Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Having had experience with ambulance chasers (ie personal injury lawyer) I think the lawyer threw the family under the bus from day one.

The family probably out of their minds with grief and the case not so good. Without so much publicity RC chances are good that RC would have paid them something for their loss.
But the lawyer saw that all this publicity would put his name on the map so he pushed it to the media. That ended any hope of settlement from RC because the case is not strong. In just one example RC can say that the million people (yes million over 10 years) have avoided dropping their kid out that window and their safety record is good.

The tape is probably very unfortunate for the family in a legal sense as it must show something fairly negligent on the part of granddad. I can’t think what exactly but I bet if we saw the tape we would say no case.

[Anonymous]

I think the tape is going to show that he clearly chose THAT window - like walked deliberately toward it BECAUSE it was open. Stood her up to show her the outside and she bucked or flailed or whatever and fell.

But it’s going to negate the idea that he didn’t know the window was open, which is his entire defense. He should have just stuck with “I don’t know how it happened!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

Does a cruise ship need to have alcohol? I guarantee you that there are more than 10000% more deaths due to alcohol consumption than due to windows. Why don't we start with the more likely causes of death?

Because it's ridiculous. If you can't figure out not to lift your child up, sit them on a railing by an open window and not hold onto them, then you really should stay home and not go anywhere. It's like the people who go to the zoo and hoist their children up and over the security railings and fences to "see" the animals and drop them. You can't blame the world for not being idiot-proof enough for you when you bypass security measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the similar tragedy where a mom set a 2 yr old up on the safety ledge of a zoo exhibit for a better view? The toddler lost balance and fell into a pack of wild painted dogs. The child died immediately. One dog was shot, all were displaced, the zoo exhibit closed and the zoo “settled with the family, terms undisclosed.” The mom’s excuse for placing the kid in danger? “I thought there was glass there!”
Hmmmmm.

Sadly, sometimes idiots are rewarded for their idiot behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the similar tragedy where a mom set a 2 yr old up on the safety ledge of a zoo exhibit for a better view? The toddler lost balance and fell into a pack of wild painted dogs. The child died immediately. One dog was shot, all were displaced, the zoo exhibit closed and the zoo “settled with the family, terms undisclosed.” The mom’s excuse for placing the kid in danger? “I thought there was glass there!”
Hmmmmm.

That one was slightly different. In that case, there were minutes from meetings of the zoo's safety committee meetings where that exhibit had been flagged due to an opening in the safety railings where parents could fit their children in to see around the fences/railings. It was identified as a problem on 5 occasions and flagged that it needed to be addresses and fixed so that the children could not fit through the opening, but the zoo did not do anything about it. And so the zoo ended up settling the case before trial. They were shown to have known that it was a noted safety issue, that patrons had been seen using the opening unsafely and they did not address the issue and fix it so that patrons would not do this.

In that case, the zoo could not deny that there was a safety issue, they had identified it and they had not addressed the issue. That's why the zoo had to settle. None of which is the case in this death.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parents-of-2-year-old-mauled-by-wild-dogs-settle-pittsburgh-zoo-lawsuit/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

Should they really be out on the water too? Someone might drown.

Well it does have to get to where it is going. Planes don't have windows that open. I don't see babies falling out of airplanes. Ergo, boats do not need windows that open either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember the similar tragedy where a mom set a 2 yr old up on the safety ledge of a zoo exhibit for a better view? The toddler lost balance and fell into a pack of wild painted dogs. The child died immediately. One dog was shot, all were displaced, the zoo exhibit closed and the zoo “settled with the family, terms undisclosed.” The mom’s excuse for placing the kid in danger? “I thought there was glass there!”
Hmmmmm.

That one was slightly different. In that case, there were minutes from meetings of the zoo's safety committee meetings where that exhibit had been flagged due to an opening in the safety railings where parents could fit their children in to see around the fences/railings. It was identified as a problem on 5 occasions and flagged that it needed to be addresses and fixed so that the children could not fit through the opening, but the zoo did not do anything about it. And so the zoo ended up settling the case before trial. They were shown to have known that it was a noted safety issue, that patrons had been seen using the opening unsafely and they did not address the issue and fix it so that patrons would not do this.

In that case, the zoo could not deny that there was a safety issue, they had identified it and they had not addressed the issue. That's why the zoo had to settle. None of which is the case in this death.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parents-of-2-year-old-mauled-by-wild-dogs-settle-pittsburgh-zoo-lawsuit/

I carry a small saw. I hazard that a fair percentage of the popualtion does as well. How does this flismy railing protect me? Someone else could easily cut it down and I would be exposed. The zoo needs to provide durable protection to the guests. I suggest adamantium enclosures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

Should they really be out on the water too? Someone might drown.

Well it does have to get to where it is going. Planes don't have windows that open. I don't see babies falling out of airplanes. Ergo, boats do not need windows that open either.

And no decks or balconies either. An above water submarine. That way everyone is 100% safe. None of that Rose-flying-on-the-bow crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

I don’t know if this is meant as sarcastic but a boat without windows of open air is a submarine. So that’s what you need to ask for.

[Anonymous]

Such a freaking sad story and gets sadder every minute. Lawsuits, greed and ambulance chasers aside what possible good will it do to criminally charge the grandpa? The worst has already happened to him. I really hate this whole story for being so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

I don’t know if this is meant as sarcastic but a boat without windows of open air is a submarine. So that’s what you need to ask for.

Somewhat sarcastic. You only need to find a sympathetic jury. You could argue that a small child could move one of the chairs to the open windows, climb over the railing and fall out. While that didn't happen in this case, there is still negligence on the part of RCI because the open windows present a clear danger. One that RCI must know exists but they chose to install cameras instead of securing the windows.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/boy-falls-to-death-off-cruise-ship/news-story/a727d24c137b7aa63deb23794fd6a7c5
https://nypost.com/2017/08/07/3-year-old-girl-airlifted-to-hospital-after-fall-from-cruise-ship-balcony/
https://www.insideedition.com/headlines/25997-8-year-old-girl-dies-after-falling-from-cruise-ship

It's plainly obvious that railings are inadequate protection to travels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?[/quote
No, you don't have to ask that. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?[/quote
No, you don't have to ask that. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

I don’t know if this is meant as sarcastic but a boat without windows of open air is a submarine. So that’s what you need to ask for.

Somewhat sarcastic. You only need to find a sympathetic jury. You could argue that a small child could move one of the chairs to the open windows, climb over the railing and fall out. While that didn't happen in this case, there is still negligence on the part of RCI because the open windows present a clear danger. One that RCI must know exists but they chose to install cameras instead of securing the windows.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/boy-falls-to-death-off-cruise-ship/news-story/a727d24c137b7aa63deb23794fd6a7c5
https://nypost.com/2017/08/07/3-year-old-girl-airlifted-to-hospital-after-fall-from-cruise-ship-balcony/
https://www.insideedition.com/headlines/25997-8-year-old-girl-dies-after-falling-from-cruise-ship

It's plainly obvious that railings are inadequate protection to travels.

You sound absolutely ridiculous. Parents have a duty to watch their kids. The window is above kid height. The cruise industry is never going to get rid of windows and balconies. Maybe they should have guests sign a “I will not be a f-in moron” waiver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

Should they really be out on the water too? Someone might drown.

Well it does have to get to where it is going. Planes don't have windows that open. I don't see babies falling out of airplanes. Ergo, boats do not need windows that open either.

But people can get hurt or die when cruise ships run into things or become grounded. MUCH safer to keep them out of water.