Mentally, it must be easier to live with to say it's the ship's fault, because living with that mistake would be agonizing as a grandparent--but he has to own up to it.

no doubt the grandfather bears the vast majority of responsibility here, say, 98%.

that said, where there are risks of falls and such, any business really should do what they reasonably can to warn and reduce accidents or even stupidity/negligence.

having the windows closed is a reasonable safety measure. i'm willing to bet the ship will quietly change their policy to do exactly that, as well they should.

but because the whole situation could have been avoided with closed windows, i don't think it's unreasonable to put a very small percentage of fault on the ship.

you would agree that closed windows would be safer, right? locked windows even more so?

Even in the earliest versions of the story, the grandfather admits to doing that:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2019/07/08/royal-caribbean-death-what-we-know-cruise-ship-death/1674298001/

and as i've said, i have no problem assigning 98% of the fault to him.

pointing out that the ship could have and should have taken some small steps to prevent such tragedies doesn't take away from putting the vast majority of the fault on the grandfather.

as i said, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

...a man would dangle his granddaughter out of an open window.

Going forward, sure. Let's lock the windows. Until this point, there would have been no antecedent incident informing the decision.

perhaps not on this particular ship, but windows in high places are not at all uncommon, and there have been many accidents, suicides, and scares.

in many places, probably most places, i hope, building codes prevent situation were windows can be opened, at least not without bars on the windows or a balcony or some other such protections against falls. my guess is that ships may not be subject to any of these as they generally operate under maritime law, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to have such protections.

eric clapton's son died from a fall from an open window in a high-rise, and michael jackson infamously dangled his son over a railing. it's not like such things are unknown.

Only that it probably isn't common enough an occurrence to raise eyebrows when designing cruise ships.

this is actually pretty basic to have protections against falling. it's like having handrails on stairs.

50 years ago, sure, such things were not common in building codes and such, but such things are very standard now.

and anyone running a facility without such features built-in really should have operational precautions in place, such as keeping the windows closed at a minimum.


again, this doesn't take away from the grandfather having the vast majority of fault here.

Suffice it to say:

1) A seafaring vessel is not a building.

2) This was not an accident. The child didn't fall through the window. They were held outside the window and dropped. This could have happened literally anywhere else had it struck grampa's fancy. He could have held the child over a railing, or over the edge of the main deck. He could have held the child out over the water on the gangway. If the logic is going to be, "seal off all windows because some prick might toss his grandchild out for teh lulz", then where does this responsibility reasonably stop? I know you aren't holding the cruise liner totally liable here, but I think assigning any degree of legal responsibility in this case sets a bad precedent.

1) yes, it's a ship and not a building, but that has nothing to do with the safety issue here. it may have something to do with legal jurisdiction and building codes or the marine equivalent, but it has nothing to do with the safety issue here. there are people, a window, and enough height for a fall to be lethal. the fact that there's a lot of water nearby isn't really relevant in this case.

2) the fact that there was clear negligence on the part of the grandfather also isn't really relevant to whether or not the ship has any responsibility here (though it certainly affects the percentage of responsibility). what's relevant is that it's a preventable death. building codes and such are partly designed with suicides in mind, which also aren't really "accidents". so what? keeping a window closed or having netting installed underneath would have prevented this tragedy, and i don't think it's unreasonable to encourage the ship company to take such precautions.

some tall buildings and some bridges deny people access to places where people might commit suicide or accidentally fall. many have windows that can't be opened at all or have bars on the windows or balconies or nets.

as for setting a "bad precedent"... really? is it really a bad outcome if the ship takes steps to prevent tragedies?

How about if they opened half way

so if half-open can be done in a safe fashion, then sure.

If all you care about is safe - stay home

Statistically speaking opens windows have not been a problem

Yes it's uncommon. A lot of accidental fatalities are uncommon. Airplane crashes are uncommon. But we take precautions just in case. We have building codes to reduce the number and severity of accidents.

Having a closed window or netting underneath or some other protection against accidental falls does not seriously diminish the life experience of a cruise.

A fair compromise

Safety is important but not the only factor

Those cabins are claustrophobically tiny
A half open window in necessary

But we agree, not so hard to provide an experience that's both safe and enjoyable.

Just a horrible situation all around.

If the grandfather is pleading guilty how can the family still be suing the cruise line?