Parents of 15 year old girl sue Cruise Operator

embraer170

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1837441&page=1

The follow up to this story:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054871301

ronbyrne2005

"Paul O'Brien believes that the tragedy could have been averted much earlier in the night. "If Lynsey had never been served alcohol onboard the cruise ship, my daughter would still be alive"

The girl looks older in the picture,no body was forcing the drink down her neck,she would have gotten the drink off someone anyway. maybe he has a case if ships staff didnt follow procedures to rescue her from water but i dont think he has much of a case on the drink issue,we all know what irish 15 year olds are like with drink.

casanova_kid

What are the laws regarding alcohol on international waters or is there any?

casanova_kid

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

"Paul O'Brien believes that the tragedy could have been averted much earlier in the night. "If Lynsey had never been served alcohol onboard the cruise ship, my daughter would still be alive"

The girl looks older in the picture,no body was forcing the drink down her neck,she would have gotten the drink off someone anyway. maybe he has a case if ships staff didnt follow procedures to rescue her from water but i dont think he has much of a case on the drink issue,we all know what irish 15 year olds are like with drink.

Just because nobody forced drink down her, doesn't mean it was right to serve a 15 year old girl a dangerous amount of alcohol. I don't bide by that crap that she looks older, would you apply that sort of thinking to statutory rape or anything else.

ronbyrne2005

casanova_kid wrote:

Just because nobody forced drink down her, doesn't mean it was right to serve a 15 year old girl a dangerous amount of alcohol. I don't bide by that crap that she looks older, would you apply that sort of thinking to statutory rape or anything else.

bit of a stretch to rape there but what im saying is she had a certain level of responsibility too, who says all the drink on charge card was hers? its says the was other teenagers with her but some bartender from a poor country getting minimum wage(as is case on cruis ships) is suposed to be responsible for this??? it was a terrible accident and that is all.family are clutching at straws

RobertFoster

Oooh, bad show on ABC News. The ad before the video played was for Mastercard, with some guy jumping off a boat :eek:

casanova_kid

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

bit of a stretch to rape there but what im saying is she had a certain level of responsibility too, who says all the drink on charge card was hers? its says the was other teenagers with her but some bartender from a poor country getting minimum wage(as is case on cruis ships) is suposed to be responsible for this??? it was a terrible accident and that is all.family are clutching at straws

Agree that girl was mostly responsible for her own actions but that's not to excuse the barteder. The fact that the bartender may have been on the minimum wage is irrevelant.

Duiske

The bars(which were over 18's only),shops on that boat were non-cash, and worked on a sort of credit card basis. When someone purchased something it was charged to the persons room and the bill was settled at the end of the trip. All passengers were issued with these cards, and if the passenger was under 18, this was stated on the card to ensure against bar purchase's. In this case, the girl's parents have her card and also bar receipts signed by her, so basically the cruise company are screwed.

JackKelly

Where were the parents?

alleepally

There's a bit of confusion on that story because a number of stories in Irish newspapers previous to this ABC one indicates she DID have a valid pass to obtain alcohol.

It's a tragic story and terrible for the family but I think the father has lost the plot and wants to blame someone for his daughters death. She could have been at home in Ireland, knacker drinking like so many other Irish teenagers at the weekend, and could have had an accident and died. Who would he blame then?

RuggieBear

why weren't the parents looking after their child?

DublinWriter

RuggieBear wrote:

why weren't the parents looking after their child?

I agree, 'child' being the operative word as she was legally a minor.

Sueing won't bring her back either.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

RuggieBear wrote:

why weren't the parents looking after their child?

Exactly, she's 15 fer god's sake!!

alleepally

I read a passenger account of the cruise at

http://www.cruisejunkie.com/CMacct.html

which was linked to from

http://www.cruisebruise.com/Lynsey_OBrien.html

segadreamcast

I know the family in a roundabout way (not in a way that'd cloud my judgement) and, thus, have been following this story with great interest.

I'm not gonna go through many details, but just state my opinion: a great onus of blame lies with the parents - and I'd be very surprised if they came out of this with anything...

segadreamcast

From AllePally's page:

" if the security did more! That girl should not have been by herself! "

So why is the onus on the security? How about the family, who were aware of her presence in the room, from what I gather.

EDIT: " The security guy came back pretty quickly and the American boy said he’d ‘get their parents’. In a few minutes he returned with a couple that looked like they were being inconvenienced!!" Actually yeah, there it is.

youcancallmeal

This is a terrible thing for all concerned. I dont think having a go at the parents is appropriate.

SpAcEd OuT

It's her own fault to be honest, she knew she shouldn't be drinking at that age and she made the decision to drink, theres a reason why you must be over a certain age to drink and she ignored it, that said it was a very tragic inciddent and everyone makes mistakes but putting full blame on the cruise ship for the inciddent isn't right, she made the decision to get drunk and her parents decided to leave their 15year old daughter unattended in her room after consuming vast amounts of alcohol which is very bad parenting in my opnion

segadreamcast

youcancallme>al wrote:

This is a terrible thing for all concerned. I dont think having a go at the parents is appropriate.

I'm not having a go but, on that note, I don't think the parents blaming other people is too appropriate either.

model

casanova_kid wrote:

would you apply that sort of thinking to statutory rape or anything else.

As much as I feel what you are saying is quite disrespectful, but in a way correct, you asked a quesiton and I will answer it, sort of.

With regards to stat rape, it is possible to use that you thought she was above the legal age as a defence. Cant remember the correcet language to use but i covered this subject briefly while doing debating.

Moving on, I dont think we should criticise the O' Brien family, yes Lynsey wasnt forced to drink, but she was still served and with all due respect, she does not look older than 18. Although Im not sure if I am in a position to say that as I wasnt there at the time.

None the less, reading the article in Ireland on Sunday, I did feel somewhat emotional on the subject.

Rest in peace, Lynsey.

stepbar

Ive been following this story for a while now and to be honest as much of a tradegy it has been, the parents of must take the majority of the responcibility here, they brought her into the world at the end of the day. What they are trying to do is stick their head in the sand hiding their guilt by sueing anybody and everybody. That aint goin to bring Lyndsey back. To be honest she should have been asked for ID but lets be clear about this underage drinkin happens everywhere (doesnt mean its right but it happens and the kids involved will find a way to get drunk) you only have to go down to the wezz at the wkend to know what im talking about

Heinrich

Was this the first time the unfortunate young lady drank alcohol? The parents have a duty towards their offspring and if the did not detect their child's drinking, whether on that cruise of at home then there was something lacking in the parent control department.

Going on holidays and expecting that others should be responsible for their children is not realistic! I am a parent whose offspring are now adults and at every stage of their upbringing I was aware of what they were engaged in. Sometimes it was not to my liking and possibly risky but in the long run they were MY responsibility!

projectmayhem

model wrote:

Moving on, I dont think we should criticise the O' Brien family, yes Lynsey wasnt forced to drink, but she was still served and with all due respect, she does not look older than 18. Although Im not sure if I am in a position to say that as I wasnt there at the time.

while you are right, she shouldn't have been served without a valid ID (i don't know the full story, so maybe she did have a fake ID.. lets be honest, 15 year olds will be 15 year olds), bar staff can make a judgement call on weather or not she was legal. obviously they were wrong, but blaming them or other ship staff is ridiculous.

the onus here is on the parents. it was their 15 year old child off at the bar. they were neglegent, and sueing the management of the ship will probably yield no results, and it shouldn't either.

tba

I believe there are varying degrees of vicarious liability.

whiskeyman

This topic really has turned into a heated debate for many, with the "I blame the parents" angle really coming through.

I think there are many aspects that have to be examined:

• 15 year old served alcohol - Cruise Ship to blame.... bartender later fired over incident, and better practice brought in (apparently...).
  
• Parents left 15 year old daughter with friend for the night - onus on parents to know her whereabouts, but still onus on Cruise ship staff to protect her from any harm on board.
  
• Parents bring drunken child to bed - surely one of the parents should have stayed with her and not left her with younger sister. Are they used to finding their 15 yr old daughter drunk and just let her sleep it off?
  Serious lapse of judgement by parents in my opinion.
  
• The search / non-search is the next area where questions are asked of the Cruise ship, as no procedure appeared to be in place. This is a serious matter against the company.

They are right to take action against the company for the incident, however noone should take this as a "washing of hands" by the family as if they are not themselves to blame somewhat. If you read any of Paul O'Briens interviews, especially in the Irish Times 2 weekends ago, he seemed to admit that perhaps he didnt do all he could himself to prevent this tragic case.
However, he has paid dearly through the death of his 15 year old daughter..... I fully believe the Cruise Liner company must also be held accountable for their errors.

model

projectmayhem wrote:

the onus here is on the parents. it was their 15 year old child off at the bar. they were neglegent, and sueing the management of the ship will probably yield no results, and it shouldn't either.

Having read this

Around 10:30pm some children in the O'Brien party saw Lynsey at a bar on the back of ship being served drinks. She was in the bar using her ship charge card, that was clearly marked as a Children's Charge Card. Durning the course of the night, her card record shows she was served 12 vodka mixed drinks.

from http://www.cruisebruise.com/Lynsey_OBrien.html I would disagree.

A cruise ship should be seen as a safe place. Her parents, you may argue, could have been more responsible but then again, she was limited to the confines of th e ship rather than the city of Dublin. I do not believe it was her parents fault, you cannot expect them to be with her all the time, and at the age of 15, she was likely to have been of a mature enough age to be on her own (or with her sisters) on the ship.

As I said, we shouldnt publically criticise a family who have recently lost a daughter/sister etc and do not even have a body to bury.

segadreamcast

It's a cruise ship, not a creche. Parents still have a responsibility.

whiskeyman

NoelRock wrote:

Parents still have a responsibility.

Of course they do, but so does the operator.
There are two key failings by the operator - serving a minor alcohol, and the apparent lack of procedure / action taken for searching for a person overboard.
Both are valid reasons for them to be held accountable.
However, as I've already pointed out, the parents are also accountable to some degree, and have already paid the price.

aphex™

I'm not sure they'll win the case.

whiskeyman wrote:

[*]15 year old served alcohol - Cruise Ship to blame.... bartender later fired over incident, and better practice brought in (apparently...).

They already had a policy of not serving minors but sure it was in international waters so no laws broken.

whiskeyman wrote:

[*]The search / non-search is the next area where questions are asked of the Cruise ship, as no procedure appeared to be in place. This is a serious matter against the company.[/LIST]

Realistically, she was probably dead after hitting the water from up high. It is like concrete from up high. Maybe the cruise crew realised this? People jump off bridges all the time, the deaths are caused by head injuries usually, not drowning. The ship company may bring evidence like that to court.

segadreamcast

aphex&#8482 wrote:

I'm not sure they'll win the case.

They already had a policy of not serving minors but sure it was in international waters so no laws broken.


Realistically, she was probably dead after hitting the water from up high. It is like concrete from up high. Maybe the cruise crew realised this? People jump off bridges all the time, the deaths are caused by head injuries usually, not drowning. The ship may bring evidence like that to court.

As well as the water being shark-infested, the girl being drunk and unable to swim, and the propellors of the boat. There wasn't a hope in hell of survival after five minutes...the crew couldn't have done a thing, and would've been endangering their own lives in the process for nothing.

whiskeyman

aphex&#8482 wrote:

I'm not sure they'll win the case.

Well, we've yet to see all the evidence and where exactly they intend to focus on, but I'd probably agree. But you can't deny the family wanting the operator to be held accountable too.

aphex&#8482 wrote:

They already had a policy of not serving minors but sure it was in international waters so now laws broken.

But breach of policy then directly affected the welfare of the passengers - this would then be a breach of contract with the customer? I dont think the whole "international waters" is an issue tbh, as they'll focus on company policy and procedure.

With regards the rescue, I do agree she probably had a minimal survival chance, but there's still procedure to be taken and the possbility of finding a body.

model

Minimal, yet possible. I also do not see how they would have risked their lives, sounds a bit too "4 man SAS team operating behind enemy lines". It was their duty to do their utmost to protect their customers, and they failed to do this.

segadreamcast

model wrote:

Minimal, yet possible. I also do not see how they would have risked their lives, sounds a bit too "4 man SAS team operating behind enemy lines". It was their duty to do their utmost to protect their customers, and they failed to do this.

Nah, not minimal, more like 'not a hope in hell'. The combined factors (mainly her being drunk) would've scuperred any hopes of survival after the first five minutes.

projectmayhem

model wrote:

Having read this from http://www.cruisebruise.com/Lynsey_OBrien.html I would disagree.

fair point but as someone said, that guy was given the boot and new policies were apparently introduced to the ship - but none of this takes away from the fact that the parents should have known what their daughter was up to. she was, after all, only 15.

as someone else said, it's a ship, not a creche.

model wrote:

A cruise ship should be seen as a safe place. Her parents, you may argue, could have been more responsible but then again, she was limited to the confines of th e ship rather than the city of Dublin. I do not believe it was her parents fault, you cannot expect them to be with her all the time, and at the age of 15, she was likely to have been of a mature enough age to be on her own (or with her sisters) on the ship.

well maturity comes in different levels. obviously i don't know the family from adam, but their daughter was off at the bar long enough to get very drunk. i've been on such ships before (when i was mid-teens) and anytime i was out of sight from my parents i was getting calls/texts asking where i was.

model wrote:

As I said, we shouldnt publically criticise a family who have recently lost a daughter/sister etc and do not even have a body to bury.

i agree, but i don't think anyone would critique them like this under any other circumstances OTHER then sueing the ship. the family are clearly laying the blame on anyone but themselves, so i think people (including myself) see that as giving free license to voice an opinion

aidan_walsh

You know whats being lost in the middle of all this? This is a tragic consequence of one Irish child doing what thousands of Irish children are doing.

Of course the parents should have known what was happening, as should all. And of course the staff on board the ship should have been more careful, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that people here are any less negligant.

A question to everyone putting the entire blame on the parents: did you ever take drink before you were 18? Did your parents know?

segadreamcast

aidan_walsh wrote:

You know whats being lost in the middle of all this? This is a tragic consequence of one Irish child doing what thousands of Irish children are doing.

Of course the parents should have known what was happening, as should all. And of course the staff on board the ship should have been more careful, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that people here are any less negligant.

A question to everyone putting the entire blame on the parents: did you ever take drink before you were 18? Did your parents know?

I've yet to drink, and I'm 18 - so that's probably a bad question to pose to me.

Edit: A flaw in your logic also is that, according to the eyewitness report earlier in this thread, and what I've managed to gather myself, the parents were aware of her intoxication as they went to the room and left soon after.

model

NoelRock wrote:

Nah, not minimal, more like 'not a hope in hell'. The combined factors (mainly her being drunk) would've scuperred any hopes of survival after the first five minutes.

Her being drunk is a good point, but there was one guy who was rescued after around 19 hours in the water. Shows its possible. Will post a link when I find it.

whiskeyman

projectmayhem wrote:

the family are clearly laying the blame on anyone but themselves, so i think people (including myself) see that as giving free license to voice an opinion

I disagree. If you saw my earlier post re Paul interviews, this is not the case, but is now the belief of many - and such belief is of course reflecting very poorly on the parents and questioning their nature to take action against the liner operator.
To take such a view is still no grounds to dismiss the faultings of the operator.

Noelrock wrote:

the parents were aware of her intoxication as they went to the room and left soon after.

This is the key point that, in my opinion, reflects worse on the parents.

aidan_walsh

NoelRock wrote:

I've yet to drink, and I'm 18 - so that's probably a bad question to pose to me.

Edit: A flaw in your logic also is that, according to the eyewitness report earlier in this thread, and what I've managed to gather myself, the parents were aware of her intoxication as they went to the room and left soon after.

After which she went to be sick and fell overboard. I don't see any flaw in my argument. Is every parent of a drunk teenage expected to sit at their bedside for fear that they might get up again?

segadreamcast

You were implying with that loaded question that if our parents were unaware that we were drunk, that potentially our parents would be as negligible, were you not?

The reality - of course - is entirely different, as her parents were aware which, once again, is not a variable that's present in your loaded (and barely relevant) question. It's very doubtful that the child was indeed in bed based on all the eye (ear?) witness reports.

Sam Vimes

aidan_walsh wrote:

After which she went to be sick and fell overboard. I don't see any flaw in my argument. Is every parent of a drunk teenage expected to sit at their bedside for fear that they might get up again?

yes, especially if you're then going to sue somebody else because you didn't

whiskeyman

Commander Vimes wrote:

yes, especially if you're then going to sue somebody else because you didn't

I don't think thats a valid point.
I totally agree this reflects poorly on the parents, but I believe the operator is still accountable for serving her alcohol and then for the lack of procedure or attempt for a rescue.
They never mentioned it was the operators fault for her falling overboard.

aidan_walsh

Parents have a responsibility to their children to ensure that they are safe. Children aren't known for making this easy on their parents. A lot of people are very quick to lay all the blame on the parents, where all I was saying is that children getting their hands on alcohol isn't restricted to cruise ships.

The point of my "barely relevant" question was that if one poster could admit to themselves that they had taken drink under age without their parents knowledge, then not all blame should be put on the O'Brien parents for what happened.

Yes, her parents were aware that she was drunk, and by all accounts it seems that she didn't get served after they discovered this. Clearly, they weren't aware of this before about 10.30, in which time she had had "far more than enough to make a full size adult legally drunk".

She fell overboard from her cabin, she had not left the room. Were her parents supposed to stay in there after they had discovered she was drunk?

Stench Blossoms

aidan_walsh wrote:

She fell overboard from her cabin, she had not left the room. Were her parents supposed to stay in there after they had discovered she was drunk?

I think they should have. If she was that intoxicated she shouldn't have been left on her own.

I know one of my friends was found completely "out of her face" drunk at 15 and her parents made her drink black coffee until she puked it all back up.

Sure enough she probably died on impact but they should have still made a better effort to rescue her.

DublinWriter

aidan_walsh wrote:

Is every parent of a drunk teenage expected to sit at their bedside for fear that they might get up again?

I'd say 'yes' myself until the parent knew the kid had sicked everything up as it's easy for someone to roll onto their back in their sleep and choke on their own vomit.

stevie06

aphex&#8482 wrote:

I'm not sure they'll win the case.

They already had a policy of not serving minors but sure it was in international waters so no laws broken.


Realistically, she was probably dead after hitting the water from up high. It is like concrete from up high. Maybe the cruise crew realised this? People jump off bridges all the time, the deaths are caused by head injuries usually, not drowning. The ship company may bring evidence like that to court.

international waters has nothing to do with this case, the ship must abide by there flag states laws at all time, this would include min age for drinking. if a ship is inside teritoral waters then then must abide by the relevant countries laws.

it would be fair to assume that she died on impact, especially if she hit the lifeboat as stated in one of the articles, but that does not releive the responisblity on the ships master and crew under SOLAS to carry out search and rescue until they are releived by a search party/ Maritime rescue corrdination center.
the usual procedure is to release a smoke/light beacon attached to a lifebouy, usually situated on the bridge wings. prior to this the ship would be swung to the side of the man overboard and then a willaimson turn would be completed (if done properly this maneourve would bring the ship on an course opposite to her original.) it sound like from the articles that a serious failure in communications resulted in a delay for the ship to caom arround. this delay may also be due to bad training standards. but then i dont know what nationalties are running these ships.

on the whole serving the girl drink the responisblisty is defo on the company, as they are responsible for all persons on board and safegaurds and training should be in palce to avoid this situation. it's just like you were walking down a path and fell in a open man hole, i beleive alot off people would sue the council, but this is the same as the bartender serving this girl drink and at that a huge amount of drink. so will say how, well the council shoud of ensured the man hole was safe ie roped off, with warning signs in palce, ie safegaurds, in this case the council would be neglegent, as was the cruise company for serving the girl drink.
its all about root causes, and from the sounds of it the route cause was the sale of alcohol to a minor. all the others are a concequence to the root cause.
(sorry about the spellings)

county

TimAy wrote:

Where were the parents?

from what i heard they were in the bar pissed out of there heads

honru

I think the parents did all they could do in this situation. Cruise ships are generally safe and monitored places, tailored for the whole family, and I certainly wouldn't want to be hanging around with me parents at 15.

I believe it comes down to the neglegence of the cruise chip and the irresponsibility of the child, the outcome is just unfortunate.

Thirdfox

Negligence, contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk - if I jump in a lions cage willing can I sue for injuries suffered? (Even if the warden had left the door unlocked?)

But a tragic case nonetheless, although in legal terms not that bizarre or by any means the saddest case I've seen so far.

neGev

First of all, I'd have to lay the blame squarely at the parents feet. Leaving your 15-year-old to run wild on a cruise ship while you get plastered is the act of somebody who doesn't care in the first place.

Secondly, I can't possibly fathom why they would leave her alone after realising she was drunk. Again, it sounds entirely uncaring.

Sueing the cruise company is their way of trying to pass the buck, which clearly stops with themselves. The parents obviously thought that their own daughter wasn't their responsibility while they were on board the ship and frankly, that attitude baffles me. Is this behaviour typical of them?

If I, God forbid, were the parent of a child who died in circumstances like these, I'd be keeping my head very low for a long time, not calling attention to myself like these pair have.
I'd like to know what they hope to achieve with this legal action - is it merely to assuage their guilty conscience? And what are they planning to do with the compensation if they win the case?

Judging by their previous behaviour, I'd be banking on a Merc or an Italian villa, not a crusade against underage drinking.

blu_sonic

thirfox wrote:

Negligence, contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk - if I jump in a lions cage willing can I sue for injuries suffered? (Even if the warden had left the door unlocked?)

how can you equate jumping into a lions cage with this what a stupid thing to say.

as far as i knoe the parents thought she was safely in bed in their cabin!

the bar are responsible for its patrons, ID is ment to be required for anyone who looks under 21, or is even a bit iffey

why did they keep serving her seeing as she was seemingly twisted thats irrasponsible of the bar.

where are the safety rails on the boats side? i doubt she climed over rails to get to the edge?

why was there such a delay in turning around?

why did the father have to personaly fund the rescce misson?

i hope he screws them for all he can.

RIP