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

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

Yeah I don't think you got what I was getting at. We'll just agree to disagree

 

[mummabear]

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.

I think had this gone to court they would have found that a reasonable visitor to WDW would not have been aware of the danger.
My kids have put their feet in the water there several times, toddlers getting nored while we were watching the movie.
Given that Disney was hosting activities on the waterline, that there had previously been swimming in the water and that it was a man made lake I assummed the no swimming signs had to do either the danger of boat traffic.
We are frequent visitors to Australia, and there even in public areas (beaches etc) there are warnings about sharks and crocodiles.
Canada certainly has bear warnings around.
Plenty of state parks in the US where they put warnings about snakes, alligators, bears etc
I wouldnt put any of the blame on the parents in that at all. Had the signs said danger alligators rather than no swimming Lane would be alive.

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"?

Nope this would have done it:


My guess is though that Disney didnt want to ruin the image of the beaches.

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.

I am sure they would need to be careful how they did it, but I would respect them releasing as statement defending themselves and their ships.
And calling out The Today Show in particular for failing to meet basic journalistic principles.

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?

I do believe he put her to the window knowing it was open.
What and what happened next I dont know.
I have said before and it is pure speculation, but the words "he was playing a game" and "rocking/swaying" have all been used and I would put money on a game of whoops gonna drop ya.
It is what makes the most sense to me given all the information we have, admittedly it is complete conjecture.
But it makes more sense that he put her on a rail so she could bang on the window that I thought was closed even though she could do that at ground level.
Now I am not sure of he needs to be prosecuted, I think that is largely up to the parents wishes. But I am 100% RCL has no liability.

 

[ronandannette]

...I am sure they would need to be careful how they did it, but I would respect them releasing as statement defending themselves and their ships.
And calling out The Today Show in particular for failing to meet basic journalistic principles.


I do believe he put her to the window knowing it was open.
What and what happened next I dont know.
I have said before and it is pure speculation, but the words "he was playing a game" and "rocking/swaying" have all been used and I would put money on a game of whoops gonna drop ya.
It is what makes the most sense to me given all the information we have, admittedly it is complete conjecture.
But it makes more sense that he put her on a rail so she could bang on the window that I thought was closed even though she could do that at ground level.
Now I am not sure of he needs to be prosecuted, I think that is largely up to the parents wishes. But I am 100% RCL has no liability.

Yes - a very clear and decisive statement of rebuttal would be appropriate. A civil counter-suit however, especially if they brought all their resources to bear, well that I think just isn't the right thing in this situation.

 

[kaytieeldr]

My guess is though that Disney didnt want to ruin the image of the beaches.

Whereas my guess is that because this was only the second alligator attack and first activator fatality in 45 yesrs, there was a reasonable expectation by the property owner that alligator attacks onsite were so low-key as to not indicate mention.

 

[mummabear]

Yes - a very clear and decisive statement of rebuttal would be appropriate. A civil counter-suit however, especially if they brought all their resources to bear, well that I think just isn't the right thing in this situation.

I think it depends on the family.
If they file a suit and do more press interviews then I feel the family is pushing RCL to do so.

 

[mummabear]

Whereas my guess is that because this was only the second alligator attack and first activator fatality in 45 yesrs, there was a reasonable expectation by the property owner that alligator attacks onsite were so low-key as to not indicate mention.

I think they knew that there were alligators and they had a responsibility to make their visitors aware, so their visitors could make their own decisions about acceptable levels of risk.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I have been thinking about this a lot. I keep going back to the window and how the family says that the GF did not know it was open. I have never confused an open window with a closed one. How can you? You would feel air blowing in, you would hear noise from outside. Some people have mentioned that they think he lifted her up so she could put her hands on the window, if he was THAT close, he would have known it was open. If he didn't, he needs to get checked for dementia.

I have clunked my head on a closed window thinking it was open, and I have walked into glass doors, thinking it was open. But never, ever have I gotten so close to an open window, accidentally dropped something out of it, and claim that I had no idea it was open, because all the other windows were closed.

 

[mnrose]

That's an interesting point. It's not hard to mistake a CLOSED piece of glass for open if it's crystal clear. Mistaking "air" for glass is much harder, and much less likely IMO. The indicators of noise and the "feel" of the air will all help with that. I do wonder if dementia is a possibility here? That would make a tragic situation even more tragic, but still no liability for the cruise line.

 

[Lynne G]

I think he was playing with her around the open window. There is a reason the cruise lines color the windows on the top decks, so you can see them, as I assume there is more of a risk bumping into them, rather than misunderstanding they are open. Plus, for safety they can only open at least 4 feet or so from the deck, and there is a rail to stop you from leaning out of a window.

They were setting sail that day, and I am sure excitement was in the air. And with that, sometimes you let your guard down or not think your fun would have fatal risks. I still have so much sympathy for the family. Losing a child is horrific. But accidents happen, and after that, there is the question how can we stop that from happening again. Here, do not put your child up on a rail near the windows. Maybe some more signs spelling it out for all to see. But I have to say, any time there is a rule, there is at least one person that does not follow it. Will it stop people from putting their kids on that rail? Sadly, I would say no. Thankfully, fatal falls from cruise windows are so rare, I think this is the first time it happened..

 

[theluckyrabbit]

... If he didn't, he needs to get checked for dementia...

... I do wonder if dementia is a possibility here? That would make a tragic situation even more tragic, but still no liability for the cruise line.

I wondered about this possibility, too. No way of knowing with the family in question, but certainly a warning for anyone reading who is experiencing similar behaviors from a loved one. This story haunts me because we had a family member who was making very similar choices (e.g. putting toddlers and infants on/over railings for "fun" and for photos -- think Michael Jackson). No one wanted to say anything for fear of causing offense. Any disagreement would cause huge hurt. The odd choices and behaviors continued and became riskier and more foolish, then finally downright dangerous. Finally, dementia was diagnosed. Heartbreaking, but at least we had an answer for what was totally unreasonable behavior (but which our relative did not see as unreasonable at all).

 

[ronandannette]

I think it depends on the family.
If they file a suit and do more press interviews then I feel the family is pushing RCL to do so.

I guess it all depends on how high the stakes get for RCCL. It is a huge corporation and if it were to come right down to it, I'm sure they have lawyers so ferocious they'd make the family's guy look like an amateur. But then again, vilifying customers is never a great PR strategy either.

At this point, my speculation is that given the facts (video, witnesses we may not know exist) there is very little risk they would lose in court AND the negative public opinion that's being generated is held mostly by people who don't cruise. Their bottom line isn't currently threatened very badly.

 

[Floridaman999]

Anyone seen the horse? I wasn't finished with him yet.

 

[ronandannette]

Anyone seen the horse? I wasn't finished with him yet.

Pretty sure he went to bed for the night after this happened:

Yeah I don't think you got what I was getting at. We'll just agree to disagree

 

[John VN]

I think he was playing with her around the open window. There is a reason the cruise lines color the windows on the top decks, so you can see them, as I assume there is more of a risk bumping into them, rather than misunderstanding they are open. Plus, for safety they can only open at least 4 feet or so from the deck, and there is a rail to stop you from leaning out of a window.

They were setting sail that day, and I am sure excitement was in the air. And with that, sometimes you let your guard down
or not think your fun would have fatal risks. I still have so much sympathy for the family. Losing a child is horrific. But accidents happen, and after that, there is the question how can we stop that from happening again. Here, do not put your child up on a rail near the windows. Maybe some more signs spelling it out for all to see. But I have to say, any time there is a rule, there is at least one person that does not follow it. Will it stop people from putting their kids on that rail? Sadly, I would say no. Thankfully, fatal falls from cruise windows are so rare, I think this is the first time it happened..

As were the ever present "Sail Away Beverages" easily sipped-on while having fun waiting.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I also wondered if we’ll be hearing in the future that this man had some subtle, beginning indicators of dementia. Obviously not full blown, but maybe some that could cause his judgement to be off.

 

[Cubbiecakes]

I also wondered if we’ll be hearing in the future that this man had some subtle, beginning indicators of dementia. Obviously not full blown, but maybe some that could cause his judgement to be off.

That will be the next tack the family takes when this one fails.

 

[Dznypal]

it seems strange that the only ones talking are the parents--theres been nothing said that they were even around when all this happened so they must be just going on the idea that GF is 100% positive that is what happened

and GF isnt talking on the advice of his lawyer now I dont know really anything about law but why would he need a lawyer if hes not at fault

RCL does have the tape so it seems now they are the only ones that know anything about what happened--they offered it to the parents who didnt want to see it---which I can totally understand

theres something wrong too with the fact the mother said there should be more safety in place well thats why the railings are there for

too keep people off and away from the windows

railings were not made to sit on or put kids on

this has already been brought up the diiferences in what was said where this happened

first it made it sound like it was in the dining room--windows dont open in the dining room on ships

then it was a childrens play area --making it sound like it was an area just for kids

when actually it was on the pool deck--more of a family area with areas where you could get food--and tables and chairs spread out over the whole deck

so sad to have it end this way--but the ship is not to blame--

I just wonder if well ever hear how this will end

 

[kaytieeldr]

Rather than dementia, I wonder if he has vision problems - cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration - that would explain him not knowing the window was open by visual cues? That still wouldn't explain not sensing it was open, though.

 

[Katie Dawn]

Not sure if the mother is employed right now, but benefits from his job should certainly cover much of the father's pay.

Which benefits are you thinking of specifically?
Funeral leave only covers a few days. FMLA is for when you or a family me are sick. No one is ill, unless the Dad's doctor will say he can't work due to emotional stress (which I think most doctors would agree to do.) But even if you get approved for FMLA, in most companies those aren't "free" benefits... You're blowing through any sick/annual leave you may have accrued, and after they're gonna you can still be off but you won't get paid.

Does your company offer some type of specific bereavement benefit?

 

[luvsJack]

Rather than dementia, I wonder if he has vision problems - cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration - that would explain him not knowing the window was open by visual cues? That still wouldn't explain not sensing it was open, though.

vision problems and alcohol might though. And it would explain the parents leaving her with him and not being concerned better than dementia.

Alcohol can dull the senses and at his age would probably make his blood pressure raise some. That could have made it harder for him to feel the breeze or cooler outside air on his face.

The family could not be aware of vision problems and may not have known he was drinking or how many drinks. If he wasn’t a drinker, he wouldn’t necessarily have been aware of the effects.