Response re. George Smith's Disappearance

[etoile]

I like your reasoning, jukeboxy - that would probably apply to any murder trial that came of this. I think the family might be looking for money directly from RCI, though, which is a U.S.-incorporated company headquartered in Miami. They probably could use a wrongful death argument or something like that and sue the corporation. Just my guessing though.

[jukeboxy]

[quote name='etoile']I like your reasoning, jukeboxy - that would probably apply to any murder trial that came of this. I think the family might be looking for money directly from RCI, though, which is a U.S.-incorporated company headquartered in Miami. They probably could use a wrongful death argument or something like that and sue the corporation. Just my guessing though.[/quote]
[B][COLOR=DarkSlateGray][SIZE=4][FONT=Garamond]I was curious about that so I went to the RCI websit and found this.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] [IMG]http://www.royalcaribbean.com/s.gif[/IMG][SIZE=3][B][COLOR=Green] Brilliance of the Seas is operated by RCL (UK) Ltd., a subsidiary of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]

[Nancyquilts]

Etoile -
Really sorry to hear about your cat. I think my e-hugs from the west coast were poofed along with the other thread. Nancy

[1corona4u]

[quote name='jukeboxy'][B][COLOR=darkslategray][SIZE=4][FONT=Garamond]I was curious about that so I went to the RCI websit and found this.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=darkslategray][SIZE=4][FONT=Garamond]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][IMG]http://www.royalcaribbean.com/s.gif[/IMG][SIZE=3][B][COLOR=green] Brilliance of the Seas is operated by RCL (UK) Ltd., a subsidiary of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/quote]

From what I understand, RCCL is incorporated in Liberia and headquartered in Miami.

[Liat]

If George's family wants to sue for wrongful death, this is an action in negligence. Since the evidence seems to indicate that he went overboard in International waters; the initial court having jurisdiction would be the court of the country of the ship's registry. Acccording to CruiseCritic, Brilliance of the Seas is registered in the Bahamas. This is a Commonwealth country with what is essentially the English judicial system - therefore eminently fair. English Maritime law would be applied. It would not be a great burden for an American to bring such a lawsuit in the Bahamas.
Bringing a maritime lawsuit based on what happened in International waters on a foreign registered, foreign owned ship poses a problem for an American court. If I am hit by a truck as I cross a street in Texas, and the truck is owned by an Arkansas company, and not licensed in Arizona; I would have a problem filing a suit in an Arizona state court simply because I am an Arizona resident. There is a rule called the rule of "minimum contacts", meaning that there must be some minimal connection with the state before a party can use it's courts. My Arizona citizenship, standing alone, does not meet that test.
Can the Smith family sue in Florida? It would be a close question since the only connection Florida has is the fact that RCCL is a foreign corporation doing business in that state. I do not know where the cruise tickets were sold. Through a travel agent? If so, where is that agent? Connecticut? Or were the tickets purchased on the internet? These are tricky issues.
In any event, the family has to demonstrate that RCCL (1) was negligent in some respect and (2) that this negligence was the proximate cause of Mr. Smith's demise. Simply showing that he was a passenger and now is dead is not enough. Nor do any actions of RCCL after he disappeared constitute proof of negligence causing the death.
The only real possibility of raising an issue of negligence would seem to be under what is known as "dram shop" liability. This is a legal concept which holds that a business providing liquor to customers can be liable for any injury suffered by or caused by such a customer if the business serves the customer knowing that he or she is inebriated and in realistic danger of causing harm to him/herself or others. This usually arises in cases involving drunk driving for obvious reasons; but could perhaps arise in other cases. Since this legal concept is often governed by state law; it would be governed in this case by maritime law. And I have no idea what that law may be - there is a distinct shortage of maritime lawyers here in Arizona. For all I know, the concept may not exist in maritime law, at least where passengers and not crew members are concerned.
In any event - Oprah ain't going to be the judge!

[C 2 C]

Hi Phil:

Nice evaluation...

Just another source of news/gossip:

[URL="http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS01/601150342"]http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS01/601150342[/URL]


Arno

[cechase]

As a retired attorney who practiced law in San Mateo County, California for 38 years, I just could not resist responding after reading this interesting thread.

First, I would like to compliment Joanie (msiowa) for very adequately discussing the rules for intestacy (which are statutory in all states, and are pretty much the same in each jurisdiction). Her description of the term "by representation" was correct. However, that term is basically used in Wills and Trusts in order to cover the situation where a named beneficiary predeceases a decedent or trustor.

Thank you Phil (liat) for raising a number of issues which have not been discussed previously in this thread by lawyers and those who think that they know enough about the law. Until your post, not one of these so called experts mentioned "proximate cause". Even if the claim is for breach of premises liability, the injury must be proximately caused by that breach. Woodofpine suggested a cause of action for premise liability based upon a duty imposed on the owner to adequately provide protection and/or notice to guests in order to prevent injury from premises defects or crimes which the owner could reasonably foresee.

Of course, all of our discussion is based on "land law", and Admiralty Law may treat these issues entirely different.

Phil, I think that you may have pointed out probably the only legitimate claim that the plaintiffs could plead and that is the "Dram Shop" law, which is quite common in most jurisdictions. Based on the "facts" posted in this thread, both the husband and the wife had been drinking very heavily and apparently were quite intoxicated, witness the wife passed out and sleeping in the hallway. Wouldn't it be reasonable for crew members to note the high level of intoxication of these two? And if they did notice it, wouldn't the crew member or members have some duty to escort these people to a place of safety where they could not endanger themselves or others? Just a thought :D

I don't entirely agree with woodofpines's discussion concerning settlement or motivation to settle. Interestingly enough, I was corporate counsel and a board member of a high tech manufacturer located in Englewood, Fl (woodofpines's home), which we subsequently moved to Sarasota. A manager made a fateful blunder which formed a credible basis for a claim of sexual discrimination. The matter had been referred to EEOC and the young lady had not as yet retained an attorney. I was able to get all of the facts over the phone. As was my practice, I reviewed the jury verdict awards for the county in which the discrimination occured for that particular kind of claim, reviewed the local practice and procedure as well as costs (court reporter, transcripts, etc.), and prepared a litigation budget. I then flew to the east coast, and reinterviewed all of the witnesses. I advised the President of the company of my findings. I recommended settlement before the claim became "hot". I called the EEOC representative and officially apologized for our manager's conduct, revealed that he had been reprimanded and required to attend a discrimination workshop, and stated that I wanted to apologize personally to the claimant, and said we wanted to settle the matter right away. I mentioned a figure - which was one-sixth of our litigation budget (jury award plus costs of defense). The case was settled for that amount while I was still in Sarasota.

This type of settlement procedure is very very common particularly for claims that are not insurable or marginally insurable. The same holds true for premises liability claims in many instances.

Look forward to returning to this interesting thread. Wish that someone grounded in Admiralty Law would pipe in though.

[etoile]

[quote name='cechase']Her description of the term "by representation" was correct. However, that term is basically used in Wills and Trusts in order to cover the situation where a named beneficiary predeceases a decedent or trustor.[/quote]
Which is in fact what was being referred to at the time - we were discussing whether or not George Smith stood to inherit a lot from his family, having predeceased them. Not to worry, I think we were pretty clear on that part. It's the rest that was confusing! :o

[TechKnowBabble]

[quote name='C 2 C']Hi Phil:

Nice evaluation...

Just another source of news/gossip:

[URL="http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS01/601150342"]http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS01/601150342[/URL]


Arno[/quote]

From the article you mentioned I snipped this part...

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][SIZE=3]Florida maritime attorney Tonya Meister, who until recently was based in Brevard County, said even one incident in a million is too many.
"It shouldn't be happening at all," she said. "I think people are under the misconception that cruise ships are safe and you're protected. . . . There are no background checks conducted on passengers or crew members, and there could be repeat criminals who come out on cruise ships."



I find that statement a little ridiculous, I don't know if the part about no background checks on the crew members is correct, but I don't know of any other 'vacation place' that does a background check on passengers (visitors/guests). Do you get a background check if you go to Disneyworld? Come on that is insane. You could be walking down the same street with a 'repeat criminal' anyday. I think sometimes people speak just to hear themselves talk and don't think about what they are saying before it comes out.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[cechase]

[quote name='etoile']Which is in fact what was being referred to at the time - we were discussing whether or not George Smith stood to inherit a lot from his family, having predeceased them. Not to worry, I think we were pretty clear on that part. It's the rest that was confusing! :o[/QUOTE]

It is not confusing at all. Since George Smith predeceased his parents, he does not inherit from them whether or not they have wills. Since he had no children, any devise to George by his parents even if they have a "by representation" clause lapses.

[Liat]

[quote name='C 2 C']Hi Phil:

Nice evaluation...

Just another source of news/gossip:

[URL="http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS01/601150342"]http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS01/601150342[/URL]


Arno[/QUOTE]
How are you doing? We sailed on Serenity recently, and loved it. We are going on Nautica from Istanbul in May, followed by Constellation to Canada in September; Expedition to the Galapagos in January 2007 and then a RT on Infinity to Hawaii again in April.
Phil & Edith

[C 2 C]

[quote name='Liat'] We are going on Nautica from Istanbul in May, followed by Constellation to Canada in September; Expedition to the Galapagos in January 2007 and then a RT on Infinity to Hawaii again in April.
Phil & Edith[/quote]
Hi Phil... We're going to Istanbul in May as well... on Galaxy... Hope we don't make the news... but then I limit my alcoholic intake and book inside cabins... No problem sleep walking... or is there such a thing as sleep-diving:cool:

[hermang]

[quote name='TechKnowBabble']From the article you mentioned I snipped this part...

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][SIZE=3]Florida maritime attorney Tonya Meister, who until recently was based in Brevard County, said even one incident in a million is too many.
"It shouldn't be happening at all," she said. "I think people are under the misconception that cruise ships are safe and you're protected. . . . There are no background checks conducted on passengers or crew members, and there could be repeat criminals who come out on cruise ships."



I find that statement a little ridiculous, I don't know if the part about no background checks on the crew members is correct, but I don't know of any other 'vacation place' that does a background check on passengers (visitors/guests). Do you get a background check if you go to Disneyworld? Come on that is insane. You could be walking down the same street with a 'repeat criminal' anyday. I think sometimes people speak just to hear themselves talk and don't think about what they are saying before it comes out.

[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Metro North, the local Ct commuter railroad has had at least 5 suicides in the last year where people walk in front of trains. (OUCH). Ok Chris Shays - how about a congressional hearing or three about safety of the Railroad Industry??

In New York City - people are routinely pushed in front of subway trains - far more than have died aboard a cruise ship again no hearings - WHY - can't sue a government agency ???

[TechKnowBabble]

[quote name='hermang']Metro North, the local Ct commuter railroad has had at least 5 suicides in the last year where people walk in front of trains. (OUCH). Ok Chris Shays - how about a congressional hearing or three about safety of the Railroad Industry??

In New York City - people are routinely pushed in front of subway trains - far more than have died aboard a cruise ship again no hearings - WHY - can't sue a government agency ???[/quote]

Precisely....living nowadays anywhere is just NOT safe, common sense must be maintained everywhere.

[bububr]

I think the fact that his wife is complaining that she was charged for services before his dissaperance...leads me to belive it was a money issue.

Also reading on about the guy who committed suicide after losing thousands in the casino made me have some interesting thoughts.

My take:

Both WERE seen in the casino she walking around, he being VERY active at the craps table......

A number of couples reported that they HAD A BIG FIGHT later in front of strangers.......

They WERE both drinking...( no evidence of how much )

She WAS found sleeping outside the cabin early that morning.

The blood on the canopy WAS a few floors down.


I think he blew A LOT of money at the craps table.

I think she slapped him in the face which would account for the blood on the towel that was found.

I think she stormed out of the cabin which would account for the disturbance other passengers complained about.

Both drinking, I think he may have been 'Toying' with just killing himself because of this ruining the 'Perfect' relationship they supposedly had.

I think he was TOO drunk to make a good decision, and may have fallen over the balcony ( not suicide per say...but being very upset..and making bad decisions).

He either hit his head going down on another balcony, or was still bleeding from his face where she may have hit him.

FACT: Alcohol thins the blood making it easier to blleed to death...this would account for the huge blood stain on the canopy.

I think he then slid off into the ocean.

I think she feels guilty they had a fight.

I think she is lying about a number of things to make herself feel better about her guilt.

I think this whole thing was a terrible, unfortunate, unnessessary incident.

I don't believe it was foul play...just bad judgement and bad circumstances.

I feel they did both love each other...

I do not believe she is a fortune hunter or cold person.

I truly believe she can't get a grip on reality based on the circumaances and her guilt.

I think Royal Caribbean did everything appropriately and should NOT be held responsible.

As for removing the stain and evidence ...IT is nothing more than a safety net for her to blame RCCL for the accident...with no way to disprove it...making her feel a little better knowing that suspicion is off her....

these are all thoughts IMHO after seeing Oprah and reading the reports.

I truly believe it was an accident and she hasn't come to terms with it yet because they FOUGHT right before it happened...and she is bearing the burden of guilt that it is her fault.

Dave:eek:

[Lois R]

Hi Dave, I watched Oprah today as well.

I got the impression she was actually found on the other side of
the ship from her cabin (on the floor):eek:

Did I miss something here too? The whole story is definitely
confusing.:confused:

[C 2 C]

Well I just watched this "performance" on Oprah....

She was upset that TCL sent her a bill for what they consumed on board.
She was upset that she had to pay for her own way home.
She was upset that they did not hold the ship for whatever time to find the evidence of what happened.. ?You have insurance for that... give everybody a cruise or two for their inconvenience..."

She can't remember why she was sleeping in the corridor.
She can't remember what she did after leaving the casino at 2 am,
She demanded an apology and the price of her ticket home.... and got it

[wolfganghowell]

she was found on the same floor on the other side of the ship. she went left rather than right. or roght rather than left.

[halos]

I SO am not buying the lack of memory thing. I don't care how many polygraphs she takes, it just is too 'convenient' for me. The fact that her in-laws are not speaking to her says quite a lot as well. I'm disappointed that Oprah couldn't round up more of the otjer witnesses that saw her fighting with her husband.
I don't buy the idea that she's on her honeymoon, wakes up in an empty bed and goes to her spa treatment, not knowing where her husband is. You'd think if she had to be wheelchaired back to her room, and woke up not recalling anything, that she'd be a little concerned about why she couldn't recall anything, and would have looked for her husband. I'm thinking that if I were drugged and woke up with no memory, I'd be too upset to get a freaking massage FTLOG!
She also seems WAY too composed for my liking....my feeling is that she knows something and she's covering something up.

[motherchic]

I guess we will never really know what happened..... and maybe things have changed since i got married but if i remember correctly the only place my DH slept during our honeymoon was on top of me..........
i dont believe that she killed him but waking up the next day- realizing that you had to be wheelchaired back to your room- finding your husband not there and THEN going for a massage...... oh YA sure-thats what i would have done....................

[safein]

I watched Oprah and I think less and less of JHS. I really do think she knows more than what she has told anybody. People can pass a polygraph test and still be lying.

My theory is that GS got so drunk that he got extremely ill, vomited blood and wound up going overboard. It is possible that he was so out of it that his judgement was impaired. He might have thought that if he got sick on the balcony itself that he decided to barf past the edge of the canopy. Remember, who knows what was going through his mind at the time.

I feel that RCI did the right thing by its actions. Now, did JHS was really going to think that RCI would have held up the cruiseship in order to bring in a forensic's team? Wonder what she would have thought when 2,000 angry passengers came down on her head if she got her way? Guess they weren't on Cruise Critic!

Anita

[LovetheSea]

I was thinking, that just because she was found in a hall on the opposite side of the ship as her cabin at 7:30 am doesn't mean she hadn't been back to her cabin earlier. There were the "other passengers" who supposedly put him into bed in their cabin not too long before that and the guy who called to complain about the noise and heard the thud at around 7:15. It may be that she and her husband were both in the cabin drunk or drugged and an altercation happened in the cabin and after he was killed and tossed, she was taken out or left the cabin. I would think the people that were in the cabin arguing and making all the noise, the next door neighbor heard, are the prime suspects. I just hope whatever happened they don't get away with murder. Don't they also have video cameras in all the halls outside the cabins? RCCL crew on the ship would be able to tell who went in and out of the cabin at any given time. One thing that bugged me is when the President of RCCL said this was the first time this sort of thing had ever happened. Remember the incident where a naked woman was tossed or fell out of a balcony of a Voyager class ship on to a deck below and died.( I think the Adventure of the Seas) in the Caribbean. And then the Amy Bradley disappearance on the Rhapsody of the Seas. Both times the cruise lines left port the same day. I think it is a policy they have. Dump the problem in whatever port they are in, along with the people involved and leave.
I don't know if the wife was involved. I don't think she killed him. But she was being so careful of what she was saying and doing. I think maybe her lawyer didn't want her to come on Oprah and warned her to be careful what she said. It just made her look cold and uncaring. But I am sure if we saw her the days right after it happened she would not have looked so cool and collected.
Another thing. He must have laid on the canopy for a while because of the puddle of blood along with the blood smears. Do you think the movement of the ship eventually made him slide the rest of the way down? Or whoever tossed him off saw that he was on the canopy and went down and dislodged him so he would go the rest of the way in the water. All troubling questions???? I think it is too late to moan abot what should have been done earlier. I am more interested in what can be done NOW to solve the mystery and bring the culprits to justice. I wonder what the Turkish authorities have and what evidence they were able to collect?

[kitty9]

The wife has changed her story. A few nights ago, she was on one of the cable news shows, and every time she was asked a question, her reply was, "I'm not able to say anything because the FBI says I can't". Now her excuse is that she can't remember. So what is it? Can't remember or told by the FBI not to say anything?

Didn't you all love how she skirted the question on why the husband's parents are estranged from her? I think we can all guess the reason why they don't want anything to do with her.

What bothered me was her demand for an apology from RCCI. Why? They didn't do anything wrong. She and the husband drank every night, reportedly very heavy drinking. RCCI didn't force them to get rip roaring drunk. RCCI didn't tell them not to hang around with questionable characters. RCCI didn't tell the wife to pass out in a hallway. RCCI didn't tell the husband to sleep in different rooms during his honeymoon. Where's the culpability?

Then, what was up with her getting bills in the mail from RCCI? That comment I didn't understand. What bills could she have received from RCCI after the cruise?

And then there was her comment that she wanted RCCI to kick off all the passengers, send them home and keep the ship available for further investigation. Yeah, like that was going to happen. I bet if roles were reversed, and this had happened to another passenger, and they had been told they had to leave their honeymoon because they needed to investigate a missing passenger, they would have put up a huge stink, asking why the ship had to cancel their cruise.

All in all, I think Gail was more disbelieving of her story, and Oprah was more on the side of the wife.

[LovetheSea]

I am sure she was talking about her credit card bill from thier cruise expenses. The one you usually get the last night of the cruise. When you realize you had too much fun! :) They probably had a BIG bar tab. She should know what they drank that night by looking at the bar bill for that night. Unless someone else was buying?
Who were these people who she thought put her husband up in their cabin that night? I thought they were on their honeymoon. Did they come on the cruise with them or did they meet them on the ship? I think the only reason she would not have called that cabin to see if in fact he WAS there, is if she was mad at him from the fight the night before or she knew he was gone.

[canderson]

[quote name='LovetheSea']. :) They probably had a BIG bar tab. She should know what they drank that night by looking at the bar bill for that night. Unless someone else was buying?[/quote]Some of what they were reported to have been drinking would have been impossible to purchase anywhere on the ship, so I don't think the bar tab would necessary indicate anything useful.