The lawsuit against Royal Caribbean/toddler death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the video?

Google is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is in IT. I notice two types in the field: either they are extremely bright (very rare, contrary to how important DCUMers think they are) and have little or no common sense - or (and this is FAR more common) they just aren't that bright, period - but got into the field because they thought it was the trendy thing to do.

+1

A lot of these types are good with machines and awfully incompetent with anything living. Ask the wives of DCUM.

I haven't noticed anything of the sort. That's an unfortunate stereotype that is often applied to engineers and any other math/science minded field.

I can't speak to the other fields, but engineers are generally risk adverse. And that tends to bleed into every aspect of your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is in IT. I notice two types in the field: either they are extremely bright (very rare, contrary to how important DCUMers think they are) and have little or no common sense - or (and this is FAR more common) they just aren't that bright, period - but got into the field because they thought it was the trendy thing to do.

+1

A lot of these types are good with machines and awfully incompetent with anything living. Ask the wives of DCUM.

I haven't noticed anything of the sort. That's an unfortunate stereotype that is often applied to engineers and any other math/science minded field.

I can't speak to the other fields, but engineers are generally risk adverse. And that tends to bleed into every aspect of your life.

It depends. If the engineer is not used to watching little kids they might not think about safety issues the same way that a hands on parent would. For instance, they might not consider the dangers of allowing a 1 year old to get far away from them in a crowded room. They also might not realize how squirmy a little baby can be. That's why cautious parents tend to shadow an inexperiened or rusty grandparent at first to make sure that the grandparent is using adequate caution. They know their child and they know how quick their child can be.

Chloe's parents had apparently seen the grandfather in action with Chloe many times before this tragedy occurred and they say he had never done anything that would cause them to doubt his judgment. In looking at that tape, I can see a bunch of things that would have made me leery of Grandpa's supervision. But I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to my kids in general.

[Anonymous]

^And I'm a former English major who has worked in a technical "IT" type environment.

[Anonymous]

My takeaway from the video is he definitely knew the window was open bc he appeared to lean out the window himself before he lifted the toddler up and held her on the railing.

If he’s smart, he’ll take a plea deal.

RC was not at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the video is he definitely knew the window was open bc he appeared to lean out the window himself before he lifted the toddler up and held her on the railing.

If he’s smart, he’ll take a plea deal.

RC was not at fault.

This is what the jury will see too. In both the criminal and civil case.

[Anonymous]

Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:





It depends. If the engineer is not used to watching little kids they might not think about safety issues the same way that a hands on parent would. For instance, they might not consider the dangers of allowing a 1 year old to get far away from them in a crowded room. They also might not realize how squirmy a little baby can be. That's why cautious parents tend to shadow an inexperiened or rusty grandparent at first to make sure that the grandparent is using adequate caution. They know their child and they know how quick their child can be.

Chloe's parents had apparently seen the grandfather in action with Chloe many times before this tragedy occurred and they say he had never done anything that would cause them to doubt his judgment. In looking at that tape, I can see a bunch of things that would have made me leery of Grandpa's supervision. But I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to my kids in general.

See, my logical brain will STILL say that I wouldn't have held a damn BOOK out an open 11 story window thinking that it could possibly fall and I would lose it, or that it would fall and hit someone on the head. How could any sane person think it was ok to hold a child out a window is beyond me. I just can't process it for the life of me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grandfather is in IT. I notice two types in the field: either they are extremely bright (very rare, contrary to how important DCUMers think they are) and have little or no common sense - or (and this is FAR more common) they just aren't that bright, period - but got into the field because they thought it was the trendy thing to do.

+1

A lot of these types are good with machines and awfully incompetent with anything living. Ask the wives of DCUM.

I haven't noticed anything of the sort. That's an unfortunate stereotype that is often applied to engineers and any other math/science minded field.

I can't speak to the other fields, but engineers are generally risk adverse. And that tends to bleed into every aspect of your life.

And apparently illiterate - the word is averse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

To be fair, this is the walk area that goes around the pool deck which includes a children's play area. However, where they were, the walkway opens wider for an open space around the bar. They walked away from the pool area passed the bar over to the walkway and window. So, it may be that the grandfather is the one that pushed the children's play area, because they were there before they walked over to the window. But it was a significant distance away from the play area. There's no guarantee that this is just the lawyer pushing that it was a play area. This could have been the grandfather's own words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

Do they really get disbarred for that kind of thing? If so that person really needs to lose their license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

To be fair, this is the walk area that goes around the pool deck which includes a children's play area. However, where they were, the walkway opens wider for an open space around the bar. They walked away from the pool area passed the bar over to the walkway and window. So, it may be that the grandfather is the one that pushed the children's play area, because they were there before they walked over to the window. But it was a significant distance away from the play area. There's no guarantee that this is just the lawyer pushing that it was a play area. This could have been the grandfather's own words.

The parents probably thought that he was taking Chloe to the play area where she would have been safe. Instead, he allowed Chloe to run over to those windows and then inexplicably picked her up and dropped her out an 11 story window.

The whole thing is plain flat nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember the lawyer had the media repeating that this happened in a children’s PLAY AREA. The lawyer is a lying dirt bag and should be disbarred. That news agencies blindly repeated the lawyer’s claims as fact is despicable.

To be fair, this is the walk area that goes around the pool deck which includes a children's play area. However, where they were, the walkway opens wider for an open space around the bar. They walked away from the pool area passed the bar over to the walkway and window. So, it may be that the grandfather is the one that pushed the children's play area, because they were there before they walked over to the window. But it was a significant distance away from the play area. There's no guarantee that this is just the lawyer pushing that it was a play area. This could have been the grandfather's own words.

Exactly. I don’t see him getting disbarred but he’s still scum of the earth. And again, it wasn’t a hazard until he lifted her up. It’s not like she could have fallen out of the window herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:





It depends. If the engineer is not used to watching little kids they might not think about safety issues the same way that a hands on parent would. For instance, they might not consider the dangers of allowing a 1 year old to get far away from them in a crowded room. They also might not realize how squirmy a little baby can be. That's why cautious parents tend to shadow an inexperiened or rusty grandparent at first to make sure that the grandparent is using adequate caution. They know their child and they know how quick their child can be.

Chloe's parents had apparently seen the grandfather in action with Chloe many times before this tragedy occurred and they say he had never done anything that would cause them to doubt his judgment. In looking at that tape, I can see a bunch of things that would have made me leery of Grandpa's supervision. But I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to my kids in general.

See, my logical brain will STILL say that I wouldn't have held a damn BOOK out an open 11 story window thinking that it could possibly fall and I would lose it, or that it would fall and hit someone on the head. How could any sane person think it was ok to hold a child out a window is beyond me. I just can't process it for the life of me.

Right. This didn't happen because he was an "idiot IT" employee. It happened because Grandpa did something insane that no one would ever do. He never would have made it to 51 if he didn't get the relationship between tall heights and hard ground.

[Anonymous]

All the other people who were on the ship--their vacation was completely destroyed too. I'm sure some of them witness some horrific stuff and were traumatized. i think Grandpa should be held responsible for reimbursing them for actual damages (vacations costs) as well as "pain and suffering" for what they witnessed.