Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

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

You made me look it up...

 

Prosecutors have not offered Anello a formal plea deal, contrary to reports.

Link

 

As stated, the deal offer was verbal, not written/official.  I'll take the word of the actual defense attorney over Daily Mail.

 

When specifically asked about the deal, Perez said "...the parties have talked about an agreement in general terms but nothing specific and nothing on paper.". The plea deal was moot since Anello stated that he didn't want one.

Edited by Two Wheels Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, legaljen1969 said:

 
..........The Judge could rule that some testimony or piece of evidence may be included or excluded, which could go against the way the attorneys and corporation thought it might go............ 
 

The surveillance videos from Royal Caribbean's cameras are the evidence for their iron clad case I referred to. Is it possible the judge can rule that the videos be stricken from the court and not used at all? If so, why even have the surveillance cameras? What good do the cameras do if the evidence can be excluded?

 

Also....isn't Royal Caribbean in compliance with SOLAS as far as the guard rails and height of the windows which open? RCI also has it written in their rules that the rails should not be used to climb on or sit on. Doesn't that cover it? Is there a violation there? If not......RCI should have an iron clad case.

Edited by coffeebean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

........  But at some point, I would hope family or friends would come to me and tell me what the video showed.  They're either not getting good advice or not listening to the advice. ..........

 

 

I would hope by now the parents have watched the two videos which have been made public. There is no moment of impact on those videos, just the foolishness of Grandpa Anello. It is so easy to see what that man did to endanger that child. The parents SHOULD watch if they haven't already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

The mother was in the pool area first with her daughter.  I am sure she saw the windows and never thought they were a danger.  

 

It would be interesting to know whether the mother (or GF) has been on a cruise before, and especially if they've been on a RC Voyager or Freedom class ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Another_Critic said:

 

It would be interesting to know whether the mother (or GF) has been on a cruise before, and especially if they've been on a RC Voyager or Freedom class ship.


Yes, it would.  According to the lawsuit, the mother and her daughter were in the pool area together before she had her step-father watch Chloe while she went to guest services.  I am sure she saw the windows.  You can't miss them and walk right past them.  As a mother, I always looked for anything I deemed unsafe when I took my kids out in public when they were little.  I think she saw the windows and thought, like every other person, that they were windows and that her daughter was safe around them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

As stated, the deal offer was verbal, not written/official.  I'll take the word of the actual defense attorney over Daily Mail.

 

When specifically asked about the deal, Perez said "...the parties have talked about an agreement in general terms but nothing specific and nothing on paper.". The plea deal was moot since Anello stated that he didn't want one.

Your quote doesn't say there was an offer either.  "Talking about an agreement" <> an offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, legaljen1969 said:

are relying upon 1 human being to rule on the evidence and provide a verdict if you choose a bench trial and you are relying upon at least 12 human beings if you choose a jury trial.   Yes, your jury pool should be completely objective but we are all humans with experiences that do lead us to look at things through our own lens of experience.  We believe or disbelieve testimony based on our own experience and understanding.   You can watch your entire case fall apart with a couple of rulings from the bench that turn the tide.  That impacts a jury too. 

And, then there is the jury that decides that the poor family has suffered immensely and the cruise line has billions so let's award the family a few million.

A friend was on a jury judging an arson case.  It was very clear cut, the home owner had fired the house three times, the fire department had ruled it was arson three times.  But as soon as the foreman was selected he said:  "we all know that boy burnt that house because he was being screwed by his ex. The insurance company has plenty of money.  lets give the poor boy a break."  So, they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:


If my step-father put my baby out of the window and let go, you can bet I would blame him and not the cruise ship.  Same as if it happened on any other window not on a bottom floor.  Not everyone tries to blame innocent people or companies.

Not all will share that feeling.  Some will say but the cruise line should have anticipated and made sure it could not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Your quote doesn't say there was an offer either.  "Talking about an agreement" <> an offer. 

 

Perez told CBS that there was a verbal offer and the 2 sides were discussing the terms. Anello did not want the plea so there was no longer a need to hammer down terms nor write anything.

 

If Anello wanted the deal, the specific details would have been put to paper and signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Not all will share that feeling.  Some will say but the cruise line should have anticipated and made sure it could not happen.

How can you anticipate someone being so irresponsible as to picking up a baby and dangling her out of an open window 150 feet from the ground.

It has never happened before and hopefully never again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just unbelievable that this is still going on.  Those people have managed to lose any sympathy we have had for them.  Admit he was wrong and grieve privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

How can you anticipate someone being so irresponsible as to picking up a baby and dangling her out of an open window 150 feet from the ground.

It has never happened before and hopefully never again.

There are those who think all facets of life need to be idiot proofed, that we need to anticipate all manners of stupid, and protect everyone.   Ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers are an affliction on us all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

Not all will share that feeling.  Some will say but the cruise line should have anticipated and made sure it could not happen.

The only way that could not happen would be to bolt the windows closed and not allow cross ventilation on the deck. It is a ship for crying out loud!

Edited by coffeebean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

The only way that could not happen would be to bolt the windows closed and not allow cross ventilation on the deck. It is a ship for crying out loud!

Do you think a personal injury lawyer working on commission will care whether you have cross ventilation or not?

They will claim it isn't their problem and the money  grubbing cruise line should consider the safety of it's passengers before such mundane concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

Not all will share that feeling.  Some will say but the cruise line should have anticipated and made sure it could not happen.


That is definitely true.  We are in an age where many people don't feel like they should be held accountable for their actions.  They make excuses for bad behavior and resist any type of rules.  Those people should never be rewarded with high dollar settlements.  I know that they often are, but it doesn't make it right.  All I can do is teach my children that they are accountable for their own actions and am thankful they didn't grow up to be full of excuses and try to blame innocent people for their mistakes.

Royal is a multi-million dollar company, but that does not make it right for them to be blamed for the horrible actions of a careless person.  Just because a family is grieving doesn't make it right or ok either.  Not when they know the truth.

Edited by TNcruising02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

 There is not much of an age requirement to being a grandfather.  In theory, you could be one at forty (if not younger).  

Loretta Lynn was a grandmother at 28.  She had her first child at 14 and that child had a child at 14.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:


That is definitely true.  We are in an age where many people don't feel like they should be held accountable for their actions.  They make excuses for bad behavior and resist any type of rules.  Those people should never be rewarded with high dollar settlements.  I know that they often are, but it doesn't make it right.  All I can do is teach my children that they are accountable for their own actions and am thankful they didn't grow up to be full of excuses and try to blame innocent people for their mistakes.

Royal is a multi-million dollar company, but that does not make it right for them to be blamed for the horrible actions of a careless person.  Just because a family is grieving doesn't make it right or ok either.  Not when they know the truth.

Furthermore, you have a large contingent of the 'compassionate' ones. There the ones who want to help by giving them someone else's money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize it before (guess I missed it), but the grand father said that he held her with one hand because he was trying to knock on the glass with the other hand.  He claimed that he leaned out farther because he thought the glass was farther out than he expected.  It really seems like the police would have required the grandfather to submit to a drug and alcohol test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

And, then there is the jury that decides that the poor family has suffered immensely and the cruise line has billions so let's award the family a few million.

A friend was on a jury judging an arson case.  It was very clear cut, the home owner had fired the house three times, the fire department had ruled it was arson three times.  But as soon as the foreman was selected he said:  "we all know that boy burnt that house because he was being screwed by his ex. The insurance company has plenty of money.  lets give the poor boy a break."  So, they did.

 

And your  friend went along with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PhoenixCruiser said:

 

And your  friend went along with this?

Jury verdicts do not have to be unanimous in civil cases.  He was outvoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, coffeebean said:

The only way that could not happen would be to bolt the windows closed and not allow cross ventilation on the deck. It is a ship for crying out loud!

What's next no open balconies on the ships????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Jury verdicts do not have to be unanimous in civil cases.  He was outvoted.

The burden of proof is a lot less to. In a civil case, if you think the person was more likely to have done it than not, by law he is considered guilty and you should vote as such. In a criminal case you have to be sure he did it, if not he is considered not guilty.

I've been on a jury in both types of cases and the judge spells the requirements, for guilty or not guilty, very distinctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preponderance of the evidence (51%) in civil or administrative trials is different than beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is criminal, it would be beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

I didn't realize it before (guess I missed it), but the grand father said that he held her with one hand because he was trying to knock on the glass with the other hand.  He claimed that he leaned out farther because he thought the glass was farther out than he expected.  It really seems like the police would have required the grandfather to submit to a drug and alcohol test.

If remember correctly Grandpa refused to do Alcohol/Drug Test

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...