NFT: Taking Personal Responsibility for Toddlers

though I will add that I've been outraged at apparently dumb lawsuits in the past and when I learned the details, changed my mind.

the same incident.

Of course the grandfather should've been more careful, but if RC fucked up somehow as well and played even a small part in this tragedy, then why should the family forfeit the monetary compensation that they are legally entitled to?

If RC has no fault at all, they'll have their day in court to prove that. They certainly have the cash to higher good lawyers lobby their case.

and when the child pressed on the window it opened and she fell out?

that's been in front of the cameras sounds like a complete tool though.

"Royal Caribbean has been criminally negligent in this case. No notices that windows may be open directly lead to the child's death".

Ummm. No. Leaving a toddler in front of an open window did.

but when you are so embarrassed and ashamed that it was because of your own negligence, deflecting seems natural. Certainly not excusing it but I get it from a mental standpoint.

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?

Aside from a handful of facts, mostly passed through PR at the cruise line?

I generally agree with the sentiment - but if this turns out to be a play area for children, should there really be a window that has an 11 story drop right outside with no protection?

I'd say hold off for now, see what else comes out.

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?

They are legally entitled to compensation if they win their lawsuit or RC settles the case.

If a reputable attorney thinks they have a good case, they lose zero by going forward with it. The attorney likely only gets paid if RC pays. Either they lose the case and are in the same position as if they didn't file, or they get money they are legally entitled to.

I'd rather see what happens in court when all the evidence comes out rather than making a judgment based on press releases.

it's probably a natural human emotion to want someone to lash out on and channel your pain and emotion to a source.

Not excusing the behavior, but people seem to always look for someone to blame in times of a tragedy beyond the obviously responsible party.

I won't mention the traditional occurrences in American society where this is most obvious, but you can imagine.

but this story really got to me. Just a complete tragedy all around. Multiple lives ruined and scarred forever.

I think we can all imagine looking for anyone else to even take part of the blame in a situation like that. How could the grandfather even live with himself? I don't know how you come back from that afterward.

If an attorney comes along and says, well RC should've had X safety measure and I have cases A, B, C on the books where similar situations happened and the company had to pay because they didn't have adequate safety measures in place, I'm sure most grieving families would be willing to listen not only for the money, but to also try and alleviate some of the unbearable and frankly, unimaginable, guilt.

My wife and I are going away and when we were planning we talked about cruises and just came to the conclusion to rule them out completely.

Our 2 year old, like most, is a climber and a mini acrobat. The thought of try to contain her on the deck of a ship with rails, steps, balconies, etc. just did not appeal to us.

Not trying to suggest that people shouldn't take toddlers on cruises but for my wife and I, we didn't feel we'd be able to relax and enjoy ourselves in that environment.

It just sucks these accidents have to happen but it always comes back to accountability. Yesterday I read about an infant being killed after the family dog (a Husky) went into its room and bit its head. I can't imagine the pain and regret I'd feel if the animal I chose to have as a pet in my home wound up killing my child.

As mysterious to most lawyers as the sea itself.

In comment 14496515 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

but when you are so embarrassed and ashamed that it was because of your own negligence, deflecting seems natural. Certainly not excusing it but I get it from a mental standpoint.

This and what Metnut say below make much sense.

In comment 14496515 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

but when you are so embarrassed and ashamed that it was because of your own negligence, deflecting seems natural. Certainly not excusing it but I get it from a mental standpoint.

That, and the possibility of a large money settlement. Lawyers don't get involved if there isn't a chance for a big payday.

...news stories rarely list all the facts.

In a cruise ship, I'd expect the same 'window' precautions as hotels. Hotels don't have windows that open fully enough to fall out of, at least not in the US.

FWIW, a cruise liner is a sucky place to bring a toddler.

To me, it does sound like a major league fuckup, like the stories we see every year where someone FORGETS ABOUT THE BABY IN THE BACK SEAT and leaves them in a hot car in summer.

Also brings back memories of the toddler attacked by a GATOR at Disney.

Imagine going on vacation and coming home short one kid. Holy fuck.

that there would be an open "window" on a ship. Because of the load on the air conditioning systems, most ships don't have windows that open. It is possible but I cannot conceive of any reason to have one.

And if there was an open window, why would you place a child in it?

Of course a toddler could climb out, but I'm inclined to believe the truth is closer to what was initially reported: the grandfather lifted her up. Either way it's no excuse for the grandfather, and RC should not be liable. Shall we ban open-able doors and windows for all hotels with balconies as well?

Personally I think I'd be too paranoid to really enjoy a cruise with our little guy unless he was on a leash while on board. I can't fathom the grief that family is feeling, but I also feel a lot of anger towards whoever was supposed to be watching the girl.

Royal Caribbean is guilty of having windows that are too clean.

I agree FatMan, responsibility has to be on the parents, or guardians, and this shifting of responsibility is just wrong.

What can RCL do to avoid a passenger's stupidity?

the shipping company is at fault if there is even the most minimal fault on their part - as far as crew injuries are concerned - so I would imagine the same is true for passengers.

Ports or "windows" open inward, not outward because of the way there would be secured for rough weather.

That a person would assume a window was in that particular location, then yes, RCL would be liable. I’m not sure of the choice of law provision in the cruise contract you agree to when buying your tickets, but it’s likely a state that was carefully chosen by the cruise line. I’m not sure what necessarily applies here.

Just an awful, awful situation.

window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it.

In comment 14496525 Marty in Albany said:

Quote:

As mysterious to most lawyers as the sea itself.

This is true. I used to follow a fellow that would write a monthly column on scenarios/cases where admiralty law would apply. The laws seemed completely different than those applied on land. Even though the author’s specialty was admiralty law, sometimes he was at a loss to explain how the written law was interpreted in order to reach the verdict

In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said:

Quote:

window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it.

I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none.

They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works.

my point is that it should be up to the guardian to recognize if there is an open window.

You know why there are precautions on windows in hotels? Because of lawsuits like this and the possibility someone can jump out of a window.

Basically, we've legislated stupidity buffers.

My overarching comment is that tragedies can rarely be seen as unblamed tragedies these days. A toddler falling to their death isn't preventable by RC unless the captain veered into a wave intentionally trying to toss people overboard. Anything else is just semantical crap trying to assign a portion of blame to them.

The bottom line is if you are too stupid to not recognize a window is open, that isn't on RC.

When my 85-year old aunt walked through my screen door a couple years ago - should I have been liable?

In comment 14496566 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works.

That picture is not like the video I saw where the open window was easily mistaken for the closed ones, but there's always the rush to condemn.

In comment 14496582 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

my point is that it should be up to the guardian to recognize if there is an open window. You know why there are precautions on windows in hotels? Because of lawsuits like this and the possibility someone can jump out of a window. Basically, we've legislated stupidity buffers. My overarching comment is that tragedies can rarely be seen as unblamed tragedies these days. A toddler falling to their death isn't preventable by RC unless the captain veered into a wave intentionally trying to toss people overboard. Anything else is just semantical crap trying to assign a portion of blame to them. The bottom line is if you are too stupid to not recognize a window is open, that isn't on RC. When my 85-year old aunt walked through my screen door a couple years ago - should I have been liable?

Does your aunt look like the hey kool-aid guy? If so, you are liable only if you said "crash bang boom" afterwards.

Most major cities (I am most familiar with NYC) have code and regulation in place to prevent windows from opening by larger than several inches to prevent exactly this type of thing from happening in high-rises or apartment buildings. I don't know exactly how the window was designed, or how it opened - but regardless, in a children's play area (which this area was described as), the utmost care should have been taken on the boat's Owner to make sure this could never happen under any circumstance.

In comment 14496566 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works.

If Admiralty Law provides the statues by which this negligent gramps can leverage a huge settlement out of the cruise line by dint of a civil suit, then it would also be right if the cruise line officials - who represent the law and law enforcement bodies on board their ship, have the right to criminally prosecute the gramps for negligent manslaughter of his grandchild, I would think.

And FMiC, your thread title is two words too long IMO.

It's a deep issue in our society.

In comment 14496583 gmenatlarge said:

Quote:

In comment 14496566 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works. That picture is not like the video I saw where the open window was easily mistaken for the closed ones, but there's always the rush to condemn.

Have not seen the video, but you do realize that video does not give true images because of lack of depth (3D). And yes, depending on how old the man is, maybe his eyes aren't that good. But it goes back to why in God's name would you place an active child on a handrail and especially next to a window? Would you place a child on a handrail and allow a child to fall against a window as a safety?

I doubt we ever get a real story.

call people negligent to protect ourselves from open things like windows, that's an issue.

Again - it goes to the personal responsibility. Basically, you can abdicate any sense of responsibility by blaming a 3rd party for negligence.

The whole reason code exists on limiting how wide a window can open is because of frivolous crap like this. Deflection of responsibility.

Should high-rise hotels and apartments eliminate balconies because somebody can fall?

In comment 14496602 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

call people negligent to protect ourselves from open things like windows, that's an issue. Again - it goes to the personal responsibility. Basically, you can abdicate any sense of responsibility by blaming a 3rd party for negligence. The whole reason code exists on limiting how wide a window can open is because of frivolous crap like this. Deflection of responsibility. Should high-rise hotels and apartments eliminate balconies because somebody can fall?

No, but they should have railings that are sufficiently high and stable to prevent as many people from falling as possible.

then that window is plenty high enough so a toddler can't just wander into it and plunge to death.

In comment 14496589 BlueLou'sBack said:

Quote:

In comment 14496566 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works. If Admiralty Law provides the statues by which this negligent gramps can leverage a huge settlement out of the cruise line by dint of a civil suit, then it would also be right if the cruise line officials - who represent the law and law enforcement bodies on board their ship, have the right to criminally prosecute the gramps for negligent manslaughter of his grandchild, I would think. And FMiC, your thread title is two words too long IMO. It's a deep issue in our society.

Lou, I have 40 years experience working on ships (not passenger thank heavens) 23 as Captain. That is not the way admiralty law works. Not sure on passengers, but the judge/court assigns percentage of fault(because all accidents have degrees of culpability). Maybe 25% the ship's fault and 75% the parents(I admit to semi-guessing on the passenger part)..It is almost never just one side wins all and the otherside loses all.
When it comes to crew injuries (passengers too???? IDK) if there is the tiniest of negligence on the shipping company's part the shipping company is responsible in some degree.

I'm certain this will be handled outside of court. Court cases make headlines and stay in the news. Settlements fade away.

In comment 14496605 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

then that window is plenty high enough so a toddler can't just wander into it and plunge to death.

If the window is safe then they'll lose in court and the attorney will have likely wasted hundreds of hours of labor for no compensation.

It's just hard for me to judge whether it's safe or not until all the evidence comes out. Press releases rarely give enough information on this sort of stuff.

issue first caught my eye was when the family lawyer talked about RC being criminally negligent. How this was completely on them. I get that it is his job to sensationalize things - but is it right to do so??

The toddler could not have fallen without assistance. The toddler would not have died had the Grandfather not picked her up and placed her on a window railing. And again - this is a terrible tragedy, but the death is directly attributable to the actions of the grandfather.

The broader point is that accepting personal responsibility wanes more and more each year.

In comment 14496613 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

issue first caught my eye was when the family lawyer talked about RC being criminally negligent. How this was completely on them. I get that it is his job to sensationalize things - but is it right to do so?? The toddler could not have fallen without assistance. The toddler would not have died had the Grandfather not picked her up and placed her on a window railing. And again - this is a terrible tragedy, but the death is directly attributable to the actions of the grandfather. The broader point is that accepting personal responsibility wanes more and more each year.

I would also be inclined to feel he placed her there to get the breeze in her face, not that he did not see the open window.....

not sure why warnings need to be plastered everywhere:

Quote:

"He puts her up on there thinking she's going to bang on the glass and it's going to be great, and she goes to bang on the glass and the next thing he knows she's gone,” Winkleman said. Winkleman said Royal Caribbean should have provided some sort of notice. "How about a warning? How about a sign? How about something?" he said.

"Warning: window may or may not be open. Don't place toddlers on them!"

Is that the solution?

HA! The attorney actually invoked the screed door analogy!

Quote:

"We've all had that experience where someone walks into a glass sliding door thinking it's not there," Winkleman said. "This is the inverse of that." The attorney for the family of 18-month-old Chloe Wiegand says she loved banging on the glass at her brother's hockey games. That's why her grandfather, Salvatore Anello, picked her up and sat her on a wooden rail in front of what he thought was a wall of enclosed glass windows, he said.

So basically, because the window might have looked closed, it is RC's fault that it wasn't. I'd love to hear how it is the arena's fault when the plexiglass she's banging on reverberates back on her skull when hockey players crash into it!!

in boxes of electronics and eats them.

.

It is not a play area, it is a general sitting area.

There are guard rails that prevent people from getting too close or leaning over/out the window.

Several of them are clearly open in the video and the windows that are closed are clearly tinted in a blue hue.
Link - ( New Window )

No, it's not a "kids play area". I took a cruise on a very similar RC ship last summer. That is the deck seating area near the pool. That's why you see chaise lounges there - the pool area is behind the guys standing on the right. People often bring their food out to eat at the tables along those windows. Since it can get hot there, they can open the windows to let a breeze in.

I'm sorry, having been on such a ship and having sat at a table next to those windows like the ones you see in the picture, there is no doubt in my mind that this is 100% negligence/poor judgment on the part of the grandfather. Those railings are maybe 3 or 4 inches from the window. There is absolutely no way a functioning adult would be unaware that the window was open while placing a child on that railing. If the child were facing the window, as she would be to bang on it, her legs would physically hit the window when she sat on the railing - it's nonsense. I 100% believe the initial story - the grandfather knowingly, foolishly sat her on the railing at the open window and she slipped out of his grasp and fell.

In comment 14496630 Bill L said:

Quote:

in boxes of electronics and eats them.

why does my lawn mower say in the instruction manual don't put your hands or feet in the blade when the lawnmower is running?

Why does it say don't pick this lawnmower up and use on shrubs like a weed whacker?

Everything has to be idiot proofed solely to avoid litigation when the idiot does the inevitable idiotic thing.

Exactly, they are tinted because it's a shaded seating area. Also, you can feel the breeze coming in through the windows - that's why people open them in the first place!

The grandfather is either a senile idiot who couldn't tell than an obviously open window is open, or he was incredibly negligent in putting a toddler on an open railing 100 feet in the air.

The next link shows the play area - with the sitting area to the side.

Again - windows are clearly open with a guardrail and tinted a blue color for those that are closed.
Link - ( New Window )

the lawyer keeps referencing that it is a child's play area:

Quote:

Winkleman said the family wanted to know why a window that “should have been closed securely” was open. Winkleman said the family is “understandably too distraught to talk” about the tragedy. “The family needs answers as to why there would be an open window in a wall full of fixed windows in a kids’ play area? Why would you have the danger without any warning, sign, or notice?” he asked.

It seems like sensationalizing this event is his main vehicle to try and win a suit. But is it ethical?

It's a good 50 feet plus from the edge of the kids pool area to the windows.

In comment 14496658 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the lawyer keeps referencing that it is a child's play area: Quote: Winkleman said the family wanted to know why a window that “should have been closed securely” was open. Winkleman said the family is “understandably too distraught to talk” about the tragedy. “The family needs answers as to why there would be an open window in a wall full of fixed windows in a kids’ play area? Why would you have the danger without any warning, sign, or notice?” he asked. It seems like sensationalizing this event is his main vehicle to try and win a suit. But is it ethical?

Lawyer.....ethical.....does not compute

I'm guessing this guy is a total hack of an attorney, because simply viewing photos or video of the entire deck area a)demolishes his contention that this is a "kids' play area" b)demolishes the idea that a functioning adult could be confused as to whether one of those windows was closed or not.

In comment 14496529 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

Imagine going on vacation and coming home short one kid.

I'd really rather not imagine that.

I hate stories like these. In fact, I'm not even going to read it.

be devastating to suffer a tragedy like this.

However, substituting the grieving process to try and shift blame isn't helping anyone.

I can't even imagine losing a family member like this and immediately conferring with an attorney on how to get monetary compensation out of it.

In comment 14496658 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the lawyer keeps referencing that it is a child's play area: Quote: Winkleman said the family wanted to know why a window that “should have been closed securely” was open. Winkleman said the family is “understandably too distraught to talk” about the tragedy. “The family needs answers as to why there would be an open window in a wall full of fixed windows in a kids’ play area? Why would you have the danger without any warning, sign, or notice?” he asked. It seems like sensationalizing this event is his main vehicle to try and win a suit. But is it ethical?

You can bet your bottom dollar that signs will now be posted near open windows or all the openings will be closed off.
Used to call it sailor proofing, which we all knew was impossible.

He did something really stupid, but without evidence to the contrary I assume he was a typical doting grandpa who loved his granddaughter very much. He made a terrible mistake. Now he has to live with the knowledge that his carelessness caused this horrible tragedy. I wouldn't wish that kind of pain and guilt on anyone.

That doesn't mean that he wasn't to blame and that it was the cruise line's fault, though.

My opinion has changed. Being the father of a 2 year old, there is no way in hell i'm putting my child on that railing.

In comment 14496666 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

be devastating to suffer a tragedy like this. However, substituting the grieving process to try and shift blame isn't helping anyone. I can't even imagine losing a family member like this and immediately conferring with an attorney on how to get monetary compensation out of it.

I think they just want someone to blame. In my first response I said I think it's a human emotion to look for someone to hold responsible for your child's death and not the child's grandfather.

I'm not sure money is their motivation (I have no idea - it's very likely the lawyer's) but I feel like the parents are looking to remove themselves from being responsible for the child's death. Since if I understand correctly, they left their child in the grandfather's care and I wonder if they knew he wasn't 100% up to it.

I think it's natural to want to do this, not excusing it, just trying to empathize with the grieving process.

I think anger is the second emotion after shock.

In comment 14496524 Chris684 said:

Quote:

My wife and I are going away and when we were planning we talked about cruises and just came to the conclusion to rule them out completely. Our 2 year old, like most, is a climber and a mini acrobat. The thought of try to contain her on the deck of a ship with rails, steps, balconies, etc. just did not appeal to us. Not trying to suggest that people shouldn't take toddlers on cruises but for my wife and I, we didn't feel we'd be able to relax and enjoy ourselves in that environment. It just sucks these accidents have to happen but it always comes back to accountability. Yesterday I read about an infant being killed after the family dog (a Husky) went into its room and bit its head. I can't imagine the pain and regret I'd feel if the animal I chose to have as a pet in my home wound up killing my child.

I have no problem suggesting that. What possesses people to bring a toddler on a cruise ship? It's dangerous, there's a lot of people around, you are probably going to ruin a lot of dinners for other patrons around you, there are pools, hazards, and people getting drunk all day every day, everywhere. Am I saying they are bad parents for bringing a baby on a cruise? Yeah, I think they are.

And they are inconsiderate to their fellow passengers. I hate this young child lost her left because of her parents' and grandfather's bad judgement, and I hate that this tragedy will affect their lives' forever, but placing blame at the feet of RC to me seems idiotic. In a sense, perhaps RC should even have a policy of no children under a certain age even allowed on the cruise ship, but I understand they'll never do that.

I agree. And it furthers my perception that people don't wish to accept personal responsibility. They want to kick the can down the road as far as possible.

I doubt that anyone involved will ever, ever cease blaming themselves no matter who they sue.

In comment 14496687 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

I agree. And it furthers my perception that people don't wish to accept personal responsibility. They want to kick the can down the road as far as possible.

Yes, agree 100%, but also I imagine they're extremely vulnerable.

Consider a parent who just lost a child, I can't truly fathom the emotion, and I hope I never know what it's like, but I imagine in that raw emotional state if someone puts a bug in your ear that this tragedy could have been prevented and some 3rd party is responsible I have to believe that's not a hard sell.

for whatever reason. He then dropped her by mistake.

The question is, why was the window open?

...there are cameras everywhere on board RC cruise ships...the truth is going to come out.

But if you go to 1:22 in the video, its obvious the window is opened and there is a handle that is there for opening/closing. Additionally, a rail that shows the window is not only capable of being open/closed, but that it is clearly open.

And even if all of that wasn't obvious, there is a guard rail staggered from the window to prevent any of this from being possible without physically being lifted over the safety device.

Acting like this is a nursery area that had a window that should have never been open under any circumstances is so clearly separated from reality it boggles the mind.

Its a tragedy and maybe there is more than needs to be done to protect people from themselves, but the lawyer's approach here is manipulative and done in a manner to shame a company to settle prior to getting beaten in the court of public opinion.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 14496691 ZogZerg said:

Quote:

for whatever reason. He then dropped her by mistake. The question is, why was the window open?

Anyone can open those windows because it can get very hot around the deck, even in the shade, and a breeze makes it more pleasant.

In comment 14496691 ZogZerg said:

Quote:

for whatever reason. He then dropped her by mistake. The question is, why was the window open?

Because its an adult sitting area to the side of a child play area that is designed for the windows to be open to permit a breeze.

The windows are tinted and there is a safety rail and other precautions in place to prevent people from going out the window without committing gross negligence.

there is not a SIGN!!!

In comment 14496703 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

there is not a SIGN!!!

That is 100% their argument and it will work.

In comment 14496691 ZogZerg said:

Quote:

for whatever reason. He then dropped her by mistake. The question is, why was the window open?

I think you have it right. IMO, looking at that, it's a little too unbelievable to me to suggest he didn't know he putting her up on an open window. The kid isn't getting up there by herself, and why in God's name would he pick her up to a closed window, when, from the looks of it, does not even seem like it would allow for a good view through it.

He took her to the open window so she could look at the water, feel the wind in her hair, and he somehow just dropped her. Maybe she got upset and was wiggling around, maybe somebody bumped into him walking by, maybe grandpa was drunk. But at any rate, this is 75% on grandpa and 25% on the parents for even taking a toddler on a cruise in the first place.

can you imagine how big the sign would be?

In comment 14496710 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496703 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: there is not a SIGN!!! That is 100% their argument and it will work.

They'll get an undisclosed settlement, the grandfather will avoid any charges and all cruise ships will likely just permanently close up the windows and add further safety precautions that will dampen enjoyment of being on the ship.

Everyone loses basically.

In comment 14496716 Bill L said:

Quote:

can you imagine how big the sign would be?

90% of passengers are US +/-. So sign would likely be in English. Plus it would likely be a picture type sign.

As example....

it seems painfully obvious that the Grandfather is unfortunately the cause of this accident. You can't make the world safe for people who make bad decisions that result in the death of themselves or others.

I can't imagine being that grandfather...even if you can somehow pin a portion of the blame on RC. That child is alive if you do not put her in a situation where if something goes wrong she falls 150 feet to concrete.

In comment 14496523 Metnut said:

Quote:

but this story really got to me. Just a complete tragedy all around. Multiple lives ruined and scarred forever. I think we can all imagine looking for anyone else to even take part of the blame in a situation like that. How could the grandfather even live with himself? I don't know how you come back from that afterward.

Yeah, there's no coming back from this. This grandfather will see his grandchild's eyes every day for the rest of his life. No rest for this man until he passes. No money will ever take that away.

an International sign for

"Don't be a fucking moron"??

In comment 14496730 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

an International sign for "Don't be a fucking moron"??

Told you, nothing is sailor or passenger proof....I saw a sailor jump into a harbor to chase a garbage bag that fell into the water, work boots and clothes on...there is no stopping stupid.

By the way - really appreciate your insight on this thread.

I learned a few things about Admirality Law. I didn't even know it existed!!

I ask earnestly and without trying to be snarky.



If the video comes in and shows the grandfather dangling the child beyond the safety railing, would Admirality Law place a % of culpability on the cruise line for having a functioning window?

In comment 14496732 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

By the way - really appreciate your insight on this thread. I learned a few things about Admirality Law. I didn't even know it existed!!

40 years and I don't know, either. It really is a guess on most. I had to deal with it a long time and I am not kidding on "sailor proof" and it is still the ship's fault. There may very well be a difference between passenger rights and crew rights(in fact I'm certain there is). The mind boggling things we had to do to correct incidents. I'm sure you are aware of all the ISO stuff 9001, 14001, 18001, etc., and how that affected things.
Best example a lawyer told me, if a beach had all white sand grains and one was discolored and the percentage of fault of the shipping company was the one discolored grain vs the rest of the grains being the sailor's, it is still the ship's fault.
In this case (or any incident), there will be an internal investigation(not subject to outside review except by the flag state authority[reps for the country in which the ship is registered] who will approve the recommendation) and the ship will need to explain how they plan to never allow this to happen again. These reviews cannot be used against them in court.

In comment 14496736 UAGiant said:

Quote:

I ask earnestly and without trying to be snarky. If the video comes in and shows the grandfather dangling the child beyond the safety railing, would Admiralty Law place a % of culpability on the cruise line for having a functioning window?

Not out of realm of possibility..

In comment 14496589 BlueLou'sBack said:

Quote:

In comment 14496566 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works. If Admiralty Law provides the statues by which this negligent gramps can leverage a huge settlement out of the cruise line by dint of a civil suit, then it would also be right if the cruise line officials - who represent the law and law enforcement bodies on board their ship, have the right to criminally prosecute the gramps for negligent manslaughter of his grandchild, I would think. And FMiC, your thread title is two words too long IMO. It's a deep issue in our society.

I don't know if that is the case while docked in port. I think the local authorities are in charge. Out at sea, the Captain would be the law

The ship was docked, not underway. Which then means local law also is taken into account.

Put a child on there without holding on?!?! Could easily fall backwards and Crack their head! WTF!

I knew a lawsuit was coming. Unfortunate fact in our society - and the family will most likely at least get a settlement. And cruise ships will no longer have open-able windows, like so many other public places. Too often it seems like people's 1st response to a tragedy or someone being injured is to look for someone to blame, and then sue. Sometimes you have to wonder about people's priorities.

In comment 14496650 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496630 Bill L said: Quote: in boxes of electronics and eats them. why does my lawn mower say in the instruction manual don't put your hands or feet in the blade when the lawnmower is running? Why does it say don't pick this lawnmower up and use on shrubs like a weed whacker? Everything has to be idiot proofed solely to avoid litigation when the idiot does the inevitable idiotic thing.

LOL

In comment 14496780 montanagiant said:

Quote:

In comment 14496589 BlueLou'sBack said: Quote: In comment 14496566 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works. If Admiralty Law provides the statues by which this negligent gramps can leverage a huge settlement out of the cruise line by dint of a civil suit, then it would also be right if the cruise line officials - who represent the law and law enforcement bodies on board their ship, have the right to criminally prosecute the gramps for negligent manslaughter of his grandchild, I would think. And FMiC, your thread title is two words too long IMO. It's a deep issue in our society. I don't know if that is the case while docked in port. I think the local authorities are in charge. Out at sea, the Captain would be the law

The captain is always in command/responsible for the ship except while in the Panama Canal and entering a drydock. Yes local authorities would have jurisdiction over the investigation and could detain the ship if deemed to have serious safety flaws. At sea the rules/laws of the country of registration would apply.

They are looking at the video and asking questions of Royal Caribbean.

No amount of money will bring Chloe back and of course the grandfather made the biggest mistake of his life by not realizing it was open. But if the window should have been closed per the cruise lines operating procedures and there were no warning signs , I can understand why they would take the chance at litigation and a settlement to cover their costs of psychological counselling, funeral expenses, lost wages from having to take a leave from work etc

would there need to be a warning sign telling people you may fall from a great height if you dangle over the ledge??

And how would intentionally dangling over a rail fall out oft he realm of personal responsibility?

If you don't want to deal with grief and funeral expenses, don't place a toddler on a rail.

Expecting (or attempting) to get a settlement for this ends up hurting the cruise line and adds more restrictions to those that actually have and exhibit common sense.

The fact that some people actually think the family is justified in going after RC is evidence that this type of behavior is tolerated and that shifting blame is OK.

And I wouldn't let them go anywhere near the railings even though they were nowhere near tall enough to fall over unless they climbed up to the top rail. It is a long, long fall from the higher decks - why on earth would anyone take that risk?

In comment 14496817 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

would there need to be a warning sign telling people you may fall from a great height if you dangle over the ledge?? And how would intentionally dangling over a rail fall out oft he realm of personal responsibility? If you don't want to deal with grief and funeral expenses, don't place a toddler on a rail. Expecting (or attempting) to get a settlement for this ends up hurting the cruise line and adds more restrictions to those that actually have and exhibit common sense. The fact that some people actually think the family is justified in going after RC is evidence that this type of behavior is tolerated and that shifting blame is OK.

People sue mfgs all the time even when they screw up. The lady that burn herself with coffee between her legs, is a prime example. Juries feel bad for the family and think insurance and the big company should pay even if it isn't the company's fault.

the glass at hockey games is bonkers. So you were going to let her sit up there without holding on to her even if the glass was there? Easily could have fallen backwards and smacked her head. These people sound mentally deficient, I don't even think gramps is senile. This is going to sound terrible, but this seems like Darwin in action. How fucking stupid can you be! Idiocracy is turning into a documentary.

when I was a kid, fireworks used to enthrall me. Should that mean Gramps should have set me down right next to a M-80 to make me happy??

When these kind of cases result in a settlement, it rewards the ridiculousness.

to put coffee between your legs, but the temp they were serving coffee at was absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason she won that lawsuit. Normal temp coffee wouldn't have disfigured her the way McDs was serving it.

rarely see it anymore, but I hate when I get coffee that literally would burn the roof of your mouth if you took a gulp.

In comment 14496804 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496780 montanagiant said: Quote: In comment 14496589 BlueLou'sBack said: Quote: In comment 14496566 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14496539 gmenatlarge said: Quote: window, and it is pretty easy to mistake it for the closed windows next to it. I thought this happened in their room..Saw a picture of the "window." You would have to be a moron to place a child on a railing #1. You would have to be a double moron to place a child on a handle rail and trust any glass, especially when there was none. They will get a large settlement. Just the way Admiralty Law works. If Admiralty Law provides the statues by which this negligent gramps can leverage a huge settlement out of the cruise line by dint of a civil suit, then it would also be right if the cruise line officials - who represent the law and law enforcement bodies on board their ship, have the right to criminally prosecute the gramps for negligent manslaughter of his grandchild, I would think. And FMiC, your thread title is two words too long IMO. It's a deep issue in our society. I don't know if that is the case while docked in port. I think the local authorities are in charge. Out at sea, the Captain would be the law The captain is always in command/responsible for the ship except while in the Panama Canal and entering a drydock. Yes local authorities would have jurisdiction over the investigation and could detain the ship if deemed to have serious safety flaws. At sea the rules/laws of the country of registration would apply.

I never said he wasn't responsible for the ship. But if a crime happens while docked the local authorities would handle it not the ship

In comment 14496839 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

rarely see it anymore, but I hate when I get coffee that literally would burn the roof of your mouth if you took a gulp.

you should do a test sip before gulping.

and why people believe it. Hint....corporations got together and pushed falsehoods so it would limit their ability/amounts to get sued. This is still bandied about like it is truth just shows you how effective it was.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 14496847 madgiantscow009 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496839 Zeke's Alibi said: Quote: rarely see it anymore, but I hate when I get coffee that literally would burn the roof of your mouth if you took a gulp. you should do a test sip before gulping.

And the test sip burns your lips/roof of mouth still. Things like food/drink should be served at Temps that are edible without grievous bodily injury.

In comment 14496836 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

to put coffee between your legs, but the temp they were serving coffee at was absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason she won that lawsuit. Normal temp coffee wouldn't have disfigured her the way McDs was serving it.

That is a bullshit argument, 125 deg is scalding point. 140 for 6 secs gets you 3rd degree burns. Think whomever was at 195 deg. avg is 185, iirc, I will give you the hot temp argument because it does not matter, anything over 150 deg you get 3rd degree burns almost instantly. A 78 y/o(who had been drinking coffee for decades) should not need a warning that hot coffee can burn you and you don't place it between your legs while driving. No matter the temp, if you don't place it between your legs while driving, you don't get burned. And IIRC the award was reduced to about 10% of the original award. Because - hot coffee is hot.

What is going to kill you 220v or 440v or even 110v? Whatever, you don't grab an exposed wires....

No lawsuit has been filed. It may be that the lawyer for the family decides after reviewing the video, the ship and policies and procedures RC did nothing wrong either in designing the railings or allowing those windows to be open...and that the chance of a successful lawsuit or settlement is not worth the energy and money. Right now he is seeing whether or not there is a possibility that RC could have prevented the tragedy.

if RC did not follow their own guidelines in allowing that window to be open and and there is a chance to extract a settlement you better believe this is a case RC wants to go away quietly.

In comment 14496852 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496836 Zeke's Alibi said: Quote: to put coffee between your legs, but the temp they were serving coffee at was absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason she won that lawsuit. Normal temp coffee wouldn't have disfigured her the way McDs was serving it. That is a bullshit argument, 125 deg is scalding point. 140 for 6 secs gets you 3rd degree burns. Think whomever was at 195 deg. avg is 185, iirc, I will give you the hot temp argument because it does not matter, anything over 150 deg you get 3rd degree burns almost instantly. A 78 y/o(who had been drinking coffee for decades) should not need a warning that hot coffee can burn you and you don't place it between your legs while driving. No matter the temp, if you don't place it between your legs while driving, you don't get burned. And IIRC the award was reduced to about 10% of the original award. Because - hot coffee is hot. What is going to kill you 220v or 440v or even 110v? Whatever, you don't grab an exposed wires....

She wasn't driving. She was parked sitting in the passenger seat. You really need to watch that video.

In comment 14496839 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

rarely see it anymore, but I hate when I get coffee that literally would burn the roof of your mouth if you took a gulp.

I thought their reasoning was based off of how many ppl buy coffee at the drive through? Something like, serving it hotter holds the temp longer b/c ppl are buying it during a drive

In comment 14496853 Les in TO said:

Quote:

No lawsuit has been filed. It may be that the lawyer for the family decides after reviewing the video, the ship and policies and procedures RC did nothing wrong either in designing the railings or allowing those windows to be open...and that the chance of a successful lawsuit or settlement is not worth the energy and money. Right now he is seeing whether or not there is a possibility that RC could have prevented the tragedy. if RC did not follow their own guidelines in allowing that window to be open and and there is a chance to extract a settlement you better believe this is a case RC wants to go away quietly.

There is no lawsuit because the lawyer knows by doing a little grandstanding they will probably offer a settlement to go away.

is one thing. What I take as FMiC's point is why would anyone who was this irresponsible and grieving take it upon themselves to even consult with an attorney in the first place?

Only justifiable reason I can see would be if this was a situation like in the movie "Big Fan", where the brother was the attorney and filed a lawsuit without the knowledge or consent of Patton Oswalt.

Anyway, that's how I think.

Recently in our community a parent accidentally drove over and killed their toddler as they were backing out of the garage. Imagine the grief and guilt one would feel. Is it possible that the architects or builders of the garage, driveway, or car might have been able to do more to prevent this kind of accident? Perhaps.

But what parent would turn to an attorney to pursue legal remedy in that situation? I can't understand it at all.

In comment 14496851 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

In comment 14496847 madgiantscow009 said: Quote: In comment 14496839 Zeke's Alibi said: Quote: rarely see it anymore, but I hate when I get coffee that literally would burn the roof of your mouth if you took a gulp. you should do a test sip before gulping. And the test sip burns your lips/roof of mouth still. Things like food/drink should be served at Temps that are edible without grievous bodily injury.

I know how coffee works, I just want you to look before you leap into a vat of boiling hot coffee with cream, no sugar.

In comment 14496832 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14496817 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: would there need to be a warning sign telling people you may fall from a great height if you dangle over the ledge?? And how would intentionally dangling over a rail fall out oft he realm of personal responsibility? If you don't want to deal with grief and funeral expenses, don't place a toddler on a rail. Expecting (or attempting) to get a settlement for this ends up hurting the cruise line and adds more restrictions to those that actually have and exhibit common sense. The fact that some people actually think the family is justified in going after RC is evidence that this type of behavior is tolerated and that shifting blame is OK. People sue mfgs all the time even when they screw up. The lady that burn herself with coffee between her legs, is a prime example. Juries feel bad for the family and think insurance and the big company should pay even if it isn't the company's fault.

The McD's coffee case is a bit of an outlier because they were serving a 200+ F degree liquid.

McD's had a ton of reports of this being unsafe and causing burns prior to this woman dousing herself in it, but it was officially cited in their cooking instructions to bring their coffee to a boil and serve it at this temperature (that's the damning part, it was written in their official guide).

The woman who sued was asking for several thousands of dollars to cover her medical expenses, as she admitted the spill was her fault - but contested that the coffee was served without warning at a temperature that causes 3rd degree burns that cannot be healed without skin grafting.

The jury subsequently awarded her several million, but the woman settled for $600k (up from the $20k she was asking for).

That suit was around serving a beverage at a dangerous temperature that is not called for any safety reasons (you don't risk contamination if its served at 145-165 F, which is where most shops will serve it) and putting their customer at risk.

She didn't get the ruling for her stupidity (which she openly admitted), but McD's for sending out boiling coffee in a styrofoam cup and creating an unsafe condition for their consumers.

This suit (if it comes to that) would be equivalent to her walking behind the counter, taking the lid off the coffee pot and dunking her head. The coffee may be hot and she may have scalded herself, but she ignored several safety precautions (and most would argue common sense) to find herself injured and wanting recourse.

I get there are things at play with it being international and on a cruise ship, but it will be interesting to see where the investigation goes and what is depicted in the available video - that will be the difference between a settlement and a criminal charge against the grandfather.

In comment 14496861 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

is one thing. What I take as FMiC's point is why would anyone who was this irresponsible and grieving take it upon themselves to even consult with an attorney in the first place? Only justifiable reason I can see would be if this was a situation like in the movie "Big Fan", where the brother was the attorney and filed a lawsuit without the knowledge or consent of Patton Oswalt. Anyway, that's how I think. Recently in our community a parent accidentally drove over and killed their toddler as they were backing out of the garage. Imagine the grief and guilt one would feel. Is it possible that the architects or builders of the garage, driveway, or car might have been able to do more to prevent this kind of accident? Perhaps. But what parent would turn to an attorney to pursue legal remedy in that situation? I can't understand it at all.

Part of me thinks the possibility of gramps getting a criminal charge of negligence here are very real.

Also, a search of the lawyer working this case will indicate that this is his specialty and he likely chased the proverbial ambulance to get this case.

In comment 14496861 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

is one thing. What I take as FMiC's point is why would anyone who was this irresponsible and grieving take it upon themselves to even consult with an attorney in the first place? Only justifiable reason I can see would be if this was a situation like in the movie "Big Fan", where the brother was the attorney and filed a lawsuit without the knowledge or consent of Patton Oswalt. Anyway, that's how I think. Recently in our community a parent accidentally drove over and killed their toddler as they were backing out of the garage. Imagine the grief and guilt one would feel. Is it possible that the architects or builders of the garage, driveway, or car might have been able to do more to prevent this kind of accident? Perhaps. But what parent would turn to an attorney to pursue legal remedy in that situation? I can't understand it at all.

That sums up my take very well.

thing about the coffee case is that McD served piping hot coffee to quell the complaints of coffee drinkers that coffee is often served lukewarm.

In comment 14496861 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

is one thing. What I take as FMiC's point is why would anyone who was this irresponsible and grieving take it upon themselves to even consult with an attorney in the first place? Only justifiable reason I can see would be if this was a situation like in the movie "Big Fan", where the brother was the attorney and filed a lawsuit without the knowledge or consent of Patton Oswalt. Anyway, that's how I think. Recently in our community a parent accidentally drove over and killed their toddler as they were backing out of the garage. Imagine the grief and guilt one would feel. Is it possible that the architects or builders of the garage, driveway, or car might have been able to do more to prevent this kind of accident? Perhaps. But what parent would turn to an attorney to pursue legal remedy in that situation? I can't understand it at all.

I still think much of it comes down to passing blame to take the heat off of yourself, deflecting the embarrassment and shame. Blaming someone else for being at fault is achieved with the lawsuit, among other reasons.

This is one of those scenarios where no one here knows what they’d do until it happened to them. You can’t possibly put yourself in their shoes.

It it seems to me that there have been a rash of (young) people falling off cliffs and towers, etc trying to take really cool selfies.

Just goes to the stupidity of people.

for their own actions? Do we really need to ask that? Welcome to America 2019

In comment 14496930 Bill in UT said:

Quote:

for their own actions? Do we really need to ask that? Welcome to America 2019

That’s where I’m at. This isn’t surprising and I’m guessing most people would do the same to some extent. I don’t expect anyone to come out and say “yeah I did it, I dropped my grandchild to their death.” Maybe in time the guilt becomes too much, but in the short term this reaction seems “normal”.

I have been on SEVERAL RC cruises. If those are the windows she fell from well guess what.....those SLIDE open. The grandfather probably sat her on the railing and she leaned over and fell out. Those windows are on sliders and they have then every 10 feet or so.

less and less of each other...

that was safe enough. And as we speak is being educated by their outside counsel on what a reasonable settlement range will be...

But none of them on RC. I've got mixed feelings on this. Yes the grandfather was probably an asshole, but it seems like this was an unsafe environment. These windows should not have been able to be have been opened. I've never seen another ship where you can fall out a window on to the pier. If you fall off a balcony you would land on the balcony below it or at worst the lifeboat deck. Keep in mind this a a cruise line that advertises to families and of course like all cruises, the booze is flowing.

It looks like the only reason the windows are there is for inclement weather. Might as well ban passengers from all balconies and rails while they are at it.

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?

No wonder there are people who actually think filing a lawsuit is a good move..........

In comment 14497085 Ron from Ninerland said:

Quote:

But none of them on RC. I've got mixed feelings on this. Yes the grandfather was probably an asshole, but it seems like this was an unsafe environment. These windows should not have been able to be have been opened. I've never seen another ship where you can fall out a window on to the pier. If you fall off a balcony you would land on the balcony below it or at worst the lifeboat deck. Keep in mind this a a cruise line that advertises to families and of course like all cruises, the booze is flowing.

I'll bet the aft deck is completely open. Does that make it unsafe? I'll bet the lifeboat deck is open. Does that make it unsafe. Booze has nothing to do with it and does not exonerate dangerous acts. (I am not saying Pops was drunk, but you mentioned it.)
If you plop an 18 month old on a railing, that is unsafe anywhere, even to the deck 39 inches below.

I don't know about you, but falling a couple decks is still enough to kill - we are talking about steel (maybe covered by wood?). Steel doesn't give.

than the miles of open decking with railings around the outside of the entire ship

The grandfather refused to provide a statement and the family flew back to the US last night. Law officials have said its either "murder or a terrible accident" - so clearly gramps is very interested in pinning this on the cruise line.

The lawyer is obfuscating the narrative to make it seem like Royal Caribbean callously left a massive window open in the daycare center and - as proven in this thread - people are all too willing to swallow soundbites vs take the 10 seconds to see how the boat was actually setup to realize these were sliding tinted glass windows with a safety rail keeping people back from them located to the side of a splash area that was not intended for toddlers.

The grandfather again would have needed to life the toddler over the safety rail and place her up to an area that was neither tinted blue and likely had something of a breeze blowing through it.

Royal Caribbean offered to show the CC video to the family (who refused, understandably so) and has released it to authorities, but the lawyer is further claiming he hasn't been provided it.

I really think the play is to drum up bad PR for RC and have them pay off the family to shut up and have the authorities leave a criminally negligent old man to live the remainder of his life haunted by what he did vs spending a few years in jail. I feel awful for the parents, as I don't think any amount given to them is going to help them get over the grandfather doing what he did.

The lawyer seems like the exact type that gives his profession a bad name, though.

but as evidenced by some comments in this thread, the tactic obviously is working.

My question is - if RC is negligent because a toddler fell from an open window which was only possible if she was hoisted over the railing - what possible event on a ship could be considered not RC's fault?

I'm being serious. If it takes another person's intervention and assistance to cause the tragedy, using the logic exhibited by some on this thread - ANY event on a cruise ship is partially attributable to RC.

What this case illustrates to me is that there is a fair portion of people out there who believe in full protection and safety at all times, no matter what they are doing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

its all about mitigation. Common sense is always the easy retort but not a sole prevailing one...

I’m not sure what the argument is here? The family shouldn’t 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 wasn’t try to kill the kid, so, I don’t think the level of safety was adequate.

Regarding “personal responsibility” 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.

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?

here:

Quote:

Here, a toddler died, the grampa wasn’t try to kill the kid, so, I don’t 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?

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.

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...

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 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").

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 doesn’t surprise me that you can’t believe your opinion or view is also different than others. You should lose the contrarian bit as it has not shown you well lately...

In comment 14497403 trueblueinpw said:

Quote:

I’m not sure what the argument is here? The family shouldn’t 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 wasn’t try to kill the kid, so, I don’t think the level of safety was adequate. Regarding “personal responsibility” 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.

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.

Quote:

And it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t 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.

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 you’re reasonable person, but that standard alone doesn’t satisfy me. I honestly haven’t reviewed all the facts of the matter. But I’m 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.

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...

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 you’re reasonable person, but that standard alone doesn’t satisfy me. I honestly haven’t reviewed all the facts of the matter. But I’m 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?

In comment 14497419 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

Here, a toddler died, the grampa wasn’t 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.

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.

not satisfy

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.

Fat man already gave his opinion so that’s the absolute right answer.

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

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 I’ll bite b/c I’m 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 that’s a ridiculous position I’m certain you don’t take. But, to me at least, it’s the other side of the “personal responsibility” argument.

As usual, the answer is somewhere in between. I don’t 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!) doesn’t satisfy my notion of reasonably safe.

You can't fix stupid!
Women arrested driving with pool/kids on roof - ( New Window )

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...

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 wife’s plane just landed anyway so my time’s up.

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?

People want a bubble wrapped world.

Just checked into the Grand Hyatt in SF, we’re 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.

I want a world where I'm free to enjoy hotel balconies.

alright...

for the rest of us.

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.

Quote:

Is everybody fucking stupid or something? Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 3:08 pm : link : reply Fat man already gave his opinion so that’s the absolute right answer. Ponderous fuckstick trolls...every damn one of you!

Not every damn one of you. Just you!

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

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...

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

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.