Very disturbing lawsuit

[marinewife67]

A bigger question is where are the additional personnel going to be housed. Crew housing capacity is one of the fundamental limits that the cruise lines have to deal with. Add more security personnel, means removing some personnel used for another function.

 

Bottom line is "THERE IS NO REASON TO", the cruise ships are safer then most towns in the US. Yet are all of you posting somewhere that your town needs more police, that they should be monitoring cameras on all the streets in your town.

 

This was a single event, that occurred years ago, yet people are acting like it is an everyday event.

 

Crime does occur on cruise ships, but at very low levels. The level of enforcement in place is reasonable for the level or risk. It is already higher then most hotels or land based resorts, and certainly much higher than is in place in the towns in which we live.

 

Actually there's pretty substantial evidence that cruise lines are seeing an increase in sexual assaults.

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/40533120/metoo-rocks-the-boat-cruise-lines-see-more-sexual-assault-reports-in-2017

[alfaeric]

Actually there's pretty substantial evidence that cruise lines are seeing an increase in sexual assaults.

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/40533120/metoo-rocks-the-boat-cruise-lines-see-more-sexual-assault-reports-in-2017

 

If this lawsuit makes people who are being told to be afraid of their neighbors think twice about cruising, I'm 100% ok with that. That will leave more people interested in meeting more different people.

[Sail2k]

This really is a sad case for the minor involved. I really do not think that the monitoring of the cameras, or the curfew enforcement will come into play as much into this lawsuit as will the liability of the ship who served the 2 who committed the crime. The a potential jury may look at this is quite different than you or I may look at this. I cannot and will not blame the boy for being out at 2 a.m. and to say that this happened because he was out at 2 am, is silly in my opinion. This sick crime could very well have happened in the same location at 7:00 a.m. and nobody would question the curfew. I will however say that I have been on plenty of cruises with our kids thru all ages, and there is no way I would let my 13 year old out that late on a cruise ship, again just my opinion, but I speak from experience as most of us on here do....not everyone has seen what myself and others on these boards have seen at 2am on a cruise ship. I will say that just because the child was out at 2am does not mean the child or the parents are wrong or deserve to be assaulted.

 

 

I do think that Royal will be challenged on the serving of the 2 who did the crime, right or wrong, there are many laws involving the serving of an individual and their actions after being served based on how many drinks you served them.

 

 

Again, just my opinion, doesn't make me right or wrong, just my thoughts

[juliesVacation]

It seems like there are clearly multiple problems going on here. Clearly the parents could have prevented this simply by parenting, but on the cruise line's part there are issues also. Mainly the alleged over-serving of alcohol. In my experience, even on cruise lines the bartenders will cut you off if you're becoming too drunk, because they're at least somewhat liable if you injure yourself because of it. So does that liability extend to if you become too drunk and injure another person? That's the real legal question to me. The issue of the cameras being unmonitored is groundless. It's pretty standard for land-based businesses to have unmonitored security cameras. The footage is there primarily to refer back to if something does happen.

[Milwaukee Eight]

It seems like there are clearly multiple problems going on here. Clearly the parents could have prevented this simply by parenting, but on the cruise line's part there are issues also. Mainly the alleged over-serving of alcohol. In my experience, even on cruise lines the bartenders will cut you off if you're becoming too drunk, because they're at least somewhat liable if you injure yourself because of it. So does that liability extend to if you become too drunk and injure another person? That's the real legal question to me. The issue of the cameras being unmonitored is groundless. It's pretty standard for land-based businesses to have unmonitored security cameras. The footage is there primarily to refer back to if something does happen.

 

 

 

You said that word, parents. Watch out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RDC1]

Actually there's pretty substantial evidence that cruise lines are seeing an increase in sexual assaults.

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/40533120/metoo-rocks-the-boat-cruise-lines-see-more-sexual-assault-reports-in-2017

 

Increasing - ok. But the level is extremely low. 76 assaults reported last year across all of the cruise lines. which if there was a 23% increase would mean up from 62. Could reflect a greater tendency to report, as much as an overall increase of actual events (if shipboard reporting matches land reporting the actual report rate would be about 1/5 the actual events)

 

Considering that there 24.2 million passengers, assuming that 50% sailed from North American ports (probably more) and as such were included in the assault statistics you would get .62 per 100 thousand passengers. Compare that to the US police reported numbers of 28 per 100 thousand passengers or the NCVS numbers of 134.5 per 100 thousand. If one assumes similar under reporting numbers as indicated by the difference between NCVS and Police reported you would need to increase it by a factor 5 five resulting in an actual estimate of shipboard events of 3.10 per 100 thousand passengers.

 

So compared to on land cruise ships are very safe. That does not mean that there is no risk and that one does not need to be alert.

 

The whole reason I mentioned the statistics to begin was to show that the ship board systems are reasonable for the level of risk and that active monitoring of public areas, while increasing costs, and shifting crew responsibility, would not result in any major improvement of safety.

[Merion_Mom]

I do not like many of the pronouncements and arguments that are being made on this thread.

 

I would however like to present you with the attitude of "Tonya", mother of the 13 year old boy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tonya says she wants people to be aware of what happened to them and questions what you see in promotions for the cruise lines.

"Definitely a false sense of security because you’re given all these fun pictures and fun things to do that your kids can do all you see are people having fun, but there are no warnings that this can happen," she said.

 

 

 

In other words, Royal Caribbean is responsible because they didn't warn her that crime can occur on a cruise, that not everything is "fun".

Edited June 26, 2018 by Merion_Mom

[gerif]

I do not like many of the pronouncements and arguments that are being made on this thread.

 

I would however like to present you with the attitude of "Tonya", mother of the 13 year old boy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tonya says she wants people to be aware of what happened to them and questions what you see in promotions for the cruise lines.

"Definitely a false sense of security because you’re given all these fun pictures and fun things to do that your kids can do all you see are people having fun, but there are no warnings that this can happen," she said.

 

 

 

In other words, Royal Caribbean is responsible because they didn't warn her that crime can occur on a cruise, that not everything is "fun".

She’s quite clearly passing the blame away from herself as being a contributing factor here. If my kid told me he wanted to stay out roaming around after curfew, well just not gonna happen. But, remember, she’s envisioning $$$$ here.

[John&LaLa]

It seems like there are clearly multiple problems going on here. Clearly the parents could have prevented this simply by parenting, but on the cruise line's part there are issues also. Mainly the alleged over-serving of alcohol. In my experience, even on cruise lines the bartenders will cut you off if you're becoming too drunk, because they're at least somewhat liable if you injure yourself because of it. So does that liability extend to if you become too drunk and injure another person? That's the real legal question to me. The issue of the cameras being unmonitored is groundless. It's pretty standard for land-based businesses to have unmonitored security cameras. The footage is there primarily to refer back to if something does happen.

I wonder if bartenders cut you off, do they flag the seapass to alert other venues.

 

I got cut off once. They were justified.

 

To many martinis, to quickly.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Jarmo]

I wonder if bartenders cut you off, do they flag the seapass to alert other venues........

They certainly can. I was in Schooner on Vision one night when a girl was cut off. She came back in the next day and the same bartender that had cut her off swiped her seapass and handed it back saying there was an alcohol block on it and she had to go to guest services to resolve the issue.

[BecciBoo]

Go back and watch the footage, they do not appear to be very drunk, certainly not staggering drunk, so I think it would be hard to prove they were from the film.

 

I am sure the kids who ran out went to get help, surely. So it must've been very soon that security arrived, just not soon enough. I fail to see how that makes RCCL responsible.

 

Also, the kid is about the same size as the adult. The mother told what was done but did not mention any sexual abuse. And the only mention of liquor was that the men blamed consumption of liquor for their behavior...but we don't know that was actually the case. As you saw, they did not look drunk to me. And the boy on the chair looked like he was laughing, not crying. Not saying nothing really happened, but comeon people, its the facts that count not supposition.

Edited June 26, 2018 by BecciBoo

[DrivesLikeMario]

I see this as a real problem with parents who feel it’s perfectly fine for their kids to roam the ship alone and after curfew at that as long as they don’t bother mom and dad who, after all, are on vacation. Take a little responsibility for your kids. The cruise line is not your personal babysitter. Of course, the two men need to be prosecuted but I fail to see how Royal is responsible.

AMEN! Totally agree.

[Milwaukee Eight]

I do not like many of the pronouncements and arguments that are being made on this thread.

 

I would however like to present you with the attitude of "Tonya", mother of the 13 year old boy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tonya says she wants people to be aware of what happened to them and questions what you see in promotions for the cruise lines.

"Definitely a false sense of security because you’re given all these fun pictures and fun things to do that your kids can do all you see are people having fun, but there are no warnings that this can happen," she said.

 

 

 

In other words, Royal Caribbean is responsible because they didn't warn her that crime can occur on a cruise, that not everything is "fun".

 

 

 

+1. See ... common ground

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

I wonder if bartenders cut you off, do they flag the seapass to alert other venues.

 

I got cut off once. They were justified.

 

To many martinis, to quickly.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I got cut off in the Casino once. I thanked them the next night.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[FloridaCrazy]

Did the behind the scenes tour on the Oasis last year. We could take pictures of the engine control room but I don't think pics were allowed in the room where the monitored the cameras. The room is right behind the bridge and they said that 2 people were there at all times and often there were 3. Some monitors stayed on the same image while others scrolled through several cameras. I believe they said there were nearly 1,000 cameras with more being added. When something is called in or noticed one of them will hone in on that issue and if there's only one other person on duty someone else is immediately called in the room to assist from the bridge. But it would be impossible for them to monitor all of those cameras in real time.

Horrible situation for all involved. The young man (maybe showing off for friends) said something he shouldn't have. He probably felt bad about it even before being confronted. Apparently he apologized. The uncle made some terrible choices and the father stood by and allowed it to happen. The young lady lost her dad for a couple of years. Sounds like the mom was more interested in being her sons friend and not his parent. I'm sure it makes her feel better about all of it to turn it around and make it RCI's fault. The courts/lawyers will handle it. Mostly these things get settled. Mom's attorneys will want to cash out without having to fight too much.

[A&L_Ont]

I would however like to present you with the attitude of "Tonya", mother of the 13 year old boy.

 

 

 

Tonya says she wants people to be aware of what happened to them and questions what you see in promotions for the cruise lines.

"Definitely a false sense of security because you’re given all these fun pictures and fun things to do that your kids can do all you see are people having fun, but there are no warnings that this can happen," she said.

 

 

Not to mention her son offering a trinket in trade for a young woman’s virginity. I don’t think that photo was in the brochure either.

[kccrzr]

No one here knows the facts which will come out in discovery if the case is not settled.

 

But, even if the parent is partly or even mostly at fault that does not mean the child does not have a valid claim. A parent can fail to follow rules or even the law without it meaning that another negligent party is not responsible at least partly for injuries caused to a minor - for example, even if a parent breaks the law by not having his or her child in a car seat or seat belt, that does not mean that someone else who runs into them is not liable for injuries to the child.

 

The mother knew that her child was out when he should not have been. And I would not have made that choice. However, i think it is not unreasonable to believe that many people would not allow that because of potential mischief the child himself might get into. Forseeing the possibility that he would be sexually assaulted is another story. And, for the minor to think that by being out past curfew it was forseaable he could be sexually assaulted is yet another story.

 

On the other hand, there may not be a great factual basis for the legal argument that RCI took on a duty by advertising its safety measures and existence of CCTV, or that it failed to reasonably warn of the potential for crime or that the passenger reasonably relied on that.

 

But, under comparative fault, liability and responsibility for damages can exist even if one or more other persons also bears some responsibility.

[ElaineKeagy]

And those damages can be reduced by the percentage of liability of the other party.

I’d love to be on this jury.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[momofmab]

Still so much dwelling on the curfew and the "bad parenting" associated with letting him wander around "after the curfew". If he had been wandering around at 12:45am and the assault happened at 12:50am, would we still be calling them "bad parents"?

 

Parents let their young kids wander around ships alone during the day and there are plenty of places that assaults could happen during the daylight hours. Are they "bad parents"? I walked past the library and the card room several times a day on a recent cruise and hardly ever saw anyone in there, no matter what time of the day it was. If you're up and around before 8am, the ship's common areas are virtually empty - a kid going to get a pastry could easily be assaulted in any number of locations. Is that "bad parenting"?

 

I do understand the mother's comments about the false sense of security implied in cruise line ads (although basic intelligence and common sense have to enter into the picture at some point). Obviously the cruise lines aren't going to make an ad warning people about the possibility of crime on board - but I rarely see the cruise lines step in to police even minor skirmishes between passengers, so there is a sense of "lawlessness" onboard.

 

This is a terrible thing to have happened and warning to all of us that we never know who we are cruising with or what they are capable of.

[ryano]

But, remember, she’s envisioning $$$$ here.

 

Any logical person should be able to see this and the sad thing is, she is likely gonna get exactly what she is envisioning. I doubt it even goes to court

[S.A.M.J.R.]

I love all the "I'm a better parent" posts on this thread. And yes, that's exactly what they are. Anytime something bad happens to a child, people come out of the woodwork saying "I'd never do that/allow that". It's misdirecting the blame in my opinion. It's easy to say "if he wasn't out at 2am, this wouldn't happen." Guess what, if they didn't take the cruise it wouldn't have happened. If a teenager was crossing a street at 2am and a drunk driver hits him, the blame should be put on the drunk driver, NOT the teen.

 

That being said, I also think the parents are misdirecting the blame (toward RCI). BUT, I highly doubt it was their idea. I think a lawyer got in their ear and said "we can get money from RCI, we can't get any from the attackers". And if you think about it, the boy's family has very little to lose. The lawyer will only be paid if the case gets settled/won, so they're not out any money. Sure, the "internet" might look down on them, but who really cares? If the internet looked at everything I've done, I'm sure they'd look down on me too.

 

As far as the merits of the civil case, I don't think any company has a responsibility to monitor all of their security cameras 24/7 (or even at 2am in the morning because "more things happen then").

 

As has been mentioned, the curfew doesn't come into play unless it can be proven ship crew saw the boys out after 1am and didn't send them to their rooms.

 

Where there MIGHT be a hint of responsibility is if can be proven the attackers shouldn't have been served more alcohol and were. I think that's going to be extremely difficult to prove.

 

Now, I have not done any further research on what happened (other than reading the thread). What I can't understand is whether the victim was in the library alone or with friends, and if others were with him, did they leave him?

[gerif]

And those damages can be reduced by the percentage of liability of the other party.

I’d love to be on this jury.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Me, too! Ah, yes, damages are $3,000,000 but, wait, there are contributing circumstances (you willingly allowed your child to wander around after curfew) so you’re actually getting $1.98.

[Aquahound]

I love all the "I'm a better parent" posts on this thread. And yes, that's exactly what they are. Anytime something bad happens to a child, people come out of the woodwork saying "I'd never do that/allow that". It's misdirecting the blame in my opinion. It's easy to say "if he wasn't out at 2am, this wouldn't happen." Guess what, if they didn't take the cruise it wouldn't have happened. If a teenager was crossing a street at 2am and a drunk driver hits him, the blame should be put on the drunk driver, NOT the teen.

 

The difference is, going on a cruise and walking across the street are lawful acts. Allowing the kids to stay out past curfew was not. She willingly violated the guest conduct policy and as a result, is blaming RCI for not enforcing the policy that she allowed. So yes, I think she is sending an awful message to her kid.

 

I do agree with the rest of your post though (that I didn't quote).

[ReneeFLL]

A number of contributions on this thread worry me. Possibly time for moderator to close the thread?

Then just leave. No one is forcing you to read it. :rolleyes:

[constable145]

Not sure where you define decent. But both the UK and Canada have similar definitions that unwanted physical contact is battery and one can be guilty of assault without physical contact.

 

For example from the UK

 

An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another.

So with Assault there does not have to be physical contact, only the need for a person to feel threatened that such contact could immediately occur.

 

 

In Canadian criminal law there is no charge of battery.

 

Civil courts yes. I was just pointing out that not all jurisdictions recognize such a thing as a "verbal assault"