Very disturbing lawsuit

[voyager70]

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.

 

Well said, best post of this thread.

[Merion_Mom]

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.

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

 

The article states that the (now adjudicated) guilty parties shooed people away from the library to hide what was going on.

 

Do you (and you know who you are) think that THOSE passengers are guilty of negligence for not reporting what was going on? For not being suspicious?

 

Please note that the sources for the information in the originally cited article in this thread are two notorious horrible anti-cruise ambulance-chasing lawyer sites.

 

I have always known that the cameras are not monitored, but are used to review things that may have happened. This comes up periodically when someone jumps overboard. People scream, "But there were cameras! Why didn't someone stop him/her?"

 

I remember this story being discussed on this forum three years ago when it happened. If you find the thread, you will find out what the young man said to the daughter, I believe.

 

ETA: Here you go. Google is our friend. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-cruise-ship-teen-attack-plea-20170130-story.html

 

Here's more. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/01/14/police-father-attacked-teen-who-asked-daughters-viginity/78806798/

 

Interesting quote: "Police said the 13-year-old boy offered Lawson’s daughter, also 13, a key chain in exchange for her virginity.

Upset, Lawson and the girl’s uncle, Arturo Martinez, Jr., 30, both from Ohio, confronted the boy.

Investigators said Lawson first made the boy apologize to his daughter, but later, Martinez cornered the kid and beat him up while Lawson watched, making sure he couldn’t escape."

[broberts]

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.

 

Given that the perpetrator is currently serving jail time for the crime I think it a reasonable assumption that the video recording was used in his trial. Presumably when the recording was introduced as evidence there was an exploration of how the recording came to be, establishment of any witnesses, and the chain of custody.

 

It is unreasonable to assert that every statement of the plaintiff must be false. I believe it is unethical for a lawyer to make a false statement of fact. Besides, doing so would undoubtedly damage the client's case.

[mk-ultra]

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.

 

I don't know where you get this idea, but it's actually the opposite. The vast number of security cameras you see (anywhere, not just on a ship) are NOT monitored in any way, unless they're in a specific high-risk or high-value area. A ship the size of the Indy has hundreds of cameras. They're there, for the most part, to provide a reliable accounting of what happened (past-tense)... or to permit security or operations personnel to view something they've been alerted to that they need to see in real-time.

 

Source: I manage security infrastructure with tens of thousands of cameras. We DO have cameras that are monitored 24x7, but these are only in exceptionally important areas... and it takes a lot of people with huge video walls to monitor the ones we've decided are that important.

Edited June 24, 2018 by mk-ultra

[oneputt18]

Excerpt from Cruise Contract:

 

"f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify

Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs

or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising

from or related to Passenger’s conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of

this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended

to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or

(iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly

or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the

part of the Passenger"

 

My interpretation is it the parents responsibility to insure their minor adheres to the curfew.

[kccrzr]

I’m sure Royal Caribbean’s public statements about Safety and Security will be addressed, including this: http://www.royalcaribbean.com/contentPage.do?pagename=royal_caribbean_security_guide

 

It touts the CCTV system. There is no statement regarding whether the system is or is not being manually reviewed at all times. However, RCI does state that it generally exceeds safety regulations and US Federal law. So, imho, someone could reasonably think it is being watched 24/7 ( as is the hotel/retail/office complex where I work).

[Finbar127]

Excerpt from Cruise Contract:

 

"f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify

Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs

or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising

from or related to Passenger’s conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of

this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended

to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or

(iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly

or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the

part of the Passenger"

 

My interpretation is it the parents responsibility to insure their minor adheres to the curfew.

 

That clause does not indemnify RCCL While I'm not convinced that RCCL has any responsibility here I do agree that it is a matter that should be explored in court.

[grandgeezer]

I don't know where you get this idea, but you're very, very incorrect. It's actually the opposite. The vast number of security cameras you see (anywhere, not just on a ship) are NOT monitored in any way, unless they're in a specific high-risk or high-value area. A ship the size of the Indy has hundreds of cameras. They're there, for the most part, to provide a reliable accounting of what happened (past-tense)... or to permit security or operations personnel to view something they've been alerted to that they need to see in real-time.

 

Source: I manage security infrastructure with tens of thousands of cameras. We DO have cameras that are monitored 24x7, but these are only in exceptionally important areas... and it takes a lot of people with huge video walls to monitor the ones we've decided are that important.

 

And you know the cameras in question weren't supposed to be monitored at the time in question, how? If they weren't supposed to be monitored I would think RCL would have mentioned it in the reply to the suit.

If you think RCL has no culpability in this incident you are delusional. What was the kid doing out at that hour, who knows. Maybe he snuck out after his parents went to bed. If it goes to trial, the jury will decide the amount of culpability and award damages based on that if the verdict is guilty. A civil trial the jury only has to think that is highly possible the defendant did the act, not beyond a reasonable doubt like you need in a criminal trial. If you are 51% sure they are guilty, that's the verdict. Then you decide damages based on that.

[Aquahound]

And you know the cameras in question weren't supposed to be monitored at the time in question, how? If they weren't supposed to be monitored I would think RCL would have mentioned it in the reply to the suit.

 

I investigate maritime crime and pull cruise ship video all the time. No, they are not monitored and no, they are not required by any law to be monitored.

[RonPaula]

I'm questioning the ability of many of these posters to analyze data/information in an unbiased or nonpartisan manner. That short article presents very little information to consider yet, what appears to be, many individuals digging in their heels and defend their position. Sign of the times.

[Biker19]

But there's no law saying a ship must have cameras.

I don't believe the law specifies cameras be used, but there's a law that requires ships to have man-overboard systems in place. In practice that is all done with cameras and software. RCI and others have gotten waivers to install such systems on all their ships (though most do have them).

Edited June 24, 2018 by Biker19

[Biker19]

That short article presents very little information to consider yet, what appears to be, many individuals digging in their heels and defend their position.

And with a few exceptions I don't think anyone has any idea of the reality of what happens in a security command center where video might be viewed.

[mk-ultra]

And you know the cameras in question weren't supposed to be monitored at the time in question, how? If they weren't supposed to be monitored I would think RCL would have mentioned it in the reply to the suit.

If you think RCL has no culpability in this incident you are delusional. What was the kid doing out at that hour, who knows. Maybe he snuck out after his parents went to bed. If it goes to trial, the jury will decide the amount of culpability and award damages based on that if the verdict is guilty. A civil trial the jury only has to think that is highly possible the defendant did the act, not beyond a reasonable doubt like you need in a criminal trial. If you are 51% sure they are guilty, that's the verdict. Then you decide damages based on that.

 

Whoa. Back off. Point out to me where I said RCI doesn't have culpability. I corrected a misconception that a lot of people have in this thread: that security cameras have a human watching them live. How you go from that, to calling me "delusional" and absolving RCI... I have no clue, but you might want to think about how emotional and judgemental you're being... and think about keeping your tone civil.

[Biker19]

Source: I manage security infrastructure with tens of thousands of cameras. We DO have cameras that are monitored 24x7, but these are only in exceptionally important areas... and it takes a lot of people with huge video walls to monitor the ones we've decided are that important.

And even on those that are viewed 24/7, someone's ability, willingness and capacity to discern actionable activity is quite suspect, especially at 2AM.

[Toofarfromthesea]

My opinion:

 

1) if having security cameras creates an expectation of real-time monitoring and intervention, then every big city in the world is in trouble. London has over 400,000 security cameras. Does anyone think they are monitored, and acted upon, in real time?

 

2) the notion that the stated curfew wasn't enforced in this instance, and that created liability, is equally absurd. If someone crosses the street against a 'Don't Walk' signal and gets hit by a car is it the city's responsibility because they didn't enforce the signal? Would the fact that the person run over was a 13 year old make a difference?

 

The only possible issue, as far as I can see, is potentially serving someone alcohol who appeared intoxicated. Which raises some points. First is that the person might not have actually been served - the alcohol could have come from his cabin supply of from a friend. Perp obviously has a friend who disregards laws and, presumably, rules.

 

And even if the ship served someone who appeared intoxicated, that doesn't make them liable for everything that person does. There has to be an element of foreseeability. If it happens in a land-based bar and the patron kills someone driving drunk, then that is foreseeable and liability should attach. But there is nothing foreseeable about a patron assaulting a teenager boy.

 

That being said, a boy offering a girl a keychain for her virginity DESERVES to be thrashed (albeit without the sexual component - whatever that was), although it is unwise in our society to actually do it.

[mk-ultra]

And even on those that are viewed 24/7, someone's ability, willingness and capacity to discern actionable activity is quite suspect, especially at 2AM.

 

You're absolutely correct. I don't know how many operators RCI would have in a ship's SOC, but I'd be amazed if it was more than 3 people on-duty. Even if they just pick the most important cameras to view constantly (bridge, engine room, engine control room, spaces with penetrations below the waterline -- just spitballing here), it would be like looking at a bunch of postage stamps on a screen without some serious video wall displays.

[voyager70]

That kid sounds like a total punk. Hopefully he learned his lesson, the hard way.

[time4u2go]

I'm questioning the ability of many of these posters to analyze data/information in an unbiased or nonpartisan manner. That short article presents very little information to consider yet, what appears to be, many individuals digging in their heels and defend their position. Sign of the times.

Well said. There are some that read the article and unconditionally accept it as truth.

[smplybcause]

That kid sounds like a total punk. Hopefully he learned his lesson, the hard way.

Wow

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Blizzard54]

I would be curious to know if any of the other people that were there when it started informed security.

It appears that even if security was called it may not have been in time to prevent the assault. At any rate it is early in the process. All this judgement did is allow the suit to continue to the next phase. It may or may not ever make it to a jury. We may never know how this ends.

[A&L_Ont]

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.

 

Stated perfectly, from someone with great knowledge.

 

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

 

The article states that the (now adjudicated) guilty parties shooed people away from the library to hide what was going on.

 

Do you (and you know who you are) think that THOSE passengers are guilty of negligence for not reporting what was going on? For not being suspicious?

 

Please note that the sources for the information in the originally cited article in this thread are two notorious horrible anti-cruise ambulance-chasing lawyer sites.

 

I have always known that the cameras are not monitored, but are used to review things that may have happened. This comes up periodically when someone jumps overboard. People scream, "But there were cameras! Why didn't someone stop him/her?"

 

I remember this story being discussed on this forum three years ago when it happened. If you find the thread, you will find out what the young man said to the daughter, I believe.

 

ETA: Here you go. Google is our friend. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-cruise-ship-teen-attack-plea-20170130-story.html

 

Here's more. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/01/14/police-father-attacked-teen-who-asked-daughters-viginity/78806798/

 

Interesting quote: "Police said the 13-year-old boy offered Lawson’s daughter, also 13, a key chain in exchange for her virginity.

Upset, Lawson and the girl’s uncle, Arturo Martinez, Jr., 30, both from Ohio, confronted the boy.

Investigators said Lawson first made the boy apologize to his daughter, but later, Martinez cornered the kid and beat him up while Lawson watched, making sure he couldn’t escape."

 

Thanks MM for going pack into the past. As I was reading the story I started to remember when it was originally posted here. It caused a lot of discussion then and had again today.

[John&LaLa]

And with a few exceptions I don't think anyone has any idea of the reality of what happens in a security command center where video might be viewed.

 

Bridge Tour or Captain's Corner question maybe.

 

Or maybe ask Bailey on the President's Cruise this September.

[Finbar127]

That kid sounds like a total punk. Hopefully he learned his lesson, the hard way.

 

Outrageous! The kid may very well be a total punk. That does not justify the sex crime that savage committed.

[maggie cruises]

Yeah who needs a silly old trial? :D

 

 

 

Settling this will cost rccl much less than a verdict especially if proven that cameras weren't manned

 

However rccl didn't enforce their curfew either. So strike 2

 

A 13yo was the victim no matter which way anyone tries to change it. You absolutely cannot blame the victim of an assault.

 

Also...since I'm a logical thinker...until it's proven the parents allowed him out and about at 2am...he could have well left the cabin with them thinking he was asleep.

 

 

McDonald's probably wishes they had settled too The woman only wanted her medical bills paid...I can't stress that enough because I know so many people still believe she was trying to get a big payout.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[SarcasmSpasm]

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.

 

I totally agree.

 

In this day and age where we have active shooter drills in elementary schools, is it really better to be reactionary than proactive? They should absolutely be diligent about monitoring the ship at 2 am. I’m shocked at how many people are comfortable with them simply rolling tape and checking it after the fact.