Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

NFT: Taking Personal Responsibility for Toddlers

FatMan in Charlotte : 7/11/2019 9:51 am
I don't know how many have followed the tragic story of the toddler who plunged to her death on a cruise ship. The initial reports said her Grandfather lost control of her and she slipped from his arms and fell. New information suggests that the Grandfather placed her in front of what he thought was a closed window, but it was open and she fell out.

The family now wants to hold Royal Caribbean liable for the death saying they didn't know the window was open.

I understand this is a tragedy, but why do people wish to deflect blame for their own actions? Those of us with kids know that we were hyper-sensitive about what our toddlers could and couldn't do. What they would put in their mouths. What items were left out for them to get to.

A grandfather places his granddaughter in front of an open window and doesn't realize it and wants to blame the cruise ship??? I'm hoping this case gets thrown out - but events like these can lead to cruise ships locking down all windows and stupid shit like that. All because one guy was too ignorant to realize a window was open.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: The case is just starting to stink...  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 10:06 am : link
In comment 14497199 UAGiant said:
Quote:
I really think the play is to drum up bad PR for RC and have them pay off the family to shut up


No doubt about it in my mind. It's why they're choosing to loudly broadcast patently absurd accounts of the incident that are easily dismissed simply by looking at a few pictures of the the pool deck area. It doesn't matter how obviously false it is so long as it lights a fire under Royal Caribbean.
RE: How would RC have...  
Josh in the City : 7/12/2019 10:09 am : link
In comment 14496516 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
fucked up though? The reports are that the window was open, which is being called a safety hazard.

And why would the family be "legally entitled" to compensation?

As a real estate developer in NYC I can tell you that the city has a law for all properties with 3 or more units that landlords have to install and maintain window guards for any apt that has a child age 10 years or younger. At minimum there should have been a warning that the windows were operable and acting like this should be an open and shut case is ignorant. Now if the windows was already open when the grandfather placed the kid against it then yes I agree. But that's not what I read.
Huh??  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 10:15 am : link
Quote:
Now if the windows was already open when the grandfather placed the kid against it then yes I agree. But that's not what I read.


Any account I've heard said that the window was open and the Grandfather thought it wasn't.

He placed the child on the railing to "bang on the window" since she apparently likes to do it at hockey games.

And logically speaking - it should be an open and shut case - as in no case is viable. A person physically lifted a child and placed her into danger. It had nothing to do with a lack of signage or a mechanical malfunction.
RE: Huh??  
Josh in the City : 7/12/2019 10:19 am : link
In comment 14497220 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:


Quote:


Now if the windows was already open when the grandfather placed the kid against it then yes I agree. But that's not what I read.



Any account I've heard said that the window was open and the Grandfather thought it wasn't.

He placed the child on the railing to "bang on the window" since she apparently likes to do it at hockey games.

And logically speaking - it should be an open and shut case - as in no case is viable. A person physically lifted a child and placed her into danger. It had nothing to do with a lack of signage or a mechanical malfunction.

Well if the window wasn't operable then it wouldn't be placing the child in danger, would it? Even if the window was closed and secured it wouldn't be placing the child in danger. So, no.
So..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 10:48 am : link
the answer is apparently to not have operable windows.

Let's just put people in a bubble - as long as it is puncture-proof - right?
This line of argument reminds me of Zoolander  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 10:53 am : link
The gasoline fight scene - at a certain point, it's on allegedly fully-functioning adults to use their brains. Not sitting a small child on a railing at an open window with 100 foot drop to concrete should be a fairly easy call to make.
RE: If an unsafe environment..  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 10:59 am : link
In comment 14497131 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
constitutes having openable windows in an area high enough to fall and get hurt, then are comfort and enjoyment options will be severely limited when environments are made "safe".

Using that logic, wouldn't every flight of stairs be an unsafe environment, especially for toddlers?

Hell, you are on a ship that once it leaves the dock is in an open expanse of water. Isn't that by nature an unsafe environment?



everyone of your points actually would be harmful to cruise ship defense that they took enough safety precautions here...
Grandfather definitely has much blame here  
montanagiant : 7/12/2019 11:11 am : link
Those above ointing out that the guardrail by the window was 4' is enough to be cautious.

My biggest question though is why have windows openable by passengers on a level that if someone falls they hit the concrete wharf when docked, or if at the sea, the Ocean. Those windows should have been controllable only by crew.
montana..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 11:17 am : link
on a ship where only guardrails keep people from falling in the ocean in certain areas, is that really a concern though?

Why not allow passengers to open windows? If it is for the sole reason that one of them doesn't take a dive off the ship, that's really just catering to the serially stupid or those hellbent on suicide.
There is a consistent lack of personal accountability today...  
EricJ : 7/12/2019 11:21 am : link
nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. An adult was supposed to be watching the toddler. The grandfather was holding the kid in his arms. It was his fault.

This law suit happy society we have now is absolutely ridiculous.
A tragic mistake  
crick n NC : 7/12/2019 11:24 am : link
I can't recall ever hearing about something like this (I'm just shy of 41)

Personally I would like to think that if I was the grandpa I would accept my responsibility for what happened. What an awful thing to live with, and having read what I have, I don't see how me personally could hold the ship accountable.

To me, even letting a toddler rest their weight against a window is still opening the chance for them to fall due to faulty window, granted the chance is small.

This is how I see the situation with the information that I have. I feel horrible for the family, especially the grandpa.
RE: RE: How would RC have...  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 11:33 am : link
In comment 14497217 Josh in the City said:
Quote:
In comment 14496516 FatMan in Charlotte said:


Quote:


fucked up though? The reports are that the window was open, which is being called a safety hazard.

And why would the family be "legally entitled" to compensation?


As a real estate developer in NYC I can tell you that the city has a law for all properties with 3 or more units that landlords have to install and maintain window guards for any apt that has a child age 10 years or younger. At minimum there should have been a warning that the windows were operable and acting like this should be an open and shut case is ignorant. Now if the windows was already open when the grandfather placed the kid against it then yes I agree. But that's not what I read.


It sounds to me like it is exactly an open or shut case.
I still don't understand the hang-up on the windows...  
UAGiant : 7/12/2019 11:47 am : link


That is the actual location the grandfather placed the child past the safety barrier and out the window.

These are not floor-to-ceiling windows with oil slicks and copious amounts of banana peals positioned in front of them in the newborn infant wing of the boat as the legal team representing the family would have you believe.

Further, this is Royal Caribbean - not Boscoe's Discount Boats. I am going out on a limb and assuming they are compliant with regulations on operable windows on a sea-fairing vessel - albeit my legal expertise does not extend much past Bird Law.

I'm sure going forward all windows will have more stickers on them than a car racing in NASCAR (if the windows open at all), but given we have not had a lot of (or any really) reports of people plunging to their deaths due to open windows in a sitting area - I am feeling somewhat confident there is some gross (criminal) negligence involved here.
UA..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 12:36 pm : link
I'd imagine the swimming pools and food prep parts of a cruise line would have much more stringent oversight, yet I doubt it has to be pointed out via signage that shoving a chicken bone down a toddler's throat might cause choking.

I'm sure there are warnings about drownings near the pool, but let's be realistic - if somebody drowns, we'd have the same discussion about liability regardless of the warnings.

People love to talk about signage, but it is not really a winnable situation. Let's say there was a warning about not climbing on railings (which there might be) - you still might have a smarmy lawyer argue that the signage was on the 4th window to the left and thus, out of eyesight of the Grandfather.

I wish common sense prevailed in these types of situations, but based on the warnings that the public cries are needed - I'm guessing it doesn't.
The object isn't to "win"  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 12:47 pm : link
its all about mitigation. Common sense is always the easy retort but not a sole prevailing one...
Eh...  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 12:58 pm : link
Iím not sure what the argument is here? The family shouldnít be allowed to bring suit? And this is determined by a standard of personal responsibility? The delta between posters is exactly what a court would consider.

If you operate a business that serves toddlers and old people, you have a responsibility to make the environment safe. I argue a standard of safety similar to that of a hotel or apartment building. Here, a toddler died, the grampa wasnít try to kill the kid, so, I donít think the level of safety was adequate.

Regarding ďpersonal responsibilityĒ the other side of that argument would be, I guess, business or corporate responsibility. Does the company have no culpability here? Should they be allowed to operate under any conditions? Should they be allowed to leave, for instance, booze unattended and claim that parents and guardians are solely responsible for keeping their wards safe? Should the company be free to sell tickets to old people and toddlers and leave random windows open in all areas? Probably not, and I think the courts will help establish reasonable standards for safety and personal responsibility.
RE: Eh...  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 1:03 pm : link
In comment 14497403 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
Does the company have no culpability here?


Nope. Where does this nonsense end? If a kid jams a fork in an outlet, is that the cruise line's fault? If a parent leaves a baby unattended in a full bath tub and the child drowns, does the cruise line bear responsibility if there weren't warning signs plastered all over everything?

I just want to get you on record here - your argument is that a mature, ostensibly functional adult has to be warned against holding a one year old at (or possible even outside of) a window overlooking a hundred foot drop?
I'm at a loss..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 1:12 pm : link
here:

Quote:
Here, a toddler died, the grampa wasnít try to kill the kid, so, I donít think the level of safety was adequate.


Do you expect a 100% safe environment here? The Grandfather set the toddler on a railing that overlooked an open window. He may not have been trying to kill the kid, but the point is that the kid didn't kill herself, nor would've been able to without the assistance of being placed on a railing.

Please help me understand what safeguard the cruise line needs to implement to keep a person from intentionally setting a child on a railing?

The level of safety is adequate to protect against a person unintentionally walking over the railing and falling. Should there be metal bars? Should it be impossible to open windows?

Better yet - why would you have the expectation that the cruise ship needs to have that type of additional security? Because of one person who did a dangerous and stupid thing?
20 million people  
family progtitioner : 7/12/2019 1:19 pm : link
cruise every year. I've heard of passengers falling overboard before but never anything like this. This is a total outlier. It's very obvious that there's no way the child could have fallen without help but of course there is a lawyer waiting to pounce on some settlement money anyway.

I think these types of lawsuits have set good precedents in the past, like love canal, but the pendulum has swung way too far.
You seem to want to believe that once "adequate sufficiency"  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 1:27 pm : link
has been met that potential culpability still doesn't exist.

Hardly ever in this world is there an absolute right or an absolute wrong. And even if there is then its still subject to the overall common sense of the person judging.

But continue the soapbox posts and we will keep responding...
I don't want..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 1:33 pm : link
to believe anything other than a person placing a toddler on a railing overlooking an open window is not the fault of the cruise line.

This isn't a case of a malfunction. It isn't the case of having a dangerous environment. It is a case of a person lifting another person to a railing that faces an open window

If somebody really believes the cruise line is at fault then there is no incident that can happen on a ship that isn't the fault of the cruise line.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the long troll takes that contrary position.
The reality is...  
UAGiant : 7/12/2019 1:38 pm : link
The CC video is going to be a major determinant in where we go from here.

My major ax to grind is with the lawyer and law team playing the propaganda game to clearly taking advantage of people who do not read past the headline (as was repeated ad nauseam in this thread) and create a narrative that the cruise ship acted in a callous manner and that no reasonable adult could have prevented the death of this poor child by leaving an open window in a nursery.

Thankfully none of us will ever be subjected to watching the video, but I hope it can produce closure for the parents, the poor toddler and make ships safe for the general public without forcing people to be bubble wrapped upon entry. I also hope the grandfather is held accountable for his actions, though I do not envy him for the way he will lead the remainder of his life.

If revisions do need to be made, so be it - but I do hope there is an honest narrative about what occurred, which has been my argument (albeit I likely painted that stance with too much "color").
RE: I don't want..  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 1:55 pm : link
In comment 14497441 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
to believe anything other than a person placing a toddler on a railing overlooking an open window is not the fault of the cruise line.

This isn't a case of a malfunction. It isn't the case of having a dangerous environment. It is a case of a person lifting another person to a railing that faces an open window

If somebody really believes the cruise line is at fault then there is no incident that can happen on a ship that isn't the fault of the cruise line.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the long troll takes that contrary position.


Yet another absolute to make your point...not getting it

And it doesnít surprise me that you canít believe your opinion or view is also different than others. You should lose the contrarian bit as it has not shown you well lately...
RE: Eh...  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 2:29 pm : link
In comment 14497403 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
Iím not sure what the argument is here? The family shouldnít be allowed to bring suit? And this is determined by a standard of personal responsibility? The delta between posters is exactly what a court would consider.

If you operate a business that serves toddlers and old people, you have a responsibility to make the environment safe. I argue a standard of safety similar to that of a hotel or apartment building. Here, a toddler died, the grampa wasnít try to kill the kid, so, I donít think the level of safety was adequate.

Regarding ďpersonal responsibilityĒ the other side of that argument would be, I guess, business or corporate responsibility. Does the company have no culpability here? Should they be allowed to operate under any conditions? Should they be allowed to leave, for instance, booze unattended and claim that parents and guardians are solely responsible for keeping their wards safe? Should the company be free to sell tickets to old people and toddlers and leave random windows open in all areas? Probably not, and I think the courts will help establish reasonable standards for safety and personal responsibility.


You jumped from a reasonable person standard which is pretty apparent was in place when this incident occurred to examples of gross negligence.

This isn't that.
I'm actually curious to hear people's answers to Greg's hypothetical  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 2:33 pm : link
suppose the toddler did put a fork in an electrical outlet and died? There is no signage, so far as I am aware, on all the wall outlets warning someone not to put eating utensils in the holes.

What would be the ship's culpability if this had happened instead?

It's not really all that different.
LOL..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 2:43 pm : link
Quote:
And it doesnít surprise me that you canít believe your opinion or view is also different than others. You should lose the contrarian bit as it has not shown you well lately...


I certainly believe there are others that hold a different opinion. It's more a disbelief that those people are that fucking stupid. At least those who aren't doing it intentionally like you.

And yes - saying the cruise line is at fault after being shown things on this thread (especially UA's photos) most definitely makes one a contrarian.

You can wear it proudly - and I'm sure you do - as looking like a fucking moron doesn't seem to bother you in the least.
RE: RE: Eh...  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 2:45 pm : link
In comment 14497563 Bill L said:
Quote:

You jumped from a reasonable person standard which is pretty apparent was in place when this incident occurred to examples of gross negligence.

This isn't that.


If youíre reasonable person, but that standard alone doesnít satisfy me. I honestly havenít reviewed all the facts of the matter. But Iím entirely comfortable with the concept of an impartial judiciary and apparatus doing so to an enforceable conclusion. Again, to me, this is an example of the system working, not otherwise.
I love when you move to cursing and names...  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 2:52 pm : link
always shows your losing causes with me. Stay civil in your debates with me because your comical otherwise as mostly a ponderous troll who only plays bully with others...



RE: RE: RE: Eh...  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 2:53 pm : link
In comment 14497592 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
In comment 14497563 Bill L said:


Quote:



You jumped from a reasonable person standard which is pretty apparent was in place when this incident occurred to examples of gross negligence.

This isn't that.



If youíre reasonable person, but that standard alone doesnít satisfy me. I honestly havenít reviewed all the facts of the matter. But Iím entirely comfortable with the concept of an impartial judiciary and apparatus doing so to an enforceable conclusion. Again, to me, this is an example of the system working, not otherwise.


and the fork question?
RE: I'm at a loss..  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 2:58 pm : link
In comment 14497419 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Here, a toddler died, the grampa wasnít try to kill the kid, so, I don
Do you expect a 100% safe environment here? The Grandfather set the toddler on a railing that overlooked an open window. He may not have been trying to kill the kid, but the point is that the kid didn't kill herself, nor would've been able to without the assistance of being placed on a railing.

Please help me understand what safeguard the cruise line needs to implement to keep a person from intentionally setting a child on a railing?

The level of safety is adequate to protect against a person unintentionally walking over the railing and falling. Should there be metal bars? Should it be impossible to open windows?

Better yet - why would you have the expectation that the cruise ship needs to have that type of additional security? Because of one person who did a dangerous and stupid thing?


The 100% safe environment is a straw man, so of course not. But an open window large enough to pass through a small child to a drop of more than 100 feet would satisfy my standard of reasonably safe. As far as acceptable standards and an actual solution, I suggest a standard of safety similar to US hotels and apartments.
I am near 40 years  
Bubba : 7/12/2019 3:01 pm : link
in the insurance business. Signs are a double edged sword.
"Beware of Dog" being the classic. When the dog bites someone the blame is cast to the dog owner because he knew he had a vicious dog hence the need to post the sign. One of my favorites (true story) lawn mower company sued because an operator decided to lift it to trim his hedges. He lost control of it and seriously injured himself. The lawsuit indicated there were several warnings posted on the mower but not one saying do not use it to trim hedges. If you post warnings you have to post everything possible. Even then someone will do something not anticipated.

I had a client years ago drive his car into a building. His excuse... the building sticks out to far.

I kid you not and I could do this all day long.

Bottom line, people are free to do stupid things cause harm to selves and others and there is always an excuse and possible scapegoat. If all people owned up to their actions I would have fewer claims.
ďnotĒ ^  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 3:02 pm : link
not satisfy
Apparently there is a safety rail  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 3:03 pm : link
so the question is to determine the distance needed to make a child untossable. Which probably depends on the average physique and physical strength of senile, possibly drunk, grandfathers.
Is everybody fucking stupid or something?  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 3:08 pm : link
Fat man already gave his opinion so thatís the absolute right answer.

Ponderous fuckstick trolls...every damn one of you!
RE: RE: RE: RE: Eh...  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 3:24 pm : link
In comment 14497601 Bill L said:
Quote:
and the fork question?


The fork question is also a straw man, likely with no serious intention of debate, but Iíll bite b/c Iím in SFO with two hours to kill.

The fork in electric socket question requires context and subsequent deliberation. Is the toddler in a day care? A school? A lab or an office complex? Perhaps on an airplane or a train? From where did the fork come and by whom was the fork given to the toddler?

Does personal responsibility completely exonerated and exempt all companies and persons from any and all liability and responsibility for everything? Of course thatís a ridiculous position Iím certain you donít take. But, to me at least, itís the other side of the ďpersonal responsibilityĒ argument.

As usual, the answer is somewhere in between. I donít think taking a toddler to sea makes any sense whatsoever. Less so, to hoist said toddler atop a guard rail in front of an open window. But, the cruise line markets to families and sells tickets to toddlers and old people and so has a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment. I think. And as previously said, a window large enough to pass through a small child above more 100 feet of concrete (and open ocean!) doesnít satisfy my notion of reasonably safe.
How about this one from today?  
BigBlue in Keys : 7/12/2019 3:50 pm : link
You can't fix stupid!
Women arrested driving with pool/kids on roof - ( New Window )
Good post trueblue but  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 4:47 pm : link
again, the OP said it best that opinions that differ from his are just stupid. So please refrain from any more such posts that do that...


RE: Good post trueblue but  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 4:58 pm : link
In comment 14497699 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
again, the OP said it best that opinions that differ from his are just stupid. So please refrain from any more such posts that do that...



Well, my wifeís plane just landed anyway so my timeís up.
A four foot high railing isn't safe enough for you  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 5:03 pm : link
Talk about a "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" moment.

There is no way for a small child to accidentally fall from that window. None, zero, nada. Have any other children fallen through one of these windows? Doesn't appear so, since there is one indispensable condition for this accident - a man stupid enough to hold a toddler in an open window 100 feet from the ground. Fortunately, few people are that stupid.

How about the railings on the open decks now? We need to fence people in so it feels like a fucking prison ship?
Greg  
Sneakers O'toole : 7/12/2019 5:14 pm : link
People want a bubble wrapped world.
Too funny!  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 6:20 pm : link
Just checked into the Grand Hyatt in SF, weíre on the 18th floor with a balcony. But... the door to the balcony only opens an inch, apparently to keep people from going outside and either falling off or throwing stuff off or otherwise getting in trouble. Karma.
That sums it up  
Sneakers O'toole : 7/12/2019 7:50 pm : link
I want a world where I'm free to enjoy hotel balconies.
Yes that sums it up  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 9:29 pm : link
alright...
These lawsuits come with consequences  
Sneakers O'toole : 7/13/2019 12:57 am : link
for the rest of us.
Sneakers ....the war on fun is fucking real and has  
Zeke's Alibi : 7/13/2019 1:38 am : link
been going on for years. I went to Preakness the last year you could byob and had a blast. It was like taking a break from society for a day. That is over with now. Fun and enjoyment has been going the wayside for years because we have to kowtow to morons.
LOL..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/13/2019 11:56 am : link
Quote:
Is everybody fucking stupid or something?
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 3:08 pm : link : reply
Fat man already gave his opinion so thatís the absolute right answer.

Ponderous fuckstick trolls...every damn one of you!


Not every damn one of you. Just you!

RE: Sneakers ....the war on fun is fucking real and has  
ron mexico : 7/13/2019 12:24 pm : link
In comment 14497920 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
been going on for years. I went to Preakness the last year you could byob and had a blast. It was like taking a break from society for a day. That is over with now. Fun and enjoyment has been going the wayside for years because we have to kowtow to morons.


Please don't tell me the running of the urinals is dead

LOL at yourself chuckles...  
Jimmy Googs : 7/13/2019 1:34 pm : link
You won't even get thru the weekend before you go off and berate the next poster(s) that go contrary with your proactive or reactive views.

it so common that it really isn't ponderous at this point...
A 100% safe environment ?  
Ron from Ninerland : 7/13/2019 11:02 pm : link
No, Its unrealistic to provide a 100% safe environment, but in a controlled vacation experience, like a family oriented cruise ship, resort, hotel, or theme park safety should be the number one priority. From the pictures posted by UAGiant, this design looks like an accident waiting to happen, and its a design I have not seen on NCL, Princess, Holland America or Disney. Its true you can fall off the lifeboat deck into the water, but there are never many people on the life boat deck. There are few other unenclosed areas where you can fall right off the ship and not land elsewhere on the ship . In an observation lounge, the windows should be sealed. On the top deck you should have high barriers except in the back. If you do fall over one of the relatively low railings on the back you will generally land elseware on the ship.

I'm not taking the Grandfather's side. I wouldn't be surprised if the S.O.B. was drunk, but there are a lot of drunk people on cruise ships and that has to be taken into account. One should expect a higher standard of safety on a mega cruise ship then one would expect in a national park, or an adults only vacation
RE: A 100% safe environment ?  
section125 : 7/14/2019 8:15 am : link
In comment 14498314 Ron from Ninerland said:
Quote:
No, Its unrealistic to provide a 100% safe environment, but in a controlled vacation experience, like a family oriented cruise ship, resort, hotel, or theme park safety should be the number one priority. From the pictures posted by UAGiant, this design looks like an accident waiting to happen, and its a design I have not seen on NCL, Princess, Holland America or Disney. Its true you can fall off the lifeboat deck into the water, but there are never many people on the life boat deck. There are few other unenclosed areas where you can fall right off the ship and not land elsewhere on the ship . In an observation lounge, the windows should be sealed. On the top deck you should have high barriers except in the back. If you do fall over one of the relatively low railings on the back you will generally land elsewhere on the ship.

I'm not taking the Grandfather's side. I wouldn't be surprised if the S.O.B. was drunk, but there are a lot of drunk people on cruise ships and that has to be taken into account. One should expect a higher standard of safety on a mega cruise ship then one would expect in a national park, or an adults only vacation


The safety standard is extremely high. And no, observation decks should not be enclosed. There is no place you can fall off a deck unless you try real hard or are impaired and still try real hard.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner