Jump to content
MattCasey

Freedom of the Seas Fatality?

Recommended Posts

I still call it baseless and disagree with the conclusion. My point, however is that there are far fewer and far smaller awards than the media would have you believe. People suffer harm all the time. That doesn't automatically mean there is fault and and there awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Pima1988 said:

Unfortunately, the US is a very litigious country.  Go to any Mc Donald's drive thru and you will see on the window....Caution: Coffee is hot.  DUH! That is because a woman spilled her coffee on her lap and sued them.  I think she won 3 Million.  This was probably 15-20 yrs ago

 

Please see @OrlandoC post above. This case is often used as an example of extreme litigiousness in the USA, but if you actual read the details of the case, McDonald's was absolutely negligent. I seriously mean no disrespect to you, but in today's world, facts matter, and I hope your opinion may change once fully educated on the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of knowing that coffee was hot. It was about it being too hot to be safe. And McDonald's admitted that was the case. 

The most damaging testimony against McDonalds actually came from its own quality assurance manager who testified that McDonalds required their restaurants to keep the coffee pot temperature at 185 degrees. He admitted that a burn risk existed for any food (or drink) served at over 140 degrees and that the coffee poured into the cups was not yet fit for consumption since it was well above that temperature. Burns to the mouth and throat would occur if the consumer would drink the coffee at that temperature. He also stated that McDonalds had no plans to reduce the temperature of its coffee.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's similar to smokers suing cigarette companies.  I guess people have different perspectives on personal responsibility. Involving this tragic event, it is hard to see the logic behind their arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize because this is somewhat off the topic but here is a different perspective.  If McDonald's is negligent for anything,  it would be because of their unhealthy food. I'm waiting for the suits from obese people and diabetics for being served dangerous food. People all know this, willingly eat it, and will eventually be victims. Are people ever personally responsible for their actions? Often, the answer seems to be no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically someone didnt watch their child and was careless resulting in the childs death.  Instead of taking responsibility the family is going to try and cash in on this horrible situation.  If they sue I hope the judge throws it out and charges the family with ALL court costs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grandfather had to physically lift her up to the railing .... it's not like she "happened" upon the open window .... even if the window was closed, she still would've gotten hurt falling to the deck floor ..... tragic?  Absolutely.  Royal's fault?  I think not.  Grandfather's (and any other family member) fault?  As painful as it is to admit.... yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, coneyraven said:

The grandfather had to physically lift her up to the railing .... it's not like she "happened" upon the open window .... even if the window was closed, she still would've gotten hurt falling to the deck floor ..... tragic?  Absolutely.  Royal's fault?  I think not.  Grandfather's (and any other family member) fault?  As painful as it is to admit.... yes

Perfectly stated!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read somewhere that the child liked to bang on the glass at the ice hockey, now i'm sure the glass ( think its actually acrylic ) at an ice hockey rink will be a lot stronger than that on cruiseships, so as a parent i cannot understand why anyone would let a child near any sort of glass to bang on just because they do it elsewhere. what if the glass shatters? or its not fixed securely and falls out? 

 Risk Assessments would have been carried out and control measures put in place to minimise the risk involved but the one thing you cannot factor for is human error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cruisin' Queen said:

It's shocking to see (on social media) how many people don't understand that the ship is not unsafe -- they only see an accident in which the child died.

Nah, people on social media seldom understand anything.  Period.  It should be "Baseless Gut Reaction Book."

13 hours ago, twangster said:

The attorney references a hockey rink and lifting her to the top of the boards so she could see through the glass.  This is apparently critical to his strategy since they have distributed a photo of it and he has mentioned it several times.  Yet the picture the attorney is distributing of her at a hockey rink shows her standing on the floor and leaning on the glass at the hockey rink. 

cruise-lawsuit-toddler-pics_3.jpg.ecd8fbeb5162e646a78ac26920f456ba.jpg

(Some news outlets have cropped the photo so you see just her upper body and hands on the glass.)

The ship also has glass starting at floor level.  She could have stayed on the floor on the ship, looked through the glass just like at the hockey rink and banged on it all she wanted to just like at the hockey rink, safely standing on her feet.  There was no need to pick her up so she could see out the window.  Why pick her up to place her on the railing so she could look outside when she could already see outside from the floor? 

It makes no sense.  The view isn't any better from the railing than it is from the floor, unless she wanted to look out the open window in which case they knew the window was open and he simply lost his grip somehow. 

There is a lot that just doesn't add up with the story.  

How is it the local police as first responders came to the conclusion that they did?  He must have said something or explained it in the anxiety of the moment that the police investigators picked up on.    

It will be interesting to see how local authorities handle this.

It's a tragedy and I can't even fathom what the family must be experiencing, but I don't see how it's anybody but the grandfather's fault.

You don't put a baby on a railing in any situation, ever.  A hard fall from just a few feet can be fatal.  How many "do not sit or climb on railing" signs have they got on the ship?  Do they need to add "especially babies!"? 

Whether he thought the window was opened or closed shouldn't figure in to it in the slightest.  Setting aside that it's blatantly obvious when the windows are open, what possess someone to think setting a baby on a precarious surface to bang on glass is a sensible thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BB1 said:

The woman who burned herself from the coffee was originally awarded almost $3million . She eventually received $ 640 thousand. Still ridiculous.

No, not really. Please educate yourself on the facts that have been provided for you upthread. The McDonald’s coffee case really should be taught in all university business law and introductory law courses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ridiculous. If you were to use that same logic and apply it to everything,  everything would be deemed dangerous and society couldn't function. It's a dog and poney legal argument that fools suckers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BunnyHutt said:

No, not really. Please educate yourself on the facts that have been provided for you upthread. The McDonald’s coffee case really should be taught in all university business law and introductory law courses. 

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. Although a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded $640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded. The jury damages included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BB1 said:

It is ridiculous. If you were to use that same logic and apply it to everything,  everything would be deemed dangerous and society couldn't function. It's a dog and poney legal argument that fools suckers. 

No.  Only to things that the seller knows are dangerous and chooses to ignore that fact.  Do you have any idea how hot that coffee had to be to cause the serious injuries it did?  Do you know how many other people McDonalds was aware of having been burned before, yet did nothing.  It is a great case to show how inaccurate reporting will cause people to have an opinion that actual facts can never shake.  It is an excellent case to show that companies cannot ignore things that injure consumers because they make more money selling it than the injuries cost.  It is also an excellent case to show how reporting inaccurate facts to further an agenda really does work.  The reporting, not the law, is the dog and pony show, I'll leave the other part of your analogy alone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting side discussion about the McD case.  

Likely the kind of confusion the attorney in this case is trying to create.

Attorney:

Dangerous play areas, dangerous hidden windows on cruise ships, media blitz with numerous pictures of a toddler, cruise ship FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

Meanwhile my colleague is on the phone with Royal Caribbean right now as I stand in front of the press holding a press conference stating all these terrible, dangerous things about cruise ships.  Of course this could all stop... for a price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, this whole case is about distraction. As to my detractor, you are totally entitled to your opinion. I totally disagree with you. I wasn't looking for an argument so I'll just leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BB1 said:

ExactlIt is ridiculous. If you were to use that same logic and apply it to everything,  everything would be deemed dangerous and society couldn't function. It's a dog and poney legal argument that fools suckers. 

Deleted

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jmccaffrey said:

Lawyers like him are why things cost so much.... the lawyer should know better not blame RC for what his client did.

He's just trying to make a buck and get his 15 minutes of fame ...... that's the extent of his compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...