Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This grandfather should not have been charged. If the window was accessible without a ladder, any child could climb up and out.

This is not how our criminal justice system works. Read a book if you must.

You are making the case for charging him. The child could not climb up unassisted.

[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?

Hmmm...kids fall out of apartment windows. I suppose all apartments should now be built to code that specifies that there should be no windows that open above the ground floor. I mean, a parent should be allowed to let their toddler play in front of an open window and know that if their child decides to take a tumble out the window that the familly will never have to work again because they can sue the pants off the building owner or the house builder for having a window that could be left open for their child to fall out.

Oh, and car manufacturer's should not make car windows that can open. I mean if a parent is driving down the highway without their toddler in a child seat and seat belt with an open window and the child sticks their head out to feel the fun breeze (dogs do it, so it has to be safe, amirite?) and they fall out, it is completely the automobile maker's fault and responsibility and they should be sued for millions.

Maybe you should repost this tomorrow and just say that you were just as confused as Grandpa. He couldn't tell the difference between obviously open and closed windows and you can't tell the difference between April and November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The knee jerk reaction is to blame someone or a company so you can process the situation and feel better about 'you' not being to blame.
however, the grandfather was totally negligent here. That doesn't mean that he meant to kill the child, but he did not use safe/sound judgement.

This is no different than if he set her on a counter top next to a hot stove and she touched it. Should the kitchen designer be to blame because they put a counter next to a stove? How about the stove manufacturer. [b]Surely they know that children can get burned by their product!!

Sometimes 'we' are to blame for the stupid and deadly stuff that happens. This is one of those times.

+1. I really really hope they don’t win the lawsuit. And if they hadn’t been so eager to blame RCI, I wouldn’t want Grandpa charged either. But clearly they need a reality check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The knee jerk reaction is to blame someone or a company so you can process the situation and feel better about 'you' not being to blame.
however, the grandfather was totally negligent here. That doesn't mean that he meant to kill the child, but he did not use safe/sound judgement.

This is no different than if he set her on a counter top next to a hot stove and she touched it. Should the kitchen designer be to blame because they put a counter next to a stove? How about the stove manufacturer. [b]Surely they know that children can get burned by their product!!

Sometimes 'we' are to blame for the stupid and deadly stuff that happens. This is one of those times.

+1. I really really hope they don’t win the lawsuit. And if they hadn’t been so eager to blame RCI, I wouldn’t want Grandpa charged either. But clearly they need a reality check.

Analogy doesn't fit..more like, someone leaving the eyes burning on the stove and inviting children in without warning of the danger.
Cruise ships market themselves as family friendly places. A reasonable standard of safety is required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The knee jerk reaction is to blame someone or a company so you can process the situation and feel better about 'you' not being to blame.
however, the grandfather was totally negligent here. That doesn't mean that he meant to kill the child, but he did not use safe/sound judgement.

This is no different than if he set her on a counter top next to a hot stove and she touched it. Should the kitchen designer be to blame because they put a counter next to a stove? How about the stove manufacturer. [b]Surely they know that children can get burned by their product!!

Sometimes 'we' are to blame for the stupid and deadly stuff that happens. This is one of those times.

+1. I really really hope they don’t win the lawsuit. And if they hadn’t been so eager to blame RCI, I wouldn’t want Grandpa charged either. But clearly they need a reality check.

Analogy doesn't fit..more like, someone leaving the eyes burning on the stove and inviting children in without warning of the danger.
Cruise ships market themselves as family friendly places. A reasonable standard of safety is required.

Like one that puts windows that can be opened out of the reach of younger children and puts a safety rail in front of it to keep older children and adults from leaning out too far?

[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?

Hmmm...kids fall out of apartment windows. I suppose all apartments should now be built to code that specifies that there should be no windows that open above the ground floor. I mean, a parent should be allowed to let their toddler play in front of an open window and know that if their child decides to take a tumble out the window that the familly will never have to work again because they can sue the pants off the building owner or the house builder for having a window that could be left open for their child to fall out.

Oh, and car manufacturer's should not make car windows that can open. I mean if a parent is driving down the highway without their toddler in a child seat and seat belt with an open window and the child sticks their head out to feel the fun breeze (dogs do it, so it has to be safe, amirite?) and they fall out, it is completely the automobile maker's fault and responsibility and they should be sued for millions.

Maybe you should repost this tomorrow and just say that you were just as confused as Grandpa. He couldn't tell the difference between obviously open and closed windows and you can't tell the difference between April and November.

Auto makers had to change to different switches for electric windows. With some older styles a young child could stand on the armrest and raise the window, trapping any body part stuck out the window. Usually the head.

It is reasonable that small children are climbing out of the windows of cars?

[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?

Hmmm...kids fall out of apartment windows. I suppose all apartments should now be built to code that specifies that there should be no windows that open above the ground floor. I mean, a parent should be allowed to let their toddler play in front of an open window and know that if their child decides to take a tumble out the window that the familly will never have to work again because they can sue the pants off the building owner or the house builder for having a window that could be left open for their child to fall out.

Oh, and car manufacturer's should not make car windows that can open. I mean if a parent is driving down the highway without their toddler in a child seat and seat belt with an open window and the child sticks their head out to feel the fun breeze (dogs do it, so it has to be safe, amirite?) and they fall out, it is completely the automobile maker's fault and responsibility and they should be sued for millions.

Maybe you should repost this tomorrow and just say that you were just as confused as Grandpa. He couldn't tell the difference between obviously open and closed windows and you can't tell the difference between April and November.

Auto makers had to change to different switches for electric windows. With some older styles a young child could stand on the armrest and raise the window, trapping any body part stuck out the window. Usually the head.

It is reasonable that small children are climbing out of the windows of cars?

The child on the cruise needed Grandpa's assistance to get up there. Unlike in a car, it would be very difficult for a child to climb up out of the rail and out the ship window.
That said, it was a good idea to change the switches. Hopefully someone thought of it versus it being a result of a horrific accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This grandfather should not have been charged. If the window was accessible without a ladder, any child could climb up and out.

And any child could crawl out of their home and lay in the street at any time—SUE ALL THE CITIES!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see the idiots who actually believe the cruise ship is at fault have found this thread.

Or is it a PR firm hired by the family. It's hard to believe that any functioning adult would find fault with the cruise line on this. Dude help the kid up to an open window and she fell. That's 100% on him.

[Anonymous]

A lot people jumping to conclusions here on both sides. Unless we know the actual layout of the ship, we're just not in the position to say if he's guilty or not. What we know or should derive is that being criminally negligent is a more egregious act than just being negligent. That may give a clue as to the circumstances of why he's being charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot people jumping to conclusions here on both sides. Unless we know the actual layout of the ship, we're just not in the position to say if he's guilty or not. What we know or should derive is that being criminally negligent is a more egregious act than just being negligent. That may give a clue as to the circumstances of why he's being charged.

Some of us have been on that ship, and are familiar with the area where the incident happened. There's also extensive documentation of the ship's layout online for those who haven't personally been on board.

[Anonymous]

There are walkthrough videos, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot people jumping to conclusions here on both sides. Unless we know the actual layout of the ship, we're just not in the position to say if he's guilty or not. What we know or should derive is that being criminally negligent is a more egregious act than just being negligent. That may give a clue as to the circumstances of why he's being charged.

The "actual layout of the ship" is easily available information. Not exactly a big mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are walkthrough videos, PP.

+1

Look at the videos and floorplan/photos if you have any doubts.

Dude make a huge mistake (or worse, it was intentional) and should be held accountable.

[Anonymous]

We got off the ship the same day it happened. We looked out the exact same open windows on that deck each morning after breakfast as we came into port. The open windows are not inherently dangerous. Nobody can climb or fall out. This accident happened because the man lifted her up and put her in a dangerous position.

And to be clear: it is not a children’s play area; the windows run alongside the length of that specific deck near the pool. The windows aren’t locked. They are in a pattern where some are meant to be open when it isn’t raining for ventilation. The open windows are intentionally high.