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.
If GF genuinely thought the window was closed is RC liable and/or the GF should not be criminally charged?
It's actually sort-of interesting. It really isn't like Simpson being sued in civil court over a wrongful death and subsequently found liable. He was the defendant in both cases. Not the case here.
In the criminal case, the GF believing the window was open or closed speaks to his state of mind at the time of the incident, and it may form part of a defense arguing that his actions were on the negligence end of the scale, rather than recklessness.
The civil suit doesn't even have the GF as a named party - it's the parents vs. RCL. And in this case, it's irrelevant what the GF thought, no matter how much the attorney will try to bring it up. RCL's duty of care to passengers assume a "reasonable person" - this is the reason they're not liable when people get drunk and fall overboard from their balconies. RCL's stance has been, from the word go, that a reasonable person can be expected to identify an open window and will abstain from putting a toddler in front of it. Which makes a lot of sense to me, frankly.
It's actually sort-of interesting. It really isn't like Simpson being sued in civil court over a wrongful death and subsequently found liable. He was the defendant in both cases. Not the case here.
In the criminal case, the GF believing the window was open or closed speaks to his state of mind at the time of the incident, and it may form part of a defense arguing that his actions were on the negligence end of the scale, rather than recklessness.
The civil suit doesn't even have the GF as a named party - it's the parents vs. RCL. And in this case, it's irrelevant what the GF thought, no matter how much the attorney will try to bring it up. RCL's duty of care to passengers assume a "reasonable person" - this is the reason they're not liable when people get drunk and fall overboard from their balconies. RCL's stance has been, from the word go, that a reasonable person can be expected to identify an open window and will abstain from putting a toddler in front of it. Which makes a lot of sense to me, frankly.
Clara has been the strongest defender in this case (I appreciate her perspective) but I'm not clear of what she is defending, GP innocence or RC being negligent.
And if it's impossible for him to lean outside the window since it's 18 inches from the rail then there argument is even weaker since that clearly shows additional safety measures in that design. GP would have to not only pick her up over the rail but extend Chloe out another 18 inches.
I wonder if the GF placed the child sitting on the metal window frame : to do so he had to lean over the rail while placing her on the opened window frame - like the video shows -for 34 seconds- 18 months old child could be heavy to hold on outstretched arms for that long for an older man.
I bet the child might have moved unexpectedly off that metal frame the same way as if she wanted to get down off of the chair and that is how he lost a grip on her letting her fall down.
Clearly, the grandfather’s negligence...in addition he is a coward - making up a story to clear himself- - after the child’s fall- it does not look like he screamed, yell for help-as everyone nearby is unaware of what just happened- except the person sitting next to the window- who gets up and leans out of the window to see where the child is- the grandfather just walks away
And if it's impossible for him to lean outside the window since it's 18 inches from the rail then there argument is even weaker since that clearly shows additional safety measures in that design. GP would have to not only pick her up over the rail but extend Chloe out another 18 inches.
The lawyer's stance is getting a bit self-contradictory here - the window is so very hard to reach and that's why the GF couldn't possibly tell it was open. Yet at the same time, the window is an unsafe deathtrap. Surely it must be one or the other?
I wonder if the GF placed the child sitting on the metal window frame : to do so he had to lean over the rail while placing her on the opened window frame - like the video shows -for 34 seconds- 18 months old child could be heavy to hold on outstretched arms for that long for an older man.
I bet the child might have moved unexpectedly off that metal frame the same way as if she wanted to get down off of the chair and that is how he lost a grip on her letting her fall down.
Clearly, the grandfather’s negligence...in addition he is a coward - making up a story to clear himself- - after the child’s fall- it does not look like he screamed, yell for help-as everyone nearby is unaware of what just happened- except the person sitting next to the window- who gets up and leans out of the window to see where the child is- the grandfather just walks away
I'm guessing he had her standing on the metal frame too, and likely was confident he had a good grip on her-but tragically something happened.
In my younger years I worked aboard vessels in Alaskan commercial fisheries. It was very physical and I was capable but there were times a task I had done countless times, handling a line, pitching crab, operating hand tools, something would slip or drop. Not because it was too heavy or I was being careless, but because of some outside event I wasn't expecting.
Could this 53 year old G-Uncle hold my 18 month old G-Niece out 18 inches for 34 seconds w/o dropping her? Of course! Would I do it in this circumstance? Hell no!
I'm guessing he had her standing on the metal frame too, and likely was confident he had a good grip on her-but tragically something happened.
In my younger years I worked aboard vessels in Alaskan commercial fisheries. It was very physical and I was capable but there were times a task I had done countless times, handling a line, pitching crab, operating hand tools, something would slip or drop. Not because it was too heavy or I was being careless, but because of some outside event I wasn't expecting.
Could this 53 year old G-Uncle hold my 18 month old G-Niece out 18 inches for 34 seconds w/o dropping her? Of course! Would I do it in this circumstance? Hell no!
He's in his 50s, he's not some weak old man about to croak.
Anyway, in the video (the one with the muppet looking thing), as I pointed out some posts ago, at the 38 or 39 minute area, you want to start watching (past the creepy puppet person), because it shows the view of grandpa at the window from behind.
It's blurry, but if you watch closely, and keep an eye on him as he goes to the window, you can see him pick her up, bring her over the railing, and then he bends down with her over the railing. He then brings her back up. He did not lose his grip right then, you can see him eventually bring her back up. You can see the blurry outline of a small child being brought back up, and it looks like at that point, he tried to have her stand on the railing. She's there for a second or two, and then, that is when he drops her or let go of her - as apparently was stated that he let go of her and placed his hands on either side of her on the railing.
No matter how you slice it, that video from behind reveals a lot, and every last bit of this is the grandfather's fault. The moment that he lifted her up and over the railing, he was at fault for whatever happened.
The fact that the family decided to do their talk show circuit and very vocally grandstanded to the public means that I don't have any sympathy for them anymore. I understand the stages of grief. One of them is anger and looking for something/someone to blame, but going on talk shows and loudly declaring it's all the cruise lines' fault isn't how you handle it. Their lawyer is making them look extremely bad, and their attempt to sway public opinion is backfiring on them.
The grandfather admits he put her on the railing.
That's all that needs to be said. It doesn't matter if he thought a window was open or not, he admits to putting her on the railing. The railing is there for a reason. Little children do not have access to open windows for a reason. He put her in that situation, and he has admitted it. "I thought the window was closed" doesn't mean anything. He put her on that railing.
One of the other things about the family's pursuit of RC over this that makes me mad is:
They want to insist that this area be made "safer" because of what happened. Their insistence that the cruise line (and perhaps all cruise lines) need to make changes to deck areas will affect the ability of all future people on this ship (and other ships) from fully enjoying their experience.
Because of their pig-headed refusal to accept that their family member is at fault, they want to see to it that every future cruiser potentially will not be able to enjoy open windows and ocean breezes on their vacations.
Because of their pig-headed refusal to accept that their family member is at fault, they want to see to it that every future cruiser potentially will not be able to enjoy open windows and ocean breezes on their vacations.
That's the official rationale for wanting a big chunk of cash - to show RCL the error of their ways and motivate them to mend their ways. I very much doubt that's going to happen, though. The international rules guiding safety on passenger ships are complex as all out - and the ship is flagged in the Bahamas, so it's not as if US jurisdiction applies. I suspect there'll be an addendum to the disclaimer to be signed by all passengers, right next to "don't insert genitals into the trouser press".
It doesn't matter if he thought a window was open or not, he admits to putting her on the railing. The railing is there for a reason. Little children do not have access to open windows for a reason. He put her in that situation, and he has admitted it. "I thought the window was closed" doesn't mean anything. He put her on that railing.
As regards RCL's liability, that's a neat summary. The kid was safe, the adult in charge took an action that nullified the safety features, and that's nobody's fault but the adult. A reasonable person can be expected to understand windows and railings.
The only venue where his state of mind may be relevant is in criminal court - did he mistakenly hold her in front of a window he thought was closed (negligence) or did he knowingly hold her in front of an open one (reckless)?
That's the official rationale for wanting a big chunk of cash - to show RCL the error of their ways and motivate them to mend their ways. I very much doubt that's going to happen, though. The international rules guiding safety on passenger ships are complex as all out - and the ship is flagged in the Bahamas, so it's not as if US jurisdiction applies. I suspect there'll be an addendum to the disclaimer to be signed by all passengers, right next to "don't insert genitals into the trouser press".
That may be true. But just the blatant disregard for people who want to enjoy a nice vacation really yanks my chain.
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.
