Alleged Failure to Comply w 'Safety Standards.' Applicable/Relevant?
ASTM* Is an ASTM Standard a law?
Short Version: No, not necessarily a law. Complying w ASTM may be only "best practices" i.e., not mandatory. So even if ship did not comply w a certain ASTM std. that is not a necessarily a 'violation' of law.
Longer Version: Complaint alleges multiple times that RCCL's Frdm/Seas window configuration violates ASTM standards. Per below, compliance w ASTM standards is voluntary, unless adopted as a requirement by "an external contract, corporation, or government." *
Not clear to me if US govt, or interntl compact, etc. have adopted any ASTM stds as applicable to RCL Alleged ASTM 'violation' may/may not be relevant or material. Even if a gov't, international compact, etc. has adopted many ASTM standards, a given std may not apply to Frdm/Seas. Like the one below, imo.
* "ASTM International,... is an international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services...
"ASTM International has no role in requiring or enforcing compliance with its standards. The standards, however, may become mandatory when referenced by an external contract, corporation, or government.
ASTM International - Wikipedia
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's ^ gen background re ASTM.. Below, one ASTM std. Complaint alleges re non-compl & negligent.
ASTM F2006- 17
Complaint, paragraph 26, alleges non-compliance w ASTM F2006- 17. The ASTM Notes, issued w standard itself, state, it applies to windows installed in "multiple family apartment buildings."
1. Scope
1.3 This safety specification applies only to devices intended to be applied to windows installed at heights of more than 75 ft 7 (23 m) above ground level in multiple family dwelling buildings...."
^ from ASTM F2006 - 17 Standard Safety Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices for Non-Emergency Escape (Egress) and Rescue (Ingress) Windows bbm
(If anyone drills down in ^ link and finds this std applies to Frdm/Seas, I'll send you a replica of the Reenactment Not-to-Scale Bikini Barbie/Ariel Doll. Just kidding.
)
Complaint, paragraph 27 "...Defendant knew or should have known of the industry standard set forth by above ASTM standards, yet Defendant’s vessel was not in compliance."
Complaint, paragraphs 34 and 35 allege cruiseline breached its duty of care in various ways and specifically in sub (i) by "
Failure to incorporate applicable standards, including the ASTM and/or other industry standards..."
Since that particular ASTM standard applies to windows installed in "multiple family apartment buildings" it is not applicable to ship. RCL's failure to comply w that not-applicable standard was not a breach of duty of care, as alleged in para 35(i).
IOW, Complaint alleges non-compliance/violation of a safety standard that is irrelevant, immaterial (does not pertain).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
@Forever Young bbm sbm Maybe rethink?
I was able to find a similar case. The wording in the complaint and response is very similar to the case(s) we are discussing. It happened at a hotel in California, and the article is dated 2014. I am unsure of the final outcome of this particular case, i. e. if there were further appeals.
The family claimed that the hotel was negligent when their five year old son fell from a second story window when the screen he was leaning on gave way.
"Window Code Compliant
The Beach and Tennis Club defended the lawsuit claiming Michael’s parents were careless and inattentive, and the screen through which he fell was not a safety device and was not defective; additionally, the window complied with all applicable building codes.
The trial court ruled for the Club concluding it was not required to “forestall the foreseeable consequences of others’ negligent conduct.”
Innkeeper Duty
In California, a hotel owner or innkeeper “owes a duty to its guests to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition…a duty to protect guests against unreasonable risk of physical harm…an innkeeper is not an insurer of the safety of the guests.” So the cases say.
New Law
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that a property owner’s compliance with the building code does not in and of itself establish that the owner has exercised due care. The Court, I believe creating a new, higher standard of care for hotels in California, wrote: “Balancing the foreseeability of the risk of harm against the burden of eliminating or mitigating the risk weighs in favor of a determination that the scope of a hotel owner’s duty includes taking measures to protect children from falling from such windows.”
The
La Jolla Beach Tennis Club case is what is called a summary judgment decision so is viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, but young Michael’s parents are now allowed to take their case to a jury (where they must prove negligence) because
the Court of Appeal found the Beach and Tennis Club failed to show it had no duty to take measures to prevent an accident like Michael’s.
Unless the Legislature steps in or this case is overturned by the California Supreme Court, this decision will have a profound impact and essentially require hotels in California to install window safety devices."
Hotel Responsible for a Child's Fall from a Window? - Porter Simon
Do you think this terrible tragedy will result in changes being made to the design of RC future ships? I just wonder about the impact it will have if any going forward. I’m not blaming the design of the ship at all it’s just something I have wondered about.
