Community Chat

[bathina]

Might be helpful to actually read the lawsuit documents. After doing so, my hunch from the beginning was confirmed. While Anello was careless, the windows in the play area did not meet industry standards. In fact, the ship is being re-outfitted now.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@bathina wrote:

Might be helpful to actually read the lawsuit documents. After doing so, my hunch from the beginning was confirmed. While Anello was careless, the windows in the play area did not meet industry standards. In fact, the ship is being re-outfitted now.

---

Interesting.  What standards did they fail to meet?

[new nickname 4]

I read the translated PR case report last night.  They have spoken with witnesses, also they have several other external and internal ship videos, plus cruise passenger videos. 

What the lawsuit says is only one side, the families side, and since no one in the family would agree to be interviewed, including the parents or Anello (who also refused a breathalizer test), they said they would rely on the videos to determine if any charges were to be filed.

There are at least two people who have been interviewed who said the granddaughter  was held outside the window, and their opinion is that the grandfather appeared to be playing a game or releasing his hold on the poor little girl .

Either way, the next date set for legal activity is possibly January 17th.

Edited to correct legal activity date: SA attorney Jose Perez will present experts who will analyze the scene and those names will be provided to the court by January 17th,  The next court date is scheduled January 27th

[bathina]

@Isobel Archer

Here's the link to the suit. It's a fairly quick read.

https://www.lipcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/DE-1-Wrongful-Death-Complaint.pdf 

[tsavorite]

---

@new nickname 4 wrote:

I read the translated PR case report last night.  They have spoken with witnesses, also they have several other external and internal ship videos, plus cruise passenger videos. 

What the lawsuit says is only one side, the families side, and since no one in the family would agree to be interviewed, including the parents or Anello (who also refused a breathalizer test), they said they would rely on the videos to determine if any charges were to be filed.

There are at least two people who have been interviewed who said the granddaughter  was held outside the window, and their opinion is that the grandfather appeared to be playing a game or releasing his hold on the poor little girl .

Either way, the next date set for legal activity is possibly January 17th.

---

OMGoodness!!! that is so awful!!!  

And he refused a breathalizer test too.  Wow....that makes me think he was rather drunk...and is hiding this too.  

The fact that eye witness's saw him hold her outside the window and releasing his hold on her is so sickening.  

I don't care what the new window standards are...this grandfather was out of his mind by doing this!  And every reasonable person knows that guard rails are put in place so that people/children do NOT go over or past them.  

And he is still lying...barf!

[MarieIG]

---

@bathina wrote:

Might be helpful to actually read the lawsuit documents. After doing so, my hunch from the beginning was confirmed. While Anello was careless, the windows in the play area did not meet industry standards. In fact, the ship is being re-outfitted now.

---

The law suit documents present the allegations, not the ulimate determination of either Law or Fact. 

Issues for consideration:

Was the ship cited by any governmental authority for any safety violations relative to the incident?  If so, what weight does Florida Law (in a civil law suit, such as the case at bar) give to such violations?

What weight does Florida Law give "industry standards" and is this something where each parties' experts may give conflicting opinions? 

I am not familiar with Florida Law, but in my jurisdiction post remedial measures taken by a defendant, as a matter of public policy, are discoverable but (barring other issues) not admissible evidence to prove negligence - the rationale being, it would discourage defendants from upgrading their safety features.  Maybe someone familiar with Florida law can weigh in here. 

[bathina]

@MarieIG  interesting that all the other NCL ships have compliant windows, according to the document.

Just read the suit yesterday, but have suspected from the outset (just from seeing the pics) that those windows present a hazard.

[sidsmom]

It's so confusing...maybe someone can explain to me.

If Puerto Rico tries & finds Mr. Anello guilty, how does that

affect the family lawsuit against Royal Caribbean?

Or if Mr. Anello pleads Not Guilty, do they go through the

Royal Caribbean lawsuit?   

Seems like they would be connected in some way...

or is Mr. Anello responsible up to the time he lets go,

then the cruise line is responsible after that?

[MarieIG]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

It's so confusing...maybe someone can explain to me.

If Puerto Rico tries & finds Mr. Anello guilty, how does that

affect the family lawsuit against Royal Caribbean?

Or if Mr. Anello pleads Not Guilty, do they go through the

Royal Caribbean lawsuit?   

Seems like they would be connected in some way...

or is Mr. Anello responsible up to the time he lets go,

then the cruise line is responsible after that?

---

@sidsmom 

I have no knowlege of PR or Florida law, so the below is theory.

One of the issues is that different "parties" are involved.  The grandfather is not a party to the civil law suit.  Therefore, I have doubts that the criminal matter would "resolve" the civil matter.

An example would be (and my knowleged is limited to NY), that if a defendant plead guilty in a criminal action to criminally negligent homicide; then he/she would be bound by that plea in a civil law suit - against him - arising out of the same incident.  There is a higher level of proof in the criminal action (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) than in a civil law suit - (by a preponderance of the evidence) and, the defendant in that case had the opportunity to participate / defend himself in the criminal lawsuit.

However, if the grandfather here pleads guilty in the criminal matter and allocuted on the record that he knew the window was open, and placed the child on the rail that notwithstanding, it makes that portion of the lawsuit based upon the concealed nature of the alledged danger/ hazard more difficult.  It also renders that grandfather that much more subject to impeachment upon cross-examination.

I suspect the grandfather would not testify in the criminal matter, upon advise of his attorneys, but of course this remains to be seen. 

Without commenting upon the merits, there are other allegations in the complaint, which don't depend upon the grandfather's ability to see/discern that the window was open. 

[new nickname 4]

The cruise line is not liable if SA is guilty.  If they prove through witness and video testamony that he was in violation of all their safety regulations, or common sense (ie you do not hold your granddaughter outside the window, or lean forward with her with one arm) than they are not liable. Even if they find him not guilty, they can still contest the lawsuit on the grounds that he lifted her up on the rail against company written policy.

If he went on the open deck and held her over the side or the railing, or sat her on the railing, it would be the same. 

You can't win a lawsuit if you didn't know the consequences of your action.  They will have to prove that he knew the window was open when he had his granddaughter.  I have read and seen enough to believe he knew the window was open, and that he actually stuck his head through it before he lifted her up.  Just my opinion.