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

[gwynne]

Someone posted that perhaps he let go of her to take her picture sitting on the rail. That would have required him to let go and step away.

"nothing needs to be changed" is the exact same thing that many were saying after the alligator incident at Disney. Maybe we should let the cruise line and the lawyers figure that one out.

Actually I think Disney did a respectable job of mitigating the risk. I'd doubt that Disney safety experts listen to random posters.

Maybe the first thing that needs to be done in the current situation is wait for the investigation results. And then use those as a baseline for any future modifications if necessary.

 

[luvsJack]

Actually I think Disney did a respectable job of mitigating the risk. I'd doubt that Disney safety experts listen to random posters.

Maybe the first thing that needs to be done in the current situation is wait for the investigation results. And then use those as a baseline for any future modifications if necessary.

Oh, I think they did too. I was referring to how many here were moaning and groaning about any possible change. And I do agree, get all the facts out first and then the cruise line and the lawyers can make decisions on any modifications.

 

[Dznypal]

whether he (GF) stepped back to take a pic he still put her in a place she or anyone else should not be--sitting on the railing--thats why its there to keep people away from the windows so in that sense RCCL did have safety features in place--he chose to ingnore them

 

[Sarah'sMomfrom PA]

I was on another discussion site that was discussing the child who got away from his mother at the Atlanta airport and ended up running to the conveyor belt that takes luggage down to the TSA inspection area --thank God the child only broke his arm but some were saying that the airport was at fault for not having safety measures in place regarding the conveyor belt. No way is the airport at fault...the mother let go of the child to print her boarding passes and the child took off. Sometimes, tragically, people need to take responsibility for their actions and not blame the Atlanta airport!

 

[sam_gordon]

Oh, I think they did too. I was referring to how many here were moaning and groaning about any possible change. And I do agree, get all the facts out first and then the cruise line and the lawyers can make decisions on any modifications.

The "moaning and groaning" is because we don't see a practical/reasonable change. If someone can come up with one, I'll say "I didn't think of that". Until that happens, I don't think there is a change to be made and change for change sake usually doesn't do any good.

 

[luvsJack]

The "moaning and groaning" is because we don't see a practical/reasonable change. If someone can come up with one, I'll say "I didn't think of that". Until that happens, I don't think there is a change to be made and change for change sake usually doesn't do any good.

Oh, please, the changes that could be made at Disney were obvious. Anyone could see them. They moaned and groaned because they didn't want the change.

People tend to not like change to most things, plain and simple. I don't know what they could possibly do but if the cruise line sees that a change is needed or if the courts or investigators determine a change needs to be made, they will make it.

I do agree with the pp that it was very different in the fact that Disney took quick action. But I also think that just like we don't know the underlying reasons why someone may or may not seem to "choose" to sue or not to; we don't know why the cruise line hasn't seemed to take any action and Disney did. Of course having folks that are there that can report the changes as they came makes a big difference too.

 

[JaxDad]

Oh, please, the changes that could be made at Disney were obvious. Anyone could see them. They moaned and groaned because they didn't want the change.

People tend to not like change to most things, plain and simple. I don't know what they could possibly do but if the cruise line sees that a change is needed or if the courts or investigators determine a change needs to be made, they will make it.

I do agree with the pp that it was very different in the fact that Disney took quick action. But I also think that just like we don't know the underlying reasons why someone may or may not seem to "choose" to sue or not to; we don't know why the cruise line hasn't seemed to take any action and Disney did. Of course having folks that are there that can report the changes as they came makes a big difference too.

Yep. I think the big difference between the Disney incident and this one is the lawyer. I would not doubt that the Disney family also hired a lawyer, but he/she apparently wasn't an "ambulance chaser" like the guy the RCCL family hired. It seems that things with the Disney incident were handled reasonably and largely behind closed doors. I tend to think this was due more to the lawyer and the family than to Disney. Disney was actually very lucky in that regard. If the Disney family had hired this RCCL family lawyer, or some of the guys who advertise around here on billboards, it likely would have been much different.

Which also makes me wonder if the cruise line is in a sort of legal limbo over performing any mitigation because of the lawsuit. Let's say they decided to put up some more signs along the rail. I'm pretty sure the family's lawyer would argue that doing so proves they were negligent in the first place. I'm not a lawyer, just thinking out loud.

I will also add that I think Disney was arguably more negligent by not having more signs (I think they had some "No Swimming" signs but no "Danger Alligators" signs before the incident). Visitors to Florida could reasonably not be expected to know about the dangers of alligators. While with RCCL, any reasonable person should know not to put a toddler on a railing. I'm not trying to slam the grandfather, but his actions, as many have reported them, certainly seem negligent.

 

[sam_gordon]

Oh, please, the changes that could be made at Disney were obvious. Anyone could see them. They moaned and groaned because they didn't want the change.

People tend to not like change to most things, plain and simple. I don't know what they could possibly do but if the cruise line sees that a change is needed or if the courts or investigators determine a change needs to be made, they will make it.

I do agree with the pp that it was very different in the fact that Disney took quick action. But I also think that just like we don't know the underlying reasons why someone may or may not seem to "choose" to sue or not to; we don't know why the cruise line hasn't seemed to take any action and Disney did. Of course having folks that are there that can report the changes as they came makes a big difference too.

I wasn't talking about changes at Disney. I'm talking about changes to this cruise ship (and others). Is it POSSIBLE there's a practical/reasonable solution that would prevent a similar accident? I'd say "yes", but only because few things are absolute. It's been asked many times but somehow no one has answered... what made this open window any different from the balcony cabins, the area around the sports deck, the area around the helipad, or any other area that provides access to the side of the ship? If you're going to "protect" the window, why wouldn't you protect all these other areas?

 

[luvsJack]

Yep. I think the big difference between the Disney incident and this one is the lawyer. I would not doubt that the Disney family also hired a lawyer, but he/she apparently wasn't an "ambulance chaser" like the guy the RCCL family hired. It seems that things with the Disney incident were handled reasonably and largely behind closed doors. I tend to think this was due more to the lawyer and the family than to Disney. Disney was actually very lucky in that regard. If the Disney family had hired this RCCL family lawyer, or some of the guys who advertise around here on billboards, it likely would have been much different.

Which also makes me wonder if the cruise line is in a sort of legal limbo over performing any mitigation because of the lawsuit. Let's say they decided to put up some more signs along the rail. I'm pretty sure the family's lawyer would argue that doing so proves they were negligent in the first place. I'm not a lawyer, just thinking out loud.

I will also add that I think Disney was arguably more negligent by not having more signs (I think they had some "No Swimming" signs but no "Danger Alligators" signs before the incident). Visitors to Florida could reasonably not be expected to know about the dangers of alligators. While with RCCL, any reasonable person should know not to put a toddler on a railing. I'm not trying to slam the grandfather, but his actions, as many have reported them, certainly seem negligent.

I do agree with you. I mean regardless of the name of the deck or any of the other minute details, at the end of the day, if he put her on that rail, I am not sure how they can say the cruise line was negligent. I mean the only other option would be to not open the windows or maybe make the upper windows be able to open and I have no idea if that would work.

For some reason, he couldn't tell the window was open. Perhaps there is someway to make it more visually obvious that windows are open and which ones.

I agree, Disney was more negligent. I was honestly shocked by the people that didn't think so and blamed the parents. I thought from the beginning, they needed to find some way to make it visually appealing but keep people out of the water there.

 

[luvsJack]

I wasn't talking about changes at Disney. I'm talking about changes to this cruise ship (and others). Is it POSSIBLE there's a practical/reasonable solution that would prevent a similar accident? I'd say "yes", but only because few things are absolute. It's been asked many times but somehow no one has answered... what made this open window any different from the balcony cabins, the area around the sports deck, the area around the helipad, or any other area that provides access to the side of the ship? If you're going to "protect" the window, why wouldn't you protect all these other areas?

If something is done to any window, I would assume it would have to be done to all of them unless there is another safety reason why not.

 

[Searc]

I do agree with you. I mean regardless of the name of the deck or any of the other minute details, at the end of the day, if he put her on that rail, I am not sure how they can say the cruise line was negligent. I mean the only other option would be to not open the windows or maybe make the upper windows be able to open and I have no idea if that would work.

For some reason, he couldn't tell the window was open. Perhaps there is someway to make it more visually obvious that windows are open and which ones.

I agree, Disney was more negligent. I was honestly shocked by the people that didn't think so and blamed the parents. I thought from the beginning, they needed to find some way to make it visually appealing but keep people out of the water there.

If you've ever been on a cruise, it is VERY obvious in person which windows are open.

 

[luvsJack]

If you've ever been on a cruise, it is VERY obvious in person which windows are open.

It may be but again, it was the first thing the grandfather said when he saw the child's mother. He was crying hysterically and kept saying he thought the window was closed. I just don't think he was lying at that moment. So, with that said, it would be reasonable to think that they would do something that would make it unmistakable that the windows are open and which windows are open.

 

[Searc]

It may be but again, it was the first thing the grandfather said when he saw the child's mother. He was crying hysterically and kept saying he thought the window was closed. I just don't think he was lying at that moment. So, with that said, it would be reasonable to think that they would do something that would make it unmistakable that the windows are open and which windows are open.

Have you ever been on a cruise?

 

[morgan98]

I do agree with you. I mean regardless of the name of the deck or any of the other minute details, at the end of the day, if he put her on that rail, I am not sure how they can say the cruise line was negligent. I mean the only other option would be to not open the windows or maybe make the upper windows be able to open and I have no idea if that would work.

For some reason, he couldn't tell the window was open. Perhaps there is someway to make it more visually obvious that windows are open and which ones.

I agree, Disney was more negligent. I was honestly shocked by the people that didn't think so and blamed the parents. I thought from the beginning, they needed to find some way to make it visually appealing but keep people out of the water there.

Again, there was a railing. It is obvious what windows are open or not. The grandfather for whatever reason seems to have had a lapse in judgement.

I do not think making it so windows cannot open is fair. People cruise to be on the open water, feel some air movement, etc. This really was a freak accident. The most obvious way to prevent it it to not cross barriers and not put kids in or near an open window. Permanently sealing windows seems over the top.

 

[msjprincess]

It may be but again, it was the first thing the grandfather said when he saw the child's mother. He was crying hysterically and kept saying he thought the window was closed. I just don't think he was lying at that moment. So, with that said, it would be reasonable to think that they would do something that would make it unmistakable that the windows are open and which windows are open.

Even if the window was closed, putting a toddler on a railing and letting go for just a split second, is negligent. What if she fell the other way and landed on the pool deck? Or fell between the rail and window and got hurt.

 

[kaytieeldr]

If the Disney family had hired this RCCL family lawyer, or some of the guys who advertise around here on billboards, it likely would have been much different.

OMG, the advertising image that popped into my head!

For some reason, he couldn't tell the window was open. Perhaps there is someway to make it more visually obvious that windows are open and which ones.

One excellent, successful until two weeks ago way would be to find the wIndows - maybe green? No tint, no pane!

Oh. Wait. They did that already - four, if not 13 years ago.

 

[luvsJack]

This is ridiculous. I honestly do not think some of you know the difference between saying someone SHOULD do something an someone COULD do something.

I am NOT saying that the cruise line SHOULD do anything. I am saying they COULD. Possibly. Perhaps. Maybe.

The gf said hysterically that he did not know the window was opened. I have no idea what happened or how quickly it happened. But I do not believe the man was lying in the moment he said that. You can say all day long that "its obvious a window is opened" and IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. 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???) So, IF something is found to need to be done to prevent this, it stands to reason they would go with what the grandfather said and what the family is saying. The windows. They need to be able to open them and they would have to replace them to make others open and not those so the next logical thing would be to have SOMETHING that alerts someone from a distance that certain windows are opened.

Continuing to repeat yourselves about the rail and what the windows look like really isn't doing anything, by the way.

I seem to remember some other sarcastic posts that went something like: "If only there was something telling people not to swim in the lake. Oh, wait, there was".

 

[Searc]

This is ridiculous. I honestly do not think some of you know the difference between saying someone SHOULD do something an someone COULD do something.

I am NOT saying that the cruise line SHOULD do anything. I am saying they COULD. Possibly. Perhaps. Maybe.

The gf said hysterically that he did not know the window was opened. I have no idea what happened or how quickly it happened. But I do not believe the man was lying in the moment he said that. You can say all day long that "its obvious a window is opened" and IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. 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???) So, IF something is found to need to be done to prevent this, it stands to reason they would go with what the grandfather said and what the family is saying. The windows. They need to be able to open them and they would have to replace them to make others open and not those so the next logical thing would be to have SOMETHING that alerts someone from a distance that certain windows are opened.

Continuing to repeat yourselves about the rail and what the windows look like really isn't doing anything, by the way.

I seem to remember some other sarcastic posts that went something like: "If only there was something telling people not to swim in the lake. Oh, wait, there was".

So, no, you have not ever been on a cruise.

 

[luvsJack]

So, no, you have not ever been on a cruise.

I already said no.

And again, it doesn't matter. I didn't say I couldn't tell the window was open. HE did.

It really does not make a whit of difference whether I can tell the windows are open or you can tell or if everyone in this thread can tell. What matters is what the gf said and if the investigation finds it to be possible and the court finds that the cruise line could be liable or the cruise line thinks they could be liable and settles.

 

[sam_gordon]

This is ridiculous. I honestly do not think some of you know the difference between saying someone SHOULD do something an someone COULD do something.

I am NOT saying that the cruise line SHOULD do anything. I am saying they COULD. Possibly. Perhaps. Maybe.

The gf said hysterically that he did not know the window was opened. I have no idea what happened or how quickly it happened. But I do not believe the man was lying in the moment he said that. You can say all day long that "its obvious a window is opened" and IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. 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???) So, IF something is found to need to be done to prevent this, it stands to reason they would go with what the grandfather said and what the family is saying. The windows. They need to be able to open them and they would have to replace them to make others open and not those so the next logical thing would be to have SOMETHING that alerts someone from a distance that certain windows are opened.

Continuing to repeat yourselves about the rail and what the windows look like really isn't doing anything, by the way.

I seem to remember some other sarcastic posts that went something like: "If only there was something telling people not to swim in the lake. Oh, wait, there was".

I do not think he consciously made a decision to say he thought the window was closed. I think it was a coping mechanism from his brain. He might have honestly thought the window was closed. But the question is, assuming that is true, what realistically could Royal have done to convince him the window was open? Put signs up saying "windows may be open"? No guarantee he would have noticed that. Put stickers in the middle of the windows that do open? Makes sense, BUT, people would still have to know to look for the stickers, so would that really help? ummm... got other ideas?

Saying "let the experts figure that out" is a cop out in a way. Because I feel if the "experts" (some had suggested Richard Fain, RCI's CEO) say "nothing more could be done", the people still wouldn't be satisfied.