Very disturbing lawsuit

[maggie cruises]

I did read it. I'm just not sure how it can be proven that they weren't monitoring the cameras. As far as the curfew, how do we know that a crew member wasn't on their way to the library to address that issue? Remember we've really only heard one side of the lawsuit so far. And there's three sides to every story.

 

 

 

Didn't it say they weren't monitoring cameras? That's proof enough

 

The only ones that know they weren't monitored would be the ship

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[maggie cruises]

Finally some common sense.

 

How many cameras are on a ship anyway.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Common sense?

 

So you do t think they should be monitoring cameras at 2am?

 

When it's obvious that a vulnerable time?

 

I'm not sure they need to monitor them at 2pm but 2am....absolutely!!!

 

At 2pm there are eyes and ears all over the ship. 2am big difference and that's exactly when monitoring must be done!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[time4u2go]

Didn't it say they weren't monitoring cameras? That's proof enough

 

The only ones that know they weren't monitored would be the ship

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

So you believe the plaintiff unconditionally? The only thing that said the cameras were unmanned was the lawsuit (filed by the plaintiff). The ship/cruise line did not indicate this.

[jennyp0208]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the cruise line to monitor the cameras. They have a number of cameras, it would take a large staff to watch all of the cameras all of the time. I think the more common areas of the ship are monitored more closely than some lower traffic areas.The cameras are used to have a look back at a situation, not always what is happening currently

 

Yes, this is my understanding of the use of security cameras, both on ship and elsewhere. I know our office building has cameras but no one watches them constantly - they're available to review if an issue arises. If RCCL has stated officially that the cameras are manned that's a different story, but otherwise I wouldn't expect someone watching them 24/7

[maggie cruises]

Interesting how some on here are taking the word of the plaintiff that the cameras weren't manned. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But we really don't know.

 

 

 

I'm just stating what the article said!! Until I have additional info that's all I can state isn't it?

 

 

Is the article written by the plaintiff? No

 

It does say.....however, no security personnel were monitoring the cameras

 

 

Somehow someone knows that because if they didn't know it then wouldn't it say....security MAY NOT have been monitoring the cameras?

 

 

All moot points anyway...the judge is moving forward with the case

 

 

Imho rccl should offer a payout and be done with it

 

Just like McDonald's should have done all those years ago...because everyone who can read knows by know all the burned woman was asking for was for her medical bills to be paid...about $20,000 if I'm not mistaken

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[time4u2go]

I'm just stating what the article said!! Until I have additional info that's all I can state isn't it?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

They article said that because that's what the lawsuit said:

 

"According to the lawsuit, which was filed in August of 2017, the assault was caught on video surveillance monitors, however no Royal Caribbean security personnel were monitoring the cameras. "

[kccrzr]

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’m very surprised the ship didn’t have someone monitoring the security cameras, particularly at that time of day. Security cameras are installed for the purpose of providing security not just to check after the fact.

[Finbar127]

Didn't it say they weren't monitoring cameras? That's proof enough

 

The only ones that know they weren't monitored would be the ship

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Without reading the briefs from each side we have no way of knowing what each side is claiming or what the actual facts are. All we know is that a judge found sufficient cause to allow the case to proceed.

 

I find it funny that cruise lines (not just RCCL) will promise people the moon to get them on their ships then go out of their way to deny responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

 

In any case if I was on the jury the first thing I would want to know would be why the child was out at that hour.

[broberts]

I don't think anyone here has absolved the parents of significant responsibility.

 

What I find puzzling are the numerous posts that suggest the cruise line is completely blameless. A judge certainly doesn't think it that cut and dried. But I guess this is Cruise Critic where cruise lines can do no wrong, and cruisers need to be criticised. ;)

 

The ship is responsible for the amount of alcohol served the perpetrators. It may well be held liable if proven that it did not exercise reasonable diligence in serving the alcohol.

 

While one may not expect a particular security camera feed to be watched 24x7, I don't think it unreasonable to expect feeds to be monitored. That is, presented to an observer with some frequency. This is a quite common method of handling multiple cameras. It seems to me that a court should be able after hearing arguments, to decide if the ship was negligent in this area.

[Ourusualbeach]

Of all the cameras in place all over the world I’d be surprised if even 5% of them were being monitored, snyone who expects them to be monitored at any hour of the day is not living in reality. Cameras are used to review events that happened in the past, not what is occurring in the present.

 

Also on the part about the child being out after curfew. There are many cases where activities run over in Adventure Ocean for the teens. In many cases my daughter and her friends have been told by AO staff that once the activities are done they may stop at Sorrentos for a quick bite and then to head back to their cabin. The 1am is not a hard and fast rule and there is nothing to indicate that the boy was out well past curfew time.

[maggie cruises]

They article said that because that's what the lawsuit said:

 

 

 

"According to the lawsuit, which was filed in August of 2017, the assault was caught on video surveillance monitors, however no Royal Caribbean security personnel were monitoring the cameras. "

 

 

 

So are you saying they are making this up?

 

How exactly did they know this? They investigated that's how

 

Again it say NO.....it doesn't say MAY NOT

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[time4u2go]

So are you saying they are making this up?

 

How exactly did they know this? They investigated that's how

 

Again it say NO.....it doesn't say MAY NOT

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

So just because it's in the lawsuit, it must be true. Ok then. I guess there's no need for a trial to take place since everything stated by the plaintiff is true!

 

If you want to unconditionally believe what the plaintiff states, then that's certainly your right. I'm just glad your line of thinking doesn't apply to all lawsuits, or there would be no trials to determine the actual truth.

[maggie cruises]

Without reading the briefs from each side we have no way of knowing what each side is claiming or what the actual facts are. All we know is that a judge found sufficient cause to allow the case to proceed.

 

 

 

I find it funny that cruise lines (not just RCCL) will promise people the moon to get them on their ships then go out of their way to deny responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

 

 

 

In any case if I was on the jury the first thing I would want to know would be why the child was out at that hour.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter why he was out I do not condone his or the parents actions but he is the victim. Also a minor. He is protected

 

Question....would you ask why a 29 yo was out at night? Or why someone was wearing certain clothing? Many other scenarios but to think a juror should ask why was he out and put the blame on him is disgusting.

 

You would of course make a good juror for the defense but your fellow jurors would call you out

 

You do not see the kid was the victim do you? Very sad

 

Btw I'm not a liberal by any means...I'm just a clear logical thinker who can see the kid was the victim. Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[lbjen]

In places like a cruise ship (or a mall), cameras are supposed to be used to monitor real time, so that they can step in and avoid incidents getting too out of hand. This incident could just as easily have happened at 8pm, by the sound of it (the attacker sought out the victim specifically because of a comment made about his daughter). I think the time of night (and the plaintiffs citing the curfew) is probably skewing people’s view on this case.

[maggie cruises]

So just because it's in the lawsuit, it must be true. Ok then. I guess there's no need for a trial to take place since everything stated by the plaintiff is true!

 

If you want to unconditionally believe what the plaintiff states, then that's certainly your right. I'm glad your line of thinking doesn't apply to all lawsuits, or there would be no trials to determine the actual truth.

 

 

 

Nope...but as I said all I can go by is what's in the article. As I e stated I'm just going by that. To do anything else would be making up facts wouldn't it?

 

My opinion about the kid being out are just that my opinions

 

But the article states cameras were not monitored. So until I know differently I won't make things up

 

 

Btw ....did you notice where the article came from? If you didn't read it...it a Disney article. So go argue with them.

 

Personally I'd like to know where you are getting your facts about the supposed lie about them not being monitored?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[lbjen]

Surely if the cameras were being monitored, the lawsuit would state that the RCCL employee monitoring the camera failed to step in. So either way, they screwed up on that point.

[legaljen1969]

Where were the 13 year olds parents? ? and why were they not watching out for their child??

 

I would agree with the gist of what you are saying, but the fact that the video cameras were installed and not monitored is definitely a problem for the cruise line. I agree with the judge's decision not to dismiss the case. It is definitely a matter for the jury to decide.

 

I know the world is a very different place today, but my parents let my brother and I roam around the cruise ship until ungodly hours on our first cruise in 1984. We probably stayed up until 3:00 or so every morning. There was certainly potential for trouble.

 

Regardless, what kind of man sexually assaults a boy for making inappropriate comments to his daughter? Is that justifiable behavior? As much as people would like to believe it, what happens on vacation doesn't always stay on vacation. Regardless of the perception of poor parenting decisions to allow their child to roam the ship, how is it even remotely okay for a man to get his friend to stand watch while he sexually assaulted this boy?

 

I don't see Royal getting out of this easily.

 

People seem to check their brains with their baggage when they go on vacation. As I see, Blueridge Mama, you are from Bluffton SC so you well know the mindset of the tourists coming for vacation (I live in Bluffton too by the way. LOL). You know that they toss their brains out the window or at the rest stop when they get into South Carolina. It's even that much worse on a cruise ship where they feel they can drink and party nonstop for a week without a care in the world and no need for a cab or even Uber.

[time4u2go]

Nope...but as I said all I can go by is what's in the article. As I e stated I'm just going by that. To do anything else would be making up facts wouldn't it?

 

My opinion about the kid being out are just that my opinions

 

But the article states cameras were not monitored. So until I know differently I won't make things up

 

 

Btw ....did you notice where the article came from? If you didn't read it...it a Disney article. So go argue with them.

 

Personally I'd like to know where you are getting your facts about the supposed lie about them not being monitored?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

"What's in the article" is just what's in the lawsuit. It may or may not be true. It's just what the plaintiff has indicated.

 

While it's on a Disney-ish website, it's not a "Disney article". Look at the bottom of the article; it cites its sources. In any event, whoever wrote it, why would I argue with them? They are stating what the plaintiff has stated in their lawsuit. I have no problem with that.

 

I suggest you read my posts again. I never said that the cameras were or weren't monitored. I stated that the only indication of whether they were or weren't monitored was provided by the plaintiff. You are the one that claims to know the facts based solely on what the plaintiff says, not me.

[maggie cruises]

So just because it's in the lawsuit, it must be true. Ok then. I guess there's no need for a trial to take place since everything stated by the plaintiff is true!

 

If you want to unconditionally believe what the plaintiff states, then that's certainly your right. I'm just glad your line of thinking doesn't apply to all lawsuits, or there would be no trials to determine the actual truth.

 

 

 

So forget about the cameras for a moment....

 

Why are you defending the cruiseline? They are without a doubt guilty of not enforcing their curfew rules if nothing g else

 

If you think they dont need increased security at 2am you are very wrong

 

They allowed a 13 yo to roam with being stopped. Yup it's up to the ship to know who is roaming the hallways and decks and library and bars....at 2am!!!!! Sorry rccl is in the wrong. Not the victim...not the parents

 

Adults should be concerned for their own safety too at this time

 

But while you are at it....why don't you suggest another scenario...how about this...

 

The parents put the kid to bed at midnight but he got up and went out while the parents were sleeping?

 

Or that the kid was roaming looking to be attacked?

 

All fantasy theory with no basis and NOT stated in the article...however...the ARTICLE states the cameras weren't monitored.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[BigHouseFootball]

Sorry but I think the cruise lines’ first order of business is the safety of all of its guests. Period. Of course they are responsible for my safety and the safety of every single person on board.

 

To me it seems like RC is responsible on three points. One, served too much alcohol (no shock there), two not monitoring their security cameras, and three not enforcing the curfew.

 

Their security should be there to prevent dangerous situations, not just react to them. I mean why even have security on board if all they are going to do is to react to situations after the fact?

 

I hope RC gets nailed to the wall on this one.

[maggie cruises]

"What's in the article" is just what's in the lawsuit. It may or may not be true. It's just what the plaintiff has indicated.

 

While it's on a Disney-ish website, it's not a "Disney article". Look at the bottom of the article; it cites its sources. In any event, whoever wrote it, why would I argue with them? They are stating what the plaintiff has stated in their lawsuit. I have no problem with that.

 

I suggest you read my posts again. I never said that the cameras were or weren't monitored. I stated that the only indication of whether they were or weren't monitored was provided by the plaintiff. You are the one that claims to know the facts based solely on what the plaintiff says, not me.

 

 

 

Rccl is still responsible for not enforcing their curfew rules.

 

They are going to lose

 

And to those trying to blame the 13 yo victim . Disgusting

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[maggie cruises]

Sorry but I think the cruise lines’ first order of business is the safety of all of its guests. Period. Of course they are responsible for my safety and the safety of every single person on board.

 

To me it seems like RC is responsible on three points. One, served too much alcohol (no shock there), two not monitoring their security cameras, and three not enforcing the curfew.

 

Their security should be there to prevent dangerous situations, not just react to them. I mean why even have security on board if all they are going to do is to react to situations after the fact?

 

I hope RC gets nailed to the wall on this one.

 

 

 

Very well said. Also very true.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[legaljen1969]

Would your opinion be any different if it weren't a 13 yo boy but rather a 39 yo? Male or female doesn't matter...what matters is that it was an attack caught on video that should have been manned in real time....but wasn't

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Good point. It's even sadder than the victim was an underaged child, but the cameras were not manned and they did catch the attack. If the victim had been a grown man, who would be blame then? Not a parenting issue. Would the man have then "deserved it?"

 

Yes, we live in an overly litigious society, but that doesn't mean than no-one should ever litigate. I definitely see this as a case with merit. Yes, there may be some comparative negligence.

[time4u2go]

So forget about the cameras for a moment....

 

Why are you defending the cruiseline? They are without a doubt guilty of not enforcing their curfew rules if nothing g else

 

If you think they dont need increased security at 2am you are very wrong

 

They allowed a 13 yo to roam with being stopped. Yup it's up to the ship to know who is roaming the hallways and decks and library and bars....at 2am!!!!! Sorry rccl is in the wrong. Not the victim...not the parents

 

Adults should be concerned for their own safety too at this time

 

But while you are at it....why don't you suggest another scenario...how about this...

 

The parents put the kid to bed at midnight but he got up and went out while the parents were sleeping?

 

Or that the kid was roaming looking to be attacked?

 

All fantasy theory with no basis and NOT stated in the article...however...the ARTICLE states the cameras weren't monitored.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I'm not defending the cruise line. Go back and read my posts in this thread. In fact, in my first post in the thread, I suggested that the cruise line might be at fault.

 

I never said anything about needing or not needing increased security. I never even thought about that until you mentioned it.

 

And once again, the article states that the cameras weren't monitored because the article was citing what's in the lawsuit.

[blackshirt]

They allowed a 13 yo to roam with being stopped. Yup it's up to the ship to know who is roaming the hallways and decks and library and bars....at 2am!!!!! Sorry rccl is in the wrong. Not the victim...not the parents

Whether RCCL bears any responsibility or not, to say the parents are not at all responsible is just crazy.