But you didnt say that 'open' windows were perceived as dangerous. Here is the quote:
Here is the question you were asked:
@Forever Young Yes, could happen w same results. Not sure if you are commenting on Wiegand or RCL.
Are you saying because (you think/someone thinks) there is a condition on RCL ship was could be made safer, that someone should file a lawsuit to encourage, or for a court to order, RCL to make condition safer, even without any being injured?
Or saying something else?
Your answer:
Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.
I also have read other forums and comments on this case.
Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.
The trial court also based its no duty determination on the fact that “there were no prior incidents of anyone or anything falling from any windows․” 8 However, “ ‘[t]he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not ․ show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’ [Citation.] Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.” (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47; Lane v. City of Sacramento (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1346 [absence of other similar accidents is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the issue of whether a condition is dangerous].)
FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.
=======================================================
So why wouldn't Grandpa recognise this danger? Do we have to know what he was thinking to know his thinking was faulty and lacking common sense?