Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[akcruz]

3 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

Could you also confirm how far the window actually is from the H2O-Zone?  We'll be on Freedom again in April, 2021, but a lot can change before then.  As I recall it's a good 30 feet but my memory hasn't been so good lately - or is it ever? I forget.

One of the lawsuit attachments, the 101 page one, posted a few days ago has the measurements in it.  It was definitely over 30 feet but don't the exact number.

[TravelerThom]

2 hours ago, time4u2go said:

Not so sure about that.  I have to think that there have been settlements in the past where they paid something.

Over $1 million in this suit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_George_Smith

[TravelerThom]

7 hours ago, cltnccruisers said:

I've had jury duty a couple of times and seen the challenge rules work as you describe.  But do they work the same way for a civil case?  Does there even have to be a jury?

I have served on juries in both criminal and civil cases. Within my limited experience challenge rules are the same if not identical, although there are quite likely variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Both criminal and civil cases may be trail by jury or trail by judge, depending on pre-trail maneuvering by both the defense and the prosecution (or plaintiff). Most cases, both criminal and civil, are settled before going to a jury decision. 

[ZoeyVictoria]

2 hours ago, akcruz said:

One of the lawsuit attachments, the 101 page one, posted a few days ago has the measurements in it.  It was definitely over 30 feet but don't the exact number.

I remember seeing 43 feet in this document.

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, MalteseMama2 said:

I will be on Freedom for her first sailing since amplification, March 8. I’ll go by there to see. I’m betting it will still open. 

I'll go in with you on that bet! Keep us posted.

[coffeebean]

44 minutes ago, TravelerThom said:

Over $1 million in this suit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_George_Smith

I don't understand why RCI paid any compensation to the Smith estate. Sounds like he was drunk and accidently went over the side of the ship or was tossed over the side of the ship. Again......why should RCI have to compensate the estate?

[cltnccruisers]

15 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I don't understand why RCI paid any compensation to the Smith estate. Sounds like he was drunk and accidently went over the side of the ship or was tossed over the side of the ship. Again......why should RCI have to compensate the estate?

Unless it was like the last bartender serving the last drink may be held liable for the drunk's actions afterwards?  I remember the story but wasn't into cruising then so never really followed it.

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

3 hours ago, MalteseMama2 said:

I will be on Freedom for her first sailing since amplification, March 8. I’ll go by there to see. I’m betting it will still open. 

Agreed.  I think any change to the window system before the civil case is finished gives ammunition to Winkleman... "See, they knew the windows were dangerous, that's why they changed them!".  

[coffeebean]

3 hours ago, cltnccruisers said:

Unless it was like the last bartender serving the last drink may be held liable for the drunk's actions afterwards?  I remember the story but wasn't into cruising then so never really followed it.

I think you are right about that. Just as a private citizen is responsible for serving liquor to guests and bad things can happen.

[ONECRUISER]

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

I think you are right about that. Just as a private citizen is responsible for serving liquor to guests and bad things can happen.

Agree.. Smith case was kind of a Unique situation also, Accidental/Murder ?, one the first real high profile missing at Sea cases. Was more questions then answers. The Wife and Mans Family though each thought they were only one entitled to a settlement. 

Edited March 1, 2020 by ONECRUISER

[ReneeFLL]

14 hours ago, eddeb said:

He is not a step-grandfather. He is the boyfriend 51 years old on G'ma. Her mom is 40.

The whole thing is nuts. RCCL will not lose a penny.  They never do. So glad when this

post goes away! Getting on the ship in one hour in Tampa! Yay!

By you adding to it doesn't help for it to go away. Don't post or read it if you don't like it. Simple as that.

[bobmacliberty]

The Smith case is not too far off from this case.  Sure, the details vary greatly.  If either case spends a lot of time in the media, Royal gets some really bad PR.  If you take a cruise and drink too much, you may "fall" overboard and die.  If you bring your children on a cruise, they may "fall" out an open window.  The details around what really happened won't matter.  This is all many people will hear and they will mentally uncheck a Royal cruise from their future vacation list.

 

Whether Royal is really responsible/liable/guilty is only partly relevant.  The risk if they somehow lose at trial (which is always a real possibility in any trial) would be huge.  They want to make this go away and the family's lawyers know it.  I still stand firmly behind my opinion...this case WILL NOT go to trial.  If not dismissed, then some sort of settlement, no admission of guilt, NDA.

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

3 minutes ago, bobmacliberty said:

The Smith case is not too far off from this case.  Sure, the details vary greatly.  If either case spends a lot of time in the media, Royal gets some really bad PR.  If you take a cruise and drink too much, you may "fall" overboard and die.  If you bring your children on a cruise, they may "fall" out an open window.  The details around what really happened won't matter.  This is all many people will hear and they will mentally uncheck a Royal cruise from their future vacation list.

 

Whether Royal is really responsible/liable/guilty is only partly relevant.  The risk if they somehow lose at trial (which is always a real possibility in any trial) would be huge.  They want to make this go away and the family's lawyers know it.  I still stand firmly behind my opinion...this case WILL NOT go to trial.  If not dismissed, then some sort of settlement, no admission of guilt, NDA.

If the bolded is true, why would they not have settled already?

[bobmacliberty]

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

If the bolded is true, why would they not have settled already?

First trying to get the case dismissed.  That's the best outcome for Royal.  If that doesn't work, settlement will be plan B.

[rusty nut]

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

If the bolded is true, why would they not have settled already?

Because a settlement, although not in a legal sense, is basically an admission of guilt. Talk about bad press. RC wants to avoid that. 

[bobmacliberty]

14 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

Because a settlement, although not in a legal sense, is basically an admission of guilt. Talk about bad press. RC wants to avoid that. 

I disagree.  A settlement with no admission of guilt would avoid any legal precedent.  In the court of public opinion, this quickly disappears when the next big news item takes over.  That's if a settlement even gets broadly reported (and by broadly, I'm not talking about here).  The media gets eyeballs from the initial event/circus atmosphere.  Page one, above the fold, in big letters (for those who remember newspapers 😀).  The don't get nearly as much attention from a technical legal outcome.  Buried on page 4 in small print.  Just another of many corporate legal settlements that happen all the time.

[brillohead]

30 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

I think this will settle too and that was the prosecution’s plant from the beginning. I would even bet money that persecution hasn’t even prepared for trial. They know big corps will pay large sums of money for things to quickly and quietly go away. It’s a win for the corp to have it cleared front the books (stock will go up) and obvious win for family. Sad reality of our legal system and getting sued in U.S.

I don't think you understand what's going on here. 

There are two different cases.  

Puerto Rican authorities charged Anello with negligent homicide.  That's a criminal case with a prosecutor (working for the PR government) and a defendant (Anello).

Chloe's greedy parents are suing Royal for monetary damages due to "faulty windows".  That's a civil case with a plaintiff (greedy parents represented by Winkleman) and a defendant (Royal). 


The prosecution in Anello's case had nothing to do with Royal's lawyers, and vice versa.

[uksimonusa]

So anyone have any idea when the Guilty Plea with the Deal will be entered?

[grandgeezer]

On 3/1/2020 at 10:39 AM, Heymarco said:

I think this will settle too and that was the prosecution’s plant from the beginning. I would even bet money that persecution hasn’t even prepared for trial. They know big corps will pay large sums of money for things to quickly and quietly go away. It’s a win for the corp to have it cleared front the books (stock will go up) and obvious win for family. Sad reality of our legal system and getting sued in U.S.

 

There are approximately 210,000,000 (million) shares of RCL stock outstanding. I can't imagine any settlement, or verdict, that would influence the stock price up, or down.

[TNcruising02]

The parents' attorney is still sticking to the story that Anello had no clue the window was open, so it was a danger to children and that there was no indication it was anything but a wall of glass.  That attorney said it was a hidden danger.  Ridiculous.
https://www.docdroid.net/9xdhHwI/reponse-to-amended-motion-to-dismiss.pdf#page=11

Replies due by 3/4/2020. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by TNcruising02

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

17 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

The parents' attorney is still sticking to the story that Anello had no clue the window was open, so it was a danger to children and that there was no indication it was anything but a wall of glass.  That attorney said it was a hidden danger.  Ridiculous.
https://www.docdroid.net/9xdhHwI/reponse-to-amended-motion-to-dismiss.pdf#page=11

Replies due by 3/4/2020. 

So they use this picture saying "it is incredibly difficult to tell which windows were open"

I somewhat agree.  From that angle, it looks like all of the upper and lower levels of windows are closed and the middle row is all open.  

 

BUT, Anello was not looking at the windows from that angle.  That has to be what, 10-12' off the deck?  He'd be standing with a more direct view.  Didn't the lawyer complain about the angles being deceiving from the security cameras?

 

Also, this picture is almost midway across the deck.  Wasn't he AT the window when he made his fatal decision to pick her up?

[TNcruising02]

Right.  Their example shows the windows across the deck, but they admit Anello was standing right in front of it and still said that he had no way to tell it was open because there were no decals.

Edited March 5, 2020 by TNcruising02

[coffeebean]

40 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Right.  Their example shows the windows across the deck, but they admit Anello was standing right in front of it and still said that he had no way to tell it was open because there were no decals.

I've said this before in a previous post......what about those large handles on the windows? The handles are a "dead" give a way that the "wall of glass" as the lawyer claims it is is actually a wall of glass and windows....the windows being the ones with the large handles. The Royal defense team should easily be able to prove this in court.

[Bloodgem]

"REPLY to Response to Motion re30 Amended MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint,28 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, Order on Motion f filed by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.. (Chardon, Carlos)"

 

This is the latest from the civil case.  Not sure I understand what it means but thought I would post it, in case someone else can make sense of it

[Newleno]

11 hours ago, coffeebean said:

I've said this before in a previous post......what about those large handles on the windows? The handles are a "dead" give a way that the "wall of glass" as the lawyer claims it is is actually a wall of glass and windows....the windows being the ones with the large handles. The Royal defense team should easily be able to prove this in court.

everyone knows the window was open, everyone knows the child was held over the railing  and was either placed over the ledge of the window or on the ledge of the window.  If the child was just placed on the railing it would be impossible for the child to fall out of the window on to the concrete below, if the child was just placed on the railing in that case the child would have landed on the deck.  Grandpa had the child way over the railing in order for the tragedy to occur.  If the child wanted to bang on the glass then the best place  to do that would have been on the ground.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Newleno