Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know why the family and their lawyer are insisting on seeing the videotape first. Was the grandfather not there when it happened? Comatose? Unable to remember what he did and what happened, so he has to review it on tape first to be sure?

I don’t get this either. Seems like it would be easier to file, the tape would obviously part of discovery.

I know, right?

There is no reason they need to see it before filing. They are guaranteed access on discovery.

DP here. For clarification, is there something the family or their lawyer could do to get access to the tape, or can the cruise line rightfully deny them access to the tape before trial?

That’s what’s question to answer because it’s unlikely that US law applies in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know why the family and their lawyer are insisting on seeing the videotape first. Was the grandfather not there when it happened? Comatose? Unable to remember what he did and what happened, so he has to review it on tape first to be sure?

I don’t get this either. Seems like it would be easier to file, the tape would obviously part of discovery.

I know, right?

There is no reason they need to see it before filing. They are guaranteed access on discovery.

DP here. For clarification, is there something the family or their lawyer could do to get access to the tape, or can the cruise line rightfully deny them access to the tape before trial?

That’s what’s question to answer because it’s unlikely that US law applies in this case.

Uh, uh...Puerto Rico is part of the United States. This happened in Puerto Rico, which is part of the US. So why wouldn't US law apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know why the family and their lawyer are insisting on seeing the videotape first. Was the grandfather not there when it happened? Comatose? Unable to remember what he did and what happened, so he has to review it on tape first to be sure?

I don’t get this either. Seems like it would be easier to file, the tape would obviously part of discovery.

I know, right?

There is no reason they need to see it before filing. They are guaranteed access on discovery.

DP here. For clarification, is there something the family or their lawyer could do to get access to the tape, or can the cruise line rightfully deny them access to the tape before trial?

That’s what’s question to answer because it’s unlikely that US law applies in this case.

Because cruise ships are typically governed by Bahamian law. There might be exceptions. Also, I was thinking earlier about whether the criminal definitions are different than what we typically see here.

Uh, uh...Puerto Rico is part of the United States. This happened in Puerto Rico, which is part of the US. So why wouldn't US law apply?

[Anonymous]

Just checked. RC flies under the flag of Norway.

[Anonymous]

If charges were filed based on the video, then it’s entirely possible the man dropped her on purpose. He could be a psychopath. You never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is 51 years old. About the age of many, many parents here. I also just saw on the news that at the prosecutors saw the tape, which is why they brought charges. Th family has not yet seen the tape.

Why isn't he in a retirement home? He is soooo old. I am 50.5. I often confuse windows and doors and I am six months younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is 51 years old. About the age of many, many parents here. I also just saw on the news that at the prosecutors saw the tape, which is why they brought charges. Th family has not yet seen the tape.

Why isn't he in a retirement home? He is soooo old. I am 50.5. I often confuse windows and doors and I am six months younger.

He's only 51??? Wow. Looks 60+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just checked. RC flies under the flag of Norway.

Thanks - other PP here who asked the question about whether or not the family can see the tape before the trial?

[Anonymous]

So RC flies under the flag of Norway and is based out of Florida. The ticket contains the jurisdiction where suit can be filed. If it’s Florida, liability under a personal injury suit would be several.

So if parents sue RC, undoubtedly, RC would sue grandpop. Under Florida law, neither party could be held liable for the entire verdict. Each is liable for their own proportionate share of the verdict. It will be an ugly lawsuit. That’s why they want to see the video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s what’s question to answer because it’s unlikely that US law applies in this case.

Because cruise ships are typically governed by Bahamian law. There might be exceptions. Also, I was thinking earlier about whether the criminal definitions are different than what we typically see here.

Uh, uh...Puerto Rico is part of the United States. This happened in Puerto Rico, which is part of the US. So why wouldn't US law apply?

Just checked. RC flies under the flag of Norway.

Neither of these matter. Those only hold when the ship is outside of territorial waters. In this case, the ship was docked in PR. When a ship is inside territorial waters, they are governed by the laws of the sovereign nation whose territory they are in. This is why ships' casinos have to wait until they pass out of territorial waters to open. Traditionally territorial waters extend to 3 nautical miles outside the land of a nation.

[Anonymous]

So....assuming PR/American laws, can someone answer the question about whether the family can see the tape before the trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

You mentioned it. Jaywalking. The jaywalker failed to yeild. He caused the accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So....assuming PR/American laws, can someone answer the question about whether the family can see the tape before the trial?

During discovery videos such as this are discoverable. But in some cases they can be held back until after depositions. So grandpa could be forced to give a deposition under oath before they turn over the video.

As a trial lawyer, normally I am happy to show videos early on because often attorneys decide not to sue. But in this case, with the incredible stories that have been told, no way would I show it before I got the deposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If charges were filed based on the video, then it’s entirely possible the man dropped her on purpose. He could be a psychopath. You never know.

I’m betting he was physically holding her out of the window when she slipped his grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So....assuming PR/American laws, can someone answer the question about whether the family can see the tape before the trial?

During discovery videos such as this are discoverable. But in some cases they can be held back until after depositions. So grandpa could be forced to give a deposition under oath before they turn over the video.

As a trial lawyer, normally I am happy to show videos early on because often attorneys decide not to sue. But in this case, with the incredible stories that have been told, no way would I show it before I got the deposition.

Thank you. So there is nothing compelling the cruise ship people to hand the tape over before the trial, correct?

Wow, this family doesn't seem to have good odds re: winning the case then - it seems the cruise ship either knows something the family does not, or the cruise ship wants the family to think so. Thoughts (trial lawyer PP)?

Do you think ht is why charges were brought against the grandfather? Leverage?