Family's statement on toddler's cruise death

[Two Wheels Only]

18 minutes ago, legaljen1969 said:

That's what you and everyone else who have said it is intentional is saying

 

Read my posts in this thread. I never stated that grandpa intentionally killed the child.

[Two Wheels Only]

35 minutes ago, ColeThornton said:

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck this has to do with sailing on Norwegian Cruise Line.  

 

On the RCCL forum, the topic is basically banned. Threads are moved, merged, locked, or deleted over there. Some of the unfamiliar names are RCCL posters who are visiting the NCL forum. I see nothing wrong with people giving their opinion even when I disagree with them. I haven't seen much as far as personal attacks on other forum members and the discussions have been mostly civil.

[zqvol]

17 hours ago, nascarcruiser said:

Still has it's own laws.  It's a US territory not a state 

 

 

What does that have to do with anything? Every state has different laws. Something that is criminal in one state is no big deal in another. One state may define a crime a certain way and another one difent teh same named offense completely differently.

[happicruzer]

Tragic accident.

 

I honestly believe the grandfather was unable to fit the child’s legs between the railing and the double pane of glass and moved over to where he could sit the child on the railing - after all, children get heavy.

 

The child probably leaned forward, possibly causing the grandfather’s balance to shift and the child fell.

 

Poor judgment?  Yes.  

 

Cruise line at fault?  Not in my opinion.

[zqvol]

2 hours ago, Laszlo said:

And I bet that is what the jury will end up seeing. 

 

No jury is going to see anything, the lawyer admitted there is no case.

[kitkat343]

56 minutes ago, ColeThornton said:

Amazing to read the first hand accounts of people who know all the details and are subsequently able to berate others opinions.  Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck this has to do with sailing on Norwegian Cruise Line. 

 

Answer:  Absolutely nothing.

 

As noted above, the tread has been deleted on the rc page, which I think is a huge mistake since as a parent who has taken 2 and 3 year olds on cruises, this thread has been helpful in assuring me it’s still safe to do so.  I need to exercise reasonable caution while on the ship and in port, but I was glad to learn the windows that open are nowhere a child can reach independently. (I figured that was the case but it was quite reassuring to see the pictures and videos cc members posted earlier).  I’m sorry for the familys tragic loss but I don’t see this as a design flaw that needs to be changed.  

Edited July 22, 2019 by kitkat343

[Cruiser_1977]

24 minutes ago, zqvol said:

 

No jury is going to see anything, the lawyer admitted there is no case.

Where did you see him admit he didn't have a case? 

[zqvol]

4 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

Where did you see him admit he didn't have a case? 

He said it was an accident, in lawyer speak, whihc I have done for 40 years, that is the same as saying he doesn't have a case.

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, zqvol said:

He said it was an accident, in lawyer speak, whihc I have done for 40 years, that is the same as saying he doesn't have a case.

Yep.  Folks are not comprehending the concept of "negligent homicide".  Was it murder?  No, there was no malice aforethought, hence the homicide part.  Did the grandfather's actions lead to the homicide?  Yes, and since those actions consisted of lifting the child and placing her on a handrail, they fall under the negligent category.  This is just the same as a "negligent homicide" caused by operating a boat under the influence.  

 

As others have said, if he wanted her to bang on the glass, she could have done this very easily at deck level at glass that doesn't open.  This was for his ease and comfort, in not having to bend down with her.  Lifting her at a hockey game, while not the smartest thing either, is done, and is done because there is no glass down low, and further, hockey boards are plexiglass, not tempered window glass.

 

As for holding the cruise line responsible, the only action that could be forthcoming is more signs not to "stand or sit on handrails".  The window was one meter off the deck, the handrail was one meter off the deck.  These are the legal requirements for safety as promulgated by the IMO via the SOLAS convention.  There is nothing further that can be done with US laws, except to ensure that SOLAS requirements are met on foreign flag ships.  I am also sure that there is wording in the company's ISM (international safety management) document to ensure crew members instruct passengers to stay off the handrails, and to remove them if seen.  There is nothing more than can be done, or should be done in this instance.

[BSocial]

Sorry - tried to quote ZQVOL - but Somehow deleted their comments. 

 

 

But then, if I recall, the lawyer went on to mention having to determine whether all safety measures were in place.    Wouldn’t this mean they were trying to infer some liability on the part of the cruise line?

 

This story is just so tragic.  I feel for this grieving family.   But having sailed several times on Freedom’s sister ship, we have always been able to identify any open windows, due to lack of green tint.   As a family, we always remind the kids/grands of (our) safety rules about balconies, railings, windows and stairs EVERY cruise before we board .  Yes, that may be helicoptering, but it keeps ALL of us on our multi-generational family trips on the same page - on what is acceptable behavior for all.  

Edited July 22, 2019 by BSocial
explanation

[karrie3399]

1 hour ago, legaljen1969 said:

I just don't know who will insist on the grandfather going to prison for such a tragic accident.   I guess if I were on the jury, there would be a hung jury because there is no way I am voting to send this grandfather to prison for something like this. Its a terrible thing, but when there are people out there selling their babies for meth and they aren't going to prison and this grandfather who had a terrible lapse of judgment is being condemned- there is something wrong with our world.

 

OMG,  I never said prison.  I said he should be arrested for negligence.  Whether intentional or not, it still was.  I feel like I'm playing the telephone game where i say something and it comes out different from you.  I was just trying to make a point that the parents are looking in the wrong direction for blame.  There is more to the story than is being told.  Does the man have dementia?  I don't know what, but only they know for sure.  But in any case, please stop quoting me and twisting my words.   I personally find it completely offensive that you are doing that.  I tried to say it nicely before, now I'm just going to tell you to stop.

I also said that that baby should rest in peace.  I'd like to leave it like that.  

[legaljen1969]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:51 PM, Birdie And Sue said:

However there was nothing done accidentally here.  Saying it was not an accident does not mean it was murder though.  But YES if his negligence led to the death of another human being he absolutely should be in jail.  Lots, probably most,  of people in jail torture themselves the whole time they are there.

I feel like putting grandpa in jail for this tragic incident would only compound this family's tragedy.  They are in the midst of grieving the loss of their child and knowing it was at the hands of someone who most likely never intended any harm to come to this child and knowing that grandpa is no doubt very upset and distraught that his actions are the cause of his granddaughter's death.
Can you even imagine in the midst of your grief seeing  your family member carted off to jail for something that person never intended to happen?  Yes, he intentionally put the child up there and yes it is reasonably forseeable that she could fall, but it does seem that it was his intention that she WOULD fall.

 

I am just absolutely sickened by all of the people who believe this grandfather should be in jail. 

It goes to the argument of the end goal of imprisonment.  Is it purely to punish?  Is it to rehabilitate?  Who will feel that justice is being served for grandpa to be a convicted felon?  Is that justice? Why? Who gains from it?  I don't know. I just don't see it. 

[legaljen1969]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:20 AM, NLH Arizona said:

If the Grandpa was negligent and that resulted in the death of the child, he should take his punishment. 

 

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:22 AM, NLH Arizona said:

 I disagree with the posters who say they should blame Royal Caribbean, so he doesn't have to pay any consequences, because that would be best for the family.

I think it is pretty clear that, but for Grandpa's lapse of judgment, this tragic situation never would have happened.  That said, I don't think Royal Caribbean should be sued for this incident. I also don't think grandpa needs to go to prison. 

In this world where there must be "blame", I guess someone has to "pay."   Grandpa will pay for the rest of his life for this. I just don't see what putting him in prison does to make this situation better.

[legaljen1969]

18 minutes ago, karrie3399 said:

 

OMG,  I never said prison.  I said he should be arrested for negligence.  Whether intentional or not, it still was.  I feel like I'm playing the telephone game where i say something and it comes out different from you.  I was just trying to make a point that the parents are looking in the wrong direction for blame.  There is more to the story than is being told.  Does the man have dementia?  I don't know what, but only they know for sure.  But in any case, please stop quoting me and twisting my words.   I personally find it completely offensive that you are doing that.  I tried to say it nicely before, now I'm just going to tell you to stop.

I also said that that baby should rest in peace.  I'd like to leave it like that.  

Fair enough, I see your point.  I do wonder though, is there not some other possible way this could be investigated without the grandfather being arrested?
I don't think the man has dementia. Clearly, I don't know.  I really think this is just a very poor lapse of judgment that resulted in a tragic end.  No matter what happens in this case,  this family is irreparably fractured.  Even if the world's enquiring minds get the "whole story," nothing is going to make this any better. Ever.  It's just all so very sad.
Yes, this poor baby needs to rest in peace. 

[PTC DAWG]

The grandfather probably doesn't deserve jail....but he doesn't need to be in charge of any kids....IMHO.

[grouchomarx]

I agree even if Grandpa was found guilty of criminal negligence, jail is pointless.  His remaining years will be incredibly difficult and he will live in his own personal hell.  I'm sure he won't be handling any more small children and poses no threat to society any longer.

[UFMOM]

I agree, nothing would be served by the grandfather going to jail and while I can only imagine the torture he is putting himself through, I also feel angry for the sake of this child whose life was cut short by his incredible stupidity. I also feel anger that Royal is being made a scapegoat in this. No grandpa, you don’t get to unburden part of your guilt on another party.  

 There are accidents and then there are accidents. If you are holding tightly your child’s hand and had her jerk her hand away to run toward something that caught her fancy, and they can be strong, and she was hit by a car before you could catch her, that would be an accident and you would feel horrible guilt for the rest of your life.  Putting a child on a handrail to sit in front of an open window 11 stories up is incredible stupidity and endangerment and that is the part that just makes me angry.  A handrail is not a seat. There were chairs and loungers all over the area. There was non opening fixed glass near the floor to see out of. Did he want this to happen, no, but I, in no way, buy the “did not know it was open” story. With this so called wall of windows that were all tinted and were mostly all closed, why did he happen to sit her in front of one of the few that were open.

 

Mary Ann

[PelicanBill]

I have been head juror in a civil suit with multiple defendants. 

The standard of negligence is prudence - would a reasonable, average person do the thing in question?

 

The problem here is the family is suing only RCI.  They should be suing their own family member.

 

In court, you can't use the defense of "we lift her at hockey games and let her bang on the glass".  Even if you did, I would go to

- is it prudent to lift a child to any height at a place with railings intended to prevent falls;

- is it prudent to let go enough for the child to fall (at a hockey game OR on a cruise ship);

- is it prudent to use a railing to support a child where it clearly isn't meant to be a seat;

- is it prudent for companies to have open windows above railing height;

- is it prudent for companies to not have warning signs on all railings;

and so on...

 

A jury would be trying to figure if negligence is evident, and how much to award to plaintiff out of what is requested - or more - if judge guidance says it could be more. Assuming there is negligence, Then they figure out what % of negligence applies to each defendant.

 

Big businesses, including cruise lines, tend to be gun shy about trials... so many small liability suits are filed for people who slip on wet floors or trip over thresholds.   They tend to settle to make these things go away quietly. I would love to see a trial, as a precedent for "accidents happen and not always is someone to blame," and for all the people to fail to supervise their children adequately. I think the Cruise like would not be held at fault in this case.

[AmazedByCruising]

22 minutes ago, PelicanBill said:

Big businesses, including cruise lines, tend to be gun shy about trials... so many small liability suits are filed for people who slip on wet floors or trip over thresholds.   They tend to settle to make these things go away quietly

 

31 minutes ago, PelicanBill said:

 

The problem here is the family is suing only RCI.  They should be suing their own family member.

 

I find it hard to believe a grieving family is hoping they can make money out of this.

It's very likely the family simply wants to keep grandpa out of jail to not make a horrible situation even worse, doesn't care about money, and acts just like their lawyer tells them to. If that includes interviews on TV and blaming the cruiseline, that's what they do.

[erdoran]

Again, let our judicial system prosecute the INTENTIONAL criminals - that high school kid who got off because he's a "good student" even though he texted comments about "first experience rape", that swimmer in CA.  Oh yes, how about the serial child abusers - I don't mean accidents, I mean ABUSE - who nothing happens to when their children go to school underfed, with bruises & broken bones for years, and nothing happens to them.  How about someone with multiple DUIs?  etc, etc, I'm sure everyone knows or has read about criminal behavior that has gone on for years with nothing done about it.

[graphicguy]

Just looked at that interview.  I keep coming back to the fact that if they wanted to heal, the GrandPa should apologize for the lapse of judgement.  That way they can all move on.

 

So, I think we all agree this is not an intentional death.  It was an accident caused by GrandPa's poor, poor judgement.  They keep saying he was sitting her on a rail.  That window ledge IS NOT a rail.  It's a very narrow ledge.  And, if the GrandPa really wanted to let the girl band on the glass, he should have just left her on the floor, as she's shown doing at the hockey game.

 

That's a pretty lame excuse on his part, IMHO.

 

HIS negligence caused the little girl's death...NOT Royal's.  I've been on that class of ship.  You'll never convince me that he thought there was a closed window.  If it was closed, there would have been no way to sit the little girl on the ledge.

 

I also agree that jail time would do no one any good.  That said, the GrandPa is responsible.  Any sort of money that the family is trying to extract from Royal, hurts all of us because that's going, in some way, end up negatively affecting the fares.

[mjkacmom]

13 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

 

I find it hard to believe a grieving family is hoping they can make money out of this.

It's very likely the family simply wants to keep grandpa out of jail to not make a horrible situation even worse, doesn't care about money, and acts just like their lawyer tells them to. If that includes interviews on TV and blaming the cruiseline, that's what they do.

If I was the parent, money would be the very last thing on my mind, this lawyer (who has money on his mind) has convinced them that their loved one is not responsible, while they are in a very fragile emotional state. 

[Peachypooh]

3 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

while they are in a very fragile emotional state. 

It is very possible that they are not thinking clearly. Plus I thought I read that at one time they had to be medicated.

That doesn't help in the clear thinking department.

 

[AmazedByCruising]

8 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

If I was the parent, money would be the very last thing on my mind, this lawyer (who has money on his mind) has convinced them that their loved one is not responsible, while they are in a very fragile emotional state. 

 

Everyone has money on their mind for doing their job. A baker isn't making bread because you're hungry. 

The lawyer didn't necessarily convince them that grandpa is not responsible, he told them what he thinks is the best way to keep grandpa out of jail. That's his job. 

 

[Desertcactus]

I hope Royal does not settle as it’s so clearly not their fault. I do think a monetary settlement is what the family is after...I doubt either parent will be able to go back to work. They would probably use the money to start a foundation of some sort and run it. Hope they don’t do any more interviews.