Very disturbing lawsuit

That's actually dangerous in my book.

 

You could fall in and get tangled.

 

That could be a lot more common than this assault

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

But the ship does it anyway and they usually have crew stationed in the pool deck 24/7 too

So rccl does know it's vulnerable areas

Sorry but I'm not wavering ...they should recognize that an unlocked room such as they library at 2am is vulnerable and should have been locked

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Not private.

 

 

 

Do you know the difference between logic and emotion?

It was private at the time of the attack and my posts are based in logic but let's face it everyone just wants to believe what they want and refuses to think stuff through rationally these days.

However my opinion is simple....I'm asking why would any pax even be able to corner a 13 yo at 2am in a room that admittedly has a security camera that logic tells me has a door in it and is not an open area

Library should have been locked.

If the library isn't remote as has been suggested that's even worse

Sent from my iPad using Forums

This is awesome.

Cabin decks should be monitored

 

Elevator decks should be monitored

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

She also has several stairwells that can't be locked because they are fire escapes.

Concierge lounge and Diamond lounge are open 24/7. Now they have locks, but bad people might have the key.

Used to be card rooms that are open all night

Get the picture yet?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Indy has 7 passenger decks, several of which have interior corridors. She has 4 elevator banks covering 14 decks. And these are public decks. There are several non public decks.

 

She also has several stairwells that can't be locked because they are fire escapes.

 

Concierge lounge and Diamond lounge are open 24/7. Now they have locks, but bad people might have the key.

 

Used to be card rooms that are open all night

 

Get the picture yet?

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yup big ship with lots of nooks and crannies

Lots of pax too

Lots of staff too

Are you suggesting because it so intricate layout wise that monitoring these areas isn't possible or that the ship shouldn't do it because it's too cumbersome. Really?

That's like saying that chaperones shouldn't be required to count the 4th graders heads on the bus because it's too difficult and there are so many of them

Solution...you take more chaperones

Ship solution...you step up security at 2am when it's known that trouble occurs in the late hours.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

It was private at the time of the attack and my posts are based in logic but let's face it everyone just wants to believe what they want and refuses to think stuff through rationally these days.

 

However my opinion is simple....I'm asking why would any pax even be able to corner a 13 yo at 2am in a room that admittedly has a security camera that logic tells me has a door in it and is not an open area

 

Library should have been locked.

 

If the library isn't remote as has been suggested that's even worse

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Oasis Library has a door. But why lock it, someone might be a night owl and wants to read and not disturb cabin mate

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Bella's turds contain more substance than certain posts.

Yup big ship with lots of nooks and crannies

 

Lots of pax too

 

Lots of staff too

 

Are you suggesting because it so intricate layout wise that monitoring these areas isn't possible or that the ship shouldn't do it because it's too cumbersome. Really?

 

That's like saying that chaperones shouldn't be required to count the 4th graders heads on the bus because it's too difficult and there are so many of them

 

Solution...you take more chaperones

 

Ship solution...you step up security at 2am when it's known that trouble occurs in the late hours.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

BTW, those lifeboats are going to need monitoring as well.

Why 2am? Just because that is when the attack occurred? Start it at 1am when curfew starts. Heck, move curfew up till midnight. Round the kids up and have the parents pick them up. Fine them as well, new revenue stream.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Bella's turds contain more substance than certain posts.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yup big ship with lots of nooks and crannies

 

Lots of pax too

 

Lots of staff too

 

Are you suggesting because it so intricate layout wise that monitoring these areas isn't possible or that the ship shouldn't do it because it's too cumbersome. Really?

 

That's like saying that chaperones shouldn't be required to count the 4th graders heads on the bus because it's too difficult and there are so many of them

 

Solution...you take more chaperones

 

Ship solution...you step up security at 2am when it's known that trouble occurs in the late hours.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

No, it is because the cost is far excessive compared to the level of risk.

This year RCL will carry 5 million passengers. All of the RCCL lines including Royal, Celebrity, and Azmara will carry 6 million passengers. During the last full year data I can find on all of the RCCL they show no alleged assaults with bodily injury, 4 alleged sexual assaults committed by a passenger and 7 alleged sexual assaults committed by a crew member. Note this data includes assaults on crew members as well as passengers.

While location is not listed, I would suspect that most of those took place in either passenger or crew cabins, not in public space.

Just as a comparison the US statistics are for sexual assault are 27.1 per 100 thousand in population.

RCCL's numbers are are .18 per 100 thousand passengers.

So with numbers that low you want them to put in a security monitoring approach that would rival a high security prison.

It seems like some of you are really vested and perhaps know the victim?

Both sets of parents share the blame, IMO. That boy should have never been out that late

To think that the cameras are all monitored at all times is laughable. To say that the library should have been locked is laughable as well.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Originally posted by ElaineKeagy I blame the parents entirely. A 13 year old should not be roaming the ship at 2AM.

This episode was 100% avoidable, by the parents.

They could have gone to sleep assuming he’d be in from teen club by curfew bc enforced on other ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Elaine, I absolutely agree 100%.

WHAT parent(s) would go to bed and SLEEP saying "Goodnight dear .... gee ... I really hope Bobby gets in on time and doesn't miss curfew". "Oh well, we'll see in the morning when we get up." ??? HOW is this even reasonable?

It is NOT RCI's job to keep EVERY SINGLE PERSON ABSOLUTELY 100% SAFE on a cruise. It is NOT possible. RCI has instituted and installed reasonable rules/policies/cameras, etc. to keep their customers/guests as safe as possible. But people's COMMON SENSE has to be used! And people have got to take responsibility for their actions. Were the parents in the casino while the boy was out roaming around? Where were they?

Yes the child endured a horrific event. Yes the person who did this to the child is a criminal. Was the comment by the boy to the girl offensive? Yes, it was. But was it deserving of the sexual assault by the adults? NO!!!!

To me the 1:00 curfew is not binding in anyway but more of a reminder that parents need to know where their children are and take responsibility for them.

As a parent and grandparent, I would not let a 13 year old out after 10:00 and would ensure they were asleep for the night before I went to bed. I also would not book a cabin or hotel room that was not connected to my room or cabin for anyone under 18. You can never ever take a vacation from being a parent of a minor.

My opinion is that common sense was thrown out the porthole by both sets of parents. It is impossible to expect that all cameras are monitored 100% of the time or even at certain hours.

If the cruise lines, as a result of this case, are required to monitor all cameras then we will see a great increase in price for a cruise. RCL is in business to make money and therefore will pass on added expenses to the customer. Just like any other business.

The bottom line is the judge saw a possibility for culpability on RCLs behalf and didn't dismiss the suit. She said a jury should have the final decision. That tells me that RCL might not so squeaky clean as some of you think they are. There are countless lawsuits that never see the light of day, apparently this isn't one of them.

Fortunately my children are adults in their early 20's but we did quite a few cruises during their teenagers. As a parent I always considered the ship to be a safe environment. Plus the presence of other guests around the ship, the presence of crew and the security patrols I have seen have given me a level of reassurance.

I gave my children a lot of freedom with the knowledge and expectation that they are streetwise. That comes with how you bring up your children, not necessarily age. It troubles me that many contributors on this thread believe that a 13 yr old can't take care of themselves or be smart, diligent or responsible.

Reality is that bad things can happen no matter how cautious you are. I don't believe cruise lines can guarantee absolute safety but they are negligent if it is proven that their security measures were inadequate. How many security staff were patrolling the ship? How many were monitoring the cameras in the control room. What are the usual procedures. The cruise line is negligent if it has compromised on having adequate security measures. It is a question of what's reasonable rather than what's required to guarantee absolute safety.

One reason for sailing on a cruise ship is that we believe it is very safe. It's for the cruise line to maintain our confidence but for parents to take responsibility for ensuring that their children are not harmed.

And the part about rccl not monitoring their security cameras?

 

And not enforcing their own curfew?

 

Read the article

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Royal can't be everywhere all the time. I blame the parents and the attacker. The parents should have been enforcing some rules, but they probably didn't have any. They just let their mids run wild.

I don’t expect someone to be monitoring all cameras. I expect the ability for them to replay what happened to provide the third side to he said, she said.

I totally agree.

Tje parents don't want to accept responsibility so they want to blame someone else for their horrible parenting. They should get sued by Royal for not keeping track of THEIR kid. I feel so bad for the child. I hope they get him the help that he will probably need.

Security cameras are probably only monitored in revenue areas like the casino and shops. I guess RCL doesn’t mind people stealing books from the library.

It is impossible to expect that all cameras are monitored 100% of the time or even at certain hours.

If the cruise lines, as a result of this case, are required to monitor all cameras then we will see a great increase in price for a cruise. RCL is in business to make money and therefore will pass on added expenses to the customer. Just like any other business.

I would add that if RCCL were required to monitor all of its security cameras all of the time, everyone else who has security cameras really should be required to do the same. There are probably well over 100 million security cameras in the United States and I would be surprised if even 5% of them were monitored all of the time. In any case, monitoring is not even the real purpose of most security cameras. They exist to deter criminal activity by providing photographs that can be used to track down and convict the perpetrators.

Personally I'm curious about the comment the boy made to the daughter that set the father off. As father of 3 girls I can see how a father would seek out a little punk who had disrespected his daughter, especially with a few drinks in him. The key of course is knowing how far to take it, and the father obviously went too far. Would also like to know just what the "sexual assault" was and how long the incident lasted. If only a minute or two security would not have had time to react even if cameras were monitored.

I was wondering about about that also, and suspect it was an injury to the genitals

IMO, it's irrelevant that the kid was out past curfew.

What is the curfew, 1am? The assault could have happened at midnight or 12:56 am. This father was CLEARLY extremely tweaked about what the kid said to his daughter and planned retaliation. That retaliation could have happened at any time and in a myriad of hidden corners of the ship (many of which are probably out of security camera range). I'm a bit concerned by comments saying that this could have been avoided if only the boy was in his cabin at the right time - the predator STILL would have been on the ship with the boy, getting angrier and angrier. If he wanted to get to the boy badly enough, he could have done it any time.

My beef with RCI would not be with the monitoring of security cameras. It would be with the promotion and sale of all you can drink beverage packages on cruises where minors are present. I'm always astonished at the high level of drinking I see on cruises with 1,000+ children running around. For many it seems to be a race to get their money's worth out of the package, and I believe that type of environment is ripe for sexual assault crimes.

The father could have defended his daughter's honor 100 other ways. What he did to this boy is beyond horrifying. He should have gotten a longer sentence, and the accomplice should be doing equal time for his part.

The perpetrators should definitely be punished but the cruise line should not be held responsible. It is the parent's job, more than anyone's, to enforce the curfew. There are cameras all over the ship and I know personally that someone is watching because they caught someone in our party, who had the all-inclusive drink package, handing off a drink the someone else and came to give him a warning. So, yes, we don't know the whole story and although it's sad, the parent's are ultimately the most responsible party. RCCL will probably have to settle but I don't feel it's fair to hold them responsible unless the crime was committed by a crew member (since it doesn't say that, it sounds like it was just a couple of other passengers).

Not suggested, it's a fact.

 

Oasis Library has a door. But why lock it, someone might be a night owl and wants to read and not disturb cabin mate

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Someone might want to climb the rock wall at 2am also so why can't they?

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Still incorrect. Please try again.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Nope the judge is allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Not incorrect

Sent from my iPad using Forums

This is awesome.

Yes using logic and common sense usually is and I will reiterate yet again for those that don't read links or entire threads....

At 2am security should be stepped up not down

For those that defend not monitoring cameras...they should be monitored at times known for rowdy behavior at the minimum

We know nothing about the parents so to blame them is ridiculous as they may have put the kid to bed...perhaps right in the same cabin with them and he may have sneaked out or was lured out and they just didn't hear him or wake up

The library is apparently in a well traveled area according to posters here and doesn't have a door that can be locked and rccl apparently expects night owls to be there at 2am but doesn't monitor it even though it has cameras there...interesting

The judge is wrong by allowing the lawsuit to proceed because apparently there is no reason to hold rccl liable even though the attack took place in a well traveled area at 2am and didn't notice a kid out at 2am

However..kudos...to the ship for watching the video after the fact and getting the culprits....and even perhaps...apprehending them within minutes of the attack....but we don't know when they were apprehended...because that's not in the article so it could have been weeks later as well.

Oh and yes...this is a money grab by the parents

As opposed to..

Recognizing that legitimate lawsuits are a way to hold corporations

Responsible for their..policies...procedures...actions...that in the eyes of the law and judges and juries are detrimental to those that do business or are in some way hurt by said company

Also apparently a 13 yo is considered to actually understand everything at that age and should be expected to conduct himself as an adult and should be held responsible ..again no....the kid is protected by law as the law recognizes his age is a factor. I am not talking about trying a kid as an adult for certain crimes either as I get that concept I'm talking about trying to say they kid should,d have known better than to be out at 2am

Also we haven't a clue what the kid said to the girl. It could have just been taken the wrong way by the girl and her sick father or it could have been a serious nasty insult. The point is that they were just WORDS...not physical harm...but no one had enough sense to just ignore it

Enjoy your day all

Sent from my iPad using Forums