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.
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.
"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.
And why would the family be "legally entitled" to compensation?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This and what Metnut say below make much sense.
That, and the possibility of a large money settlement. Lawyers don't get involved if there isn't a chance for a big payday.
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.
And if there was an open window, why would you place a child in it?
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.
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?
Ports or "windows" open inward, not outward because of the way there would be secured for rough weather.
Just an awful, awful situation.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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?
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!!
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 )
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.
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.
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.
Again - windows are clearly open with a guardrail and tinted a blue color for those that are closed.
Link - ( New Window )