Good read, thanks so much Kindred, you rock!
I’m not a lawyer but it appears to me that RC covered all their bases. Would love to see some of our attorneys here weigh in though.
From Page 6
ARGUMENT AND LAW
The facts set forth in the Complaint make clear that this is not a case of an unknowing child approaching an open window and falling out because the window was defective or improperly positioned. Rather, this is a case where an adult man, Salvatore Anello, voluntarily and unbeknownst to RCL, lifted his 18-month old granddaughter several feet above the deck and onto a railing that she could never have climbed on her own. In doing so, Mr. Anello placed Chloe mere inches away from a window that was open to the outside elements of wind and noise and, as the photographs in the Complaint show, was flanked by closed windows of tinted, reflective glass. Mr. Anello then purportedly held Chloe forward to allow her to bang on glass that he did not first attempt to touch himself. After doing so, Mr. Anello allowed Chloe to slip from his arms to her death. These series of unforeseeable events are a tragedy which RCL never had a chance to prevent. Whether Chloe fell several feet to the Deck 11, or over a hundred feet to her death, her fall would never have occurred had Mr. Anello not picked her up and placed her in peril, and then dropped her.
The Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint because:
1.No facts are alleged that would show RCL knew or had reason to know there was any dangerous condition that would result in Chloe’s death;
2.RCL owed no duty to warn Plaintiffs of the open and obvious danger associated with putting a child onto a railing and through an open window; and,
3. Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that any of RCL’s purported acts or omissions was the proximate cause of the incident or that they owed a duty to prevent the unforeseeable and irresponsible acts of Chloe’s grandfather.
