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 it was needed for comfort and ventilation, it seems to me the crew would have opened more than one window.
Even if they'd been just recently cleaned. If it was "necessary for ventilation", the crew would clean the windows, and open them. Didn't happen.
Since the RCC's response to the open window was, "it was needed for ventilation".
Sundaydrive, I do understand the concept of cross-breezes to cool things off. It does appear here, there was a cross-breeze. This was one window.
A little hard to defend in civil court as "needed" for "ventilation" when that wasn't happening.
I guess we'll see how this plays out in court.
Passengers are the ones who open and close the windows. Crew don't typically go around bothering with them. If no one was out lounging on the deck, which isn't unusual on the first day, then no one would have opened the other windows for ventilation. Most likely another passenger had opened that window up to look at the view, enjoy the breeze, etc.
Saying that the windows open for the comfort of the guests and that they are there for ventilation is not the same thing as saying the windows need to be open at all times. They're able to be opened when needed (or wanted).
Even if the windows weren't for vintilation, what does it matter? People partially go on cruises to enjoy the ocean. They want to be able to open the windows and look out over the ocean and feel the breeze. So even if the windows only open for the enjoyment of the guests, so what?!
That doesn't somehow excuse what the Grandpa did. The windows were not the problem. The problem was the actions of this grandfather. If the windows were such a big issue, why have we not heard anything like this happening before?
Also, why would you say that wasn't a children's play area? Looks to me, that's a children's play area. That's the area, surrounding a children's pool.
Because it's the pool deck, not just a child's play area. That area has tables for people to eat at, as well as lounge chairs for anyone to use.
There is a child's splash pad nearby yes, but that area specifically was not a child's play area. The little girl was also too young to play in the splash pad area, so that argument doesn't even work. That area is for kids that are out of diapers, not even swim diapers are allowed in the kids area.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
Because it's the pool deck, not just a child's play area. That area has tables for people to eat at, as well as lounge chairs for anyone to use.
There is a child's splash pad nearby yes, but that area specifically was not a child's play area. The little girl was also too young to play in the splash pad area, so that argument doesn't even work. That area is for kids that are out of diapers, not even swim diapers are allowed in the kids area.
I'm going to sit back and watch how the criminal case pans out, and the civil case pans out.
You?
(I'm very interested in this case, and kind of tired of posters opining and declaring themselves authorities on this issue and trying to shut other voices out).
We'll see how this pans out, in the courts of law, won't we?
Grandpa killed her. So what if she liked to hit windows? He should have watched her more diligently.
Parents will get a settlement and laugh all the way to the bank.
Oh God no. As a parent who has lost a little girl; I can assure you that parents would give all their worldly possessions just to have their child back.
I didn't know I had grounds to sue but I did. Other parents who have lost children in similar situations as mine have sued but they did it because they wanted things to change so nobody else had to lose their children the same way.
In our case; that hasn't worked & in fact it's even WORSE now but I promise you that parents of dead children do not 'laugh all the way to the bank'.
"Unsafe Behavior Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other
protective barriers, or tampering with ship’s equipment, facilities or systems designed for guest
safety is not permitted. Guests may not enter or access any area that is restricted and for the use
of crew members. Any other unsafe behavior, including failure to follow security instructions, is not
permitted."
I thought he was older too like mid 70’s or more. I was shocked to hear he’s only 50. I’m older than him and he looks like he could be my Dad.
I am also older than him and he could look old enough to be my Dad, too. I don't know if he is a smoker, but I doubt it because they said he's not a drinker either, doesn't touch alcohol, is what I heard from the news and people that know him. Usually smoking and drinking ages a person beyond his actual age. I thought he was tipsy while holding his granddaughter, but if he doesn't drink ordinarily than I don't think that affected his mind, I am sure they took a alcohol/tox screen.
I was thinking even if the baby liked knocking on glass, they should have discouraged her from doing that, it's not safe to go around knocking on glass.
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.
