Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, tiny blonde said:

"Several months" is nothing when your child has been killed. Try living with it for years. Decades. Various media kept interviewing me for years afterward, and I never turned them down, nor did anyone try to talk me out of being interviewed. In fact, I told an interested group of people about it just yesterday. If people want to know, if they ask me, I tell them, because my pain needs to be understood.

But I tell them only if they ask, I don't go around telling people "my daughter was killed" anymore, although for the first year, while I was trying to come to grips with it, I did volunteer the information, to explain why I was so emotionally absent. I was walking around in a daze, confused, traumatized, and I felt I needed to offer an explanation for my helplessness, so I told people.

I can't blame the parents of the dead child. They are the victims . . .. of the grandfather's negligence, and the lawyer's greed . . . . and they are still reeling, and will be for a long time. The lawyer is the only person who is milking this for all it's worth, because he stands to make a third of at least a million dollars and probably more. My guess is that RCCL will settle for some number easily divisible by 3 (like $3,000,000) and the lawyer will deduct his expenses from the parents' share and then gleefully pocket a million for himself, and then go looking for someone else to shove in front of the nation.

I am very sorry for your loss. But I think volunteering information only when asked is different than trying to sue the cruise line or another corporation when the company was not the one responsible for the baby’s death. Both the parents and the grandfather seem to see no issue with the fact that the baby was held up on that railing all in the name of looking out a window because she did it at hockey games. 

We can’t put a warning label and a lawsuit on everything. People need to know that you just cannot do certain things when you’re responsible for a small child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

Both the parents and the grandfather seem to see no issue with the fact that the baby was held up on that railing all in the name of looking out a window because she did it at hockey games. 

Thank you. I guess I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but no one who has not suffered such a tragic loss can understand it: losing your child, especially violently, especially needlessly, makes you crazy for a long time. The family is out of their minds and cannot be held responsible for behaving like sheep, accepting the invitation of the TV show and parroting the words of the lawyer. The lawyer is the one who should know better than to take advantage of them this way. He is behaving disgracefully. Years from now the family may well be embarrassed by their TV appearances, if they can bring themselves to watch the tapes. They are still out of their minds with grief and deserve to be left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people think the family should profit from the baby's death. Why? To punish the company for doing nothing wrong? To help care for the injured victim? Why? I don't get this twisted logic. I'm sorry for Tiny blondes loss but you are still not thinking clearly. Your sympathy and empathy seems very misplaced. Your situation is not similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think there's still something YOU don't get . . . . it's not the family pushing this for profit, it's the LAWYER!!! HE is the one who stands to make a lot of money from this, for no good reason except that RCCL may want to protect their good name. I do NOT believe that the family should be awarded any damages, I just think that they should not be blamed for this circus going on. Blame the person who in all likelihood was the one who initiated it, namely the lawyer. That's all I'm saying.

I was approached by a lawyer, too, and I was advised to engage him and was prepared to initiate a lawsuit following my daughter's death, but the law firm reconsidered and advised me that they changed their minds and would not go forward, because the defendant (who in that case WAS clearly at fault) didn't have any money for us to go after. I was so brain-numbed that I would have gone along with anything they said. I'm glad it worked out the way it did, because money wouldn't have brought her back, but I couldn't think straight then.

Now do you understand? I am NOT in favor of RCCL being sued. I AM in favor of the lawyer being strung up and tarred and feathered and disbarred. I just hate to see the family being manipulated and criticized, when they need to be left alone to grieve.

I'm through. This is as clear as I can be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand. I do not want to make this personal so please do not take it that way. Everyone is a victim. We all suffer terrible losses, death of parents, children, spouses,  beloved pets. This is not in any way a normal reaction to a tragedy. Blaming others and trying to profit off your own child's  death is sick. When people try to justify these actions it is just plain sad and misguided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BB1 said:

I don't think you understand. I do not want to make this personal so please do not take it that way. Everyone is a victim. We all suffer terrible losses, death of parents, children, spouses,  beloved pets. This is not in any way a normal reaction to a tragedy. Blaming others and trying to profit off your own child's  death is sick. When people try to justify these actions it is just plain sad and misguided. 

I agree with you. The lawyer may be pushing them into the lawsuit but months have gone by and the family is still in on it and issuing statements that it’s not the grandfather’s fault. They even said themselves in interviews that the cruise line is to blame. They clearly want the money and see nothing else. 

I cringe to think about the rude awakening they’ll have if they don’t get a dime from their lawsuit. And I hope they don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking news: "After two years of legal wrangling, Harvey Weinstein and the board of his bankrupt film studio have reached a tentative $25 million settlement agreement with dozens of his alleged sexual misconduct victims, a deal that would not require the Hollywood producer to admit wrongdoing or pay anything to his accusers himself, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations."

Guess who's laughing all the way to the bank? The victims? No. Harvey Weinstein? No. The lawyers? Bingo! You can be sure there's celebrating going on at their offices.

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tiny, I believe I can speak for all of us who have been reading this sad thread - your posts and insight are invaluable for those who have not had to live through such a devastating tragedy.  We all have comparable views and opinions on this, and I find most posts to be interesting.

You said "I'm through", but I hope that wasn't so.  Please continue to post and offer your thoughts.

 

Although I (and others, obviously) have lost many precious people in my life, I cannot comprehend what you've been through - you have my utmost sympathy for your loss and respect for the strength you show by pushing through this journey of life.

 

❤️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Floski said:

You said "I'm through", but I hope that wasn't so.  Please continue to post and offer your thoughts.

Although I (and others, obviously) have lost many precious people in my life, I cannot comprehend what you've been through - you have my utmost sympathy for your loss and respect for the strength you show by pushing through this journey of life.

❤️

Thanks for your support. I guess I may have gotten carried away by my feelings. I am grateful for your understanding, both of you . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

I cringe to think about the rude awakening they’ll have if they don’t get a dime from their lawsuit. And I hope they don’t.

Better yet - when the family is forced to pay all of the legal costs incurred by RCCL with respect to the frivolous lawsuit, how much of it will the lawyer pony up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what else just occurred to me? I would be very interested in what the parents were doing the day this happened. If the grandfather had that terrible of vision and judgment to not see an open window, why was he the only one watching the baby? Maybe we ought to look into Mom and Dad as well and see if they were negligent in any way. The only thing I’ve ever read (and I don’t even remember where I read it) is that they “went to get something” but I am starting to think they were in a hurry to start drinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE:  The lawsuit has been filed yesterday.

While I feel heartbroken for this family's tragedy, I hope that they don't win this case.  That would send a clear message to others not to attempt to profit from their negligence. 

Their lawyer is saying in one interview that the presence of the railing by the window is "an invitation for people to sit on it, do things on it."  How stupid is that?  Aren't there small signs along the length of those railings saying not to sit on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

Screenshot of Royal's Guest Conduct Policy:

image.thumb.png.4f6654d3fc092cf02114006a0d4205cd.png

I thought about that policy this morning. I hope Royal’s attorney and/or a judge brings that up so this lawsuit goes away in about five minutes. That’ll be all it takes. After all, it’s not like the video as described by the media indicates that Chloe climbed the window herself and hopped the railing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

The only thing I’ve ever read (and I don’t even remember where I read it) is that they “went to get something” but I am starting to think they were in a hurry to start drinking.

I don't believe that is known at this point.  It was reported that the grandfather doesn't drink alcohol.  That's all we know or has been reported.  To insinuate rumors the parents where rushing off to drink isn't fair or proper at this point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN reports:  Michael Winkleman, the family's attorney, said at a news conference the "singular goal" of the lawsuit is to raise awareness about the risk of falling from windows and "prevent this from ever happening to another child again."

They are suing RCL to raise awareness to who?  If you ask me it's to the passengers.  So instead I say they should be suing passengers who put themselves and others in danger!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, YOLO said:

CNN reports:  Michael Winkleman, the family's attorney, said at a news conference the "singular goal" of the lawsuit is to raise awareness about the risk of falling from windows and "prevent this from ever happening to another child again."

They are suing RCL to raise awareness to who?  If you ask me it's to the passengers.  So instead I say they should be suing passengers who put themselves and others in danger!!!

Standard lawyer speak to sway public opinion that greed or other motives are possibly involved.  

It does somewhat shoehorn them into a position.  He can't settle now unless the settlement involves eliminating the windows.  If they settle with an NDA and monetary award it means the stated goal is not true.  

3 minutes ago, YOLO said:
CNN reports:  Anello told CBS News he initially blamed himself for Chloe's death. Now, he blames the cruise line.
"I just want them to fix the boat. Just fix it. Just fix the boat."
I wonder what changed his mind?

I'm thinking the lawyer changed his mind.  Something like... "It's not your fault, let me represent you in a case against the company to prove you were not at fault".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, twangster said:

It does somewhat shoehorn them into a position.  He can't settle now unless the settlement involves eliminating the windows.  If they settle with an NDA and monetary award it means the stated goal is not true.

Yeah, very good point!  I guess we will have to wait and see how this story plays out.  Personally I hope it doesn't end up being an NDA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from the mother in an ABC news article:

"I do not want the legacy of our little girl to be the history of court cases," she said.
"She was an actual person who lived and spread happiness wherever she went.
To know Chloe was to love her immediately."

 

Well, Mom ... you're suing Royal ... so yes, "the legacy of your little girl will be the history of court cases".  For a prosecutor, she doesn't seem to be able to make statements congruent with her values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, twangster said:

 It does somewhat shoehorn them into a position.  He can't settle now unless the settlement involves eliminating the windows. 

Those windows seem to be getting all the blame.  As I have asked before, what will Royal now do with those windows on those pool decks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

Those windows seem to be getting all the blame.  As I have asked before, what will Royal now do with those windows on those pool decks?

Could be as little as put signs on them that say in 3" letters "Windows can open DO NOT lean out of them" 

You know just like your power lawn mower that now has a sticker that tells "Danger keep hands and feet away from blades at all times"  

We as a society are responsible to protect people from themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the story a few weeks ago of the woman standing on the balcony railing taking a selfie?

A few days ago I'm eating breakfast in the Windjammer on Oasis.  Over by the Flowrider I see a couple doing a photo shoot with the woman sitting on the railing.  They took several shots over several minutes.  After looking them over she got back up on the railing and took some more.  It's at least 15' down to the deck below.

 1036724482_StupidPeople.jpg.5613078dd433d531bb99c7e14f46fc64.jpg

Stupid people do stupid things.  Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes it ends tragically.  

The hand railing is never meant to be a sitting area.

Grandpa did something stupid and a little girl paid for it with her life.  The window didn't kill the child, the grandfather did and he knows it.  It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, YOLO said:

CNN reports:  Michael Winkleman, the family's attorney, said at a news conference the "singular goal" of the lawsuit is to raise awareness about the risk of falling from windows and "prevent this from ever happening to another child again."

They are suing RCL to raise awareness to who?  If you ask me it's to the passengers.  So instead I say they should be suing passengers who put themselves and others in danger!!!

My wife and I raised three kids.  All were of legal age when this tragedy happened. 
 

Throughout their youth, We managed to keep all of them from falling out of windows despite never having been made aware of the risk by a frivolous lawsuit. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jzx1103 said:

So according to NBC nightly news last night. They said Royal might be at fault due to some requirement that they're supposed to install windows that can only open 4 inches for ventilation instead of whole way. Any truth to this or is it BS and they just reported what the lawyer said?

This is rather pointless on a cruise ship since you can go one deck up from there and have balconies with railings that open 4 million inches up... ha ha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

You know what else just occurred to me? I would be very interested in what the parents were doing the day this happened. If the grandfather had that terrible of vision and judgment to not see an open window, why was he the only one watching the baby? Maybe we ought to look into Mom and Dad as well and see if they were negligent in any way. The only thing I’ve ever read (and I don’t even remember where I read it) is that they “went to get something” but I am starting to think they were in a hurry to start drinking.

Excellent point, if the grandfather was colorblind to the point where he couldn't tell if a window was open or closed he was not capable of supervising a child, basically, the parents left an 18 month old child unsupervised!  I'm sure this is not the first time, how many other times did they leave their child without proper supervision?  If we really are looking to uncover the truth and raise peoples awareness, I think we need to uncover all the facts.  I'm sure RC's internal/external counsel is already investigating all pertinent facts and most likely has their own investigators looking into things such as this but it doesn't hurt to post questions here because I guarantee you the company has boards like this monitored on a regular basis.  If you think it may help, post it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jzx1103 said:

They said Royal might be at fault due to some requirement that they're supposed to install windows that can only open 4 inches for ventilation instead of whole way.

I believe the attorney is floating this idea comparing this ship to the newest built by NCL and Carnival.  Showing pics of their pool decks.  I get they are trying to make a point, but I am not stupid.  They even admit these ships were just launched, and it is in select areas.  They are not showing pics of a ship that was built 15 yrs ago.  If I was a RCL attorney I would take pics of all of their ships that have been refurbed @ the same time that Freedom did their last refurb.  Do they have windows that only open 4 inches, or glass to floor windows.  Let's compare apples to apples before you place blame on RCL.

As far as the color vision deficiency goes, I don't bite off on it.  My husband and now son flew/flies for the military.  Color vision deficiency is huge.  It is not a vision issue like being farsighted, where you can't see close.  It is, as has been stated by twangster, they can't usually see certain colors, green and red are the big ones.  They still see shades.  I would go with being farsighted as a defense faster than color blindness.

Caveat, my brother is an Albino.  He has vision issues.  He is 57, probably about the same age as the grandfather.  Here is the thing.  Just like the grandfather, this has been with him for his entire life.  He takes precautions in everything he does with the grandbabies, and my grandbabies.   Common sense would take over, and this is where I do get angry at the family.  Common sense means ===handrail and the windows are showing a different tint.  Windows are not true green on the ship, typically they are more a blue/green/gray,  and so he should have been able to see that this one is lighter than the one to the left and right....hmm...common sense....wonder why?  Let me check b4 I lift up this wiggly worm 18 mon old why this is occurring.

The thing I am curious about is they have stated that they are electing to have a jury trial.  Why?  If you believe so intensely that RCL is at fault why not just a judge?  

All of this being stated, I believe RCL is going to wait to hand them a settlement offer until his negligence case is resolved in PR.  I also believe that both sides will settle out of court with an NDA.  They will get millions.  The attorney will get 1/3 of the settlement.  Their family will never heal.  As others have stated only the attorneys win here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PG Cruiser said:

Screenshot of Royal's Guest Conduct Policy:

image.thumb.png.4f6654d3fc092cf02114006a0d4205cd.png

So in Royal's Guest Conduct Policy that the parent and grandfather all (electronically) signed and agreed to prior to boarding the ship, it clearly states the railings are "protective barriers".  How many protective barriers/measures is the cruise line required to have in place?  Should they assume the first protective measure (the railing) will be ignored like it was by the grandfather when he lifted the child up over it, and have a second, third, fourth... protective measure such as safety stickers or windows with limits on how far they can open?  Also, one could argue that the railing already was the second protective measure as the window tinting was the first protective measure. 

As for understanding Royal's Guest Conduct Policy and the implied warnings, the mother is a attorney/prosecutor, she clearly understood and knew what she was agreeing to and she is the one who left the child with someone who, WE now know, was not capable and should not have been placed in the position of supervising the child.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pima1988 said:

All of this being stated, I believe RCL is going to wait to hand them a settlement offer until his negligence case is resolved in PR.  I also believe that both sides will settle out of court with an NDA.  They will get millions.  The attorney will get 1/3 of the settlement.  Their family will never heal.  As others have stated only the attorneys win here.

 

If this family gets any $$$ from Royal it's gonna be open season for ridiculous lawsuits in the future. And the rest of us will pay for it as Royal or any other cruiseline will have no choice but to calculate this risk into their future price increases as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jzx1103 said:

If this family gets any $$$ from Royal it's gonna be open season for ridiculous lawsuits in the future. And the rest of us will pay for it as Royal or any other cruiseline will have no choice but to calculate this risk into their future price increases as well.

This lawyer has stated that at any given moment he has over 100 cases in motion with Royal alone.  I wouldn't be surprised if he or his firm has cases going against other lines as well.  

Who pays?  We all do. Increased fares and/or service cuts to cover the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, twangster said:

This lawyer has stated that at any given moment he has over 100 cases in motion with Royal alone.  I wouldn't be surprised if he or his firm has cases going against other lines as well.  

Who pays?  We all do. Increased fares and/or service cuts to cover the cost.

Wonder what the percentage of those is in legitimate lawsuits? 

Come on. If Royal or any line was this negligent, it would be in the news constantly and cruises wouldn’t be popular  because no one would travel with a company who didn’t care for its guests’ safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jjohnb said:

So in Royal's Guest Conduct Policy that the parent and grandfather all (electronically) signed and agreed to prior to boarding the ship, it clearly states the railings are "protective barriers".  How many protective barriers/measures is the cruise line required to have in place?  Should they assume the first protective measure (the railing) will be ignored like it was by the grandfather when he lifted the child up over it, and have a second, third, fourth... protective measure such as safety stickers or windows with limits on how far they can open?  Also, one could argue that the railing already was the second protective measure as the window tinting was the first protective measure. 

As for understanding Royal's Guest Conduct Policy and the implied warnings, the mother is a attorney/prosecutor, she clearly understood and knew what she was agreeing to and she is the one who left the child with someone who, WE now know, was not capable and should not have been placed in the position of supervising the child.     

I wonder if there are ANY adults with good judgment in that family to be honest. The only thing they should be raising awareness of is “how not to parent on a cruise.” 

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...