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.
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....
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just goes to the stupidity of people.
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”.
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..........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's just put people in a bubble - as long as it is puncture-proof - right?
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...
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.
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.
This law suit happy society we have now is absolutely ridiculous.
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.
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'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.
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.
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?
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?
I think these types of lawsuits have set good precedents in the past, like love canal, but the pendulum has swung way too far.
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...
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.
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").
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...
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.
What would be the ship's culpability if this had happened instead?
It's not really all that different.