Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Just because sunlight is hitting his head does NOT automatically mean his head was out of the window (unless the sun was on the other side of the ship).  The sun's rays would go through the window and could hit his head even if he is just standing at the rail.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think GF is 100% to blame, just that sunlight hitting his head is no proof of anything (other than he was close to a window).  


From the angle of the sun at that hour of the day, the direct sunlight isn't going to touch the top of his head from him just standing next to the window.  The window above him is angled out, and the direct sun doesn't hit the railing on the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brisbane41 said:

I typed the following: la comay chloe video into google and it came up as a video suggestion Dec 17, 2019 with facebook as the place it was published. Title IMPACTANTE | iVideo exclusivo dentro del crucero cuando el abuelo........


Found it on you tube and almost wish I hadn’t.
 

Just so sad:(

Edited by cgolf1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the legal reenactment photos.  After watching the video, I played out a similar reenactment with my eleven pound cat.  From the end of my bed, I reached down, grabbed her with arms extended, pushed her out and up to my shoulder height - the video shows her head higher than the GF head - and lost my grasp on my cat.
 

My cat went flying but landed safely up by the bed pillows.

 

If you look closely at the video, the GF actually backs up from the window with, I believe, his elbows by his waist and then bends back over the window to look down.  
 

It is also noticeable that there are lounge chairs, tables, and folks dining at tables.  The mother may have been in the child’s play area, but her daughter wasn’t there.  She has to live with the guilt she didn’t watch her child.

 

RCI is not to blame.
 

*** observed another incident that could have ended in tragedy ***

 

I was docked in Cozumel looking across the pier towards an Oasis-class ship.  The lady beside me started screaming.  Staff came over - she pointed to a toddler standing on a chair on the opposite balcony.  The toddler could grasp the balcony railing but was unable - by five inches - to get her right leg up and over the railing.  Five minutes later a woman could be seen in the room, never looked out to check on the child. I left since staff was trying to figure out how to each someone in security on the othe ship.  Scary? Oh, yes.  If the child had stepped on the arm rest, there might have been a different outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, happicruzer said:

The mother may have been in the child’s play area, but her daughter wasn’t there.  She has to live with the guilt she didn’t watch her child.

 

Supposedly the parent's were at guest services when the incident happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cruisegus said:

maybe it is because the video you refer to was on an obscure PR local show and not in the main stream media.

 

Since it wasn't supposed to be released, some media outlets avoided discussing what the TV station aired. The mainstream US media (CBS, anyway) had footage provided by Winkleman ("not in real time" version), and CBS had some version shortly after doing the interview with Anello which showed the "8 seconds" lean and the "34 seconds " hold out weeks before the PR TV footage aired.

 

Since the "...elderly grandpa picked her up to the window and she fell...why was the window open in the children's area?.. he's colorblind..." was pushed by the media, the media hasn't been so quick to walk anything back now that so many have seen videos/photos.

 

So many people were of the mindset of "...he made a simple mistake...why try to punish him?...he's suffered enough...leave the family alone...", the media doesn't want to go against the misinformation that they created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

 

I have said it before and photography and video work is a big hobby of mine. Storage for that is extremely expensive. You are looking at 12Gb for 18 minutes at 4K. The video needs to be saved for some time. In that case storage would have to be huge. Then there is the question of solid state drives or the old hard drives. Even the solid state drives have a lifetime limit. To multiply this cost to the number of cameras on the ship and then the number of ships and the cost would be massive not to mention the hours of work that staff need to be paid to manage all that data.

I'm sorry, but digital storage is not expensive anymore. They could install a couple of petabytes of storage for less than 5 grand. Okay, ten grand, and perhaps another100 grand for cameras. These are technology advanced ships with everything being cutting edge, why can't their video monitoring be the same?  The video quality sucks, I know they can do better. Although it's quite obvious what Anello is doing, the video is not clear. And I'm sorry, but 1 or 2 frames per second just isn't good enough these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

I'm sorry, but digital storage is not expensive anymore. They could install a couple of petabytes of storage for less than 5 grand. Okay, ten grand, and perhaps another100 grand for cameras. These are technology advanced ships with everything being cutting edge, why can't their video monitoring be the same?  The video quality sucks, I know they can do better. Although it's quite obvious what Anello is doing, the video is not clear. And I'm sorry, but 1 or 2 frames per second just isn't good enough these days. 

The cameras aren't 1-2 fps as it is.  It's probably closer to 10, which would be relatively normal for security cameras.  Since FOS launched in 2006, if the cameras are original, that puts them at 14 years old.  My guess is they're not original.  How often should you update your security cameras? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

The cameras aren't 1-2 fps as it is.  It's probably closer to 10, which would be relatively normal for security cameras.  Since FOS launched in 2006, if the cameras are original, that puts them at 14 years old.  My guess is they're not original.  How often should you update your security cameras? 

 

 

With the times, just as ships are renovated every what, ten years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to address several posts about color blindness.  I am red/green color blind.  Doesn't mean that I can't differentiate between red and green.  I can tell the colors of a stop light just fine, even if you swapped the location of the red and the green.  It's the subtle shades/brightness that give me problems.  I will see 2 different shades of color as being the same color, while my wife sees them as completely different and is still amazed that they look the same to me.  People like to use me as a party game when watching fireworks..."what color is that one?...REALLY?  It looks green to you??"

 

I say this because I think it IS possible that color blindness could hinder whether a window looks open or not...depending on the light and the color in the windows from reflections.  I would thing it would be fairly easy for the plaintiffs attorney to find an expert witness who can testify to this (based purely on color and not on smell or breeze), and therefore easy to convince a jury.  

Still doesn't come close to explaining how GF can stick his head through the window and then not know that it was open. 

 

I still think this thing ends up settling out of court.  Things like a color blind expert witness, re-enactment pictures, etc. can muddy up what should otherwise be an open and shut case.  As anyone who has been on a jury knows, juries are given very specific instructions.  It's not just a question of "who do you think is right?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

With the times, just as ships are renovated every what, ten years?

And the last time FOS got renovated?  That's why it's ridiculous IMO to complain that the ship doesn't have the "latest and greatest" in security cameras.  Unless you expect them to update every camera every 6 months, they'll always be behind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bobmacliberty said:

I want to address several posts about color blindness.  I am red/green color blind.  Doesn't mean that I can't differentiate between red and green.  I can tell the colors of a stop light just fine, even if you swapped the location of the red and the green.  It's the subtle shades/brightness that give me problems.  I will see 2 different shades of color as being the same color, while my wife sees them as completely different and is still amazed that they look the same to me.  People like to use me as a party game when watching fireworks..."what color is that one?...REALLY?  It looks green to you??"

 

I say this because I think it IS possible that color blindness could hinder whether a window looks open or not...depending on the light and the color in the windows from reflections.  I would thing it would be fairly easy for the plaintiffs attorney to find an expert witness who can testify to this (based purely on color and not on smell or breeze), and therefore easy to convince a jury.  

Still doesn't come close to explaining how GF can stick his head through the window and then not know that it was open. 

 

I still think this thing ends up settling out of court.  Things like a color blind expert witness, re-enactment pictures, etc. can muddy up what should otherwise be an open and shut case.  As anyone who has been on a jury knows, juries are given very specific instructions.  It's not just a question of "who do you think is right?"

Sorry not buying it.  Even if a person couldn't see ANY color, we're not talking two shades of the same color, we're talking about the "closed" windows being darker and the open being lighter.  Can you tell a difference when you put on/take off sunglasses?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rusty nut said:

With the times, just as ships are renovated every what, ten years?


It is actually every 5 years for the ships. 

Edited by A&L_Ont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking through some old news stories from when the incident happened and it's ironic that they have admitted from the beginning that GF violated the guest conduct policy*. 

 

The family has said the accident occurred after Chloe's grandfather picked her up and placed her on a railing he thought was behind a glass wall. 

 

Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers, or tampering with ship’s equipment, facilities or systems designed for guest safety is not permitted.

Edited by Another_Critic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Sorry not buying it.  Even if a person couldn't see ANY color, we're not talking two shades of the same color, we're talking about the "closed" windows being darker and the open being lighter.  Can you tell a difference when you put on/take off sunglasses?  

 

Your sunglasses comment is EXACTLY how my colour blind husband explained it.  We are taking about tinting/shades, not actual different colours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:


It is actually every 5 years for the ships. 

 

Those are dry dock periods and there may be minor or major renovations at that time.  Not all dry docks have major renovation work done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MaddyandMax said:

 

Your sunglasses comment is EXACTLY how my colour blind husband explained it.  We are taking about tinting/shades, not actual different colours.

 

We are not talking about darker or lighter shade.  We are talking about brighter or dimmer.

 

This is a transparent or open window, not the color of a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

We are not talking about darker or lighter shade.  We are talking about brighter or dimmer.

 

This is a transparent or open window, not the color of a wall.

 

You're using different terminology but we are talking about the same things.  Dimmer/brighter to me is referring to the same thing I am - darker/lighter shading or tinting.  Different words (but in my view) same meaning.

 

I am using my husbands words as he is the colour blind person I am quoting.  He refers to the windows as tinted and when one is opened up the tinting is doubled which makes it look darker to him and is the reason it is very obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Since it wasn't supposed to be released, some media outlets avoided discussing what the TV station aired. The mainstream US media (CBS, anyway) had footage provided by Winkleman ("not in real time" version), and CBS had some version shortly after doing the interview with Anello which showed the "8 seconds" lean and the "34 seconds " hold out weeks before the PR TV footage aired.

 

Since the "...elderly grandpa picked her up to the window and she fell...why was the window open in the children's area?.. he's colorblind..." was pushed by the media, the media hasn't been so quick to walk anything back now that so many have seen videos/photos.

 

So many people were of the mindset of "...he made a simple mistake...why try to punish him?...he's suffered enough...leave the family alone...", the media doesn't want to go against the misinformation that they created.

The video IS public record and CBS was then able to show it once Royal replied to their lawsuit against them.  

 

Now regarding what Winkleman SHOWED David was an edited version of the video.  After Royal included the video in their lawsuit, David made a statement regarding the discrepancies of what the family lawyer Winkleman showed him.  David noted the differences of what he was originally shown by the family lawyer.  They never aired the video when they Winkleman showed it, just still pictures that Winkleman provided.  The family's lawyer edited the video.  He was spinning the narrative against Royal pure and simple. 

 

The family and lawyer  for some odd reason, never expected that the video would never be seen in the public before trial, That's a head scratcher to me.  Their only concern was to ask the court to halt it from the public viewing, standing behind grandpa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, pay attention, this is a bit tricky.

 

Freedom of the Seas

No color

 

Which windows are open?

 

i-vbMFs8D-X2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Those are dry dock periods and there may be minor or major renovations at that time.  Not all dry docks have major renovation work done.


Showing my ignorance here, but we flipped our security camera system in a day.  New hard drive and cameras, which were easy to do as the hard wiring was already there. Sure the ship is larger but some of the cameras could be done during a regular cruise and not even need a dry dock. 
 

Edit to Add: the costs have to be more economical than lawyers and a lawsuit. 

Edited by A&L_Ont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

Okay, pay attention, this is a bit tricky.

 

Freedom of the Seas

No color

 

Which windows are open?

 

i-vbMFs8D-X2.jpg

 

My second question would be:  If you can lean your head and upper body out the window, what would make you think the window was closed?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobmacliberty said:

I still think this thing ends up settling out of court.  Things like a color blind expert witness, re-enactment pictures, etc. can muddy up what should otherwise be an open and shut case.  As anyone who has been on a jury knows, juries are given very specific instructions.  It's not just a question of "who do you think is right?"


In any other lawsuit I would normally agree.  However,  the ramifications of this lawsuit are huge,  not just for RCI now but for any business and the future of RCI.  If this lawsuit wins,  it sets a future precedent that RCI is responsible for any act of stupidity that causes injury.  While the short term cost is less if they settle, the long term cost would be huge.  RCI would have to spend billions in making ships not just safe but “idiot proof.”  We are no longer limited to just windows, but balconies, staircases, and any other object on a ship that can cause injury.   Someone could cut themselves with a steak knife in the dining room,  claim it is sharper than industry wide standards and sue for that.   The lawsuits would never end.

 

It is never a question of “Who do you think Is right?”   In this case the jury will most likely be asked, “Did RCI maintain industry wide standards regarding the window? (I.e. height, railing, etc.). Was RCI negligent?”  It is on the burden of the plaintiff to prove that RCI deviated from standard practice regarding windows on a cruise ship.

 

Only time will tell,  and they could settle,  but given what’s at stake and the fact they have the public on their side leads me to believe they won’t.

Edited by rimmit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MaddyandMax said:

 

You're using different terminology but we are talking about the same things.  Dimmer/brighter to me is referring to the same thing I am - darker/lighter shading or tinting.  Different words (but in my view) same meaning.

 

I am using my husbands words as he is the colour blind person I am quoting.  He refers to the windows as tinted and when one is opened up the tinting is doubled which makes it look darker to him and is the reason it is very obvious.

 

Very different things.  Transmitted light and reflected light. 

 

Brighter/dimmer is more similar to changing the setting on a variable light.  Or between the different settings on a 3 way bulb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rimmit said:


In any other lawsuit I would normally agree.  However,  the ramifications of this lawsuit are huge,  not just for RCI now but for any business and the future of RCI.  If this lawsuit wins,  it sets a future precedent that RCI is responsible for any act of stupidity that causes injury.  While the short term cost is more than it would be to settle,  the long term cost from opening up a can of worms by allowing them to win would outweigh the current litigation fees.  RCI would have to spend billions in making ships not just safe but “idiot proof.”   That is likely not an expense they would want to incur.

 

It is never a question of “Who do you think Is right?”   In this case the jury will most likely be asked, “Did RCI maintain industry wide standards regarding the window? (I.e. height, railing, etc.). Was RCI negligent?”  It is on the burden of the plaintiff to prove that RCI deviated from standard practice regarding windows on a cruise ship.

 

Only time will tell,  and they could settle,  but given what’s at stake and the fact they have the public on their side leads me to believe they won’t.

Huge? I’m guessing 99% of people haven’t even heard of this case. The cruise line will win, and this circle jerk of posters saying exactly the same thing over and over on this thread will stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Huge? I’m guessing 99% of people haven’t even heard of this case. The cruise line will win, and this circle jerk of posters saying exactly the same thing over and over on this thread will stop.


Most people haven’t heard of the majority of lawsuits that set precedents but they are there and they are used in future trials.  The majority of law is based on legal precedents.  Once a precedent is set it tends to be used in the future.   The legal precedent at stake here is “Is it a businesses responsibility to protect people from a lack of common sense despite already taking appropriate safety precautions?”

 

I would argue that is “Huge” in the legal sense as I am not aware of any case that has ever set a precedent like that before.  It is definitely “huge” for ambulance chasers as they would now stalk nearly everyone with an injury.

 

It is definitely “Huge” in PR.  You’d be hard pressed to find someone on that island not aware of it.  
 

Is it OJ Simpson level “huge” in the US?  Not at this point nor will it ever be.  But it is definitely bigger than the average case, and has the potential to only grow as parents keep digging in their heels and the

lawyer keeps refuting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...