Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be frank, I would be surprised if anyone thought about it at the time. I had read that he refused one, but I just can’t imagine that anyone would have been thinking along those lines until much later, late enough that it would not have mattered.
Maybe not the family members, but I can't help but think it was the first thought that passed through the mind of many fellow passengers and cruise staff upon hearing that someone dropped a toddler from a window. You'd pretty much assume that someone who did that was not in their right state of mind, or at least I would.
I'd also think that the average person would want to prove they hadn't been drinking (if that were the case) when asked to take the test. Having a lawyer in the family might make for a different mindset though.
Do we really have to spell out everything, though? Do people not have common sense anymore?
I saw a can of powdered formula that had a warning to mix with water before feeding to baby. What idiot tried to feed a baby powder from a can?
Lots of people don't have common sense. And if they were the ones who got killed maybe it wouldn't be so bad for evolution. But in this case an innocent girl got killed.
To be frank, I would be surprised if anyone thought about it at the time. I had read that he refused one, but I just can’t imagine that anyone would have been thinking along those lines until much later, late enough that it would not have mattered.
I read the father (a policeman) was busy taking pictures shortly after the death of his beloved daughter. There is speculation the father advised the Grandfather to refuse a BAC test. I do not know whether that is true or not. I don't understand why a BAC test was not mandatory given that a death occurred.
The Grandfather violated the terms of the cruise contract which outlines specific behavior guidelines regarding windows, balconies, railings, etc. I believe Royal Caribbean will vigorously fight the civil law suit.
Do we really have to spell out everything, though? Do people not have common sense anymore?
I saw a can of powdered formula that had a warning to mix with water before feeding to baby. What idiot tried to feed a baby powder from a can?
There are incredibly stupid people in the world. Last night my brother made shake n bake chicken and laughingly noted that the package warns to "discard bag with any unused product". Would someone be stupid enough to keep the remaining bag of crumbs after shaking the chicken in the bag? Maybe.
There's also the ever-popular "Warning, costume does not enable the wearer to fly" on Superman costumes.
The idiots who prompted the necessity to include those warnings would likely feed powdered baby formula to a baby.
The Grandfather violated the terms of the cruise contract which outlines specific behavior guidelines regarding windows, balconies, railings, etc. I believe Royal Caribbean will vigorously fight the civil law suit.
From reading the motion to dismiss, it is my impression that they're not even acknowledging the grandfather if they can help it. It's a simple duty-of-care case:
Is the window designed and installed as relevant regulations require?
Had Royal Caribbean previous knowledge that a hazard existed?
Would the window constitute a hazard for a reasonable person?
There are. And FTR, I'm not going to pretend that I haven't at times done something so mind-numbingly stupid that only pure luck kept me from having a regulation named after me. But I'm not going to pretend that it was anyone's fault but my own.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 02-28-2020 at 02:00 PM..
There are. And FTR, I'm not going to pretend that I haven't at times done something so mind-numbingly stupid that only pure luck kept me from having a regulation named after me. But I'm not going to pretend that it was anyone's fault but my own.
... In fact, considering her size (+/- 25 pounds), he really would hardly have been holding her suspended at arm's length for very long.
She could have been standing on the windowsill but held by him, so kind of leaning back against his arms/hands. If she simultaneously leaned forward to touch the window and he let go at that moment, momentum would carry her out the window
...
...The salient points though are that he did lift her over the railing circumventing the safety precautions that were in place, and that they stood there for a length of time (>30 seconds) which would normally be enough for any person of sound mind to recognize that the window was open. The window is not that far from the railing!
.
Occam’s razor
She was not sitting/standing on the safety railing- it could have been clearly seen on a video camera as the railing is well inside the ship and away from the window
The reason he lifted her- is to put her standing on the window sill.
The feet size of 18 month old- ? would be slightly larger? than windowsill- clearly proving he must have known the absence of glass
In addition, there could have been a breeze from the window- there was a reason he picked up that window to look out and he did looked out first.
I would take the jury to that particular ship with the doll of the exact child’s size and weight and ask him to demonstrate at the open window- where she was and
1) why did he lift her over the rail...
2) is his contention that he did not hold her strongly enough because of the fantasy glass?
He has no way out of this -his story is so implausible and his family is in denial: so much easier to blame a large corporation vs recognizing the parents careless attitudes in entrusting an unrelated adult ( whose judgement is so obviously lacking- there got to be other examples of his attitudes before that..?)
( I understand that the GF is out of the civil suit, but how can tge parents avoid this big elephant trying to prove RCL negligence and a lack of care? The fault have to be assigned? Are we talking percentages? )
I don't know where she was. There is no video showing it.
But I think it's likely, if you imagine the window was actually closed, I think she was at the point where she could very easily touch the window. Kind of pressed to the window, with no pressure.
But I don't know for sure, and am not going to say for sure, as those who believe they have seen video showing she was placed outside the window, and that grandpa's head was out the window.
NO ONE who has viewed the videos that have been made public has seen what they are stating they've seen.
If you watch the video: before he lifted the child- we see that he leaned out- you can not see his upper body for a few moments- as he leaned outside of the safety rail.
If the glass would be there- he could not do that- he would hit his head on the glass !
They need an re-enactment
If you watch the video: before he lifted the child- we see that he leaned out- you can not see his upper body for a few moments- as he leaned outside of the safety rail.
If the glass would be there- he could not do that- he would hit his head on the glass !
I can’t believe this thread has gone 195 pages, and you guys are still arguing about the same things you were arguing about on page 5.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
