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.
In people magazine, the lawyer claims the the video exonerates the grandfather. He apparently showed them 2 clips one of her being propped up by her feet then on her bottom before she fell out.
I think the grandfather put her up there for a better view and Chloe believing there was glass lounged forward and fell out because the grandfather was not holding her properly. It made no sense for him to lift her to bang on the glass as he claimed when she could have did so from the ground.
Regardless he should never have put her on the railing because as mentioned before she could have fallen to the ground inside the ship and got injured. The lawyer claiming that the window was not designed to prevent kids from falling out when it was out of reach and behind a railing makes no sense.
The lawyer stated the lawsuit will be filed in 2 weeks. Companies usually settle, but I really hope Royal Caribbean does not. Since it appears he did not dangle her out the window as initially reported I do not agree with charging him. However, he made a mistake and I think the family needs to accept that and stop trying to lay blame elsewhere.
In people magazine, the lawyer claims the the video exonerates the grandfather. He apparently showed them 2 clips one of her being propped up by her feet then on her bottom before she fell out.
I think the grandfather put her up there for a better view and Chloe believing there was glass lounged forward and fell out because the grandfather was not holding her properly. It made no sense for him to lift her to bang on the glass as he claimed when she could have did so from the ground.
Regardless he should never have put her on the railing because as mentioned before she could have fallen to the ground inside the ship and got injured. The lawyer claiming that the window was not designed to prevent kids from falling out when it was out of reach and behind a railing makes no sense.
The lawyer stated the lawsuit will be filed in 2 weeks. Companies usually settle, but I really hope Royal Caribbean does not. Since it appears he did not dangle her out the window as initially reported I do not agree with charging him. However, he made a mistake and I think the family needs to accept that and stop trying to lay blame elsewhere.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,621 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by miasth
In people magazine, the lawyer claims the the video exonerates the grandfather. He apparently showed them 2 clips one of her being propped up by her feet then on her bottom before she fell out.
I think the grandfather put her up there for a better view and Chloe believing there was glass lounged forward and fell out because the grandfather was not holding her properly. It made no sense for him to lift her to bang on the glass as he claimed when she could have did so from the ground.
Regardless he should never have put her on the railing because as mentioned before she could have fallen to the ground inside the ship and got injured. The lawyer claiming that the window was not designed to prevent kids from falling out when it was out of reach and behind a railing makes no sense.
The lawyer stated the lawsuit will be filed in 2 weeks. Companies usually settle, but I really hope Royal Caribbean does not. Since it appears he did not dangle her out the window as initially reported I do not agree with charging him. However, he made a mistake and I think the family needs to accept that and stop trying to lay blame elsewhere.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,621 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
As would I. And perhaps an argument for its applicability, as well. The ship is flagged in the Bahamas, which only adds to the complications.
I've spent time looking through window codes. There seem to be two categories of code: 1. ease of opening to egress the building in case of fire, and 2. fall prevention codes.
This window, if it were in a public building in Utah, would be out of compliance due to a lack of a "fall prevention device", required on opening windows further than 75 feet above the ground below - this window was about 110 feet above ground.
So there's that. Maybe that's typical window code.
I couldn't find out any codes for cruise ships. Google that, and you learn secret codes known to cruise ship staff when they want to communicate but don't want the passengers to understand.
The USCG regs for large passenger vessels are very basic in that respect, as are the international guidelines I've been able to find. They essentially say that there has to be a 39.5-inch railing with some specific maximum gaps and deformation strength between passengers and the sea.
Lots of focus and detail in areas like seaworthiness, safe and reliable operation, fire prevention, escape routes and lifeboats. But as for keeping the passengers inboard, the feeling seems to be that they're expected to be already motivated in that regard. I suspect the cruise line's insurance underwriters would be the driving force in making things as safe as possible in the passenger spaces.
Of course, this is an extremely arcane area of law and regulation, so I may be completely off.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 11-22-2019 at 02:41 PM..
That lawyer needs to shut up. I fail to see how he is helping his client.
You're not kidding. This lawyer appears to be causing problems for his clients. The lawyer is trying this case in the court of public opinion and he is not gaining much sympathy from me. Especially since stating the Grandpa let go of the baby. As a matter of fact, his talk of banging on glass and letting go of the baby is contributing to my assertion that negligence charges may be justified in this case. It will be interesting to see what the video shows.
I would be more inclined to believe he did not know the window was open if more than one window was open or an adjacent window(s) was open. There is a color differential between a closed and open window. A row of windows and only one small area is a different shade and a clear view....hmmmmm.
This entire story is just so heartbreaking. I feel so badly for this grandfather who felt responsible for the death of his grand daughter, now he is facing murder charges over something that was clearly a tragic accident? What more must this man endure?
Well that goes without saying. But the grandfather is suffering again with this trial, he now has to relive every moment at the prosecutor points the blame at him. Not to mention the potential for a life sentence in a Puerto Rican prison. He should not be facing this trial, this is totally unfair.
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.
