Very disturbing lawsuit

[John&LaLa]

75% are North American, but not necessarily sailing from US.

 

Forgot we were the wild west in gun deaths in my earlier list of American deficiencies.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[broberts]

...

Secondly- computer's can't determine one's level of intoxication or either their blood alcohol content.

 

People drink more than 3 drinks in Church on Sunday's.

...

 

In fact aboard a ship, especially if the passenger has a drink package, a computer can easily estimate one's level of intoxication. It simply has to count the drinks and apply a basic formula.

 

Thankfully the church I attend does not have an open bar :D.

[RDC1]

75% are North American, but not necessarily sailing from US.

 

Forgot we were the wild west in gun deaths in my earlier list of American deficiencies.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

The difficulty is finding what percentages of their cruises (with passenger data) are from US vs other ports

 

Just in case you think the US numbers are out of wack I pulled the numbers from Eurostat for sexual assault for several European countries for 2015. (Since definitions from one data set to another vary there use for direct comparison is limited, but it should still give people on idea)

 

Ireland 34.75 per 100k

France 30.06 per 100k

Spain 18.60 per 100k

Sweden 120.79 per 100k

Germany 33.55 per 100k

UK 130.96 per 100k

[AmazedByCruising]

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.

 

I maybe mistaken, but aren't you comparing the number of assaults/year/100k to assaults/week/100k?

 

Then again, I think a much higher percentage is reported on a ship compared to land.

[kccrzr]

I doubt that they will settle. The cruise lines have a consistent track record of fighting all cases, except those where they were clearly at fault, and even there they do not settle easily.

 

I'm curious as to on what you base this very broad, categorical statement - anecdotal information? Because, in addition to settling the two cases cited by the Judge in his Order denying dismissal of the case which is the subject of this thread, a simple Google search and a few minutes review shows several cases in which Royal Caribbean has settled personal injury or wrongful death cases in the last few years:

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11285906/Paz_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises,_Ltd

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20341465/Bradley_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises_Ltd

 

Royal Caribbean even unsuccessfully tried to enforce a settlement agreement:

 

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170413c87

 

 

So, the available evidence does not really support your statement. I am not making any conclusions regarding whether Royal Caribbean is likely to be found liable in this case. However, the vast majority of cases do settle.

 

Settling cases does not necessarily mean that you do not think you have a good case or that you necessarily would be found liable and a judgment would be entered against you.

[broberts]

...

Then again, I think a much higher percentage is reported on a ship compared to land.

 

I suspect jut the opposite.

[RDC1]

I'm curious as to on what you base this very broad, categorical statement - anecdotal information? Because, in addition to settling the two cases cited by the Judge in his Order denying dismissal of the case which is the subject of this thread, a simple Google search and a few minutes review shows several cases in which Royal Caribbean has settled personal injury or wrongful death cases in the last few years:

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11285906/Paz_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises,_Ltd

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20341465/Bradley_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises_Ltd

 

Royal Caribbean even unsuccessfully tried to enforce a settlement agreement:

 

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170413c87

 

 

So, the available evidence does not really support your statement. I am not making any conclusions regarding whether Royal Caribbean is likely to be found liable in this case. However, the vast majority of cases do settle.

 

Settling cases does not necessarily mean that you do not think you have a good case or that you necessarily would be found liable and a judgment would be entered against you.

 

Keep in mind my statement started with the words "I suspect" , indicating that it is an opinion, not a statement of fact

 

Most cases are settled because it is cheaper than going to court. It is pretty easy to run up millions in legal costs for any kind of a complex case. So if basing it just on economics the easy decision is to settle. The down side is when you do that you also become a target because people know that you will often settle because it is cheaper. If you make it clear that settlements are difficult, you greatly reduce the number of cases filled against you to the ones that may actually have merit.

 

I based that opinion on pretty much a gut feel based upon a LEXIS/NEXIS DB search, coupled with a chat with an member of a legal firm that I used as outside counsel prior to my retirement. The DB search indicated that they tended to take a pretty high number to court rather than settle (most tend to get thrown out or they win by summary judgement), though as you say they will settle when there is pretty clear evidence for negligence.

 

 

 

The fellow that I chatted (large corporate firm based in Miami) with said that they (and their legal team) tend to play pretty hardball and one needs to have a pretty strong case to get them to settle. He also said that they have a very good track record in their home court.

 

Do you have an account with Pacer Monitor? Would be interesting to see the actual fillings. Noticed on the first that each side had to pay their own legal costs, usually not a good sign for the value of the "settlement" for the plaintive.

Edited June 26, 2018 by RDC1

[RDC1]

I maybe mistaken, but aren't you comparing the number of assaults/year/100k to assaults/week/100k?

 

Then again, I think a much higher percentage is reported on a ship compared to land.

 

No. The cruise ship data was the total from 4 quarters of data. making it per year/ then compared to the number of passengers transported using Marketwatch data. The US annual data also said per 100k per year. Though the source of that number was the same place where I got the RCCL data. The US overall number actually seems a bit low to me, compared to the EU reported numbers.

 

Though one fellow did point out that the numbers were a bit low because I used RCCL world passengers (divided by 100,000) not passengers for US ports that change would raise it to a max of .68.

[AmazedByCruising]

I suspect jut the opposite.

 

I'd report when someone stole a $5 chip on a ship. Plenty of cameras, 90% chance they can find the guy.

 

On land, I got a headbutt out of nowhere (the attacker entered the bar and targeted the first person he could see), I identified the attacker, the police knew exactly who I meant, and that was it. Replace "police" with "guest relations", and I'd be sueing. Surely, when people find guest relations to complain about the weather, they'll report an assault.

[RDC1]

Just looked up some data that might clarify the US numbers as an example. Looking at 2016 for example

 

Estimates of the prevalence of rape and other forms of sexual assault vary considerably across data sources. The 2016 Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which measures rapes that are known to police, estimated that there were 90,185 rapes reported to law enforcement in 2015. [10] The 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which measures sexual assaults and rapes that may not have been reported to the police, found that there were 431,840 incidents of rape or sexual assault in 2015. [11]

 

Now if one uses the US population in 2015 of 321 million or put another way 3210 hundred thousands you get

 

28 per hundred thousand using the UCR data and 134.5 per hundred thousand using the NCVS number. (gives an idea of under reporting to police.)

 

That may explain the higher seeming number of the EU data if they were using a survey type data source instead of a police reported numbers (or a lot more actually report to police there).

[Cruzaholic41]

This is stupid. RCI did nothing wrong here. Just another case of a neglectful parent going after the big corporation. Pathetic.

[Milwaukee Eight]

This is stupid. RCI did nothing wrong here. Just another case of a neglectful parent going after the big corporation. Pathetic.

 

 

 

Thank goodness you didn’t say Parents.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[egh170]

It is just too bad that the parent(s) failed to enforce the curfew rule. So blame someone else for their neglect. Can't fix stupid!

[Toofarfromthesea]

In a decent portion of the world, assault is the act of unwanted physical contact.

 

We do not have a charge of assault and battery .

 

Definition

 

The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but generally falls into one of these categories:

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to cause physical injury is not required, and physical injury does not need to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminalstatutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

[Toofarfromthesea]

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.

 

Basically, if you throw a punch and it misses it is assault. If the punch connects, it is assault and battery. That is the exact example the judge gave in his instructions when I was on a jury.

[ReneeFLL]

Not really an issue for me and mine as we are in bed before midnight as we prefer to wake up early to enjoy the ports and my young adult kids stick together and have no need to ever speak or get to know anyone in the ship. We do family stuff.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

So your kids aren't allowed to make any friends anywhere? If you don't allow them to make friends on a cruise ship do you also not allow them to make friends at home? Kids that are that sheltered usually are afraid to go out into the world themselves and also don't usually know how to play nice with others. You can't protect them forever. They are also missing out on a lot of learning about the world. Just think if some of the people they met were from other countries the amount they could learn from them. Not allowing them to make friends is a disservice to them.

 

I just read that you called them "young adult kids". That's even scarier that you don't let them speak to others. Can I say controlling?

 

maggie, I hate to do this because your posts are extremely entertaining, but please stop the ignorant bs, it is an embarrassment.

(y)

[ReneeFLL]

Nope what's an embarrassment is that so many here think rccl didn't need to monitor their cameras

Or

That the parents are at fault

Or

That rccl shouldn't be more cognizant as to the happenings in the ship at 2am

I guess I'm ignorant to suggest the library be locked at 2am?

Tell me why do they put rope netting over the pools? Why do they do that I wonder?

Sent from my iPad using Forums

And here we go again, more entertaining laughable comments.

[ReneeFLL]

Cabin decks should be monitored

 

Elevator decks should be monitored

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Ok we get it by now. You think the entire world should be monitored. It's obvious when you made the statement that your kids have no need to speak to anyone on the ship. I guess that's your way of monitoring your "young adult kids". So which is it?Are they kids or are they young adults? :rolleyes:

[marci22]

I guess that's your way of monitoring your "young adult kids". So which is it?Are they kids or are they young adults? :rolleyes:

I don't know why you're going crazy over this. To me, 'young adult kids' = 20s. Their her kids, but they're adults. But they're not 30s or older. I think it's a good description.

[Expat Cruise]

I think some here have missed the point the criminal case is over, it was proved and the three men are serving time. This case is a civil case against Royal. But I do find is funny several posters here want to blame the 13 year he should not have been in a public area at that time. OK I agree he should not have been but Royal did not follow the rules in place and harm came to a child. Why try to blame the child.... would you blame a 13 year old girl out at 2:00 am in the morning if she was rapped? We are talking about a child here not a adult. Even if the child shares in the blame the Adults must be responible.

[Aquahound]

OK I agree he should not have been but Royal did not follow the rules in place and harm came to a child.

 

How did RCI not follow the rules?

[Expat Cruise]

How did RCI not follow the rules?

 

The cruise line has a curfew, Royal agrees to enforce the rules they have in place. In this case they allowed a 13 year old to be in the library at 2:00 am. They broke their own rule that is in place.

[Aquahound]

The cruise line has a curfew, Royal agrees to enforce the rules they have in place. In this case they allowed a 13 year old to be in the library at 2:00 am. They broke their own rule that is in place.

 

They allowed it? So you have proof that they knew he was out and they intentionally allowed it? I haven't seen that in the articles yet, so I'd be interested in seeing your source.

[Biker19]

They allowed it? So you have proof that they knew he was out and they intentionally allowed it? I haven't seen that in the articles yet, so I'd be interested in seeing your source.

+1, for all we know the kid's cabin could have been just down the hall from the library. Like the video system can't be monitored 24/7, there's not security staff roaming every hallway at all hours.

[ATC cruiser]

I don’t get this about Royal allowing the kid out after curfew. Let’s say your local town has a 1 am curfew, your child goes out at 2 am and the same thing happens as this child. Do you take your town to court because they didn’t enforce the curfew? It’s the same thing.