# TRIGGER--Very Sad RCL Story



## Magical2017

A two year old child fell from Freedom of the Seas and died on July 7.   edited: The child was a year and a half.

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2019/...dqdSC3XeBQYDcC6vksKHhvPO3EIsfFTOtV7hirPPLEZgw


----------



## SorcererHeidi

Poor little baby.  May his or her soul rest in peace, and may their family find comfort in their loving memories in the near future.


----------



## GrnMtnMan

This story has been updated since the initial report with a very important detail:

*July 8, 2019 Update:* “Police said Monday that the grandfather of the 1-year old girl from Indiana told officers he lost his grip while holding her outside a window on the 11th story of the Freedom of the Seas,”  via ABC News.


----------



## DisLiss

Oh my gosh, my heart goes out for the everyone involved, of course, but I feel especially heart-broken for that poor man.  I can't imagine how he will feel the rest of his life after this.


----------



## mevelandry

It's breaking my heart.


----------



## GrnMtnMan

This detail is in CNN's story, and I'm trying to understand it:

_The 18-month-old girl was playing with her grandfather in a dining hall on deck 11 of the Freedom of the Seas, Port Authority spokesman José Carmona said. _*The dining area has large windows, and one pane was open. *

Anybody familiar with this venue? None of the stories I've seen have explained the situation very well. My initial understanding was the GF was holding the child over or on the railing, but this detail of one open window pane seems strange for a cruise ship.


----------



## GrnMtnMan

I found a photo, reportedly from deck 11 of freedom of the seas:






My guess would be the GF sat the child on the railing in one of the spaces without glass.


----------



## msjprincess

GrnMtnMan said:


> This detail is in CNN's story, and I'm trying to understand it:
> 
> _The 18-month-old girl was playing with her grandfather in a dining hall on deck 11 of the Freedom of the Seas, Port Authority spokesman José Carmona said. _*The dining area has large windows, and one pane was open. *
> 
> Anybody familiar with this venue? None of the stories I've seen have explained the situation very well. My initial understanding was the GF was holding the child over or on the railing, but this detail of one open window pane seems strange for a cruise ship.


The buffet is on deck 11, but I've never seen any windows that open. The pool is also on deck 11. There are full length windows where the top half opens. They're at least as high as the rails.  If he was actually holding her out of the window, it's completely his fault.


----------



## msjprincess

GrnMtnMan said:


> I found a photo, reportedly from deck 11 of freedom of the seas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess would be the GF sat the child on the railing in one of the spaces without glass.




Thanks. That's exactly the area I was posting about.


----------



## queenof2princesses

This is heartbreaking my husband and I just got off the Mariner this morning and were talking about how it also affected every mother, father, and so on that saw this or even was on the ship! I took several photos outside of the same type of window and was so worried about dropping my iPhone. I couldn’t imagine holding a baby up to the window. This is devastating


----------



## crabbymom

GrnMtnMan said:


> I found a photo, reportedly from deck 11 of freedom of the seas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess would be the GF sat the child on the railing in one of the spaces without glass.



I have been on the Freedom 4 times.  This is exactly what it looks like.  The bottom windows do not open.  I am only 5' tall and that rail comes most of the way up my chest.  Senseless and sad.


----------



## Gentry2004

No one can blame him more than I’m sure he blames himself. Heartbreaking for the entire family.


----------



## sam_gordon

GrnMtnMan said:


> This detail is in CNN's story, and I'm trying to understand it:
> 
> _The 18-month-old girl was playing with her grandfather in a dining hall on deck 11 of the Freedom of the Seas, Port Authority spokesman José Carmona said. _*The dining area has large windows, and one pane was open. *
> 
> Anybody familiar with this venue? None of the stories I've seen have explained the situation very well. My initial understanding was the GF was holding the child over or on the railing, but this detail of one open window pane seems strange for a cruise ship.


This is why you need to ignore news stories (even from reputable sources) the first day or so after a tragedy.  The dining room isn't on deck 11.  Windjammer is, but it has no windows that open.  Reporters are posting what they're hearing, but what they're hearing isn't accurate (I'm saying they accurately report what they hear, but that information is bad).


----------



## sweetpee_1993

I bet he sat the baby on the open rail with her legs faced outside.  I’m sure it was an accident.  I cannot even fathom what this poor family is going through.  The weight of such a tragedy is immeasurable.  Saying a prayer for those poor folks tonight.


----------



## bumbershoot

sam_gordon said:


> This is why you need to ignore news stories (even from reputable sources) the first day or so after a tragedy. The dining room isn't on deck 11.



The quote said dining *hall*, though.  Plenty of people eat out there, IME.  It could be seen as a hall of sorts.  Plus, there might be translation going on with the journalists to a certain extent (though all the residents I've personally met in San Juan were brilliantly and perfectly bilingual as far as I could tell).


----------



## sam_gordon

bumbershoot said:


> The quote said dining *hall*, though.  Plenty of people eat out there, IME.  It could be seen as a hall of sorts.  Plus, there might be translation going on with the journalists to a certain extent (though all the residents I've personally met in San Juan were brilliantly and perfectly bilingual as far as I could tell).


Have you been on the cruise ship?  No one is going to confuse the area around the pool as a "dining hall", regardless of whether someone eats out there.   Issues with translation are another reason to not accept the first accounts.


----------



## SA mom

Poor family.  The statement by the family lawyer is laying blame the cruise line.  I can’t imagine that area closed up on a hot day and I love looking out those windows without much obstruction.  The film footage shown on the news with Police tape around it is just as a PP showed in the photo.


----------



## savage1117

SA mom said:


> Poor family.  The statement by the family lawyer is laying blame the cruise line.  I can’t imagine that area closed up on a hot day and I love looking out those windows without much obstruction.  The film footage shown on the news with Police tape around it is just as a PP showed in the photo.



I feel so bad for this family but I agree the lawyer is saying it is the cruise lines fault. I think it is just a horrible accident.


----------



## Denise W

I am currently on Anthem and we were docked next to Freedom in St. Maarten yesterday. On deck 11 there were areas in the glassed areas where the windows slid open sideways. We saw several people standing by the open windows. 
Denise


----------



## Gentry2004

I don’t blame the grandfather, but I think it’s horrible for them to try to blame the cruise line. It was a horrible accident. Nothing to sue over.


----------



## Frozen2014

Gentry2004 said:


> I don’t blame the grandfather, but I think it’s horrible for them to try to blame the cruise line. It was a horrible accident. Nothing to sue over.


Don't know the full details but I happen to agree with this.  It was a stupid move that only took 1 second to become tragic.  Can't imagine the agony he is going through wishing to take that moment/decision back and it's just heartbreaking for that child and the family...but to blame the cruise ship is ridiculous.  It's a window.  I know the exact area they mean and some of those windows are open to get a clear view out.  They are not going to completely enclose the ship in a closed box.


----------



## SDJEL

I saw an article today where the Puerto Rican authorities may press charges against the family. That makes it sound more like he sat the child in the railing.


----------



## DLgal

SDJEL said:


> I saw an article today where the Puerto Rican authorities may press charges against the family. That makes it sound more like he sat the child in the railing.



He admitted he STOOD her on the railing and then LET GO of her momentarily. At least, that is the "official" story that the lawyer is telling on behalf of the family. Even with a closed window, this would be seen as an act of child endangerment, due to the height of the railing and the age of the child. This will likely be treated the same as if this had been an open railing anywhere else on the ship. Puerto Rican officials are within their right to press charges if they feel it is warranted.


----------



## GatorMomInNC

From what I read, he didn't realize that there wasn't a pane of glass there.  He thought all the openings had panes in them.   I don't mean this to be judgmental, I really don't, but from the pix it seems obvious that some have blue tinted glass panes and some are open to below.   But we all make little mistakes every day and if we are lucky in life, it won't result in any harm.    This is such a tragedy.    

When something like this happens, no matter how or why it happened, I would think the cruiseline asks themselves what could we have done anything to prevent this.  From the pix posted here, I don't know what they could do to make it more obvious.   The open panes were at adult height.  The actual glass panes appear to be tinted blue.   If it was completely glassed there would be no cross breeze. The only way a child would get up there is if an adult held the child up, and I guess they just assume no one would do that..


----------



## Magical2017

The only thing I can think of would be to have the windows that tilt but do not open all the way. This ship is older and as far as I can tell, this is the first incident of this kind that has happened. That does not make it any easier for this poor family, though.


----------



## mevelandry

I will not comment on the lawsuit itself other than this: I wasn't there so I'll let the judge decide if the lawsuit is ridiculous or not. He/She will have all the proof in his/her hands and will make a decision. 

No amount will ever replace a precious life that was lost and I feel like every time a tragedy happens and there's a suit, people jump on the "money" side of it and the human side tend to... "get out the window" (Yikes. Sorry, that's the only expression that comes to my french canadian mind and I feel terrible using it in this context.)

No amount will ever replace a precious life that was lost and cruise lines have insurance just for that. So why bother so much about money that does not come out of our pockets?


----------



## starvenger

There is an old joke that America was founded based on the right to sue people. 

The process needs to play itself out, so I guess we'll see if this goes very far. I don't think it will, but we shall see. 

In the meantime, the lawsuit takes away from a very real tragedy, and I feel for the family.


----------



## Gentry2004

mevelandry said:


> I will not comment on the lawsuit itself other than this: I wasn't there so I'll let the judge decide if the lawsuit is ridiculous or not. He/She will have all the proof in his/her hands and will make a decision.
> 
> No amount will ever replace a precious life that was lost and I feel like every time a tragedy happens and there's a suit, people jump on the "money" side of it and the human side tend to... "get out the window" (Yikes. Sorry, that's the only expression that comes to my french canadian mind and I feel terrible using it in this context.)
> 
> No amount will ever replace a precious life that was lost and cruise lines have insurance just for that. So why bother so much about money that does not come out of our pockets?



Well, except that companies have to pay insurance premiums for liability insurance, and the more the insurance pays out, the more the premiums increase and that expense is undoubtedly passed to consumers.


----------



## mevelandry

Gentry2004 said:


> Well, except that companies have to pay insurance premiums for liability insurance, and the more the insurance pays out, the more the premiums increase and that expense is undoubtedly passed to consumers.



I don't mind paying more if it prevents future babies from "falling" off cruise ships...


----------



## KayKayJS

mevelandry said:


> I don't mind paying more if it prevents future babies from "falling" off cruise ships...



It won’t prevent anything unless they can enclose the ship in a box. Next thing someone sues because they dropped their child off their personal balcony ledge. Personal responsibility comes into play.


----------



## mevelandry

KayKayJS said:


> It won’t prevent anything unless they can enclose the ship in a box. *Next thing someone sues because they dropped their child off their personal balcony ledge. *Personal responsibility comes into play.



Just because people sue doesn't mean they're going to win.


----------



## John VN

mevelandry said:


> I don't mind paying more if it prevents future babies from "falling" off cruise ships...



IMO, common sense would have prevented this from happening.


----------



## savage1117

I went back and looked at my cruise pictures from last year on the liberty of the seas. I know that this is not the ship this horrible tragedy happened on, but even from our tender you can tell what windows are open on the ship.  I am also trying to figure out the "kids play area" the family's lawyer keeps referencing.  I don't remember seeing such a place (but I haven't cruise on royal for very long)  As previously stated horrible accident but just that it was an accident.


----------



## msjprincess

savage1117 said:


> I went back and looked at my cruise pictures from last year on the liberty of the seas. I know that this is not the ship this horrible tragedy happened on, but even from our tender you can tell what windows are open on the ship.  I am also trying to figure out the "kids play area" the family's lawyer keeps referencing.  I don't remember seeing such a place (but I haven't cruise on royal for very long)  As previously stated horrible accident but just that it was an accident.


It was near the seating area near the kids splash area. Describing it as a kids play area is very inaccurate. They make it sound like a glass enclosed nursery.


----------



## savage1117

msjprincess said:


> It was near the seating area near the kids splash area. Describing it as a kids play area is very inaccurate. They make it sound like a glass enclosed nursery.


Thank you


----------



## mevelandry

John VN said:


> IMO, common sense would have prevented this from happening.



I can't comment because I read different versions about the incident and I'm not sure where the truth lies. (Also, I'm no eye doctor but it's still possible that grandpa's eyesight wasn't 100%.)

Also, when the death is an accident, preventable or not, I'm more into the human side of it than on the legal side of it (even tough my work is related to justice).


----------



## bumbershoot

sam_gordon said:


> Have you been on the cruise ship?  No one is going to confuse the area around the pool as a "dining hall", regardless of whether someone eats out there.   Issues with translation are another reason to not accept the first accounts.



Yep. Twice. 

Have you seen a variety of buildings with dining halls in them? I have. And I think it could be described as such, by someone trying to figure out how to describe it.


----------



## sam_gordon

bumbershoot said:


> Yep. Twice.
> 
> Have you seen a variety of buildings with dining halls in them? I have. And I think it could be described as such, by someone trying to figure out how to describe it.


Huh?  Just because buildings have dining halls means every area that has tables is a dining hall?   There are a number of places on the ship that can be described as a dining hall... MDR, WJ, maybe even the promenade.   The pool deck?  No.   I don't think anyone would walk onto the pool deck and say "hey, this is the dining hall".


----------



## a1tinkfans

An awful tragedy. 
Allegedly..
.The child did not get to the window without being lifted/placed at/on it and that is the Cause of the entire Awful, sad, sickening situation. 
The rapidly retained atty is there to spin the story, garner support, throw blame and do what he can to diffuse the possible non empathetic ( seemingly more rational for many) belief that the Adult is the only cause for the 
Tragedy that occurred. He’s just doing his job. 
The first statements/pictures are typically the Most Accurate. No amount of pointing blame or financial gain will ever minimize the loss of this precious child.  Negligence seems obvious here, but that doesn’t lessen the pain or loss. 
Prayers for the family.


----------



## MakiraMarlena

The grandfather said he picked up the kid and sat or stood her on the edge of a railing so that she could "bang on the glass" because he knew she enjoyed doing that in other circumstances. He says he didn't realize the window he picked was actually open. The windows are tinted, so it's possible he was concentrating on the kid and not paying attention to the window itself. A lawyer who gave his opinion on this in the press said that he thought the parents' lawsuit would be dismissed by the judge without ever making it to a jury, based on whether RCCL should have reasonably foreseen that someone would pick up a young child in order to purposely allow the child to lean on a window the child couldn't reach on their own. There's also the thought that it's likely not wise to let a kid bang on window glass 11 stories up, even if there is glass present.

If the case does get to a jury, they could split liability, especially if they feel sorry for the grandfather and/or can be convinced to find against the corporate behemoth. But it appears to be a complete accident. I've never before heard of anyone picking up a kid to let it bang on the ship's windows.

The news said the area was a "kids play area, " apparently getting that terminology from the family's attorney, but it appears to have been the pool deck and there was a children's splash pool in the general area. Media made it sound like there was an open window in the kids' club or nursery.


----------



## MakiraMarlena

Story has returned to the news, as the Puerto Rican authorities have charged the grandfather with negligent homicide. It sounds like they’re not buying the assertion that he didn’t know the window was open.


----------



## a1tinkfans

A sad but seems like a predictable outcome. 
That poor family .. the devastation just continues and compounds itself...
There’s no recovery or compensation for the loss of the child... and now with the latest/grandfather being charged...and news  just plastered for the world to see the alleged cause/blame...and further devastate the parents/friends/family. 
Prayers for the mom and dad...


----------



## starvenger

Yeah I think based on the charge the grandfather will either be found guilty or will plead guilty. 

So I hope the judge is lenient with the sentence, because the family has been through enough trauma.


----------



## Gentry2004

I’m guessing this relates to the unreleased surveillance video.


----------



## DLgal

I'm not surprised to hear this update. I wish this family the best as they continue to deal with this tragedy.


----------



## Dug720

Gentry2004 said:


> I’m guessing this relates to the unreleased surveillance video.



And any in-person investigation wherein it is clear that the windows are tinted and you can tell when there is window and when there is not.


----------



## marcyleecorgan

Dug720 said:


> And any in-person investigation wherein it is clear that the windows are tinted and you can tell when there is window and when there is not.


And NOBODY should be "playing" near windows on a cruise ship: there are not nets to catch you should you fall, stumble or lose your balance.


----------



## Jess_S

starvenger said:


> Yeah I think based on the charge the grandfather will either be found guilty or will plead guilty.
> 
> So I hope the judge is lenient with the sentence, because the family has been through enough trauma.


As much as I feel bad for the grandfather, he did something incredibly stupid that deprived a child of her life. And - at least from the media coverage - it sounds like he hasn't accepted responsibility and is looking for someone else to blame. When that gets taken into account, figuring out an appropriate sentence seems tricky. Lots of tough choices all around.


----------



## bumbershoot

sam_gordon said:


> Just because buildings have dining halls means every area that has tables is a dining hall?



Because this came back up, I saw your response.  I didn't say that they are all therefore dining halls.  I was just saying that someone could conceivably call it that.

The news article from today indicated that this was before they had left port.  I still remember how confusing it is to be on a ship the first day.  It can be very discombobulating.  I know that my then-husband and I had very different ideas of what places looked like, when we had been the same places the same amount of time.  Anyway, that's all.


----------



## sam_gordon

bumbershoot said:


> Because this came back up, I saw your response.  I didn't say that they are all therefore dining halls.  I was just saying that someone could conceivably call it that.
> 
> The news article from today indicated that this was before they had left port.  I still remember how confusing it is to be on a ship the first day.  It can be very discombobulating.  I know that my then-husband and I had very different ideas of what places looked like, when we had been the same places the same amount of time.  Anyway, that's all.


Take a look at this... it's a video of the pool deck on Freedom.  Maybe it will give you a better idea of what the area is like. Let me know if you would still classify it as a dining hall.


----------



## John VN

sam_gordon said:


> Take a look at this... it's a video of the pool deck on Freedom.  Maybe it will give you a better idea of what the area is like. Let me know if you would still classify it as a dining hall.



I just figure that perception is in the eyes of the person looking.


----------



## mevelandry

sam_gordon said:


> Take a look at this... it's a video of the pool deck on Freedom.  Maybe it will give you a better idea of what the area is like. Let me know if you would still classify it as a dining hall.



I mean... there are tables where people usually either drink or eat. I guess it is not too far fetched to view this as a spot where people eat.


----------



## sam_gordon

mevelandry said:


> I mean... there are tables where people usually either drink or eat. I guess it is not too far fetched to view this as a spot where people eat.


People eat in movie theaters.  
People eat in their cars.

Doesn't make either one of them a "dining hall".


----------



## Dug720

sam_gordon said:


> Take a look at this... it's a video of the pool deck on Freedom.  Maybe it will give you a better idea of what the area is like. Let me know if you would still classify it as a dining hall.



Agree with you.

And it clearly shows that the windows are tinted. Short of being incredibly inebriated, I cannot imagine being so “discombobulated” I could not tell the difference between open and closed.


----------



## John VN

Dug720 said:


> Agree with you.
> 
> And it clearly shows that the windows are tinted. Short of being incredibly inebriated, I cannot imagine being so “discombobulated” I could not tell the difference between open and closed.



I do not believe "inebriation or discombobulation" are factors in this tragic event.  Simply an action taken by an adult to please a very young and energetic child that went wrong.  *IF* there really is a video, the *actual series of physical actions* will be evident  *BUT* the thoughts of the GP as to "why he did what he did" might never be.  Denial (not the river) can cloak reality in ones mind.


----------



## Dug720

John VN said:


> I do not believe "inebriation or discombobulation" are factors in this tragic event.  Simply an action taken by an adult to please a very young and energetic child that went wrong.  *IF* there really is a video, the *actual series of physical actions* will be evident  *BUT* the thoughts of the GP as to "why he did what he did" might never be.  Denial (not the river) can cloak reality in ones mind.



I agree with you.

I was just stating that since a previous poster was trying to explain it by saying that they get "discombobulated" their first day/hours on a ship. That glass is clearly tinted - probably for the very reason (preemptively) of making it evident where there is glass.


----------



## Lynne G

At the 1:38 or so, minute of that video, you can clearly see the lady leaning over the handrail, that is waist high for most, and at least a foot or so from the actual window or wall of windows.  

I think the kid wanted to see outside, and he put her up on that rail or even over that rail, and lost his grip.  I think the authorities had to decide to arrest him, as the family, and their attorney, have put so much misinformation and denial of responsibility, there was no choice.  Plus, with a law suit on the horizon, with the cruise industry a big part of that Island's economy, I could see why the arrest was now made.  Reasonable man action is the issue.    

I still have so much sympathy for that family.  Losing a child is horrific.  

Accidents happen, when people do not understand their actions cause harm, or even death, like here.  Even good, upstanding, loving people does not mean, they understand the risks, until something bad happens. And denial and tyring to understand what happened, makes a mind try to rationalize.  I also feel so sad for the grandfather.  Nothing he does will bring that little girl back.


----------



## Dug720

Lynne G said:


> At the 1:38 or so, minute of that video, you can clearly see the lady leaning over the handrail, that is waist high for most, and at least a foot or so from the actual window or wall of windows.
> 
> I think the kid wanted to see outside, and he put her up on that rail or even over that rail, and lost his grip.  I think the authorities had to decide to arrest him, as the family, and their attorney, have put so much misinformation and denial of responsibility, there was no choice.  Plus, with a law suit on the horizon, with the cruise industry a big part of that Island's economy, I could see why the arrest was now made.  Reasonable man action is the issue.
> 
> I still have so much sympathy for that family.  Losing a child is horrific.
> 
> Accidents happen, when people do not understand their actions cause harm, or even death, like here.  Even good, upstanding, loving people does not mean, they understand the risks, until something bad happens. And denial and tyring to understand what happened, makes a mind try to rationalize.  I also feel so sad for the grandfather.  Nothing he does will bring that little girl back.



Agreed. The key word is "negligent". With the charge, they are not saying he meant for anything to happen (as in, it wasn't pre-meditated), but he acted with negligence and sadly that resulted in this tragic death.


----------



## mevelandry

sam_gordon said:


> People eat in movie theaters.
> People eat in their cars.
> 
> Doesn't make either one of them a "dining hall".



I'm just saying there are tables where people can eat. If we go with a confusion hypothesis, I don't think it's that far fetched to think that he may have confused this with a dining area, because there are tables there as well.


----------



## mevelandry

Dug720 said:


> Agree with you.
> 
> And it clearly shows that the windows are tinted. Short of being incredibly inebriated, I cannot imagine being so “discombobulated” I could not tell the difference between open and closed.



Vision problems? Color Blindness?


----------



## mevelandry

Dug720 said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> I was just stating that since a previous poster was trying to explain it by saying that they get "discombobulated" their first day/hours on a ship. That glass is clearly tinted - probably for the very reason (preemptively) of making it evident where there is glass.



Adding discombobulated to my list of big words.


----------



## Dug720

mevelandry said:


> Vision problems? Color Blindness?



Color blindness should not affect sight with something tinted. The tinting makes them darker - like when people tint their car windows.

If one has vision problems that make it difficult
to tell if a window is there or not, I would think one should not be holding anyone near windows regardless. And definitely not placing them on a rail and/or allowing them to lean forward to bang glass (early reports said he was holding her so she could bang on it like at a hockey game).


----------



## ZZBane

If his vision was that bad or if he was even remotely questionable as far as his decision making goes, why would the mother leave Chloe alone with him? 
Maybe I’m just overprotective or a lunatic, but if the mother thought for one second that she couldn’t trust him, for whatever reason, why did she leave the baby with him? Has he ever been alone with Chloe before?


----------



## Frozen2014

We don't really know but guessing it was a "just a " stupid move that only took a fraction of a second to turn tragic. Not Royal's fault at all...just a stupid move.


----------



## mevelandry

Dug720 said:


> Color blindness should not affect sight with something tinted. The tinting makes them darker - like when people tint their car windows.
> 
> If one has vision problems that make it difficult
> to tell if a window is there or not, I would think one should not be holding anyone near windows regardless. And definitely not placing them on a rail and/or allowing them to lean forward to bang glass (early reports said he was holding her so she could bang on it like at a hockey game).



That is not arguable but unfortunately a lot of people do risky things thinking they have it under control when they do not.


----------



## mevelandry

Wrong thread.


----------



## Dug720

mevelandry said:


> That is not arguable but unfortunately a lot of people do risky things thinking they have it under control when they do not.



Agreed. But then they cannot turn around and sue the cruiseline or other entity and expect there not to be an investigation. Especially if they are claiming "negligence" which the family tried with RCCL because of the windows. Windows that, again, are on multiple ships and have been for years without incident. It' understandable they want to place "negligence" blame on someone other than grandpa, but as these charges prove, he truly was the negligent one.


----------



## pezgirlroy

Dug720 said:


> And any in-person investigation wherein it is clear that the windows are tinted and you can tell when there is window and when there is not.


I was on this boat about a month after this happened. It is very very clear which windows are open.


----------



## Dug720

pezgirlroy said:


> I was on this boat about a month after this happened. It is very very clear which windows are open.



I have not been on that ship, but the Radiance class has the same style windows and yes. I agree 100%. It is very obvious which are open and which are not.


----------



## sam_gordon

ZZBane said:


> If his vision was that bad or if he was even remotely questionable as far as his decision making goes, why would the mother leave Chloe alone with him?
> Maybe I’m just overprotective or a lunatic, but if the mother thought for one second that she couldn’t trust him, for whatever reason, why did she leave the baby with him? Has he ever been alone with Chloe before?


Even if his vision was that poor, he may not have told the mother or didn't think it was that bad.


Dug720 said:


> but as these charges prove, he truly was the negligent one.


The charges don't "prove" anything.  The court case would do that.


----------



## starvenger

sam_gordon said:


> The charges don't "prove" anything. The court case would do that.


This is true. The charges indicate that they think they have a case to make. They still have to prove it.

We'll have to let this one play out, I think.


----------



## Dug720

sam_gordon said:


> Even if his vision was that poor, he may not have told the mother or didn't think it was that bad.
> 
> The charges don't "prove" anything.  The court case would do that.





starvenger said:


> This is true. The charges indicate that they think they have a case to make. They still have to prove it.
> 
> We'll have to let this one play out, I think.



Agreed. I didn't phrase if properly. I meant as opposed to the cruiseline being negligent for having these windows that are on many of their ships and have never had an incident before this (that I have heard of).

Though in regards to proving it, having served on a grand jury, there needs to be evidence that there is probable cause that a crime occurred - in this case negligence. I'll be interested to see how - if this is not pled out - the defense spins that placing a child up on a rail, even if you think there is glass there, up that high is not negligent.


----------



## sam_gordon

Dug720 said:


> Agreed. I didn't phrase if properly. I meant as opposed to the cruiseline being negligent for having these windows that are on many of their ships and have never had an incident before this (that I have heard of).
> 
> Though in regards to proving it, having served on a grand jury, there needs to be evidence that there is probable cause that a crime occurred - in this case negligence. I'll be interested to see how - if this is not pled out - the defense spins that *placing a child up on a rail*, even if you think there is glass there, up that high is not negligent.


Assuming facts not in evidence there counselor.  We are assuming he put the child on the rail.  We don't know that as a fact.  And isn't the bar very low for "probable cause"?


----------



## Dug720

sam_gordon said:


> Assuming facts not in evidence there counselor.  We are assuming he put the child on the rail.  We don't know that as a fact.  And isn't the bar very low for "probable cause"?



Lower than reasonable doubt, but not absurdly low. When I was on grand jury we refused to indict on a few charges - on less than that. 

All the reports - even from the family's lawyer - indicated that whether sat on the rail, stood on the rail, or held up to the window to "bang on the glass like she was at a hockey game" (pretty sure that one came from the family's rapidly hired attorney), no one has claimed she got up there by herself.


----------



## ronandannette

Dug720 said:


> Lower than reasonable doubt, but not absurdly low. When I was on grand jury we refused to indict on a few charges - on less than that.
> 
> All the reports - even from the family's lawyer - indicated that whether sat on the rail, stood on the rail, or held up to the window to "bang on the glass like she was at a hockey game" (pretty sure that one came from the family's rapidly hired attorney), *no one has claimed she got up there by herself.*


Nor would it have been physically possible. Even climbing on a chair, a child of that size would still be too short and lack the dexterity to propel themselves out the window.

I’m also finding it interesting on this thread, where the participants are  experienced cruisers, how the perception of the situation differs. Over on the CB, many have accepted the “child’s play area” and “hazardous open window” narrative unquestioningly.


----------



## starvenger

I feel like once you actually see the area in question it gets hard to believe the narrative the lawyer is spinning. But again, we've got to let this one play out.


----------



## John VN

ronandannette said:


> Nor would it have been physically possible. Even climbing on a chair, a child of that size would still be too short and lack the dexterity to propel themselves out the window.
> 
> I’m also finding it interesting on this thread, where the participants are  experienced cruisers, how the perception of the situation differs.* Over on the CB, many have accepted the “child’s play area” and “hazardous open window” narrative unquestioningly.*



You feel that the CB posters agree that "the area involved"  *IS* in the "child's play area"   and it *IS* hazardous with the window opeded???  TIA


----------



## John VN

starvenger said:


> I feel like once you actually see the area in question it gets hard to believe the narrative the lawyer is spinning. But again, we've got to let this one play out.



SEEING is not necessarily BELIEVING.  If it goes to trial, IMO the best defense for RCCL would be to have jurors *walk the actual area WITH CRUISERS* to show how things were.  JMHO


----------



## starvenger

John VN said:


> SEEING is not necessarily BELIEVING.  If it goes to trial, IMO the best defense for RCCL would be to have jurors *walk the actual area WITH CRUISERS* to show how things were.  JMHO


It's the *grandfather* that's being charged with criminal negligence, not Royal.

If RCCL were being sued or charged then yes, I'd agree. And maybe the prosecution will still try and do that.


----------



## Capt_BJ

correct me where I'm wrong (as IF I had a doubt you would ...) but aren't two different processes involved here, and getting confused?

1. The family lawyer'd up and plans to sue RCCL for negligence ... a civil matter? {personal injury law ......  }

2. The P.R. GOVERNMENT / police have pressed criminal negligence charges against grandpa (after an investigation) ... that's not civil court, it's criminal court ain't it?

A STRONG point in RCCL defense would appear to be the criminal charges ...... IF the criminal goes to trial & grandpa looses, bye bye civil case.  Even if not sent to trial, the disposition of this charge will play ....

of course on the other hand there's the OJ example . . . . 


************************************
consider this:

when a person moves a chair over to the rail and uses this to climb onto the rail - when the ship has RULES that say don't sit or stand on the rail - and *then falls over board,* is the ship negligent for having chairs, or rails not high enuf????? {IOW should balconies be enclosed}

I've been on this ship ... the rail is HIGH, the window is above the rail. The child can't get up their on their own . . . hence the adult facilitated the accident by a bad decision.


----------



## starvenger

I do believe you are correct. The recent discussion has revolved around the criminal negligence charge, not the civil suit. 

I'm not conversant with how the US system works, but would one case be delayed in favour of waiting to see how the other develops?


----------



## ronandannette

John VN said:


> You feel that the CB posters agree that "the area involved"  *IS* in the "child's play area"   and it *IS* hazardous with the window opeded???  TIA


If you want a long, frustrating read, check out that CB thread.  There are posters who simply refuse to believe first-hand information, even when pictures have been provided.  I shudder to think of how solidly the lawyer wedged that scenario into the minds of the general public.

 For the record, I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for this family; there is nothing comparable to the death of a child by traumatic means.  That said though, the only peril that befell this precious little one was inflicted by the Grandfather. The cruiseline has no culpability and sad as it is, I hope they hold the line and defend themselves vigorously against civil action.


----------



## MakiraMarlena

He admitted that he either stood or sat the kid on the railing. Per the photos there is no way a child that age reaches the window on their own. At question is whether he purposefully set her in front of an open window to let her see out, or even wave at the port, and lost his grip on her. His claim has been that he thought it was a closed window.  Again from the photos of the pool deck, it seems obvious which windows are open.

that area is not a children’s play area. There is a children’s splash pool in the vicinity but nothing to make the table area especially attractive to children. At any rate, the child would not have been able to access the window without assistance.


----------



## starvenger

Not familiar with the CB acronym?


----------



## msjprincess

starvenger said:


> Not familiar with the CB acronym?


Community Board


----------



## starvenger

Thx.

I'll have to read that thread then. Should be fun.


----------



## rigs32

starvenger said:


> I'm not conversant with how the US system works, but would one case be delayed in favour of waiting to see how the other develops?



Quite possibly, as a criminal verdict would like have an impact on the civil case.  Though not the other way around because of the different standards of proof - more likely than not (civil) versus beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal)


----------

