Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Taking Personal Responsibility for Toddlers

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

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

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

A grandfather places his granddaughter in front of an open window and doesn't realize it and wants to blame the cruise ship??? I'm hoping this case gets thrown out - but events like these can lead to cruise ships locking down all windows and stupid shit like that. All because one guy was too ignorant to realize a window was open.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
RE: Section....the coffee thing is brought up all the time and its stupid  
section125 : 7/11/2019 5:04 pm : link
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....
Again  
Les in TO : 7/11/2019 5:07 pm : link
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.
RE: RE: Section....the coffee thing is brought up all the time and its stupid  
Zeke's Alibi : 7/11/2019 5:08 pm : link
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.
RE: I don't even understand why McDs was serving coffee that hot, you  
jestersdead : 7/11/2019 5:10 pm : link
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
RE: Again  
Zeke's Alibi : 7/11/2019 5:10 pm : link
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.
Debating whether or not there is a lawsuit or if it has merit...  
Dan in the Springs : 7/11/2019 5:19 pm : link
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.
RE: RE: RE: I don't even understand why McDs was serving coffee that hot, you  
madgiantscow009 : 7/11/2019 5:20 pm : link
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.

RE: RE: Why..  
UAGiant : 7/11/2019 5:21 pm : link
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.
RE: Debating whether or not there is a lawsuit or if it has merit...  
UAGiant : 7/11/2019 5:28 pm : link
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.
RE: Debating whether or not there is a lawsuit or if it has merit...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/11/2019 6:11 pm : link
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.
And the ironic..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/11/2019 6:12 pm : link
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.
RE: Debating whether or not there is a lawsuit or if it has merit...  
UConn4523 : 7/11/2019 6:32 pm : link
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.
I don’t think I’ve heard about suing or liability  
Bill L : 7/11/2019 7:13 pm : link
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.
Why do people want to deflect blame  
Bill in UT : 7/11/2019 7:21 pm : link
for their own actions? Do we really need to ask that? Welcome to America 2019
RE: Why do people want to deflect blame  
UConn4523 : 7/11/2019 7:44 pm : link
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”.
Guys  
BleedBlue : 7/11/2019 10:04 pm : link
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.
It seems like more and more we have come to expect  
Jimmy Googs : 7/11/2019 10:46 pm : link
less and less of each other...
And the cruise line arguably did not maintain an environment  
Jimmy Googs : 7/11/2019 10:51 pm : link
that was safe enough. And as we speak is being educated by their outside counsel on what a reasonable settlement range will be...
Been on 29 cruises  
Ron from Ninerland : 7/12/2019 2:18 am : link
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.
Ron its a window with a guard rail that is 4 ft off the ground.  
Zeke's Alibi : 7/12/2019 3:39 am : link
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.
If an unsafe environment..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 8:11 am : link
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..........
RE: Been on 29 cruises  
section125 : 7/12/2019 8:19 am : link
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.
I fail to see how those windows opening is any more dangerous  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 9:31 am : link
than the miles of open decking with railings around the outside of the entire ship
The case is just starting to stink...  
UAGiant : 7/12/2019 9:53 am : link
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.
UA..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/12/2019 9:58 am : link
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.
RE: The case is just starting to stink...  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 10:06 am : link
In comment 14497199 UAGiant said:
Quote:
I really think the play is to drum up bad PR for RC and have them pay off the family to shut up


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

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

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


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

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

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


Quote:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Quote:


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish common sense prevailed in these types of situations, but based on the warnings that the public cries are needed - I'm guessing it doesn't.
The object isn't to "win"  
Jimmy Googs : 7/12/2019 12:47 pm : link
its all about mitigation. Common sense is always the easy retort but not a sole prevailing one...
Eh...  
trueblueinpw : 7/12/2019 12:58 pm : link
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.
RE: Eh...  
Greg from LI : 7/12/2019 1:03 pm : link
In comment 14497403 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
Does the company have no culpability here?


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

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

Quote:
Here, a toddler died, the grampa 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?
20 million people  
family progtitioner : 7/12/2019 1:19 pm : link
cruise every year. I've heard of passengers falling overboard before but never anything like this. This is a total outlier. It's very obvious that there's no way the child could have fallen without help but of course there is a lawyer waiting to pounce on some settlement money anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

And it 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...
RE: Eh...  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 2:29 pm : link
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.
I'm actually curious to hear people's answers to Greg's hypothetical  
Bill L : 7/12/2019 2:33 pm : link
suppose the toddler did put a fork in an electrical outlet and died? There is no signage, so far as I am aware, on all the wall outlets warning someone not to put eating utensils in the holes.

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

It's not really all that different.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner