Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[sunonfire]

I was on the Carnival Legend and the windows at the pool area can only be opened approximately 6 inches. There is a permanent block of wood installed to prevent the window from being opened fully. I am pretty sure that is in response to the tragedy on the Freedom of the Seas when the toddler fell from the pool deck this past summer.
 

 

[ATC cruiser]

1 minute ago, sunonfire said:

I was on the Carnival Legend and the windows at the pool area can only be opened approximately 6 inches. There is a permanent block of wood installed to prevent the window from being opened fully. I am pretty sure that is in response to the tragedy on the Freedom of the Seas when the toddler fell from the pool deck this past summer.
 

 

But you will notice that the bottom of the window is much lower than the windows on Freedom 

[Another_Critic]

4 minutes ago, ATC cruiser said:

But you will notice that the bottom of the window is much lower than the windows on Freedom 

 

Plus there's no handrail barrier.

[A&L_Ont]

15 minutes ago, sunonfire said:

I am pretty sure that is in response to the tragedy on the Freedom of the Seas when the toddler fell from the pool deck this past summer.

 

 

One could say that is assumption. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[emdia43]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7974255/Parents-toddler-fell-death-Royal-Caribbean-ship-proceed-lawsuit.html

[TNcruising02]

20 minutes ago, emdia43 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7974255/Parents-toddler-fell-death-Royal-Caribbean-ship-proceed-lawsuit.html

It's interesting that Royal said that none of the other cameras captured the incident. It was reported earlier that there were witnesses on and off of the ship though.

 

Royal should recreate a row of the windows and railings for the trial so that the jury can see for themselves. They can recreate the image of him leaning out of the window and recreate the seconds that he held the little girl over the railing. They may have the witnesses off of the ship who saw the girl at the window before she was dropped. I am really hoping Royal doesn't offer a settlement.

 

I hope he is found guilty in the criminal trial simply because he is not telling the truth and refuses to acknowledge responsibility. They should play the video clip and ask him what he was doing with her during those 30 seconds and why he kept holding her there when there was no glass to bang on. It doesn't take 30 seconds to realize there is no glass. Her body would have touched the glass.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by TNcruising02

[A&L_Ont]

"Prosecutors in the US territory are pressing on with criminal misdemeanor charges against the elderly IT worker, despite Chloe's parents pleading with them to drop proceedings." 

 

"The silver-haired grandpa would also have needed extraordinarily long arms to have dangled the little girl over the edge"

 

Both elderly and grey haired is how the article describes him, at 51.  The parents are 41 and 37.  They better watch out, old age is around the corner.  Good lord, at this rate I better be applying for my pension at 48 as I have grey hair too. 

 

 

[Another_Critic]

18 minutes ago, emdia43 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7974255/Parents-toddler-fell-death-Royal-Caribbean-ship-proceed-lawsuit.html

 

"However, the grieving couple from South Bend, Indiana say their sole motivation is to force Royal Caribbean to make their windows safer so 18-month-old Chloe's horror death is never repeated."

 

Yeah, then why did they file a multi-million dollar lawsuit???? 

 

If there "sole motivation" is to fix the problem, then they should force RCI to require a common sense test in order to board their ships.

 

If they win, are they going to refuse the money??  Yeah, I'm sure they will, since that's not part of their sole motivation.  🙄

 

If they win, they would be better off donating to fund common sense awareness.

[A&L_Ont]

23 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

It's interesting that Royal said that none of the other cameras captured the incident. It was reported earlier that there were witnesses on and off of the ship though.

 

Royal should recreate a row of the windows and railings for the trial so that the jury can see for themselves. They can recreate the image of him leaning out of the window and recreate the seconds that he held the little girl over the railing. They may have the witnesses off of the ship who saw the girl at the window before she was dropped. I am really hoping Royal doesn't offer a settlement.

 

I hope he is found guilty in the criminal trial simply because he is not telling the truth and refuses to acknowledge responsibility. They should play the video clip and ask him what he was doing with her during those 30 seconds and why he kept holding her there when there was no glass to bang on. It doesn't take 30 seconds to realize there is no glass. Her body would have touched the glass.

 

"In its motion to dismiss, Royal Caribbean denied breaching industry safety standards, saying Anello 'unquestionably' knew the window was open and would only have had to use his 'basic senses' to realize he was endangering his grandchild."

 

I guess the family could argue that he is not mentally capably, even though they left them together.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by A&L_Ont

[Another_Critic]

3 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

Both elderly and grey haired is how the article describes him, at 51.  The parents are 41 and 37.  They better watch out, old age is around the corner.  Good lord, at this rate I better be applying for my pension at 48 as I have grey hair too. 

 

I'm older than the "elderly and silver-haired grandpa" and I don't have silver/grey hair.  However, I do have an elderly silver/grey haired cat.  😎

 

P.S.  I will be collecting my pension in 3 yrs, 10 months, 26 days.  🙂

[rusty nut]

Let's be clear. I don't care what the suit says, Chloe's parents couldn't care less about the ships being safer, they want money, period. What a shakedown!  

[boscobeans]

35 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

 

I'm older than the "elderly and silver-haired grandpa" and I don't have silver/grey hair.  However, I do have an elderly silver/grey haired cat.  😎

 

P.S.  I will be collecting my pension in 3 yrs, 10 months, 26 days.  🙂

 

I'm 73 and I know I am getting old after clearing out 2 driveways of this morning's  4.5  inches of wet heavy snow with my plow and snow blower.

 

But I still have enough sense not to hang anything over the side of a ship. 

[alfaeric]

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

Please go back and read my post again. 

1) I never said RCI was the one who leaked the video.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, they DID release the videos that were already in the public as part of their motion to dismiss.  

2) I said the videos that are out in the public (whether leaked or released) do NOT show definitively (at least from what I can see) that Anello held Chloe outside the ship.  I also said they don't show that he didn't.  I would think an exterior camera might.

3) I said IF there is exterior video footage AND it shows Anello holding Chloe outside the skin of the ship, that I would think a STILL frame of that would be part of their motion to dismiss.  Nowhere did I say they should release that video.  

 

You are expecting RCI to release the video to public showing that Anello put her outside, as you seem to want some kind of evidence that shows that.  Still frame, video, what does it matter?

 

Besides, YOU, nor any of us, are the one deciding if the case has merit.  So how this presents itself to the public is moot. 

 

Still- you presented two choices that one has to be true, because you have not seen any pictures or video showing that- from your post:

One of these two things must be true...

1) Anello did not actually hold Chloe outside of the window frame.  I don't think the security footage that is out in the public shows that (it doesn't show he didn't, but it doesn't show that he did).  The most I could say it shows is he might have Chloe standing on the window sill.  I see her arm reach out to the sill to steady herself, but that's about it.

2) RCI must not have video from the exterior showing the accident.  Surely if they did, they would have included a still with their motion to dismiss showing Chloe being held outside.  That image would eliminate the argument that Anello didn't know the window was open. 

 

So I disagree with your binary choices that have to be the facts. 

 

I don't understand the idea that the public has to see those pictures.  It VERY much can be part of their case to dismiss.  We do not know that.  Unless you are in the courtroom.  

 

BTW, the video came from their camera, but that also does not mean RCI released the videos.  I would be under the impression that RCI would be legally bound not to, as it is actively being used as evidence in a criminal trial.  And releasing that evidence would very much hurt the jury pool.  And it's in RCI's best interest to let the criminal case run its course, as it can be very key in the civil case.  Especially when the evidence is in their favor.

Edited February 6, 2020 by alfaeric

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

5 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

You are expecting RCI to release the video to public showing that Anello put her outside, as you seem to want some kind of evidence that shows that.  Still frame, video, what does it matter?

 

Besides, YOU, nor any of us, are the one deciding if the case has merit.  So how this presents itself to the public is moot. 

 

Still- you presented two choices that one has to be true, because you have not seen any pictures or video showing that- from your post:

One of these two things must be true...

1) Anello did not actually hold Chloe outside of the window frame.  I don't think the security footage that is out in the public shows that (it doesn't show he didn't, but it doesn't show that he did).  The most I could say it shows is he might have Chloe standing on the window sill.  I see her arm reach out to the sill to steady herself, but that's about it.

2) RCI must not have video from the exterior showing the accident.  Surely if they did, they would have included a still with their motion to dismiss showing Chloe being held outside.  That image would eliminate the argument that Anello didn't know the window was open. 

 

So I disagree with your binary choices that have to be the facts. 

 

I don't understand the idea that the public has to see those pictures.  It VERY much can be part of their case to dismiss.  We do not know that.  Unless you are in the courtroom.  

 

BTW, the video came from their camera, but that also does not mean RCI released the videos.  I would be under the impression that RCI would be legally bound not to, as it is actively being used as evidence in a criminal trial.  And releasing that evidence would very much hurt the jury pool.  And it's in RCI's best interest to let the criminal case run its course, as it can be very key in the civil case.  Especially when the evidence is in their favor.

You keep reading things in my posts that aren't there.  I NEVER said the video or stills (and yes, there is a difference)  should be released to the public. 

 

The videos that we are able to see do not show Chloe out of the window.  They also don't show that she was always inside the ship.  You even admit that. 

 

Either she was HELD outside the ship or she wasn't.  Those are the only two options for my first point.  Do you have another one?

Either RCI has video from outside the ship showing the accident or they don't.  Do you have another choice?  

 

So, you get one of these four cases:

1) Anello didn't hold her outside the window and there's video showing that.

2) Anello didn't hold her outside the window and there's no video.

3) Anello held her outside the window and there's video showing that.

4) Anello held her outside the window and there's no video. 

 

Am I missing a possibility?  

 

IF #3 is true, I am surprised RCI didn't use that proof as part of their motion to dismiss.  

[ONECRUISER]

1 hour ago, ATC cruiser said:

But you will notice that the bottom of the window is much lower than the windows on Freedom 

Agree, totally different from Royal, Railing, height, access

[grapau27]

3 hours ago, tonit964 said:

And then once challenged by the tint of the open and closed windows, he was then colorblind. 🙄

Hopefully all these inconsistencies come out in court.

 

[mjkacmom]

8 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

Hopefully all these inconsistencies come out in court.

 

I’m sure RCI’s legal team is reading this thread and taking notes.

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

1 minute ago, mjkacmom said:

I’m sure RCI’s legal team is reading this thread and taking notes.

*IF* they're reading here, I'm sure they're doing so for entertainment purposes. 

[alfaeric]

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

You keep reading things in my posts that aren't there.  I NEVER said the video or stills (and yes, there is a difference)  should be released to the public. 

 

The videos that we are able to see do not show Chloe out of the window.  They also don't show that she was always inside the ship.  You even admit that. 

 

Either she was HELD outside the ship or she wasn't.  Those are the only two options for my first point.  Do you have another one?

Either RCI has video from outside the ship showing the accident or they don't.  Do you have another choice?  

 

So, you get one of these four cases:

1) Anello didn't hold her outside the window and there's video showing that.

2) Anello didn't hold her outside the window and there's no video.

3) Anello held her outside the window and there's video showing that.

4) Anello held her outside the window and there's no video. 

 

Am I missing a possibility?  

 

IF #3 is true, I am surprised RCI didn't use that proof as part of their motion to dismiss.  

So you went from 2 choices to 4.  Ok....  At least you see that....  I can repeat your original post again, but that was just two choices....  

 

And you also assume that RCI didn't use proof if he did dangle her out and they have pictures of that.  Why?  They could have- has anyone published the court transcripts and evidence list?  I've not seen that.

[grapau27]

6 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

I’m sure RCI’s legal team is reading this thread and taking notes.

I hope so.

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

3 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

So you went from 2 choices to 4.  Ok....  At least you see that....  I can repeat your original post again, but that was just two choices....  

 

And you also assume that RCI didn't use proof if he did dangle her out and they have pictures of that.  Why?  They could have- has anyone published the court transcripts and evidence list?  I've not seen that.

Wow.  I must really not be explaining myself well.  I originally listed two statements, A & B, saying one must be true.  The four scenarios based on those statements that I posted are:

A true, B false

A true, B true

A false, B false

A false, B true.

 

There's only one scenario where both are false.  And the statements don't contradict each other.  

 

It was my understanding that they included the security camera video with the motion to dismiss.  Maybe I'm wrong.    

[rusty nut]

Obviously, RC doesn't have any video taken from outside the ship that shows Chloe held outside the window. Clearly, if they did, this case would not be moving forward.

[fletch1027]

41 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

I’m sure RCI’s legal team is reading this thread and taking notes.

 

If RCI's legal team is having to come to a CC thread to build their case then RCI is likely paying too much for their lawyers... 🤣

[ReneeFLL]

7 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

Obviously, RC doesn't have any video taken from outside the ship that shows Chloe held outside the window. Clearly, if they did, this case would not be moving forward.

Not necessarily true. There have been known to be stupid judges out there also.

[alfaeric]

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

Wow.  I must really not be explaining myself well.  I originally listed two statements, A & B, saying one must be true.  The four scenarios based on those statements that I posted are:

A true, B false

A true, B true

A false, B false

A false, B true.

 

There's only one scenario where both are false.  And the statements don't contradict each other.  

 

It was my understanding that they included the security camera video with the motion to dismiss.  Maybe I'm wrong.    

no, you are not explaining yourself clearly.  If one must be true, then both can't be false.  And now both can be false.   Hard to follow a question when the possible outcomes change.

 

I think it's safe to assume they included the video in the public domain was used, but not having court documents, it's an assumption.  But just because they used that video does not also mean they did or didn't use the pictures outside.  Again, RCI may have took those pictures, but given the criminal case would MASSIVELY impact the civil case, I really don't see them violating any orders surrounding any pubic release.  Which means that whatever they used to dismiss the case was not let out. 

 

I honestly don't think that the video is the original, anyway- the resolution is pretty bad for what it's supposed to do.  Having seen some of the security cameras videos when we have visited the bridge, I really don't think that's it.