to make any determination of anything?  

 

Aside from the bridge wings, unless they have cameras on the top deck pointing down the sides, where else could they put the cameras to see the entire exterior?  

 

I'm convinced they have all the public spaces pretty well covered, but the sides of the ship?  Not so sure. 

[coffeebean]

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

Why?  

 

And back to my point, even if they do have cameras looking at the exterior of the ship, would there be enough detail of this specific location to make any determination of anything?  

 

Aside from the bridge wings, unless they have cameras on the top deck pointing down the sides, where else could they put the cameras to see the entire exterior?  

 

I'm convinced they have all the public spaces pretty well covered, but the sides of the ship?  Not so sure. 

In the event anyone should fall, jump or get pushed overboard. How about those who have walked on the guard rails and do stupid things which can cause a fall over board. I would imagine, all cruise ships would want video coverage of these overboard mishaps/accidents.

Edited February 2, 2020 by coffeebean

[molsonschooner]

3 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

Maybe anyone taking a young child on a cruise ship needs to sign something at check-in where they agree to watch their child at all times when not in the kid's club.  Leaving a child unattended anywhere on a cruise ship is crazy.  I wouldn't even have left my toddler in the care of someone like that step-grandfather because toddlers can take off at any minute and they are fast.

My sister came home one night after leaving her two year old in the care of a babysitter at her apartment.  She arrived to find the paramedics reviving him.  I never left my young children in anyone's care around water or any public area.  They were also taught to swim by age three.  Anyway, jagsfan, what you did was incredible! Bless you for saving that child's life.

I agree that jagsfan did a great job, but signing a piece of paper is going to guarantee absolutely nothing.

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

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

In the event anyone should fall, jump or get pushed overboard. How about those who have walked on the guard rails and do stupid things which can cause a fall over board. I would imagine, all cruise ships would want video coverage of these overboard mishaps/accidents.

Good reason, but where do they put the cameras?  As you can see from earlier in the thread, a view from the bridge wing will only show detail (enough to show who did what to whom) for what, 10-15 cabin from the camera?  

 

[chengkp75]

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

Good reason, but where do they put the cameras?  As you can see from earlier in the thread, a view from the bridge wing will only show detail (enough to show who did what to whom) for what, 10-15 cabin from the camera?  

 

The bridge wing cameras have enough detail, when zoomed in, and stored on digital media, to do facial recognition down the full length of the ship.  If there are areas that are blanketed from the bridge wing cameras, like directly behind the hot tub bulges, there will be further cameras mounted aft looking forward.

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

Yes, just like what they agreed to during the on-line check-in so that people like the grandfather can't claim they never received it.  Have them physically sign it when they enter the cruise ship.

 

Then they'd just claim the check-in process does not allow ample time to read this document so it is not reasonable to expect a user to have read all the terms and the requirement of a signature doesn't mean a person cruising has effectively agreed to all the conditions.

[banzaii]

2 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Then they'd just claim the check-in process does not allow ample time to read this document so it is not reasonable to expect a user to have read all the terms and the requirement of a signature doesn't mean a person cruising has effectively agreed to all the conditions.

Maybe they don't sign that they have read and understood the T&C. Make them tick a box upon booking that says each adult travellor will read and understand them prior to embarkation that they confirm via cruise planner before it closes 3 days prior to cruise.

 

Then they sign that they will abide by and be bound by the T&C before they board.  Give frequent cruisers the option of veiwing changes made since last sign off only.  Set up a separate queue for those that haven't completed the "task" in cruise planner - one traveller at a time!😈

[rusty nut]

Has anybody actually read the cruise contract? ......Actually, I'm sure many of you have. Pay particularly close attention to Section 8, Paragraph 7

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/dam/royal/resources/pdf/cruise-ticket-contract.pdf

Edited February 3, 2020 by rusty nut

[Suzieanna]

It's quite obvious to anybody who knows anything at all about cruise ships who is at fault here.    

 

My concern though is the way it seems to be getting played out in the media.    My colleague asked me about it, framing it like this:-    " Isn't it awful about that poor baby!   Surely the windows should be shut properly in the Childrens' area!"    I asked her about how she pictured the window to be.   She described she imagined a window that opened "out" on hinges to one side and a latch on the other.    She imagined this window "looked" shut, until it was pushed against.   She also did not know about the railing keeping people "back".

 

Another thing which is weird, if he was holding her like the lawyer was holding the doll, she would not have fallen out of the window!   Therefore logic dictates he was NOT holding her like this.   For her to fall OUT, she must have been held out?  Basic physics isn't it?  I don't think those photos have helped his case at all.

 

Why didn't he just say at the beginning what the truth probably was -    we were roughhousing, she likes to be thrown about and dangled over my head etc and she just slipped out of my grip.

 

Some of you may recall a few years ago, a girl climbed on a chair and fell a few storeys down into the atrium on a ship?   Did her family sue???

 

 

 

 

 

[brillohead]

7 hours ago, Suzieanna said:

Another thing which is weird, if he was holding her like the lawyer was holding the doll, she would not have fallen out of the window!   Therefore logic dictates he was NOT holding her like this.   For her to fall OUT, she must have been held out?  Basic physics isn't it?  I don't think those photos have helped his case at all.

They are "claiming" that he held her inside the window and then she leaned forward "to bang on the glass" and slipped from his grasp.  It was "allegedly" the momentum of her lurching forward that propelled her beyond the windowsill.

Yet another way to blast a hole in Anello's version of events.... no claims anywhere that Chloe was colorblind.  If the window was allegedly "assumed to exist even though it wasn't there" due to Anello's colorblindness, how would the not-colorblind baby have tried to reach forward to bang on it?  The baby would have seen PLAIN OPEN AIR and would NOT have thrust herself forward to bang on something that didn't exist. 
 

Edited February 4, 2020 by brillohead
typo

[mitsugirly]

1 hour ago, brillohead said:

They are "claiming" that he held her inside the window and then she leaned forward "to bang on the glass" and slipped from his grasp.  It was "allegedly" the momentum of her lurching forward that propelled her beyond the windowsill.

 

 

 

But the GF admitted to the public, in his interview, that HE leaned her forward to "bang on the glass" and it wasn't there. So...that right there would contradict anyone claiming that "she" leaned forward herself. He did the leaning to allow her to "reach". There's no taking that statement back since he himself said it in the interview. I wonder how they'll back track that one.

[Brisbane41]

1 minute ago, mitsugirly said:

 

 

But the GF admitted to the public, in his interview, that HE leaned her forward to "bang on the glass" and it wasn't there. So...that right there would contradict anyone claiming that "she" leaned forward herself. He did the leaning to allow her to "reach". There's no taking that statement back since he himself said it in the interview. I wonder how they'll back track that one.

In which case common sense and logic should have told him to pull back this is open.

 

Either way if it gets to court I would hope that Royal Caribbeans legal team are allowed to challenge and have tested his colour blindness claim.

 

Most true crime documentaries of this nature where people are profiled on this I specifically remember the experts saying families break-up and separate blaming each other for the tragedy if it is an accident. If it is something they have done for fraud or another reason then they stick together stronger than ever.

 

The truth will come out one day I hope. 

[Two Wheels Only]

1 hour ago, Brisbane41 said:

Either way if it gets to court I would hope that Royal Caribbeans legal team are allowed to challenge and have tested his colour blindness claim.

 

I'm not one to let the "color blindness" claim distract me from the "head out/lift child/extend child/drop child" of this case. 

[emdia43]

Well if you know you are colorblind and can't tell an open window from closed one, shouldn't you take EXTRA care when you hold a child up to one?

[brillohead]

36 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

I'm not one to let the "color blindness" claim distract me from the "head out/lift child/extend child/drop child" of this case. 

Or how about the fact that color blindness isn't an excuse for why he thought there was glass there..... clear is clear, not just a lighter shade of whatever color!!!

It's color BLINDNESS, not color SEE-SOMETHING-THAT-ISN'T-THERENESS.  

[ReneeFLL]

On 1/23/2020 at 8:48 PM, hazence said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7922419/Doctor-cruise-ship-recalls-finding-toddlers-body-grandfather-dropped-her.html
 

The pictures in this article seem to support the parents case. I hadn’t 

seen these before with the re-enactment with the doll.

 

I don't think these photos are accurate. First the man is standing straight up? Look at his back. Who does that when you want to see something and something (the railing) is restricting you. You lean forward. Also when he is holding the doll his arms are bent. If he was trying to show her something or have her bang on the glass he would have held her farther out and his arms would be straighter.

 

In the photo where they say he would need to be taller they show the man with his feet off the ground. He would be standing on his tippy toes to get a  better view and this man isn't. His feet are just sort of hanging. The other photo shows him witth his feet and butt away from the edge. Again, if someone wants to look out or give her a better view his body would be up against the railing like it shows in the footage released by RC or who ever released it. The so called recreation is so fake and is only trying to mislead people. Looks like they are succeeding for a few. If this goes to court I hope they have some people with common sense on the jury. I would pay money to be on it. 😁

Edited February 4, 2020 by ReneeFLL

[ReneeFLL]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:12 PM, nadinenurse1 said:

Article was inflammatory and enfruating  “elderly colorblind gf” What the hell , he is 51.. How does color blind mean any thing 

’

Agreed. Some people don't have a clue what colored blind actually means or they wouldn't fall for that. He can still tell there are 2 different colored windows in front of him. If he saw all one color for the windows which would lead him to believe they were all closed (or all open) then he has other issues than being color blind. If a pilot can be colored blind and still fly then he should have no problems knowing the window was open.

[Brisbane41]

7 minutes ago, ReneeFLL said:

Agreed. Some people don't have a clue what colored blind actually means or they wouldn't fall for that. He can still tell there are 2 different colored windows in front of him. If he saw all one color for the windows which would lead him to believe they were all closed (or all open) then he has other issues than being color blind. If a pilot can be colored blind and still fly then he should have no problems knowing the window was open.

Its a big risk to take. If he has claimed he is colour blind and does not know this and thinks he can get out of this and his lawyers don't even know he is making it up then it will be proven he is a liar and the case will fall apart. To lie about being colour blind would indicate a lack of knowledge about the condition. There are tests to prove if someone is faking it for advantage.

 

He probably thinks colour blind people cannot see windows or thinks the fact that they are heavily tinted means they are invisible.

 

Personally I do not believe he is colour blind at all. I think he may have fabricated the whole thing. The lawyer may not even know it because it would seriously damage him as well if this was proven to be a lie.