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

[luvsJack]

So did you watch the video posted 3 times now that shows someone walking along that deck?
If so, do you for one SECOND really believe as someone steps up to the window (I'm not talking looking from 30, 20, or even 10 feet away, I'm talking within 2' of the window) they would not be able to tell it's open? Noise? Smells? Wind?


It's been argued that the grandfather might not have been on a cruise ship before and therefore could be confused on what an open window looks like (didn't you make that argument?). But how can he be excused from knowing what an open window looks like because he's never been on a cruise, BUT be allowed to think the glass is thick enough to be allowed to be banged on? You can't have it both ways. Either he's familiar with cruise ship windows or he's not.

The other question I have... lets say for some strange reason, a toddler gets on a coffee table. Those are what, two feet off the floor? You think it's cute, so you're going to take a picture. If the toddler gets anywhere close to the edge of the coffee table, aren't you reaching for them? To either hold them or keep them from the edge? Isn't that the "reasonable" response? Then why in the hell is it ok to put a toddler on a railing that's 3-4' up AND LET GO? Isn't that what the GF said he did?

No it wasn’t me that said that, it was one of the other posters that I was referring to.

I didn’t say he knew the glass wouldn’t break, I just asked the question. Because of my fear of heights, I personally wouldn’t have been anywhere near a wall of windows made out of regular glass.

One report did say that he let go. But there have been so many saying different things, I don’t know if he actually said that or not. Honestly without seeing the video or an actual account from him, we won’t know.

You know how sometimes when a person is holding a child and they are talking to and interacting with the child more than really paying attention to their surroundings? I wonder if he could have been doing that, saw the windows, didn’t really look at them closely. Never even considered them being open or shut. Set her down to look out, did let go for a second for some reason like she dropped a toy or a pacifier or whatever and she fell. He never consciously thought “the window is closed”. Why he wouldn’t have felt the breeze or whatever, I don’t know. But I do not believe that a loving grandfather who was the child’s best friend would knowingly set her down on a ledge of an open window. For some reason that we may never figure out, I do not believe he knew.

The lawsuit aside, this man, unless there are underlying things we haven’t been made privy to, did not just let this child die this horrible death.

Should the cruise line pay them? Not my call to make. Are they “at fault”? No. Could they be negligent of keeping everyone safe? Not my call to make. It’s possible.

 

[sam_gordon]

No it wasn’t me that said that, it was one of the other posters that I was referring to.

I didn’t say he knew the glass wouldn’t break, I just asked the question. Because of my fear of heights, I personally wouldn’t have been anywhere near a wall of windows made out of regular glass.

So why does it matter whether the glass was thick or not?

One report did say that he let go. But there have been so many saying different things, I don’t know if he actually said that or not. Honestly without seeing the video or an actual account from him, we won’t know.

That's funny. Earlier you were adamant about taking the GF at his word because he wouldn't think about lying. Now you're saying the reports on what he said may not be true. You can't have it both ways.

What matters is HE said he didn't know. (do some of you honestly think that in that moment after the death of this child, he made sure to say something that set them up for a lawsuit???)

You know how sometimes when a person is holding a child and they are talking to and interacting with the child more than really paying attention to their surroundings? I wonder if he could have been doing that, saw the windows, didn’t really look at them closely. Never even considered them being open or shut. Set her down to look out, did let go for a second for some reason like she dropped a toy or a pacifier or whatever and she fell. He never consciously thought “the window is closed”. Why he wouldn’t have felt the breeze or whatever, I don’t know. But I do not believe that a loving grandfather who was the child’s best friend would knowingly set her down on a ledge of an open window. For some reason that we may never figure out, I do not believe he knew.

Again, we're talking a "reasonable" person. Even in your situation, there is absolutely no way the cruise line is at fault.

The lawsuit aside, this man, unless there are underlying things we haven’t been made privy to, did not just let this child die this horrible death.

Has one person anywhere even suggested otherwise?

Should the cruise line pay them? Not my call to make. Are they “at fault”? No. Could they be negligent of keeping everyone safe? Not my call to make. It’s possible.

In your OPINION, based on what we currently know, would you find them negligent?

And you never answered my questions...
1) Did you watch the video of the deck tour?
2) Do you think a reasonable person would NOT have known the window was open when they got close to it?

 

[mnrose]

The lawyer retained by the family is the one who says GF "let go." I'll guess I'll take him at his word that this is what happened.

 

[luvsJack]

So why does it matter whether the glass was thick or not?

That's funny. Earlier you were adamant about taking the GF at his word because he wouldn't think about lying. Now you're saying the reports on what he said may not be true. You can't have it both ways.

Again, we're talking a "reasonable" person. Even in your situation, there is absolutely no way the cruise line is at fault.


Has one person anywhere even suggested otherwise?


In your OPINION, based on what we currently know, would you find them negligent?

And you never answered my questions...
1) Did you watch the video of the deck tour?
2) Do you think a reasonable person would NOT have known the window was open when they got close to it?

The parents repeated what he said. They didn’t say he said anything about letting her go. Other reports said he was dangling her and it was the dining area. It’s the reports I question.

Reasonable people do things all the time that others don’t understand.

As to your questions—yes and I would have to see what he saw.

Do you you think he sat her there knowing the window was open and just left her to fall?

 

[morgan98]

The parents repeated what he said. They didn’t say he said anything about letting her go. Other reports said he was dangling her and it was the dining area. It’s the reports I question.

Reasonable people do things all the time that others don’t understand.

As to your questions—yes and I would have to see what he saw.

Do you you think he sat her there knowing the window was open and just left her to fall?

I know of no one that says he purposely put her in an open window and let her fall.

What people are saying is that he had a lapse of judgement (by lifting her over the barrier and not realizing the window was open) which led to her tragic death. Just because he did not DELIBERATELY do it does not somehow make the cruise line at fault, even if only partially.

For some reason, you feel that because he may not have known the window was open, he somehow is not responsible for the sequence of events. Unfortunately, sometimes people do stupid things -like speed, or drink and drive - and while they may not have wanted to cause harm or death, they do. It is their fault, even if they didn't mean to hurt anyone.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The parents repeated what he said. They didn’t say he said anything about letting her go. Other reports said he was dangling her and it was the dining area. It’s the reports I question.

Reasonable people do things all the time that others don’t understand.

As to your questions—yes and I would have to see what he saw.

Do you you think he sat her there knowing the window was open and just left her to fall?

Putting a child up on a ledge like that opens up to all sorts of possible incidents---this was just one possibility. Open window or no open window an injury or death could have happened, even outside of a cruise ship, when lifting a child up and putting them on a ledge, railing, whatever may have you.

She could have banged her head on the glass window if it had been closed enough to cause a brain injury, she could have fallen down and hit her head and caused a brain injury or broke bones, etc.

Like I said before plenty of people do these sorts of things...but it doesn't make it safe to do so. Inherent risks are always there and we tend to not think about them until well until something bad happens.

 

[luvsJack]

Whoahhh. I never, not once said he didn’t bear almost all if not all of the responsibility of what happened. Lapse in judgement, not paying attention, whatever.

I simply said that it’s entirely possible for the cruise line to be found to have some liability.

Just like with the little boy attacked by the alligator. There were signs. The parents let him get in the water, they were responsible for that, not Disney. And you could call that a lapse in judgement. But Disney was still liable.

 

[lanejudy]

Reasonable people do things all the time that others don’t understand.

Even “reasonable” people may do unreasonable things at times. Nobody is immune to making mistakes. Fortunately for most of us, most dumb mistakes don’t have tragic consequences. Unfortunately, for this man, it did. Doesn't make the cruise ship at fault in any manner.

But Disney was still liable.

WDW made changes, but I don’t believe there were ever charges or any official finding of liability. I suspect they settled out of court with the family and a non-disclosure was signed. Still no official statement or finding of liability. You are confusing things.

 

[luvsJack]

Even “reasonable” people may do unreasonable things at times. Nobody is immune to making mistakes. Fortunately for most of us, most dumb mistakes don’t have tragic consequences. Unfortunately, for this man, it did. Doesn't make the cruise ship at fault in any manner.



WDW made changes, but I don’t believe there were ever charges or any official finding of liability. I suspect they settled out of court with the family and a non-disclosure was signed. Still no official statement or finding of liability. You are confusing things.

Lol no not confusing things. I highly doubt Disney gave them money just out of the goodness of their hearts. I know there was no statement and there won’t be. But I imagine their attorneys decided to do what was best for the company.

Again, I didn’t say the man wasn’t responsible. Never said that. That doesn’t mean there may not be some liability on the part of the cruise line.

 

[sam_gordon]

I simply said that it’s entirely possible for the cruise line to be found to have some liability.

When the accident was first talked about, I would have agreed with you. The deck could have been wet, the railing may have been broken, the GF could have tripped over a cord left by a maintenance worker. There are all kinds of things that could have happened that would have put at least some liability on the cruise line. However, none of those are what the family latched on to. Their entire argument is basically the window shouldn't have been opened (or there should be some indication the window was open). Personally, I never believed the "dangling"/"swinging" stories because they didn't make sense to me. But if we're to take the GF at his word (which you were insistent on doing with his claims of thinking the window was closed), then we need to take his word that he had the child on the railing and let go of her. Assuming @mnrose is correct and the lawyer is stating that, there is absolutely no reason to not believe that.

And yes, good people make unreasonable choices all the time. Businesses shouldn't have to protect people from themselves when they make unreasonable choices.

Just like with the little boy attacked by the alligator. There were signs. The parents let him get in the water, they were responsible for that, not Disney. And you could call that a lapse in judgement. But Disney was still liable.

Do you really want to start this again? The signs said "no swimming". They didn't say why. Wading is not swimming. Aside from the fact that two small children died, there is no similarity between these cases.

 

[sam_gordon]

Lol no not confusing things. I highly doubt Disney gave them money just out of the goodness of their hearts. I know there was no statement and there won’t be. But I imagine their attorneys decided to do what was best for the company.

I bet you RCI would have given this family some money. I would have (if I was RCI). However, after they came out with their claim of the cruise line being 100% to blame and filing a lawsuit, nope, no money for you. I'd even be tempted to counter sue for slander.

 

[Cubbiecakes]

Do you really want to start this again? The signs said "no swimming". They didn't say why. Wading is not swimming. Aside from the fact that two small children died, there is no similarity between these cases.

Have people really regressed so far in their ability to use common sense that Disney has to stoop to "DON'T GET WET" for idiots keep their kids out of "the damn lakes"?

 

[ronandannette]

I bet you RCI would have given this family some money. I would have (if I was RCI). However, after they came out with their claim of the cruise line being 100% to blame and filing a lawsuit, nope, no money for you. I'd even be tempted to counter sue for slander.

This is pretty harshly put, but I must say I completely agree with the sentiment. I doubt though that any corporate entity would have the resolve to counter-sue. If this case was purely theoretical, I'd actually like to see them try, but being as we're talking about real people in unfathomable pain, no - just no.

 

[luvsJack]

When the accident was first talked about, I would have agreed with you. The deck could have been wet, the railing may have been broken, the GF could have tripped over a cord left by a maintenance worker. There are all kinds of things that could have happened that would have put at least some liability on the cruise line. However, none of those are what the family latched on to. Their entire argument is basically the window shouldn't have been opened (or there should be some indication the window was open). Personally, I never believed the "dangling"/"swinging" stories because they didn't make sense to me. But if we're to take the GF at his word (which you were insistent on doing with his claims of thinking the window was closed), then we need to take his word that he had the child on the railing and let go of her. Assuming @mnrose is correct and the lawyer is stating that, there is absolutely no reason to not believe that.

And yes, good people make unreasonable choices all the time. Businesses shouldn't have to protect people from themselves when they make unreasonable choices.


Do you really want to start this again? The signs said "no swimming". They didn't say why. Wading is not swimming. Aside from the fact that two small children died, there is no similarity between these cases.

Start what again? I was in full agreement that they were liable.

Again, the reports have been all over the place. It’s the REPORT that I question. The PARENTS never said anything of the sort. If there was an actual video interview and the lawyer said he let go, ok, if not then I don’t know if he said it or not. And besides “letting go” could have meant a split second of loosening his grip on her.

So, since the windows have been such a sticking point. Do you think he sat that child there with full knowledge the window was open? And do you also believe he put her in an open window and let her go?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Lol no not confusing things. I highly doubt Disney gave them money just out of the goodness of their hearts. I know there was no statement and there won’t be. But I imagine their attorneys decided to do what was best for the company.

Again, I didn’t say the man wasn’t responsible. Never said that. That doesn’t mean there may not be some liability on the part of the cruise line.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about. It makes sense now all your statements regarding settlements.

Settlement does NOT equal any sort of acceptance of liablity.

 

[luvsJack]

This is exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about. It makes sense now all your statements regarding settlements.

Settlement does NOT equal any sort of acceptance of liablity.

No it doesn’t. But it does keep the company from being found liable.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No it doesn’t. But it does keep the company from being found liable.

Your exact words were

But Disney was still liable.

 

[luvsJack]

Your exact words were

Ok, I believe they were liable as do many others and imo, so do they.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Ok, I believe they were liable as do many others and imo, so do they.

You're totally entitled to your opinion on that matter.

It's not a good thing to connect a settlement with liability. Moreso was making that point.

 

[luvsJack]

You're totally entitled to your opinion on that matter.

It's not a good thing to connect a settlement with liability. Moreso was making that point.

At the risk of hashing it out again, a resort that has events on a beach, only has signs that say “no swimming” and knows there are alligators and knows they are a danger pretty much has a liability.

Settlements are reached when A, who is either being sued or in danger of being sued, agrees to pay B, who has either filed a lawsuit or it is assumed they will. The amount is paid to either drop the suit or not file. There is no judgment.

It doesn’t mean they weren’t liable. It just means that no court has found them liable.

Not sure why you think there is some danger in connecting the two.