Family's statement on toddler's cruise death

[Newleno]

47 minutes ago, phillyguy31 said:

I have a question since I have never been on this ship. I far away is the railing from the window? If it was far enough way to put her legs between the window and the railing I would think her falling out would be more than an instant. If the rail is too close to the window to put the legs through does that mean her legs went on the window frame?

 

I would think all the cruise line will be encouraging RCL not to settle, because most if not all the ships have similar windows somewhere. I know non the BA and BA+ class they do.

it appears as though the only way the child could be placed facing the window is if indeed the window is open, otherwise her feet would of been hitting the glass, or perhaps grandpa had her standing on the railing then she went to bang the window that was not there and fell through, this of course after grandpa let her go for an instant.  Whole story just does not ad up.

[kjquilts]

Here is a youtube video of a walk on the Freedom of the Seas pool deck.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5e6b2VOdys

Edited July 26, 2019 by kjquilts

[Two Wheels Only]

49 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

 So far, the only thing I’ve read he said was his statement to the police.....that he put the little girl on the railing, lost his grip and she fell.  I’m not certain if it was the family, the lawyer the family hired, or the GrandPa that stated the little girl was put on the rail to bang on the glass (that wasn’t there). 

 

The whole "wanted to bang on the glass..." Is BS, in my opinion. Grandpa knew that the window was open in that one particular spot. That's why he put her up there. He probably didn't dangle her out of the window (Michael Jackson style) but he had her up there to look out of the open window. He lost his grip/lost his balance and the child fell. We're all speculating at this point but until I see a video or some other form of unbiased evidence, my belief won't change.

[Newleno]

14 minutes ago, kjquilts said:

Here is a youtube video of a walk on the Freedom of the Seas pool deck.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5e6b2VOdys

thanks, great find,  kind of seems like the railings are there to actually prevent fools from trying to lean out the window. hmm does anyone else think that if the child was sitting on that railing that they could fall forward enough  to fall out of the window?

[PelicanBill]

Remember, negligence is not a crime.  Negligence is the basis for which you sue in civil court.  The family isn't going to take Grandpa to court.  They are only interested in negligence of the cruise line.  If you were to consider all possibly negligent parties, what % of fault would you find was caused by Grandpa and what % caused by the open window?

 

Child Neglect is a crime. Or Reckless endangerment.  I don't think Puerto Rico will file charges for a crime.  It was an accident.

 

 

[NLH Arizona]

10 minutes ago, PelicanBill said:

Remember, negligence is not a crime.  Negligence is the basis for which you sue in civil court.  The family isn't going to take Grandpa to court.  They are only interested in negligence of the cruise line.  If you were to consider all possibly negligent parties, what % of fault would you find was caused by Grandpa and what % caused by the open window?

 

Child Neglect is a crime. Or Reckless endangerment.  I don't think Puerto Rico will file charges for a crime.  It was an accident.

 

 

Isn't child endangerment a crime?

[phillyguy31]

After looking at the video it makes less sense to me. First even if the window was clear, which it isn't, there are obvious tracks that show the window is open. Secondly if the window was closed the child would have had to lean forward to a point where she could have fallen between the rail and the ship. So is the design bad? I think the number of ships and years in service they have speaks for itself. Bad judgement on Grandpa absolutely yes.

[Newleno]

29 minutes ago, PelicanBill said:

Remember, negligence is not a crime.  Negligence is the basis for which you sue in civil court.  The family isn't going to take Grandpa to court.  They are only interested in negligence of the cruise line.  If you were to consider all possibly negligent parties, what % of fault would you find was caused by Grandpa and what % caused by the open window?

 

Child Neglect is a crime. Or Reckless endangerment.  I don't think Puerto Rico will file charges for a crime.  It was an accident.

 

 

Criminal negligence occurs when someone acts in a way that is an extreme departure from the way that a “reasonable” person would have acted in the same or similar situation. Criminal negligence generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life OR for the safety of other individuals.  There are different degrees, Grandpa does not necessarily have to be charged with murder or manslaughter, it may be something less.  Grandpa actions and his actions alone caused the death of a human being.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Newleno

[laceltris3]

35 minutes ago, PelicanBill said:

Remember, negligence is not a crime.  Negligence is the basis for which you sue in civil court.  The family isn't going to take Grandpa to court.  They are only interested in negligence of the cruise line.  If you were to consider all possibly negligent parties, what % of fault would you find was caused by Grandpa and what % caused by the open window?

 

Child Neglect is a crime. Or Reckless endangerment.  I don't think Puerto Rico will file charges for a crime.  It was an accident.

 

 

I took a look at Puerto Rico's homicide statutes today. PR does have a crime for negligent homicide, which is negligently causing the death of another.

 

It is a misdemeanor, punishable as a 4th degree felony. Which seems like an appropriate level of crime and punishment. 

 

The question is whether a reasonable person would do as what has currently been reported. And whether it was reasonable for him to conclude there was no glass, if literally everyone else can see it. I even think his behavior could be legally categorized as reckless, so criminally negligent homicide doesn't seem like much of a reach at all. 

[Cindy]

2 hours ago, jenf22 said:

Check out post #263 on page 11.  You can see the railing in the picture.  It looks like it's pretty close to the window.

If you look at the picture in post 389 I think you’ll see it’s not actually that close. The windows angle out away from the ship, and there’s probably at least a foot between the railing and the window. I’m 5’4”, and I really can’t lean out one of those windows.

[IrieBajan54]

On 7/10/2019 at 6:20 PM, HNI said:

Is Cruise Critic covering up for the cruise line? Perhaps Cruise Critic and the cruise lines have too cozy a relationship.

...

...

Maybe it has something to do with that song: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" 🙂

Edited July 26, 2019 by IrieBajan54
correction

[GeezerCouple]

1 hour ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The whole "wanted to bang on the glass..." Is BS, in my opinion. Grandpa knew that the window was open in that one particular spot. That's why he put her up there. He probably didn't dangle her out of the window (Michael Jackson style) but he had her up there to look out of the open window. He lost his grip/lost his balance and the child fell. We're all speculating at this point but until I see a video or some other form of unbiased evidence, my belief won't change.

THIS.

 

I seriously suspect that they came up with "he put her there to bang on the glass" AFTER the accident, and perhaps when they, to their horror, realized that SHE (the little girl) may have "wanted to bang on the glass", and why?  Because they had TRAINED her to do just that, as demonstrated in the arena photo.  As I've mentioned before, I also think this was an inappropriate thing to allow, and certainly not one to *encourage*!

 

If they continue to pursue a lawsuit, they will just dig themselves in deeper in their grief and anger, and delay (or eliminate) any chance to recover emotionally, including, perhaps, family dynamics.

 

They should start dealing with their grief and anger (and Grandpa has something additional to deal with), get some grief counseling, and perhaps some family dynamics counseling eventually...

 

GC

[Cruiser_1977]

@phillyguy31 I had taken a screenshot of the same angle. It appears the railing is HIGHER than the windowsill. It also appears there is about 6" between the railing and the glass. IF the window was CLOSED he could NOT have SAT her on the rail facing forward to "bang" because her legs would have hit the glass. I think he stood her on the rail because the window was OPEN. I imagine once placed on the railing, then she moved/wriggled, her feet came off the railing and he wasn't quick enough to tighten and/or change his grip.

 

There was a comment on a Newsweek story stating "We were there. Royal Caribbean is not to blame for this horrific accident. The whole story has not been told." - Orange Popsicle

Edited July 26, 2019 by JennyB1977

[Outerdog]

4 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

There was a comment on a Newsweek story stating "We were there. Royal Caribbean is not to blame for this horrific accident. The whole story has not been told." - Orange Popsicle

 

You can always count on Orange Popsicle for fair and balanced reporting!

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, phillyguy31 said:

I have a question since I have never been on this ship. I far away is the railing from the window? If it was far enough way to put her legs between the window and the railing I would think her falling out would be more than an instant. If the rail is too close to the window to put the legs through does that mean her legs went on the window frame?

 

I would think all the cruise line will be encouraging RCL not to settle, because most if not all the ships have similar windows somewhere. I know non the BA and BA+ class they do.

 

2 hours ago, jenf22 said:

Check out post #263 on page 11.  You can see the railing in the picture.  It looks like it's pretty close to the window.

The railing is about 6-8" from the window at the height of the railing.  A toddler could very easily have been sat on the rail (still not a bright idea) with her legs hanging down between the rail and the fixed lower glass.  This would have made holding on easier for the grandfather.

[Cruiser_1977]

@Outerdog I just think it's odd that we haven't heard from anyone else that was on this sailing. Most folks these days take full advantage of their "15 minutes". I don't mean we, as in CC members, I mean we as in the general public. I couldn't find the roll call for this sailing either....

 

Found it...

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by JennyB1977

[laceltris3]

1 hour ago, PelicanBill said:

Remember, negligence is not a crime.  Negligence is the basis for which you sue in civil court.  The family isn't going to take Grandpa to court.  They are only interested in negligence of the cruise line.  If you were to consider all possibly negligent parties, what % of fault would you find was caused by Grandpa and what % caused by the open window?

 

Child Neglect is a crime. Or Reckless endangerment.  I don't think Puerto Rico will file charges for a crime.  It was an accident.

 

 

I don't mean to quote the same point twice, but here is another point on negligence.

 

While the family might only sue RCCL, RCCL would have the ability to join the grandfather to the suit and present evidence of his contributory negligence, or that he was the sole and proximate cause of Chloe's death. It's not as if once the family sues, the outcome is 100% RCCL at fault or nothing. In many cases juries are asked to apportion liability, and if a person is found to be more than 50% responsible, they are barred from any recovery. 

 

I am not going to research PR laws on contributory negligence, but it is definitely a thing. 

[mitsugirly]

19 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

@Outerdog I just think it's odd that we haven't heard from anyone else that was on this sailing. Most folks these days take full advantage of their "15 minutes". I don't mean we, as in CC members, I mean we as in the general public. I couldn't find the roll call for this sailing either....

 

Found it...

 

 

 

It's odd that almost everyone on that thread sailing are new to the boards and some never came back to post again after that. Only 1 or 2 people with a post count over 100 are on there and not posting after basically the initial post. 😕

[UFMOM]

1 hour ago, mitsugirly said:

 

 

It's odd that almost everyone on that thread sailing are new to the boards and some never came back to post again after that. Only 1 or 2 people with a post count over 100 are on there and not posting after basically the initial post. 😕

 

The Royal board pretty much squashed any comments made over there. They may not even know about the ongoing thread over here on NCL. They would probably expect it to be on Royal. Also I think it is much more difficult to write about such a horrible event when you are there personally. There is another level of shock to deal with. I imagine that cruise was quite dismal for many people. 

 

Mary Ann

[mitsugirly]

4 minutes ago, UFMOM said:

 

The Royal board pretty much squashed any comments made over there. They may not even know about the ongoing thread over here on NCL. They would probably expect it to be on Royal. Also I think it is much more difficult to write about such a horrible event when you are there personally. There is another level of shock to deal with. I imagine that cruise was quite dismal for many people. 

 

Mary Ann

 

Yea, I was on the other as well before they deleted. The people on that sailing don't post much at all to begin with. I can't imagine being on that cruise because we are always hanging out at the pool deck until sailaway, as a huge crowd usually is as well, and to witness something like that... 😞  Such a sad situation all the way around.

[AmazedByCruising]

5 hours ago, Newleno said:

 Criminal negligence generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life OR for the safety of other individuals.

 

Wouldn't you need to prove that he was? Like having a witness testify that the dive instructor said "I get paid by the hour, not by the number of participants surviving" or similar. 

I mean, no way grandpa would have been really indifferent about the victims life. Hanlon's razor should apply IMHO.

 

 

 

[Newleno]

8 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Wouldn't you need to prove that he was? Like having a witness testify that the dive instructor said "I get paid by the hour, not by the number of participants surviving" or similar. 

I mean, no way grandpa would have been really indifferent about the victims life. Hanlon's razor should apply IMHO.

 

 

 

it was a post about the definition of criminal negligence, plus you only cut out a portion of the post, Grandpa's negligence put the child's safety in danger.  In fact the child died due to negligence.

[chengkp75]

42 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Wouldn't you need to prove that he was? Like having a witness testify that the dive instructor said "I get paid by the hour, not by the number of participants surviving" or similar. 

I mean, no way grandpa would have been really indifferent about the victims life. Hanlon's razor should apply IMHO.

 

 

 

No, for negligence the measurement is "what would a prudent person do".  You should google "reckless endangerment" or "depraved indifference" in US legal terms.  These definitions show what the "indifference" means.

[SenatorsFan]

The video posted earlier is the clearest view I've seen so far of the open versus closed windows. It seems so obvious to us here which windows are open and which aren't. Also, there are clearly tables and chairs in front of the windows, so it seems to require some manoeuvring to even access the windows. How tragic that things went so wrong.

Heather

[brillohead]

2 hours ago, SenatorsFan said:

The video posted earlier is the clearest view I've seen so far of the open versus closed windows. It seems so obvious to us here which windows are open and which aren't. Also, there are clearly tables and chairs in front of the windows, so it seems to require some manoeuvring to even access the windows. How tragic that things went so wrong.

Heather

It's also PLAINLY obvious that the window is not in a "children's play area" like the family and their lawyer keep saying, over and over and over again.  

Yes, there is a children's splash pool, then there is a walkway around the pool area, then there is a row of loungers, then there is a walkway, and then there is another row of tables and chairs, and THEN the obviously opened or closed windows.