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’s so clear then why won’t they release the video to the families attorneys? I know, it is not Case Closed about whether the grandfather knew that window was open. I still think he didn’t.
I tend to think it will hinge more on whether it was reasonable for him to notice the open window, not so much as to whether or not he actually did. Was he so oblivious to his surroundings and so careless with his actions that he missed what would have been obvious to any reasonable person?
I tend to think it will hinge more on whether it was reasonable for him to notice the open window, not so much as to whether or not he actually did. Was he so oblivious to his surroundings and so careless with his actions that he missed what would have been obvious to any reasonable person?
I completely agree with this post, and add that a person who is caring for a small child needs to be even more alert and aware than others. It's one thing to be careless when you are alone, and a completely different one when you are responsible for someone else. It's expected that any reasonable person would be more, not less, careful when they are in charge of a baby.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleT
I tend to think it will hinge more on whether it was reasonable for him to notice the open window, not so much as to whether or not he actually did. Was he so oblivious to his surroundings and so careless with his actions that he missed what would have been obvious to any reasonable person?
Yes. I think that's the question the jury will be asked to decide.
I'd think that will be the key debate in his criminal case, whether it's possible he did not notice the window was open.
You're conflating the issues. His state of mind doesn't absolve him of responsibility.
The windows are designed and installed as per naval architecture standards and with a reasonable adult person in mind. Is it possible that someone could fail to notice an open window? Of course. People fail to notice moving trains with disturbing regularity, and they've got horns and lights and whatnot. The legal system has determined a designated standard of care that railroad operators need to abide by, and beyond that, it's assumed that people will act reasonably and be in charge of those they're responsible for. We can't Disney-Park society.
The kid was in a safe environment. There was a 3-foot barrier (at least) separating her from the drop. At the edge of the drop, a guardrail provided about a one-foot offset to the actual ledge. The adult who was in charge of the kid took a deliberate action that put the kid in danger. One assumes not intentional - but deliberate. Arguing that the thought the window was closed will be useful to determine if he was negligent or reckless, but it doesn't absolve him of responsibility - just the degree to which he's responsible. Again, sliding scale.
I'll confess I don't know the Puerto Rican statutes that separate negligent from reckless.
How is the glass door not the exact same thing as a window?
People run into glass doors because the glass is so clean you can't even see the glass is there. Or they're looking behind them, and not looking where they're going.
These windows we're tinted blue. It was very obvious the difference between an open window and a closed window. The open window would not have a blue tint, it would be clear unlike all the closed windows on that deck.
If it’s so clear then why won’t they release the video to the families attorneys? I know, it is not Case Closed about whether the grandfather knew that window was open. I still think he didn’t.
Two issues:
Would a reasonable person notice the open window? Speaks to the culpability (if any) of the cruise line. That's the civil case.
Did the defendant notice the window was open? - Speaks to the degree of responsibility on the defendant. That's the criminal case.
There's a third, if you really want to get into the weeds: If it's found that the guardrail design isn't in accordance with relevant statutes (very little chance of that), the owners of the ship will be criminally liable and fined. But that's sort of a side effect - like if an unrelated criminal investigation uncovered insufficient lifeboats or something like that.
I can think of a few people I have worked with over the years in various companies who were in the IT dept.
While they may know their job very well, they seemed to lack common sense, and lacked basic social skills.
You don't put a toddler out a window or on a railing like that....period.
He's 50 or 51, not that old.
He did something very foolish. The family can blame the cruise line, and excuses can be made and because he is GP, make it seem like he had a medical issue, end of the day he did something really stupid with very tragic results.
Yes, I can't even imagine putting a baby on a window, table, anywhere - at that age they don't have the balance to right themselves, even sitting up requires focus and if they get excited by something like a bird flying by or any kind of distraction, they lose what balance they have and fall. Babies are usually in those round toy things (forgot the name for them) that you sit them in and they use that to get around and the thing has a little table for them, too - Wow I can't believe I don't remember the name for those things - not a stroller, it's a round thing with wheels on the base and toddlers bounce and learn to walk on them.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgato
Yes, I can't even imagine putting a baby on a window, table, anywhere - at that age they don't have the balance to right themselves, even sitting up requires focus and if they get excited by something like a bird flying by or any kind of distraction, they lose what balance they have and fall. Babies are usually in those round toy things (forgot the name for them) that you sit them in and they use that to get around and the thing has a little table for them, too - Wow I can't believe I don't remember the name for those things - not a stroller, it's a round thing with wheels on the base and toddlers bounce and learn to walk on them.
coolgato, I don't disagree that this was a terrible mistake, but an 18 month old on a normal developmental track runs around. They have no difficulty whatsoever sitting upright, and they're not using walkers anymore.
If it’s so clear then why won’t they release the video to the families attorneys? I know, it is not Case Closed about whether the grandfather knew that window was open. I still think he didn’t.
I think a lot of us are hoping he some how missed that window being open.
I think there must be some other evidence we haven't seen possible the grandfather was drinking alcohol if that was the case it hasn't been made public yet. All evidence will be turned over to the defense including any videos. If there is a plea agreement then the public won't be able to get anymore then what we know already.
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.
