Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[gatour]

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

 

I don't think heat, age, jet lag, humidity, alcohol, or medicines had anything at all to do with it.  I think he simply had a colossal "brain fart" moment.  Since this happened (before the video came out) I have thought he looked out the window, saw something interesting, and wanted Chloe to see the same thing.  So he picked her up, showed her whatever was interesting, probably a couple things considering he held her for 30+ seconds, she squirmed and fell out of his grasp.  She happened to fall forward, which, since she was standing on the railing (at least), put her head, then the rest of her body out the window.     

More or less I agree with this.  He had a brain fart moment. He made a series of bad decisions that led to the death of the child.  If any one of the bad decisions didn't take place, the child would still be alive.

[compman9]

17 hours ago, cltnccruisers said:

To make it even more confusing, Royal is incorporated in Liberia but they are headquartered in Miami.  So should Liberia have any say in this?   Also, is there a difference between international law and maritime law?  When I was poking around with maritime law sites several years ago there was a distinction drawn between a ship on the high seas and one moored or even within territorial waters.

 

Shakespeare had it right in Henry VI.  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

 

Did you say Royal is incorporated in LIBERIA?

 

Talk about multi-national tax avoiding companies. I know it's a quick serve off topic but it's remarkable how many excuse all their faults on this messageboard

 

I would guess the law in Liberia is as flexible as a dollar note in sad cases like this 😉

[momofmab]

18 hours ago, Tree_skier said:

I was a grandfather at 37 and am 54 now.  It's pitiful that they are trying to portray this man at 51 as a frail old man. 

 

 

I'm 52 and would join the line of THOUSANDS of 50-ish people that the prosecution (in the criminal case) and the defense (in the civil case) could parade in front of the jury as proof that 50 ain't "frail".

 

He looks 70+ in the pics I've seen of him.

[vacationlover_mn]

Wow!  Had no idea it was incorporated in Liberia!  Had to google it... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Caribbean_Cruises

[chengkp75]

37 minutes ago, vacationlover_mn said:

Wow!  Had no idea it was incorporated in Liberia!  Had to google it... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Caribbean_Cruises

No major cruise line is incorporated in the US.  RCI is in Liberia, Carnival Corp & PLC is in Panama and the UK, NCLH is in Bermuda.  Despite some subsidiary lines being "US owned", that does not change the incorporation laws that apply to the parent corporation.

[cltnccruisers]

18 hours ago, brillohead said:

Until I started working as an RN, I had no idea how absolutely STUPID the majority of people actually are.  

Honestly, I truly believe that all the stupid warning labels have resulted in the further dumbing-down of the populace.  It used to be that people would get hurt/killed doing something stupid, and they'd learn (and their family/friends would learn from their example) not to do the stupid thing again.   

Now that we have labels telling us not to do pretty much anything that could cause us harm, nobody is learning these "common sense" lessons anymore.  Nobody has the ability to think through the consequences of their actions anymore, because nobody has any "bad examples" to learn from anymore.  

It blows my mind that anyone would need a sign to tell them not to dangle a baby over the railing of a cruise ship... but evidently that is what this world is coming to. 

 

I've always felt warning labels were for the protection of the owner/manufacturer against litigation.

[cltnccruisers]

15 hours ago, Midwestgal said:

If he was drinking it would be on his S&S card. I’m sure they checked all of their accounts for that.

Suppose they flew in that day and he was drinking on the plane?  Or perhaps he was impaired by medication instead?

[coffeebean]

44 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

I've always felt warning labels were for the protection of the owner/manufacturer against litigation.

Agree. I sincerely doubt most people don't even read those warning signs.

[Barnkitty]

Amazing that neither the attorney for the family, or the attorneys for RC have mentioned that the grandfather had to sign a guest contract acknowledging no climbing on or over any barriers, railings, etc.  And I have seen cautionary signs on RC before, just not necessary to have it on every single window.

 

And if there are really 11 other camera angles, why would RC need to release them to the public? Wait til the trial, and see even more evidence of stupidity.  I feel badly for the entire family, and I know when something bad happens and you feel helpless, you can take it out on everyone. By now, the family should have dropped the suit (IMO) and all be in counselling to deal with the step-grandfather.

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, Barnkitty said:

Amazing that neither the attorney for the family, or the attorneys for RC have mentioned that the grandfather had to sign a guest contract acknowledging no climbing on or over any barriers, railings, etc.  And I have seen cautionary signs on RC before, just not necessary to have it on every single window.

 

And if there are really 11 other camera angles, why would RC need to release them to the public? Wait til the trial, and see even more evidence of stupidity.  I feel badly for the entire family, and I know when something bad happens and you feel helpless, you can take it out on everyone. By now, the family should have dropped the suit (IMO) and all be in counselling to deal with the step-grandfather.

They should never have brought a suit against RC.

 

[vacationlover_mn]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No major cruise line is incorporated in the US.  RCI is in Liberia, Carnival Corp & PLC is in Panama and the UK, NCLH is in Bermuda.  Despite some subsidiary lines being "US owned", that does not change the incorporation laws that apply to the parent corporation.

Thanks Cheng, had no idea!

[KelSny1011]

If the family dropped the case wouldn't they be responsible for any fees due to their attorney then?  I would believe they are in too deep now.  

[DaniDanielle]

That is a good point.  Lawyer should never have taken the case.  We know that would never happen!

[grapau27]

28 minutes ago, KelSny1011 said:

If the family dropped the case wouldn't they be responsible for any fees due to their attorney then?  I would believe they are in too deep now.  

It is clear who was to blame and it is never too late to do the Right Thing and drop the case against RC.

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

2 hours ago, Barnkitty said:

And if there are really 11 other camera angles, why would RC need to release them to the public? Wait til the trial, and see even more evidence of stupidity.

They're not saying release the footage (which I don't think those other cameras show anything) to the public, but they will at some point need to give it to the other side as part of discovery.  Keep in mind (I read this in an article, sorry, don't remember which one) that two of the additional 11 "cameras" the investigating team identified were actually speakers. 

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

6 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

It is clear who was to blame and it is never too late to do the Right Thing and drop the case against RC.

If folks are right and the family is responsible for lawyer fees if they decide to drop the case, I could understand why they don't.  I'm willing to wager the lawyer fees are probably in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point. 

[grapau27]

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

If folks are right and the family is responsible for lawyer fees if they decide to drop the case, I could understand why they don't.  I'm willing to wager the lawyer fees are probably in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point. 

If that is the case they are in a mess but not a reason why an innocent party should pick up the tab.

From what I have seen on the video it is the step GF they should be sueing if that's the route they wanted to take.

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

8 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

If that is the case they are in a mess but not a reason why an innocent party should pick up the tab.

From what I have seen on the video it is the step GF they should be sueing if that's the route they wanted to take.

Not saying an innocent party should pick up the tab.  But put yourself in the family's shoes... you've hired this lawyer on the spur of the moment and let him file the lawsuit.  If (again, assuming other posters are right) you now decide to drop the case, you need to pay lawyer fees, or if you go ahead with the case and lose, you don't owe him anything (neither does RCI).  What would you do? 

 

[Cruiser_1977]

Keep in mind two different cases:

1) Criminal Defense attorney (Jose Perez) hired to defend Anello against the Negligent Homicide charge

2) The firm (Winkleman) hired to go after RCCL. That firm is Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. From their website "If you are struggling with the aftermath of a complicated offshore injury, death or accident, let us give you a free case evaluation to determine if you may be entitled to compensation for your medical care, pain, suffering and more. We work exclusively on a contingency fee basis. This means you never pay us a penny unless we make a successful recovery on your behalf." - https://www.lipcon.com/admiralty-maritime-lawyer/

Edited February 19, 2020 by JennyB1977

[grapau27]

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

Not saying an innocent party should pick up the tab.  But put yourself in the family's shoes... you've hired this lawyer on the spur of the moment and let him file the lawsuit.  If (again, assuming other posters are right) you now decide to drop the case, you need to pay lawyer fees, or if you go ahead with the case and lose, you don't owe him anything (neither does RCI).  What would you do? 

 

When you put it like that I fully understand the situation they are in.

 

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

5 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

Keep in mind two different cases:

1) Criminal Defense attorney (Jose Perez) hired to defend Anello against the Negligent Homicide charge

2) The firm (Winkleman) hired to go after RCCL. That firm is Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. From their website "If you are struggling with the aftermath of a complicated offshore injury, death or accident, let us give you a free case evaluation to determine if you may be entitled to compensation for your medical care, pain, suffering and more. We work exclusively on a contingency fee basis. This means you never pay us a penny unless we make a successful recovery on your behalf." - https://www.lipcon.com/admiralty-maritime-lawyer/

That was my understanding of how things worked also.  But a number of posters (here and elsewhere) have mentioned they might be on the hook for lawyer fees if they drop the case.  My comments recently have been assuming that is true.  If they can actually walk away with no financial loss, yea, they should. 

[grapau27]

3 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

Keep in mind two different cases:

1) Criminal Defense attorney (Jose Perez) hired to defend Anello against the Negligent Homicide charge

2) The firm (Winkleman) hired to go after RCCL. That firm is Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. From their website "If you are struggling with the aftermath of a complicated offshore injury, death or accident, let us give you a free case evaluation to determine if you may be entitled to compensation for your medical care, pain, suffering and more. We work exclusively on a contingency fee basis. This means you never pay us a penny unless we make a successful recovery on your behalf." - https://www.lipcon.com/admiralty-maritime-lawyer/

Thanks.

In the UK we have had a lot of

No Win No Fee Lawyer advertising in the last few years which is being copied from the US.

[grapau27]

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

That was my understanding of how things worked also.  But a number of posters (here and elsewhere) have mentioned they might be on the hook for lawyer fees if they drop the case.  My comments recently have been assuming that is true.  If they can actually walk away with no financial loss, yea, they should. 

I agree.

With the parents background surely they can see where the real blame lies for their daughters sad death and if they can walk away with no financial loss they should.

 

[KelSny1011]

 

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

That was my understanding of how things worked also.  But a number of posters (here and elsewhere) have mentioned they might be on the hook for lawyer fees if they drop the case.  My comments recently have been assuming that is true.  If they can actually walk away with no financial loss, yea, they should. 

They do have a G0 Fund me page that is public, however, I do not think that is enough money to pay for whatever attorney fees the family has accumulated thus far.

Edit: apparently you cannot type of g0fundme

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by KelSny1011

[jagsfan]

5 minutes ago, KelSny1011 said:

 

They do have a G0 Fund me page that is public, however, I do not think that is enough money to pay for whatever attorney fees the family has accumulated thus far.

Edit: apparently you cannot type of g0fundme

 

The parents have good paying jobs. Are they asking strangers to pay their attorneys fees?

If they would, in fact, have such fees.