Parents of 15 year old girl sue Cruise Operator

model · 16-04-2006 03:26PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:28PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:31PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:44PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:45PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:47PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:48PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:50PM

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 · 16-04-2006 03:54PM

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 · 16-04-2006 04:06PM

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 · 16-04-2006 04:11PM

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 · 16-04-2006 04:11PM

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 · 16-04-2006 04:18PM

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 · 16-04-2006 05:20PM

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 · 16-04-2006 10:21PM

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 · 17-04-2006 12:09AM

TimAy wrote:

Where were the parents?

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

honru · 17-04-2006 01:00AM

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 · 17-04-2006 02:36AM

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 · 17-04-2006 02:41AM

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 · 17-04-2006 04:36AM

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

[SaB] Larsson · 17-04-2006 05:06PM

How can some of you people say such things? Think what would happen if you lost your daughter/sister/cousin under these circumstances.

model · 17-04-2006 05:10PM

county wrote:

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

Wait until you have something to back that up before making such a libelous claim. I believe the papers said they were in their room.

neGev wrote:

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.

Again, if you have evidence of her parents being drunk then please bring it to the table. Otherwise, you have have no right to say that.

If your daughter was drunk (hypothetically), are you going to put her to bed and watch her until the morning? You may say yes to back-up your point but I would imagine most people would think she would be fine in bed. What if she fell out of a window? It was a freak accident, most people would think she would be fine in her bed. I dont think anyone would have thought of what was later to happen.

stevie06 seems to know what he's talking about and would further suggest the company were highly neglegent. A girl in a school in Dublin scratched her arm off a wall and her parents sued the school, and won. Thats ridiculous, but I dont know how you can blame the parents from getting as much compensation as possible from the company; afterall whether or not the parents were somewhat at fault, it is quite clear the cruise company was too.

These parents have lost their 15 year old daughter forever, some of you dont seem to be taking that into account.

blu_sonic · 17-04-2006 05:11PM

county wrote:

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

From what I heard they were asleep, in the cabin, having tucked in their child.

segadreamcast · 17-04-2006 05:49PM

blu_sonic wrote:

From what I heard they were asleep, in the cabin, having tucked in their child.

Wrong. Stop introducing bias. Read the eyewitness report(s).

kmart6 · 17-04-2006 06:08PM

Did anybody see the father when he was on Ireland AM???

For those who didnt he said on that about recovering the body that some Police Captain(think it was a captain)who was on the boat and was trained at deep sea diving,had told him that her body would have floated atleast four miles backwards due to the speed of the boat and the height of her fall!!!

I reall believe that if the family do get anything out of the Cruise operater its an injustice as she was their responsibility and not the cruise liners!!!

SpAcEd OuT · 17-04-2006 06:09PM

[SaB] Larsson wrote:

How can some of you people say such things? Think what would happen if you lost your daughter/sister/cousin under these circumstances.

No ones saying its not a tragic inciddent, this is a discussion forum, we are discussing the inciddent and whether people believe the cruise ship or parents are responsible, if you disagree with some of the statements then reply with why you think its wrong, I think a lot of people feel its wrong that the parents are putting the blame solely on the cruiseship

DOLEMAN · 17-04-2006 06:31PM

There's a lot of extreme views in this topic.

Yes, the parents have some blame, but they cannot be with their children all the time. It is fair to assume a 15 year old is safe enough on a ship. It is fair to assume a 15 year old won't be served alcohol. It is fair to assume a drunk child who has been put to bed won't end up floating in the sea.

It is also fair to assume that IF someone falls overboard the boat will immediately stop and a search and rescue type situation will happen. It appears this was not the case for quite some time after the incident.

The parents definitely have a case. The bar should not have served her alcohol and the ship should have stopped when she fell overboard.

model · 17-04-2006 06:43PM

kmart6 wrote:

she was their responsibility and not the cruise liners!!!

Are you isaying that the cruise liner had no responsibility towards its customers?

whiskeyman · 17-04-2006 06:49PM

model wrote:

Are you isaying that the cruise liner had no responsibility towards its customers?

It wouldnt surprise me.
Some of the comments on this thread in relation to putting full blame on the parents, or them trying to throw full accountability on the operator are ridiculous.

Doleman summed it up perfect:

doleman wrote:

The parents definitely have a case. The bar should not have served her alcohol and the ship should have stopped when she fell overboard.

It doesnt matter how the parents acted.... the operator is accountable for these two main issues no matter what.

eth0_ · 17-04-2006 06:56PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

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.

If you read the article rather than just look at the photo you'd have seen:

"And although she was just 15, she signed for all the drinks herself, even though her cruise charge card indicated she was underage."

Parents of 15 year old girl sue Cruise Operator

Comments