Very disturbing lawsuit

[kccrzr]

I can't find the case, do you have a link?

 

One crew member able to watch 10 cameras at once for 8 hours a day. Let's say 300 cameras. That's 90 crew extra crewmembers who need to sleep, eat, be managed. If plaintiff claims that's an "industry standard", I wouldn't believe anything else he said.

 

This is a link to the order on the motion to dismiss (which I was able to find by a Google search.

 

https://casetext.com/case/tello-v-royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd

 

As mentioned by someone else, RCI later obtained summary judgment as plaintiff (the decedent’s mother) was unable to prove pecuniary damages. I expect you can also find that order through a Google search.

[RDC1]

I read it the first few times you have posted it, Perry Mason, esquire.

 

Nobody is attacking you. However almost all cameras in public are not monitored so suddenly you are going to make hay in court attacking the concept that security cameras are not watched in real time? That makes me wonder if basic facts are so easily attacked in court that we should not be surprised when justice often fails to come from a verdict.

 

That and the fact that anyone can say they are a lawyer, doctor or Indian chief here, and it is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

So, let’s settle on healthy skepticism in stead of attacking you.:halo::evilsmile::')

 

JC

 

I would not use the term not monitored as much as all are not closely monitored, since some are monitored at some times.

 

 

I would expect that you would not have someone from Royal say that they don't really monitor them, as much as say that they monitor camera's based upon plan/policy that determines priority and frequency of viewing, the plaintive's attorney will then try and get the the plain/policy during discovery and then try and determine if the cruise line was in compliance with their own policy during the night in question.

 

 

 

If the court determines that there is a responsibility for some monitoring to be conducted (for example if the company has identified such in marketing materials as claimed by plaintive)

 

In that case not having a monitoring plan/policy might be considered to be negligent, so could not operating in conjunction with policy could also be.

 

Back prior to retirement, used to tell my subordinates that only thing worse than not having a required policy in place (when it came to regulatory or legal matters) was to have one in place, but not followed.

 

From the filing the plaintive seems to indicated that the cruise line markets the safety of the environment, including the presence and monitoring of cameras. Interesting, I have never seen the presence of cameras in cruise line marketing materials or even on their web site. If they don't then a lot of the plaintive's case would seem to be rather weak. If it is in any of the marketing or web info then it would make the plaintive's claim much better.

 

Will be interesting to see if the claims hold up after discovery.

Edited June 28, 2018 by RDC1

[xpcdoojk]

It’s called Westlaw and I have never sued a cruise ship in my life. Any other profound insights?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Good for you. Can you prove that?:'):'):halo:

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

Or so he says...

 

Aquahound is actually a known entity. Unlike 99.9% of the people here. Doesn’t mean everyone knows this, but many do.

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

I would not use the term not monitored as much as all are not closely monitored, since some are monitored at some times.

 

 

I would expect that you would not have someone from Royal say that they don't really monitor them, as much as say that they monitor camera's based upon plan/policy that determines priority and frequency of viewing, the plaintive's attorney will then try and get the the plain/policy during discovery and then try and determine if the cruise line was in compliance with their own policy during the night in question.

 

 

 

If the court determines that there is a responsibility for some monitoring to be conducted (for example if the company has identified such in marketing materials as claimed by plaintive)

 

In that case not having a monitoring plan/policy might be considered to be negligent, so could not operating in conjunction with policy could also be.

 

Back prior to retirement, used to tell my subordinates that only thing worse than not having a required policy in place (when it came to regulatory or legal matters) was to have one in place, but not followed.

 

From the filing the plaintive seems to indicated that the cruise line markets the safety of the environment, including the presence and monitoring of cameras. Interesting, I have never seen the presence of cameras in cruise line marketing materials or even on their web site. If they don't then a lot of the plaintive's case would seem to be rather weak. If it is in any of the marketing or web info then it would make the plaintive's claim much better.

 

Will be interesting to see if the claims hold up after discovery.

 

You sound very much like my retired boss, whom I replaced. IE a wise person.

 

JC

[Jenal2]

That was an interesting read. Thanks for the reference. The crux of that case, though, was the fact that the drunken victim actually did encounter crew and that they observed him staggering and disorientated, and they did nothing to address it. In fact, the crew even admitted "something was wrong." RCI later lied to the family and told them he committed suicide when in fact, he fell overboard from a service ladder that he attempted to climb down.

 

I believe the monitoring of cameras would have better standing in that case because the crew was aware of this person's condition and was aware he was wandering around unattended. The crew should have alerted security and they should have engaged the CCTV system to find him.

 

But like you said, the non monitoring of cameras was but 1 of numerous failures cited in the motion. In that case, I'm totally on the side of the plaintiff.

 

But what I'm curious of, is whether or not that particular piece was an element of the final decision. What I just read was a motion to dismiss.

 

 

 

I agree with you and was wondering the same. The point being that it would not be out of the question to cross examine RIC about it in this case either. I never said it was a slam dunk winning argument, but it’s an argument nonetheless. I’m guessing that case settled before a final decision was rendered

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[xpcdoojk]

I agree with you and was wondering the same. The point being that it would not be out of the question to cross examine RIC about it in this case either. I never said it was a slam dunk winning argument, but it’s an argument nonetheless. I’m guessing that case settled before a final decision was rendered

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Are we going to get a bill for all of your legal wisdom or is this pro bono? Most of my lawyers at this time in the evening are at a bar / restaurant, an hour from now they don’t make any sense when I talk to them.:eek::'):')

 

JC

[PhoenixCruiser]

Settled out of court - just like this one will be.

[Eslader]

I agree with you and was wondering the same. The point being that it would not be out of the question to cross examine RIC about it in this case either. I never said it was a slam dunk winning argument, but it’s an argument nonetheless. I’m guessing that case settled before a final decision was rendered

 

Except that you've already been told that it didn't, and plaintiff lost...

[ElaineKeagy]

Except that you've already been told that it didn't, and plaintiff lost...

 

 

 

I missed that post. I guess. What # please?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Toofarfromthesea]

And you are judging me on what, your extensive knowledge about me, both personally and professionally? You are clearly just just trying out argue for the sake of arguing. If I say I will get around to it then I will.

 

If you were to take the time to read all of the posts you would see that I was responding to that person telling me that I had to “make up my mind”. Like I told them, I don’t have to do anything, but I certainly wont make up my mind until I am ready to.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I am judging you by my own extensive experience dealing with attorneys, and I see none of the writing skills, temperament, nor logical reasoning that I expect from someone that claims to be an attorney. Just my opinion, formed through the lens of decades of experience.

 

On the Internet anyone can claim to be anything.

[Toofarfromthesea]

No reason not to be civil.

 

First, let me say that I am not talking about arguing legal authority in court or winning the case, but rather cross examining someone who tells me that they think they are not responsible because even though they have security cameras they don’t have people watching them.

 

But what we are really talking about here is a claim for negligence, which can encompass millions of different actions. Just because there is not a specific law covering that specific action or non-action, doesn’t mean it doesn’t amount to actionable negligence.

 

One case that I found, for example, is Tello v. RCI. There the plaintiff claimed that RCI was negligent in a laundry list of ways, including “failure to adequately provide safety and security plan meeting industry standards, including the live monitoring of the 24-hour closed circuit television cameras”. RCI’s Motion to Dismiss that count of the complaint was denied. Again, this does not mean that their actions definitely violated the law. That is ultimately for a jury to decide. But the point is that a reasonable argument can be made that they did, which brings me back to my point about cross-examine their rep.

 

Make sense?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Not in the least, because as you (should?) know, the denial of a motion to dismiss says nothing about the merits of an argument, and tells you nothing about whether down the road the case will survive the inevitable motion by the cruise line, nor whether you would even be allowed that line of question by the judge in the unlikely event the case goes to trial. In fact, Tello doesn't tell us any more than the denial of the dismissal told us in the instant case, since it is the same procedural step in both cases. So using it to try to buttress your reasoning is inapt.

[Toofarfromthesea]

Impressive legal insights from other bad cases. Google is awesome, not to mention working for law firms that specialize in suing cruise ships.

 

JC

 

Well it has been conclusively demonstrated that motions to dismiss are frequently denied. How that becomes some kind of citable authority is the problem our attorney friend has.

[ONECRUISER]

Or so he says...

Some of us been around here lot longer then others. We know who to trust and who is full of it...

[Cruzaholic41]

Or so he says...

 

There are a couple people on these boards like Aquahound and Chengkp75 who are known and trusted for their maritime expertise - and they are almost always the consummate gentlemen with their posts. I’ve cruised with Paul and still have his business card.

[Jenal2]

I am judging you by my own extensive experience dealing with attorneys, and I see none of the writing skills, temperament, nor logical reasoning that I expect from someone that claims to be an attorney. Just my opinion, formed through the lens of decades of experience.

 

 

 

On the Internet anyone can claim to be anything.

 

 

 

And anyone can claim to have extensive experience that they don’t actually have

[Jenal2]

Not in the least, because as you (should?) know, the denial of a motion to dismiss says nothing about the merits of an argument, and tells you nothing about whether down the road the case will survive the inevitable motion by the cruise line, nor whether you would even be allowed that line of question by the judge in the unlikely event the case goes to trial. In fact, Tello doesn't tell us any more than the denial of the dismissal told us in the instant case, since it is the same procedural step in both cases. So using it to try to buttress your reasoning is inapt.

 

 

 

Thank you for further pointing out your complete lack of knowledge as to how court cases actually work. At a deposition, which is what I was talking about to begin with, I can question a witness about pretty much whatever I want. Tello is an example of how a plaintiff can bring allegations that failure to monitor cameras constitutes negligence. If I make that allegation then of course I can question their witnesses about it. And at trial, no judge would preclude you from questioning the witnesses about it, unless they had previously decided that as a matter of law it cannot constitute negligence, which is extremely unlikely because it is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Biker19]

Don't you love it when "lawyers" argue in a CC thread?

[Eslader]

Tello is an example of how a plaintiff can bring allegations that failure to monitor cameras constitutes negligence.

 

A plaintiff can bring allegations about anything they want. I can sue you and allege that you're a brain-eating alien from the planet Graznaxx if I want. The test is whether or not my claims are substantiated in court, and claiming that failing to monitor 800 cameras (I got that number from the case you cited, by the way) simultaneously 24/7 is negligence is no less ludicrous than me claiming you're from another world.

 

Oh, and the post you're looking for is 523 in which, by the way, I took the time to actually read the case you cited and pointed out where you're entirely wrong in your conclusions regarding it.

[Johnamac123]

Don't you love it when "lawyers" argue in a CC thread?

 

I wonder if they will bill Cruise Critic @ $350/ hr?

[xpcdoojk]

Don't you love it when "lawyers" argue in a CC thread?

 

Lawyers and sea lawyers always make me twitch when they start.:'):eek::halo:

 

JC

[John&LaLa]

Don't you love it when "lawyers" argue in a CC thread?

It's taking immense restraint to not include Bell in this train wreck.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Paulxyz2004]

Are we going to get a bill for all of your legal wisdom or is this pro bono? Most of my lawyers at this time in the evening are at a bar / restaurant, an hour from now they don’t make any sense when I talk to them.:eek::'):')

 

JC

 

I´d say this "lawyer":rolleyes: is definitely more than an hour ahead of the others right now;p:')

[gerif]

So you always argue the truth? I don’t believe so. What lawyers say or argue is not the facts/truth.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Exactly. There are so many things that can be argued so many ways. I’m a retired paralegal/trial assistant (intellectual property) and spent over 40 years working major (and some minor) trials in federal courts all over the country. My immediate boss was always in Who’ Who in American Law. When one of the other attorneys would come to ask his opinion on the merits of a new case, he would always ask do we represent the plaintiff or the defendant? This was because he could argue things either way as could most attorneys. It comes down to who the jury believes.

[ONECRUISER]

Don't you love it when "lawyers" argue in a CC thread?

Can't we all just get along?...