Very disturbing lawsuit

[ONECRUISER]

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

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Take her over the Dead Horse any day... Last yr my Daughter lost her dog(14 1/2yr) Golden, then last month lost her Great Dane rescue dog(9yrs) had since was a pup. My Grand Daughter(8) had rough year...

[Jenal2]

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.

 

 

 

And with that nonsense I rest my case

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Paulxyz2004]

I rest my case

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Halleluhja!!!

[Big_G]

The two most amazing things that came out of this thread are Liberty has approximately 800 cameras and Biker needs a bigger stick.

[ONECRUISER]

The two most amazing things that came out of this thread are Liberty has approximately 800 cameras and Biker needs a bigger stick.

Ba Dum Tss... no, actually I agree.

[Oceansaway17]

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

 

 

yes - send them to DC and they can work in the White House or congress.

 

I mean enough already. Geeezzzzzz go ride a Bike or something

[xpcdoojk]

yes - send them to DC and they can work in the White House or congress.

 

I mean enough already. Geeezzzzzz go ride a Bike or something

 

Lawyers and DC are a lot like King Rat. Read it, a book by James Clavell about WWII prisoners in I think the Philippines. Great writer.

 

JC

[CanadaDeb]

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.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Biker19]

The two most amazing things that came out of this thread are Liberty has approximately 800 cameras and Biker needs a bigger stick.

Better?

[mugtech]

Lawyers and DC are a lot like King Rat. Read it, a book by James Clavell about WWII prisoners in I think the Philippines. Great writer.

 

JC

In the movie they were in Singapore. Not so many Aussie and British POWs in the Philippines.

[Big_G]

Better?

Only time will tell.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Milwaukee Eight]

Only time will tell.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Seems to still be going strong.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[xpcdoojk]

In the movie they were in Singapore. Not so many Aussie and British POWs in the Philippines.

 

Ah, yes probably right. Trying to remember why the George Segal (American) character was doing there. Maybe he was guarding the Ford Factory or at an Embassy. When we were in Singapore last April we visited the train station where they shipped the prisoners up the Malaysian Penisula to build the Bridge depicted in the movie Bridge over River Kwai.

 

JC

[ElaineKeagy]

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

 

 

 

This is Cruise Critic ...........so, no. Sigh

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[ReneeFLL]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would suggest minding your own business. Like I said, I will look into it when I am able.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Hmm let's see. You posted on a PUBLIC forum so why should he mind his own business? You don't like being called out?

[ReneeFLL]

Another one where the court refused to dismiss the case is Doe v RCI from 2011. It’s a similar situation, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted on a ship. Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that “the cameras were operable and continuously monitored but that the employees watching the cameras were not paying attention or were not properly trained to react to what they were seeing”.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

And what was the outcome of this one?

[Eslader]

And what was the outcome of this one?

 

Plaintiff lost on punitive damages, again:

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv23321/386655/84/

 

This poster keeps pulling up cases that detract from her claims.

 

 

The judge noted that not looking at security cameras and/or looking at them and failing to predict negative outcomes absent evidence that they're going to happen does not rise to the level of conduct which is "outrageous, owing to gross negligence, willful, wanton and reckless indifference for the rights of others, or behavior even more deplorable."

 

In other words, having security cameras doesn't mean you're negligent if you don't stare at the screen 24/7.

 

Although the Plaintiff may have been the victim of egregious and outrageous conduct at the hand of her alleged attacker, the factual allegations of what the Defendant witnessed on surveillance are insufficient to characterize the Defendant's conduct as wanton or outrageous.

[kccrzr]

Plaintiff lost on punitive damages, again:

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv23321/386655/84/

 

This poster keeps pulling up cases that detract from her claims.

 

 

The judge noted that not looking at security cameras and/or looking at them and failing to predict negative outcomes absent evidence that they're going to happen does not rise to the level of conduct which is "outrageous, owing to gross negligence, willful, wanton and reckless indifference for the rights of others, or behavior even more deplorable."

 

In other words, having security cameras doesn't mean you're negligent if you don't stare at the screen 24/7.

 

Your statement that the order dismissing a punitive damages claim means that there was no negligence is inaccurate. The court was addressing gross negligence which requires a higher standard of proof than ordinary negligence. The plaintiff’s negligence claim was not dismissed.

 

RCI and the plaintiff settled the case.

[Eslader]

Your statement that the order dismissing a punitive damages claim means that there was no negligence is inaccurate.

 

It's a good thing that I didn't say that, then. ;)

 

The overall bent of the people thinking Royal is in the wrong in this thread would point to gross negligence, because they're claiming that in not monitoring its cameras 24/7, Royal is intentionally putting passengers in danger.

 

That's an absurd thing to claim, because the idea that owning a security camera means that you are intentionally putting people in danger if you don't watch the video feed 24/7 is absurd.

 

Since it appears that Florida law requires *gross* negligence in order to assign punitive damages in a negligence claim...

 

There may well have been negligence in that case, although from my brief reading of it, it kinda sounds like there wasn't because there doesn't appear to have been any reasonable way to determine that the guy was going into her room to rape her versus going into her room to have consensual sex with her - one is not negligent simply because he is not psychic. But because they were going for punitive damages, they were looking at gross negligence.