Jump to content

Who would ever let go of your child, even if there was no glass there?


Recommended Posts

As @twangster has previously said the glass goes all the way to deck level so there was absolutely no need to lift her up onto the railings. She could have happily looked out the glass and banged on it at deck level with no consequence.

I will say I don't believe the grandfather was "dangling" her through the open window as I just don't believe any grandparent would ever do that. Clearly he is very distraught over what has happened as anyone would be. Apart from the tragedy he is facing, having the world talking about you like this must be unbearable.

I have a lot of sympathy for him, as we all at one time or another make really bad decisions that we regret later, its just for most of us they aren't fatal.

I am sure there is not a second that goes by that he doesn't wish that he didn't make a different course of action.

Do I think RCI is negligent, no, but I can understand how the family and grandfather are trying to make sense of such a tragedy on what should have been a joyous family holiday.

In this age of living in a social media world where people are quick to condemn,, it is easy to forget that is actually real people with a grandfather and family going through a terrible loss.

In hindsight it was a terrible choice that was made, I am sure the grandfather would give anything to turn back time, but unfortunately life doesn't work that way and he will have to live with this for the rest of his life. That is a terrible burden to bear 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot to unpack here but I'll try to take a shot*

Criminal liability-multiple news outlets are reporting that the grandfather is being investigated for criminal liability.  Winkleman is not a criminal attorney but the outcome of the criminal case could/will have implications upon a civil recovery.  He wants to get out in front of that story-line and you can bet that a strong criminal defense attorney will be hired.  

Civil liability-One aspect that is often overlooked with the "cruise line cases" is what law would apply.  Maritime law and conflict of laws can create a number of complicated questions about what jurisdiction's laws would control the case.  For civil actions a lot of times the cases end up applying Florida law.  In this case Florida (RCL HQ, where tickets are purchased from, etc) has interest and Puerto Rico (embark/disembark, locus of accident) are the two likely applicable jurisdictions.  Winkleman will want PR law to apply because there's something called joint and several liability.  This means that if any "joint tortfeasor (party responsible)" is found liable for any reason, then the full award can be recovered from any person found liable. 

Why does this matter-because grandpops was negligent, there's no doubt about it.  As everyone here said, he either failed to see something that was pretty obvious or otherwise made a really poor choice.  So what about RCL? Winkelman will argue RCL was negligent because it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable accident.  The argument will be that it was foreseeable that someone may not realize that the glass had been opened and it would have been easy enough to install screens/warnings or other safety measures to prevent this from happening.  As a note: nearly all hotels in the US that have windows you can open have some sort of child protection on them because there were a rash of suits in the 90s about kids banging on screens and falling out of windows.

A jury may or may not actually agree that anything that RCL did was unreasonable, or they might say "hey, they could have put a warning by the window," they could have done a little bit more, etc. etc.  We see it all the time, and the jury will almost certainly assign liability to grandpops.  However, this is where the joint and several liability kicks in, lets say the jury says grandpops is 99% liable and RCL is 1% liable.  Family can still recover the full award from RCL.  Both jurisdictions allow for awards for emotional pain and suffering from the loss of a child as well, those tend to be big numbers.  

 

*I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney, this should not be construed as legal advice or an official opinion regarding applicable laws or principals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crown&AnchorEsq said:

A lot to unpack here but I'll try to take a shot*

Thanks for the detailed information.

If I'm not mistaken, Winkleman was engaged the day of the accident.  I suspect if that is the case a local criminal attorney was also.  

They've moved very quickly.  Afternoon accident, understandably terribly distraught and sedated yet have researched and engaged counsel back on the mainland within hours.  My head would be spinning, I wouldn't be thinking about engaging an attorney at that moment in time. 

Why is Winkleman making such an effort to be so public about this?  A presser within 24 hours of the incident for example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum selection - I do not think there will be J&S liability in Florida.

 9. FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE FOR ALL LAWSUITS; CLASS ACTION WAIVER: a. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 (b) WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH OF A PASSENGER , IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN PASSENGER AND CARRIER THAT ALL DISPUTES AND MATTERS WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH OR INCIDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT, PASSENGER'S CRUISE, CRUISETOUR, LAND TOUR OR TRANSPORT, SHALL BE LITIGATED, IF AT ALL, IN AND BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A., (OR AS TO THOSE LAWSUITS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES LACK SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BEFORE A COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A.) TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER STATE, TERRITORY OR COUNTRY. PASSENGER HEREBY CONSENTS TO JURISDICTION AND WAIVES ANY VENUE OR OTHER OBJECTION THAT HE MAY HAVE TO ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING BEING BROUGHT IN THE APPLICABLE COURT LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. b. CLASS ACTION RELIEF WAIVER. PASSENGER HEREBY AGREES THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, PASSENGER MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIER ONLY IN PASSENGER'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. EVEN IF THE APPLICABLE LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE, PASSENGER AGREES THAT ANY ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT AGAINST CARRIER, VESSEL OR TRANSPORT WHATSOEVER SHALL BE LITIGATED BY PASSENGER INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OR AS PART OF A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, AND PASSENGER EXPRESSLY AGREES TO WAIVE ANY LAW ENTITLING PASSENGER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. IF YOUR CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 BELOW, THE ARBITRATOR SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE SEVERABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.b BELOW, AND IF FOR ANY REASON THIS CLASS ACTION WAIVER IS UNENFORCE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

 

 

They've moved very quickly.  Afternoon accident, understandably terribly distraught and sedated yet have researched and engaged counsel back on the mainland within hours.  My head would be spinning, I wouldn't be thinking about engaging an attorney at that moment in time. 

Why is Winkleman making such an effort to be so public about this?  A presser within 24 hours of the incident for example.

 

Exactly. That is why this topic/thread has so many views and comments already. Alot of us just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

If I'm not mistaken, Winkleman was engaged the day of the accident.  I suspect if that is the case a local criminal attorney was also.  

They've moved very quickly.  Afternoon accident, understandably terribly distraught and sedated yet have researched and engaged counsel back on the mainland within hours.  My head would be spinning, I wouldn't be thinking about engaging an attorney at that moment in time. 

Why is Winkleman making such an effort to be so public about this?  A presser within 24 hours of the incident for example.

 

Classic public play to avoid charges and/or attain settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the reason they have moved so quickly is the father of the baby is a policeman and his friends are watching his back for him and making sure they help with the legal issues while they are in this horrible nightmare situation.  This is a very nice family.  My son worked with the father for about 8 years.  Have some compassion folks!  It is sad enough without a mock jury and trial.  May we all never feel the pain and hurt that this family is now dealing with and will for the rest of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zambia-Zaire said:
2 hours ago, twangster said:

Thanks for the detailed information.

If I'm not mistaken, Winkleman was engaged the day of the accident.  I suspect if that is the case a local criminal attorney was also.  

They've moved very quickly.  Afternoon accident, understandably terribly distraught and sedated yet have researched and engaged counsel back on the mainland within hours.  My head would be spinning, I wouldn't be thinking about engaging an attorney at that moment in time. 

Why is Winkleman making such an effort to be so public about this?  A presser within 24 hours of the incident for example.

 

If I was speculating, I would say someone immediately called home to tell about the tragedy and that person contacted a lawyer on their behalf, most likely a local attorney who said this was beyond his scope, but Winkelman is well known for suing rcl, call him. It's highly unlikely the family on the ship called him direct 

Do I think rcl should be liable-based on info as I have heard it, no. I was on navigator and had no issue figuring out which windows were open, and, obviously heights=danger of accident. As a libertarian I think there should be a lot more personal responsibility. However, if I was the one at home that got called, I would find a lawyer for my family or friends and make sure that they had the same caliber of lawyer as rcl has. Because the point of the court system is to get to the truth and that only works if both sides are represented by competent legal counsel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing -- life is dangerous and terrible, awful accidents happen.  And the awful, horrible things that happen can be just unimaginably painful and impossible to ever forget.  Reality, however, is that most of the time, these awful, horrible things really are just plain accidents.  There are not bad actors.  Royal Caribbean cannot create a cruise ship without windows that anyone would want to cruise on in the Southern Caribbean.  That area of the world is just plain hot.  If every area on a cruise ship were indoors, no one would cruise.  Outdoor areas require air circulation and a breeze or they become unbearable.  Thus, the pool deck of ships needs to be outdoors and it needs windows and fresh area.  There is no alternative.  Similarly, most of us want access to open air balconies, because being indoors on a cruise ship stinks and being outdoors without a breeze is miserable.

On the other hand, all of us do stupid things occasionally.  Who hasn't done something stupid like accidently not noticing a stop sign or a red light?  Who hasn't failed to notice a car in the lane next to us when changing lanes? Who hasn't lost track of a toddler for a couple of minutes at some point? All of us experience moments of distraction where we accidently engage in conduct that could cause an accident.  In almost all instances, our momentary lapses do not result in harm to us or anyone else.  In rare and awful cases, absolute tragedy results.  

Here, one possible scenario is that grandpa got on a ship.  A lot is going on and he focused on many different distractions at once.  He puts his granddaughter on his lap as he always does, and she stands up to look out over the rail.  Or he unthinkly, out of habit, stands her up on the rail as he always does and just for a brief second does not recongnize the danger of the open window and she is gone.  It is horrible and beyond tragic.  It is something too awful for anyone to contemplate.  But, it is not something for which either ship or granddad should be blamed.  

I took my eye off my five year old one day while we were swimming in a placid swimming hole I thought was safe.  I two seconds, my little boy was taken by a current I never saw or recognized over 20 foot dam.  He went over the waterfall, came up, and managed to hold onto a fallen tree until we could get to him and he was fine.  For the rest of my life, however, I will relive the horror of that moment and I will never, ever overcome the guilt of not recognizing the danger of that swimming area.  But, blaming me for my negligence would not help anyone.  It might make folks feel better about the safety of their own kids.  But, really, life is dangerous.  And every once in awhile, horrible accidents happen.  My deepest sympathy is with this family. 

The attorney, however, I hold the attorney in absolute contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vlgg said:

Maybe the reason they have moved so quickly is the father of the baby is a policeman and his friends are watching his back for him and making sure they help with the legal issues while they are in this horrible nightmare situation.  This is a very nice family.  My son worked with the father for about 8 years.  Have some compassion folks!  It is sad enough without a mock jury and trial.  May we all never feel the pain and hurt that this family is now dealing with and will for the rest of their lives.

I think everyone has compassion, but the attorney's public statements on behalf of the family have put them in a bad light publically.  That was their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, Whizbank said:

If I was speculating, I would say someone immediately called home to tell about the tragedy and that person contacted a lawyer on their behalf, most likely a local attorney who said this was beyond his scope, but Winkelman is well known for suing rcl, call him. It's highly unlikely the family on the ship called him direct 

Do I think rcl should be liable-based on info as I have heard it, no. I was on navigator and had no issue figuring out which windows were open, and, obviously heights=danger of accident. As a libertarian I think there should be a lot more personal responsibility. However, if I was the one at home that got called, I would find a lawyer for my family or friends and make sure that they had the same caliber of lawyer as rcl has. Because the point of the court system is to get to the truth and that only works if both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. 

Valid points and could very possibly be the case...however, as far as my point is concern...a statement was made, "Why is Winkleman making such an effort to be so public about this?  A presser within 24 hours of the incident?" A very classic play is at hand here, of public pressure to force protection of brand name(make publicity quickly go away & settle), while gaining public sympathy for the accused, whom face possible charges...not unusual at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2019 at 5:18 PM, JohnK6404 said:

Not sure if anyone familiar with Freedom can tell from these screen captures from the news report showing the start of the investigation exactly where this is on the ship. It looks like there are a few windows open...

Bottom line, only after an adult lifts a child that high (estimating 4 feet or so above the deck) in the air could they possibly fall out. Unless you have extremely poor eyesight and cannot feel a breeze it's blatantly obvious when a window is open. Why would you even think of placing a child up against a glass/plexiglass pane in the first place? How is that cute or funny? You can also see all of the tables and chairs right behind the investigators... 

When we were in the Solarium on Allure, I immediately noticed the open windows (I recall they were higher of course) that they opened for circulation. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to notice them.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1150533/royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-freedom-of-the-seas-death-baby-girl-san-juan-puerto-rico

image.thumb.png.c3bd59165ac0bcc90072e88e280c2a9d.png

 

image.thumb.png.31b616796cbe878bccf5e39cb878d728.png

 

Just to be clear, are the windows talked about at chest level of this guy or the one where his legs are?  It looks like the windows where the guys legs are can slide open given the panel in the middle.  Can anyone that has been on the ship verify if these slide open too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Aeroman380 said:

 

Just to be clear, are the windows talked about at chest level of this guy or the one where his legs are?  It looks like the windows where the guys legs are can slide open given the panel in the middle.  Can anyone that has been on the ship verify if these slide open too?

I have been on freedom.... While I don't remember specifically if the bottom windows can open, I can adamantly say that I never ever saw them open.  I only ever saw the middle ones.  I don't believe the bottom ones move... Jane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aeroman380 said:

 

Just to be clear, are the windows talked about at chest level of this guy or the one where his legs are?  It looks like the windows where the guys legs are can slide open given the panel in the middle.  Can anyone that has been on the ship verify if these slide open too?

All accounts and photos, including the statement from their attorney, refer to the chest high window(s) as shown in the screen capture. Their attorney stated the child was lifted up and placed on the railing just prior to falling out of the open window. Here is the quote from their attorney and the source:

"Essentially her grandfather lifts her up and puts her on a railing and where he thinks that there is glass there because it's clear, but it turns out there was no glass there," he said. "She goes to bang on the glass like she would have at one of those hockey rinks, and the next thing you know, she's gone."

https://www.today.com/news/family-toddler-who-fell-cruise-ship-speaks-out-about-cause-t157908

I'm still very confused over how one can assume there is glass in an opening that is "clear" when the entire glass wall on Deck 11 is clearly tinted green.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnK6404 said:

"Essentially her grandfather lifts her up and puts her on a railing and where he thinks that there is glass there because it's clear, but it turns out there was no glass there," he said.

This is what bother's me. We all know that if you pass or stand at one of these open windows that there is a wind that blows. How can you NOT know the window is open??? Moreover, wouldn't  you question why all the window panes are tinted but this one "supposed" pane isn't?? This idiot of an attorney is trying to spin the story but will end up losing at the long run. RCCL will most likely file a Motion for Summary Judgment should this attorney file suit as previously stated, grandfather admits to his negligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I'm new to this group, but have been on Freedom and have been following along since we booked our Harmony cruise for next spring.  

9 hours ago, Vlgg said:

Maybe the reason they have moved so quickly is the father of the baby is a policeman and his friends are watching his back for him and making sure they help with the legal issues while they are in this horrible nightmare situation.  This is a very nice family.  My son worked with the father for about 8 years.  Have some compassion folks!  It is sad enough without a mock jury and trial.  May we all never feel the pain and hurt that this family is now dealing with and will for the rest of their lives.

 

We all have deep compassion and sincere sympathy for this family.  I feel shaken to my core since first hearing about this tragic incident.   But what I find even more troubling and disturbing is the handling of events since this tragedy occurred. 

The immediate obtaining of their career cruise line litigator and their statements to the media just don't make sense. The claiming not to know the window was open, the hockey glass reference and subsequent released photo, being in the kids water zone when it occurred.  None of it makes sense.   I would have a lot more respect if the Grandfather had said; "I picked up Chloe to look out of the window and she wriggled out of my arms."   This makes sense. Yes, he is absolutely responsible, but we can understand how that would be plausible.  It's a devastating freak accident and we would send our outpouring of love and support to this family and the Grandfather even more so.  I'm sure many of us would gladly donate to a fund set up for the family and in Chloe's memory. My heart is literally breaking over the pain they must feel and will have to live with.

Instead, their refusal to take any responsibility and what feels like false statements pointing the blame at RCI  leaves me with a negative view of the family and an almost defensive feeling towards RCI. 

Toddler Was in ‘Kid’s Water Zone’ When She Fell to Her Death From Cruise Ship in Puerto Rico: Attorney

https://ktla.com/2019/07/09/toddler-was-in-kids-water-zone-when-she-fell-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-in-puerto-rico-attorney/

This is just so blatantly untrue that it is deeply upsetting.  

 "The girl’s family wants to know why a window that “should have been closed securely” was open. “The family needs answers as to why there would be an open window in a wall full of fixed windows in a kids’ play area? Why would you have the danger without any warning, sign, or notice?” he asked.

Again,  this just feels wrong and untrue on so many levels.  

Winkleman said he will do everything he can to hold the cruise line "accountable for what appears to me to be negligence."

This right here shows his true motives. "Accountable" being as much money from RCI that he can get.  Whether is bending the truth or slandering RCI in the media. This guy appears to have one motive and he is good. 

It is just deeply disturbing to see the family and their lawyer pointing the blame at RCI for a clearly open window among many and it feels wrong to seek to profit off the tragic death of their daughter. I'm in favor of holding corporations responsible for negligence or when they put profits ahead of human safety, but this is not the case.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mom2mybugs said:

I have been on freedom.... While I don't remember specifically if there bottom windows can open, I can adamantly say that I never ever saw them open.  I only ever saw the middle ones.  I don't believe the bottom ones move... Jane

I have been on Marnier, Indy, Navigator and those bottom windows don't open...I spent a lot of my time on the pool deck and around the section...I remember wisihing they had more windows that opened...the lower ones defn don't open!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kpal711 said:

It is just deeply disturbing to see the family and their lawyer pointing the blame at RCI for a clearly open window among many and it feels wrong to seek to profit off the tragic death of their daughter. I'm in favor of holding corporations responsible for negligence or when they put profits ahead of human safety, but this is not the case.  

This is why many of us are voicing our thoughts in this thread.  We all have compassion and feel terrible about the loss of life.  If the family hadn't attacked the cruise line with such tenacity refusing to accept any blame or admit it was simply a terrible accident many of us would have remained silent and grieved with them.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, monctonguy said:

II have been on Marnier, Indy, Navigator and those bottom windows don't open...I spent a lot of my time on the pool deck and around the section...I remember wisihing they had more windows that opened...the lower ones defn don't open!

I have been on Freedom for weeks at a time and I can tell you that none of the bottom windows open. The H2O Zone is centered in the ship. Starboard and port of it lay both paths used by people to move from aft to forward and vice versa as well as tables and chairs for sitting. The area the toddler fell is utilized by many people without children and include tables and chairs for their use. Both sides are smoke free areas. The railings that skirt both the port and starboard side of deck 11 are positioned far enough from the windows to prevent any adult who would feel the need (however foolish) to lean out the window and possibly fall out (unless you are nearing 7 feet tall).  They are not meant to be sat or stood upon by anyone.  I have taken many pictures through open windows on the Freedom. The window glass itself has a slight bluish tint to it so that along with them never being immaculately clean of water marks, etc. does not make for a good photo. Anyone, unless they have significantly failing eyesight, would be able to tell that a window is open on deck 11. The windows slide to one side making it very clear that the window is open as there are tracks visible when the window is open. That in addition to the air that comes through the window however slight would alert anyone to the absence of glass. As a grandparent myself, I can't imagine the pain this grandfather is going through. I know that when I am in the position of caring for my granddaughter I am more alert and on the defensive than I was with my own children.  I can't imagine how my children would feel if I was the one responsible for hurting much less the death my granddaughter. Childcare is a grave responsibility and the use of common sense along with acting to avoid any potential situation where the child may injure him or herself is an absolute necessity. I have had my granddaughter when she was four on Liberty of the Seas which has the same design as Freedom and we had just finished a sailing aboard Adventure of the Seas when this happened.   I saw pictures of the toddler banging on the glass at a hockey game (the rationale the attorney is giving for why Chloe was lifted up and placed by the window). Why the grandfather did not simply allow her to bang on the bottom glass (albeit something that I would not encourage) is beyond me.  Clearly he had a lapse in judgment and was momentarily distracted, a situation, unfortunately, that led to the tragedy.  In no way is Royal Caribbean responsible for the toddler's death.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MrMarc with regards to the forum selection clause in the cruise contract, that really only applies to "consumer complaints"  the BI/Wrongful death tort claims follow the usually common law choice of laws principles.

14 hours ago, MrMarc said:

 9. FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE FOR ALL LAWSUITS; CLASS ACTION WAIVER: a. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 (b) WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH OF A PASSENGER , IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN PASSENGER AND CARRIER THAT ALL DISPUTES AND MATTERS WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH OR INCIDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT, PASSENGER'S CRUISE, CRUISETOUR, LAND TOUR OR TRANSPORT, SHALL BE LITIGATED, IF AT ALL, IN AND BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, U.S.A., ...

Emphasis mine.  

Going to attorneys immediately after an accident is more common than you think, especially when they're knocking on your door.  Publicity issues aside, if you are in an accident, particularly if its a situation where you have a good claim (say you get rear-ended) its not a bad idea to get an attorney involved asap just to make sure that all evidence is preserved.  Just because you hire an attorney does not mean that you have to file suit.  I'd have to check the statute of limitations in Puerto Rico but my guess is that suit wont be filed for at least a few years. (Statute is  3 years for tort (bodily injury) claims in most jurisdictions.)

The publicity...that's an attorney's strategy choice.  The client needs to approve it to some extent, but here Winkelman wants to control the narrative and get out in front of the grandfather being the sole cause of this accident.  As many have alluded "litigating in the news" is also a time-honored strategy, it provides some leverage to get the case settled or prevent it from dragging out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, monctonguy said:

I just read how they are trying to frame it as the ships fault?.....like WTH?...he sat her on a wooden railing against a window....even if they didn't know the windows open(which they would have on a 7 day cruise).....or someone else opened the window(I doubt it with a child leaning against it..they are quite heavy to move and open)....they shouldn't have the child left up there even if it wasn't glass...

 

Its absurd..the family screwed up and they want someone or something to blame.....

Based on the timing of when this happened, they would have just boarded (and thus would not have the 7 days experience with open windows).

Doesn't excuse the reckless action of the adult involved, but the "should have known the windows can open" piece wouldn't apply yet for the unobservant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, OrlandoC said:

I'm sorry this is wrong. Not calling you out in particular since this is a huge misconception across the country. 

McDonald's was absolutely negligent in how they served their coffee. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

The 79 year-old victim suffered third degree burns on her legs and genitals which required extensive surgery to repair because McDonald's served coffee at over 190 degrees. They also knew that this was a problem because before this case they had already received over 700 reports of burns due to hot coffee. They didn't even deny they knew this was dangerous in the case! Yet they continued to serve it at near boiling temperatures. 

In addition the victim didn't want to file a lawsuit. She only wanted her medical expenses paid. McDonalds refused and only offered her $800. Her lawsuit was for those expenses only but the jury thought McDonald's was so negligent that they awarded her even more. 

So how did it end up that everyone in America thinks she was greedy because she got some lukewarm coffee on her? McDonald's funded a misinformation campaign that the media bought into and spread to everyone. Corporations have used this fake story to keep people with real injuries from pursuing damages for fear they might be considered in the same way this woman was. Don't fall for McDonald's lies.  

Thank you! I'm so glad someone said something about this because citing the McDonald's coffee case as an example of frivolous lawsuits is such a pet peeve of mine. McDonald's propaganda campaign sure did a number on public perception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that case was abuse, regardless of what it did to public perception.  Does anyone know the true temperature of the coffee she received? Does anyone know if any injuries were prevented because of this? What extent were the injuries involved in the other complaints? A burnt tongue. A pizza burn on the roof of their mouth. I could argue this for days but that was not my point. My point was that juries can award whatever they want and on appeal these awards are greatly reduced and or eliminated.  This is what the public never hears about. Myself and others are obviously in disagreement.  I accept that and as I said, i will just leave it at that. In reality, our opinions are meaningless in this and I truly was not trying to start an argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. As I posted several times and is mentioned in every article about this story McDonald's served the coffee at 185-190 degrees F. This fact was not in dispute. McDonalds admitted it. 

The McD QA manager also said they knew coffee temperatures above 145F could cause injury and that the coffee was too hot to be consumed by any guest. 

I won't post pictures here but feel free to search for third degree burn pictures and let me know if you think that kind of injury is equivalent to a "pizza burn". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll  just have to disagree.  My point is that a $3 million dollar award was reduced to $640 thousand and then reduced even further in an out of court settlement after the threat of another appeal. The relevant point to this discussion is that even if this ever goes to court, a jury can award anything but the final outcome can be very different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crown&AnchorEsq said:

@MrMarc with regards to the forum selection clause in the cruise contract, that really only applies to "consumer complaints"  the BI/Wrongful death tort claims follow the usually common law choice of laws principles.

Emphasis mine.  

Going to attorneys immediately after an accident is more common than you think, especially when they're knocking on your door.  Publicity issues aside, if you are in an accident, particularly if its a situation where you have a good claim (say you get rear-ended) its not a bad idea to get an attorney involved asap just to make sure that all evidence is preserved.  Just because you hire an attorney does not mean that you have to file suit.  I'd have to check the statute of limitations in Puerto Rico but my guess is that suit wont be filed for at least a few years. (Statute is  3 years for tort (bodily injury) claims in most jurisdictions.)

The publicity...that's an attorney's strategy choice.  The client needs to approve it to some extent, but here Winkelman wants to control the narrative and get out in front of the grandfather being the sole cause of this accident.  As many have alluded "litigating in the news" is also a time-honored strategy, it provides some leverage to get the case settled or prevent it from dragging out.

From the one cruise ship case i did many years ago, I seem to recall that the forum selection either from the cruise contract or steamship statutes applied to personal injuries.  i do know that the statute of limitations is changed to 1 year and is, or at least was, enforced by the Federal Courts fairly strictly.  I agree that that may be the goal, but he may be doing the family a great disservice by speaking before he knows the facts.  That would not make him unique among attorneys I have known.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spiralqueen said:

Thank you! I'm so glad someone said something about this because citing the McDonald's coffee case as an example of frivolous lawsuits is such a pet peeve of mine. McDonald's propaganda campaign sure did a number on public perception. 

With all due respect....coffee is hot. FACT. This is common sense. Therefore sueing a company (i.e. McDonald's) for selling hot coffee is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. 

RC need to stand its ground and not pay a dime for this clear act of neglect by the grandfather. (Plus he should go to jail for negligence homicide)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jmccaffrey said:

With all due respect....coffee is hot. FACT. This is common sense. Therefore sueing a company (i.e. McDonald's) for selling hot coffee is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. 

Another example is when a RV company was sued for not clearly stating that cruise control is not autopilot..... the man was driving on a highway and hit cruise control. Then got up and made himself a cup of coffee.... the RV crashed.... He sued and won.... how is this allowed..

RC need to stand its ground and not pay a dime for this clear act of neglect by the grandfather. (Plus he should go to jail for negligence homicide)

I think you can agree that coffee that you are going to drink should not be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns within 3-5 seconds. THAT is where the negligence comes into play. Not that it was hot. That it was excessively hot and they knew about this and chose to ignore. Spilled coffee shouldn't require surgery and skin grafts. I won't argue with you that frivolous lawsuits exist. That RV one sounds like a perfect example, if true. I was simply stating that many, many people think they know the facts of the McDonald's case because they heard about it on the news, but what was reported at the time was drastically oversimplified and misrepresented. 

Anyway, back to the topic in this thread, I do agree that it is absurd to sue Royal over this and I think it's pretty obvious that this is a desperate ploy of a mourning family to blame someone else. It's a very sad situation all around, but I don't see how this is RCI's fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jmccaffrey said:

With all due respect....coffee is hot. FACT. This is common sense. Therefore sueing a company (i.e. McDonald's) for selling hot coffee is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. 

Another example is when a RV company was sued for not clearly stating that cruise control is not autopilot..... the man was driving on a highway and hit cruise control. Then got up and made himself a cup of coffee.... the RV crashed.... He sued and won.... how is this allowed..

RC need to stand its ground and not pay a dime for this clear act of neglect by the grandfather. (Plus he should go to jail for negligence homicide)

A quick search shows that the RV story is completely fake. It never happened. It's been repeated over the years with the details changed every time. Just another example of how fake stories like this and the coffee make people think that Americans shouldn't seek out justice from corporations that are negligent. 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruise-uncontrol/

https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20050203/news/605209362

https://www.chron.com/news/casey/article/Incredible-lawsuit-tales-1826357.php 

 

Was Royal negligent by having a small open window on the 11th deck? Probably not IMO.  But if the family thinks they can prove they were it is their right as Americans to seek justice through the court system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I just looked over the deck plans of the ship and from what the news is saying, as well as from the deck plans they were somewhere close to the Solarium on the ship which is not near a children's play area.  The pool is a bit of a distance from where they state that they were at.  From what I am seeing they were in the area in between the pool and the Solarium, I am not throwing stones, there are just a few things that just are not making sense here whatsoever.  And what is even worse is that the child had to loose her life over a lack of God given common sense.  Even if I would have placed my child up there and there was a closed window I would have had my arm wrapped around her the entire time just in case she slipped or something.  I honestly would not have put her up there but if I did my arms would not have left her the entire time she was there.  Such a sad tragedy that was ENTIRELY preventable!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying the Grandfather is lying or just trying make excuses. But out of the 5 Royal sailings I've been on thus far, I have seen windows open on the pool deck during embarkation day on all of them. I was able to easily tell they were open even from 15 to 20 feet away, let alone being up close. Furthermore, none of those windows being open were any danger to children as they were still wayyy too high for kids to go over, unless of course it's through a poor judgement by an adult. Any common sense would tell you to at least feel whether there's a window there if you really couldn't tell, before letting your 2 year old toddler lean against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...