TRIGGER--Very Sad RCL Story

mevelandry

DIS Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
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

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
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

Mouseketeer
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
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?
 

  • Royal Caribbean Shipboard Credits up to $500!
    Valid on all non-Disney Cruise Line Cruises booked through Dreams Unlimited Travel.
    Click Here for Details

    Already have a Cruise booked?
    If you booked your reservation within the last 30 days, Email us (RCCL@DreamsUnlimitedTravel.com) to see if we can save you money or apply a Shipboard Credit!
    *Deposit paid. Not paid in full. Other Restrictions Apply.

  • Frozen2014

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    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

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 22, 2013
    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.
     

    Dug720

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2012
    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.
     
  • Dug720

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2012
    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

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jun 26, 2010
    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.
    but as these charges prove, he truly was the negligent one.
    The charges don't "prove" anything. The court case would do that.
     
  • Dug720

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2012
    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.
    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

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jun 26, 2010
    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

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2012
    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

    I gave myself this tag and I "Like" myself too!
    Joined
    May 4, 2006
    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. :scratchin
     

    John VN

    DIS Cast Member
    Joined
    Aug 2, 2003
    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. :scratchin
    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

    DIS Cast Member
    Joined
    Aug 2, 2003
    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

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Apr 8, 2015
    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

    So Many Times
    Joined
    May 17, 2005
    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 ...... :crutches: }

    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 . . . . :mic:


    ************************************
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Connect

    Disney News and Updates

    Get Daily Email Updates


    Top