Very disturbing lawsuit

[maggie cruises]

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.

 

 

 

So the plaintiffs lawyers are making it up that the cameras weren't monitored?

 

 

My take is this....the plaintiff lawyers took their time putting together this lawsuit....sent out their investigators...and those investigators found evidence the cameras weren't monitored

 

 

Of course I'm not an idiot....and realize there is a lot of fake stuff out there....but the debate here is based on what this particular article says and it says they weren't monitored and that may well be true

 

Rccl is wrong as stated by other posters

 

Curfew

Alcohol

Cameras

 

Plaintiff will win

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[shirleygr]

What state and what law? My teens definitely roam on the ship (as they do in town), but I enforce the ships 1 am curfew (much to their dismay). 13 year olds babysit, they aren’t little kids. By 14 mine had paying jobs.

 

I am a mandated reporter in CT and work for a program which serves adolescents with problematic behaviors. In our state, parents/guardians are required to call the police when they don't know where their minor children are, especially if at 2am. If they do not notify the police, I am required to file a DCF report for parental neglect.

 

I also allow my kids freedom on the ships but they must check in with me regularly and they must abide by the 1 am curfew.

[CruiseGal999]

It is an unfortunate situation I've seen before where parents don't worry about their kids because they think they are "safer" on a cruise ship. I feel terrible for the victim and the family, but the parents were also negligent. This would have been a mandated report of child neglect in my state.

 

I agree with you. People ignore the fact that this is a city of about 5,000 people ... all contained in a very small area. Just because it is a cruise ship, does not mean a child or an adult is completely safe.

[Kevin]

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.

RCCL should institute a $5000 per person personal safety fee on every booking.

 

Everyone should be issued jumpsuits to wear incase someone has unsafe clothing.

 

Any food that are known to cause allergic reactions should be banned for everyone’s safety.

 

I am not at all responsible for my actions or safety or the actions or safety of my kids.

[time4u2go]

So the plaintiffs lawyers are making it up that the cameras weren't monitored?

 

 

My take is this....the plaintiff lawyers took their time putting together this lawsuit....sent out their investigators...and those investigators found evidence the cameras weren't monitored

 

 

Of course I'm not an idiot....and realize there is a lot of fake stuff out there....but the debate here is based on what this particular article says and it says they weren't monitored and that may well be true

 

Rccl is wrong as stated by other posters

 

Curfew

Alcohol

Cameras

 

Plaintiff will win

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Yeah who needs a silly old trial? :D

[kccrzr]

Here is a link to the court order for those who are interested: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.512245/gov.uscourts.flsd.512245.43.0.pdf

 

This case is in the early stages. The plaintiff alleges alternate theories of liability - in discovery it should not be difficult to establish whether or not the monitors were manned.

 

Royal Caribbean argued it had no duty to constantly man the monitors. The judge references two other cases in which RCI made the same argument and was denied a dismissal based upon alleged reliance on the existence of security.

 

If the case survives subsequent summary judgment, it is for the jury to decide based upon all of the facts.

[AmazedByCruising]

I am a mandated reporter in CT and work for a program which serves adolescents with problematic behaviors. In our state, parents/guardians are required to call the police when they don't know where their minor children are, especially if at 2am. If they do not notify the police, I am required to file a DCF report for parental neglect.

 

So you mean that anytime you don't know where your kids are (including kids without problematic behaviors), you're supposed the call the police?

 

As a kid we would roam miles from home, without a phone, and the only instruction was to come back when the light poles were lit.

[smplybcause]

A cruise ship has to have hundreds of cameras, to assume that they have the ability to monitor all of them at all times is just crazy and pretty much impossible. The cameras at my condo complex are not monitored. All the cameras at theme parks are not monitored. If the fallout from a suit determines that royal has a duty to monitor all cameras in real time... the fallout will just be to reduce the number of cameras. Or I suppose add into the long cruise contract that they are not monitored.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[mjkacmom]

I am a mandated reporter in CT and work for a program which serves adolescents with problematic behaviors. In our state, parents/guardians are required to call the police when they don't know where their minor children are, especially if at 2am. If they do not notify the police, I am required to file a DCF report for parental neglect.

 

I also allow my kids freedom on the ships but they must check in with me regularly and they must abide by the 1 am curfew.

Curfew here in my town would be 11, so a minor one hour after curfew would either be brought home, or the parents called to pick up. There is no way DYFS would be called about this. Kids sneak out all of the time.

[ElaineKeagy]

I blame the parents entirely. A 13 year old should not be roaming the ship at 2AM.

This episode was 100% avoidable, by the parents.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[John&LaLa]

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

Pretty sure the library would be really low on the list of heavily monitored areas

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[CP3o]

I blame the parents entirely. A 13 year old should not be roaming the ship at 2AM.

This episode was 100% avoidable, by the parents.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

They could have gone to sleep assuming he’d be in from teen club by curfew bc enforced on other ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Baron Barracuda]

Personally I'm curious about the comment the boy made to the daughter that set the father off. As father of 3 girls I can see how a father would seek out a little punk who had disrespected his daughter, especially with a few drinks in him. The key of course is knowing how far to take it, and the father obviously went too far. Would also like to know just what the "sexual assault" was and how long the incident lasted. If only a minute or two security would not have had time to react even if cameras were monitored.

[CP3o]

Aside from the 17 year olds hanging out w 18 year olds, I think most like the idea of curfew and enforcement. I’d move to 12am curfew unless in organized teen space or with parents then 1am

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ElaineKeagy]

They could have gone to sleep assuming he’d be in from teen club by curfew bc enforced on other ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

Thank you for reinforcing my point about parental responsibility. What kind of parents go to sleep at night not knowing where their THIRTEEN year old is??? Really??? Would you??

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[John&LaLa]

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

To many cameras.

 

Can you prioritize which ones?

 

Pools/hot tubs

Outside Promenade

Hallways

Bars

Casino

Solarium

Helipad

Theater

Library (maybe a reason to remove them)

Internet Cafe

 

I know I can't

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[blueridgemama]

They could have gone to sleep assuming he’d be in from teen club by curfew bc enforced on other ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

Times may have changed but I did not go to sleep until I knew my young children were home. What's the point of giving your kids a curfew and then going to sleep and not knowing if they were home or not. Regardless of what the outcome is for RCI's involvement I still think the ultimate responsibility was the parents.

[Dianacm]

Whether RCCl is legally obligated to monitor all of their many cameras in real time 24/7 or stop serving intoxicated passengers (.08?) or aggressively enforce underage curfews are the points on which this case will swing. Aside from that, it strikes me that in this thread there has been a fairly consistent rush to judgment condemning the parents for not properly supervising their child. As has been mentioned before, it's possible that the parents responsibly enforced the curfew and the victim slipped out. While we all hope as parents our radar would kick in and prevent this, stranger things have happened. Even sober parents aren't always light sleepers at 2AM. This has no bearing on the case, because the child was out after curfew, with parental approval or not. Yes, in either case parents are still responsible for what their minor children are up to, and sure, many parents are irresponsible, but the tone in many posts assume recklessness on the part of the parents. We simply don't have the details necessary to condemn their behavior.

[danv3]

Here is a link to the court order for those who are interested: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.512245/gov.uscourts.flsd.512245.43.0.pdf

 

This case is in the early stages. The plaintiff alleges alternate theories of liability - in discovery it should not be difficult to establish whether or not the monitors were manned.

 

Royal Caribbean argued it had no duty to constantly man the monitors. The judge references two other cases in which RCI made the same argument and was denied a dismissal based upon alleged reliance on the existence of security.

 

If the case survives subsequent summary judgment, it is for the jury to decide based upon all of the facts.

 

Thank you for this. And to clarify, at this stage in the proceedings, the judge is required to accept as true everything the plaintiffs have said, and no consideration is given to facts RCI may want to present.

[luvscruising2007]

I don't believe RC is responsible for monitoring the cameras 24/7. It would be impossible to monitor all at the same time.

The parents have full responsibility for their child.

We don't know how much alcohol the father had. He may have ordered his own drinks or someone could have bought them for him. Did they take an alcohol test?

I feel sorry for this young boy but am not sure what he should expect in the law suit. Perhaps RC as a sign of good faith should pay for psychiatric counseling. Other than that I am not sure any real monetary award should be expected.

Too many questions for me.

Also for those who believe that curfew should have been enforced, I agree. However, then all of their policies should be enforced. And, maybe all suggestions should become policy.

[danv3]

So the plaintiffs lawyers are making it up that the cameras weren't monitored?

 

LOL. Plaintiffs lawyers make stuff up all the time. It's called alleging "upon information and belief." At this stage in the proceedings the plaintiffs wouldn't have had a chance to take discovery from RCI to know whether or not the cameras were monitored (though probably some of that came out in the criminal trial).

 

Separately, the idea that RCI owes a duty to monitor all cameras on board at all times is ridiculous. The result of them losing this case will be fewer cameras, not more monitoring.

Edited June 24, 2018 by danv3

[Redrobo]

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Teens-Assault-on-Cruise-Ship-Caught-on-Surveillance-Camera-473020823.html

 

Just to add to those narratives on the tread.

[AmazedByCruising]

Here is a link to the court order for those who are interested: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.512245/gov.uscourts.flsd.512245.43.0.pdf

 

There's much text about the cameras. I can see why there are so many cameras on a ship, and it probably makes cruising safer. But there's no law saying a ship must have cameras. If having them, which probably leads to a safer ship, means you have to monitor all of them 24/7, the obvious next step would be to get rid of them, leading to a lesser safe ship, but less problems in court and no expenses for cameras

[Aquahound]

I disagree with this lawsuit. I'm having a hard time understanding why some are so hung up on RCI having shown negligence in this case.

 

Security cameras. This isn't the Bellagio gaming floor or the entrance gate to Fort Knox. Do any of you truly think cruise ship security are sitting there staring at hundreds of video screens 24/7? No! Security cameras are used to record data so they can be referenced when something happens. They are not used for real time enforcement action. That's the way it works almost everywhere. To expect otherwise is totally unreasonable.

 

Second, how do we know RCI knew this kid was out and that they weren't enforcing curfew? Does it say anywhere that security saw this kid and allowed him to stay out? If this is just a case of him being out and not getting caught, I cannot agree it's the cruise line's fault. The parents, on the other hand, knew he was out. Where's their liability?

 

This is like letting your son speed down the highway, resulting in a crash, and then suing the police for not being there to make a traffic stop.

[kccrzr]

Personally I'm curious about the comment the boy made to the daughter that set the father off. As father of 3 girls I can see how a father would seek out a little punk who had disrespected his daughter, especially with a few drinks in him. The key of course is knowing how far to take it, and the father obviously went too far. Would also like to know just what the "sexual assault" was and how long the incident lasted. If only a minute or two security would not have had time to react even if cameras were monitored.

 

 

Did you watch the portion of the video shown on the NBC report which is linked as a source from the original article? NBC said it could not show the whole video but it does show the guy taking off his shirt and apparently unzipping his pants. http://www.wdwinfo.com/news-stories/lawsuit-against-royal-caribbean-claiming-negligence-in-sexual-assault-to-move-forward/

 

Not sure why you put "sexual assault" in quotes but lewd and lascivious behavior involves sexual contact. Frankly, it does not matter what the kid said, if anything, about the guy's daughter.