Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched a video where the parents explained what they think RCCL did wrong and apparently the cruise line hadn’t updated those windows to industry standards. They apparently, allegedly, should have a device only allowing them to open to 4 inches or have a screen. According to them, if the line did those things, Chloe would be alive.
Not complying with industry standards however is not a definite reason to win a lawsuit. It’s something to consider but “industry standard” is different than “requirement” or “regulation” or “law.”
Their lawyer has - as far as I can tell, deliberately - muddied the waters by citing building codes applicable to multi-family dwellings. "Industry standard" is, as you correctly point out, a very slippery term. Does it mean common practice, state of the art, legal requirements?
The legal requirements for passenger ships put requirements on the carrier based on the idea that passengers are reasonable persons and are actually rather basic when it comes to protecting passengers against themselves. (As opposed to the requirements protecting passengers against fire, shipwreck etc.)
Quote:
He made a terrible decision and that’s why Chloe died. No one else has gone through those windows in ship history yet now allegedly not following alleged industry standard is an issue? Anello was the direct cause of Chloe’s death. Any condition of the ship may have made it easier but that doesn’t mean it’s the line’s fault.
Agree wholeheartedly. It's worth pointing out that the area is as toddler-safe as can be asked for. It took an adult to create the dangerous situation.
You could see that it was a bar area in one of the videos.
So when the parents and lawyer said this was a children's play area and it should be well secured - I thought yea right!
That was just one of several lies. "I just lifted her up so she could tap on the glass, and in an instant, she was gone!" Uh-huh.
"I couldn't see that the window was open because I am color blind!" Hmmm.
Not to mention "There should have been signs saying windows could be open. I would have seen it and Chloe would still be alive." Come on, this is the guy who claimed he didn't even notice that the window was open after leaning straight out of it! Would he really have noticed a sign?
If every person who made a dumb decision in this country alone could blame it on a tumor or some type of brain issue, then this would account for a huge percentage of people.
There are many perfect people on this forum but there are quite a few who can also admit to doing stupid things.
There are A LOT of incidents that are near misses...
I've done plenty of stupid things in my life. I'm lucky they didn't end badly. I realized at the time what I should not do or should do differently in future. But if they had ended badly, I wouldn't have expected to not pay the legal (and other) consequences.
When I saw where it actually happened that's when I couldn't take anything in faith that lawyer claimed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
