This is just so sad,,and makes me ask WHY would someone do this?? I don't call it 'playing'??

[luvsJack]

Leys see, the rendering missed thecrailing (which is rather key, missed the furniture, repeatedly called it a kids play area and told people that RCL was refusing to provide thectspes.
The report was so inaccurate that RCL should be suing the Today show.



No he actually lifted her above and over a safety railing in a public area of the ship.
The window which passengers of the ship have said would be impossible to know wasn't open when standing there, was too high for any child to lean on on their own.
And again the witness reports (so not the reports of the people trying the sue RCL) say the GF was dangling/rocking/swinging the girl out the window.

Are we in scramble now to make it sound worse as the thread goes on?

What witnesses?

One article says that witnesses "recalled the mother's screams as the child fell". The mother wasn't there, she didn't see her child fall. She only realized the child fell to the concrete when she got to the deck where the grandfather was. So I wouldn't really put a lot of stock in "witness reports".


The area on the ship has a large water play area right in the middle. With chairs all around pointing toward play are as though for parents watching their kids. I can certainly understand WHY it keeps getting called that.

 

[kdonnel]

The area on the ship has a large water play area right in the middle. With chairs all around pointing toward play are as though for parents watching their kids. I can certainly understand WHY it keeps getting called that.

I understand why it gets called that but the news media incorrectly calling it that makes me question other facts in their stories.

The kids area on the Freedom of the Seas is located on deck twelve and consists of Adventure Ocean, The Nursery, The Living Room, and Fuel Teen Disco.

In less then 5 minutes a reporter could determine that deck 11 is instead called the Lido / Pool deck and not the kids area and make their story much more accurate.

 

[luvsJack]

I understand why it gets called that but the news media incorrectly calling it that makes me question other facts in their stories.

The kids area on the Freedom of the Seas is located on deck twelve and consists of Adventure Ocean, The Nursery, The Living Room, and Fuel Teen Disco.

In less then 5 minutes a reporter could determine that deck 11 is instead called the Lido / Pool deck and not the kids area and make their story much more accurate.

They haven't actually said that the deck is called the "kids area", they said "in a kid's play area". Which technically it is a kid's play area or at least a play area. I honestly don't know why it matters if its called the kid's area or the pool deck. By either name, its an area for kids. Not that it honestly has that much bearing on what happened. Just one more thing that gives people the ability to accuse someone of lying.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

This incident reminds me a lot of the alligator incident at the Grand Floridian several years ago. In both cases something seemingly innocent resulted in fatality. In both incidents we can second-guess the parents and cast some unknown degree blame on them. In both incidents there are fundamental questions about safety and reasonable behavior that have to be considered. There are things that will confuse a reasonable person….is an open window on a pool deck of a cruise ship one of them….

It was interesting to see that the parents provided video of the deceased child banging on glass walls at a hockey rink. I understand the media not scrutinizing the family at this point, but there’s plenty of evidence out there that the glass around hockey rinks can and will break at unexpected times. Is it reckless or reasonable to allow a toddler to be inches from glass, when that glass has the remote but known possibility that the glass may be broken by the activity taking place on the other side of it? Makes me wonder if the lawyer approved of the family’s appearance on Today.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...ney-alligator-anniversary-20180614-story.html

 

[msjprincess]

This incident reminds me a lot of the alligator incident at the Grand Floridian several years ago. In both cases something seemingly innocent resulted in fatality. In both incidents we can second-guess the parents and cast some unknown degree blame on them. In both incidents there are fundamental questions about safety and reasonable behavior that have to be considered. There are things that will confuse a reasonable person….is an open window on a pool deck of a cruise ship one of them….

It was interesting to see that the parents provided video of the deceased child banging on glass walls at a hockey rink. I understand the media not scrutinizing the family at this point, but there’s plenty of evidence out there that the glass around hockey rinks can and will break at unexpected times. Is it reckless or reasonable to allow a toddler to be inches from glass, when that glass has the remote but known possibility that the glass may be broken by the activity taking place on the other side of it? Makes me wonder if the lawyer approved of the family’s appearance on Today.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...ney-alligator-anniversary-20180614-story.html

He was on the episode.

He knows he doesn't have a case. He wants to give RCCL enough bad publicity so that they'll settle and the case will go away.

 

[lifesavacation]

He was on the episode.

He knows he doesn't have a case. He wants to give RCCL enough bad publicity so that they'll settle and the case will go away.

Something that I found interesting was the attorney calling this an accident. https://www.today.com/news/parents-...ibbean-cruise-ship-share-unfathomable-t159158

"There's no doubt this was an accident," the family's attorney, Mike Winkleman, said. "Really the singular question is, were there safety measures that could have been in place and should have been in place? If they were in place, again, there would have been no tragedy."

ETA: I would argue that the window being tinted, it's height off the floor, and the use of a railing are all adequate safety measures. From a pure statistical perspective, this has only happened once and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have been on ships with these windows.

 

[Suger Mag]

This incident reminds me a lot of the alligator incident at the Grand Floridian several years ago. In both cases something seemingly innocent resulted in fatality. In both incidents we can second-guess the parents and cast some unknown degree blame on them. In both incidents there are fundamental questions about safety and reasonable behavior that have to be considered. There are things that will confuse a reasonable person….is an open window on a pool deck of a cruise ship one of them….

It was interesting to see that the parents provided video of the deceased child banging on glass walls at a hockey rink. I understand the media not scrutinizing the family at this point, but there’s plenty of evidence out there that the glass around hockey rinks can and will break at unexpected times. Is it reckless or reasonable to allow a toddler to be inches from glass, when that glass has the remote but known possibility that the glass may be broken by the activity taking place on the other side of it? Makes me wonder if the lawyer approved of the family’s appearance on Today.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...ney-alligator-anniversary-20180614-story.html[/QUOTE

the whole bottom is glass, that does not open... if all the grandfather had wanted to let her do was just what she liked to do at a hockey rink she could have, there was no reason to pick her up to the window... just like the hockey picture they show, she could have banged on the bottom glass... underneath the open window and rail.

 

[luvsJack]

Something that I found interesting was the attorney calling this an accident. https://www.today.com/news/parents-...ibbean-cruise-ship-share-unfathomable-t159158

"There's no doubt this was an accident," the family's attorney, Mike Winkleman, said. "Really the singular question is, were there safety measures that could have been in place and should have been in place? If they were in place, again, there would have been no tragedy."

ETA: I would argue that the window being tinted, it's height off the floor, and the use of a railing are all adequate safety measures. From a pure statistical perspective, this has only happened once and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have been on ships with these windows.

And I believe that is what its all going to come down to. Not that RCL is "at fault" but whether they were somehow negligent. Did they provide enough safety for the guests/children on board. That's the direction of the lawyer and that is what he will have a judge or jury looking at, if it goes to court.

I certainly would not be cocky enough to claim he doesn't have a case. He may. Just depends on what he finds that could possibly be seen as this being a known possible danger. Sometimes what we the general public view as a known danger and what a possible jury may see that way aren't the same. Get enough experts to say anything and most of us will start believing it.

If the cruise line's lawyer thinks there is any possibility that a jury would see negligence, they will settle. They would rather pay out a lump sum than lose more on people with children not booking cruises.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

He was on the episode.

He knows he doesn't have a case. He wants to give RCCL enough bad publicity so that they'll settle and the case will go away.

I saw the lawyer on the episode....like I said, my guess is that he's handling the family pretty delicately now. They're looking for someone to blame and they have a spotlight, so they're dangerous at the moment. I don't think the Today show episode helps an eventual settlement, and it might actually hurt.

At a minimum, the family was aboard RCCL's ship and a toddler is dead, so I think the family has a case that could likely go to trial if the family rejects settlement offers. The prospect of a trial will allow for the legal wheels to turn, so that there can be an investigation of whether or not the open window was unsafe from a reasonable person's perspective. Stranger things have happened in courtrooms than a jury finding that the design of the ship was confusing enough for a reasonable person to have missed the fact that there was an open window.

Like most people, my gut reaction was that the GF's lifting of the child above the railing and into an open window was unreasonably reckless. But civil courts are here to resolve disputes like this and get to the facts....

 

[lanejudy]

I honestly don't know why it matters if its called the kid's area or the pool deck. By either name, its an area for kids. Not that it honestly has that much bearing on what happened.

You are correct that technically it is semantics as to what the space is called. But the lawyer is trying for the sympathy and outrage from the general public. By calling it a "children's play area" connotes an extra degree of safety would be taken with regards to removing or preventing hazardous or dangerous situations. Windows on a general pool deck/lido deck don't generate the same level of expectation or scrutiny. Something that is called a hazard in a child's play area, people assume is low at child height, a danger to a child at play, not something well above the child's head that would otherwise be unreachable by said child.

Think of it this way -- consider a bookcase or bureau in your bedroom. The same piece of furniture in a child's bedroom shouldn't tip, it should be wide and low or else secured to the wall. There's an extra level of safety or protection expected when mentioning something or someplace specifically intended for near-exclusive use by a child.

 

[luvsJack]

You are correct that technically it is semantics as to what the space is called. But the lawyer is trying for the sympathy and outrage from the general public. By calling it a "children's play area" connotes an extra degree of safety would be taken with regards to removing or preventing hazardous or dangerous situations. Windows on a general pool deck/lido deck don't generate the same level of expectation or scrutiny. Something that is called a hazard in a child's play area, people assume is low at child height, a danger to a child at play, not something well above the child's head that would otherwise be unreachable by said child.

Think of it this way -- consider a bookcase or bureau in your bedroom. The same piece of furniture in a child's bedroom shouldn't tip, it should be wide and low or else secured to the wall. There's an extra level of safety or protection expected when mentioning something or someplace specifically intended for near-exclusive use by a child.

The first report called it a "dining area" so he isn't the first to call it something other than the actual name.

I think if a jury sees pictures of the area, its not going to matter what you call it, they are going to see a kid's area.

 

[lanejudy]

The first report called it a "dining area" so he isn't the first to call it something other than the actual name.

I think if a jury sees pictures of the area, its not going to matter what you call it, they are going to see a kid's area.

He's not interested in a jury - he's going for public sentiment right now. The public hears "child's play area" and "open window" and pictures in their mind something entirely different than the location is in reality.

 

[lanejudy]

just like the hockey picture they show, she could have banged on the bottom glass...

I mentioned previously that is a very interesting picture shared of the girl leaning/banging on the glass at a hockey game. She is clearly standing on her own, unassisted. And yet I am not familiar with any ice rink that has glass down near the floor at toddler height. So she is clearly up on some kind of platform or something that puts her at the height of the glass. Ice rinks don't have full-wall glass, it starts at an adult's waist. Or I simply don't visit the right hockey rinks...

But yes, she could easily have just looked/knocked on the lower panel that doesn't open. No need to have lifted her up higher.

 

[robinb]

This incident reminds me a lot of the alligator incident at the Grand Floridian several years ago. In both cases something seemingly innocent resulted in fatality. In both incidents we can second-guess the parents and cast some unknown degree blame on them. In both incidents there are fundamental questions about safety and reasonable behavior that have to be considered. There are things that will confuse a reasonable person….is an open window on a pool deck of a cruise ship one of them….

It actually reminds me more of the two drowning incidents in 2013. 13-year old Anthony Johnson drowned in the Pop Century pool around 9:00 pm after the lifeguards were off duty. The other was 4-year old Chase Lykken who nearly drowned on the DCL Fantasy. I especially remember on the DIS how many people blamed Chase's parents because the boy slipped away to the pool without them knowing.

How many thousands of children swam in those two pools with no issues prior to 2013? That didn't matter to Disney. Six months after those accidents Disney put fences around all resort pools so you could not swim when the lifeguards were off duty and DCL was the first cruise line to staff their ship pools with lifeguards. As for the little boy who was attacked by the alligator, I believe it took Disney less than a week to fence off all lakes so another accident wouldn't happen.

 

[mom2rtk]

I mentioned previously that is a very interesting picture shared of the girl leaning/banging on the glass at a hockey game. She is clearly standing on her own, unassisted. And yet I am not familiar with any ice rink that has glass down near the floor at toddler height. So she is clearly up on some kind of platform or something that puts her at the height of the glass. Ice rinks don't have full-wall glass, it starts at an adult's waist. Or I simply don't visit the right hockey rinks...

But yes, she could easily have just looked/knocked on the lower panel that doesn't open. No need to have lifted her up higher.

I wonder if the GF was trying to put her up there and quickly snap a photo.

It actually reminds me more of the two drowning incidents in 2013. 13-year old Anthony Johnson drowned in the Pop Century pool around 9:00 pm after the lifeguards were off duty. The other was 4-year old Chase Lykken who nearly drowned on the DCL Fantasy. I especially remember on the DIS how many people blamed Chase's parents because the boy slipped away to the pool without them knowing.

How many thousands of children swam in those two pools with no issues prior to 2013? That didn't matter to Disney. Six months after those accidents Disney put fences around all resort pools so you could not swim when the lifeguards were off duty and DCL was the first cruise line to staff their ship pools with lifeguards. As for the little boy who was attacked by the alligator, I believe it took Disney less than a week to fence off all lakes so another accident wouldn't happen.

Disney is known for being risk averse though. It will be interesting to see if RCCL follows suit.

 

[John VN]

And I believe that is what its all going to come down to. Not that RCL is "at fault" but whether they were somehow negligent. Did they provide enough safety for the guests/children on board. That's the direction of the lawyer and that is what he will have a judge or jury looking at, if it goes to court.

I certainly would not be cocky enough to claim he doesn't have a case. He may. Just depends on what he finds that could possibly be seen as this being a known possible danger. Sometimes what we the general public view as a known danger and what a possible jury may see that way aren't the same. Get enough experts to say anything and most of us will start believing it.

If the cruise line's lawyer thinks there is any possibility that a jury would see negligence, they will settle. They would rather pay out a lump sum than lose more on people with children not booking cruises.

r.e. bold -- IMO of course it is a "known possible danger," it's simply that why would one think an adult would be so irresponsible as to lift a child up and place that child in a position that could result in an injury. Somebody of age and size would have to make an exerted effort to get out of the window and with that level of thinking the only way to allow air in and keep all things living or not from going overboard would be bars since even heavy duty screening could possibly be cut.

 

[luvsJack]

He's not interested in a jury - he's going for public sentiment right now. The public hears "child's play area" and "open window" and pictures in their mind something entirely different than the location is in reality.

But the reason he wants public sympathy is for a potential jury pool of sympathetic people. And if the cruise line sees that people are feeling sympathetic toward the family, they are more likely to settle.

 

[luvsJack]

r.e. bold -- IMO of course it is a "known possible danger," it's simply that why would one think an adult would be so irresponsible as to lift a child up and place that child in a position that could result in an injury. Somebody of age and size would have to make an exerted effort to get out of the window and with that level of thinking the only way to allow air in and keep all things living or not from going overboard would be bars since even heavy duty screening could possibly be cut.

If it was a known danger, then its up to the cruise line to do everything in their power to get rid of the risk.

 

[msjprincess]

If it was a known danger, then its up to the cruise line to do everything in their power to get rid of the risk.

What about the rest of the railings all over the ship? Putting a child on a railing is a known danger.

 

[kdonnel]

The first report called it a "dining area" so he isn't the first to call it something other than the actual name.

I think if a jury sees pictures of the area, its not going to matter what you call it, they are going to see a kid's area.

Calling it a dining area is accurate. Calling it a kids play area is not.

The Windjammer Cafe is located on the same deck. The windows in question stretch from the outdoor seating area of the Windjammer Cafe to the Vitality Spa.

I have sat at a table next to an open window on that deck and enjoyed some food.

There is a mixture of tables with chairs to sun loungers to nothing located next to the windows.

No where along there is a kids play area.

The area where kids would play, the pool and H2O Zone, are far from the windows.