IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
katydid23 said:
Is it an 'accident' when you do something that puts your child in danger?

Sure, falling out of the window was an 'accident.' But she should never have been propped up alongside that open window in the 1st place. That is not an accident, that is negligence. Criminal negligence, imo.
Click to expand...
It’s not an accident because he willfully put her in danger. Any reasonable adult can see that placing that child up there was taking a dangerous risk. IMO
Willful criminal negligence. JMO
 
katydid23 said:
Normally, I pay no attention to silly tickets.

But in this case, considering I am questioning if he has issues with safety rules and with carelessness, I have to take those tickets into account.

Who gets several tickets for not wearing seatbelts? Wouldn't you start wearing them at some point? It just seems stubborn and obstinate to continue the same behavior, enough to get a few more tickets. That would also affect his insurance premiums.

I have to wonder if it shows a personality defect, that he would wilfully get several tickets for the same silly infraction, which is unsafe and costs him a lot in penalties and insurance. What is the point of that behaviour?

I know, I know, it is just misdemeanour tickets and no big deal. But to me, it shows a pattern on his part, of ignoring safety and of ignoring laws and accountability. JMO
Click to expand...
Maybe there is a personality type.
 
Last edited:
MsBetsy said:
Oh, ok, so I guess it's not a barrier at all. I thought maybe he was breaking some kind of safety rule by lifting her over it.
Also in the picture in the article that was just posted with the detectives at the scene the metal bar looks much lower than in other pictures I've seen. I thought he lifted her much higher to place her over the metal bar. In that picture it looks like it's only a couple of inches higher than the window ledge.
I'm not sure why he removed one arm from around her, then.

Imo
Click to expand...
Technically, SA did break a safety rule. According to the Guest Conduct Policy passengers are not allowed to sit, stand climb on or over any of the ship's railings, not just the exterior ones. From the policy statement:
Unsafe Behavior
Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers, or tampering with ship’s equipment, facilities or systems designed for guest safety is not permitted. Guests may not enter or access any area that is restricted and for the use of crew members. Any other unsafe behavior, including failure to follow security instructions, is not permitted.
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/dam/royal/resources/pdf/guest-conduct-policy.pdf

Also, I learned that railing heights are 42" - I'll try and find the source again. The railing not only serves to help steady people in choppy seas but also to keep them a safe distance away from the windows. To me that alone indicates a safety feature and shouldn't require an additional sign saying to keep a safe distance from the windows. Or that the windows may be open. IOW I believe RCCL did their due diligence in keeping the passengers safe from falling out open windows.

And finally, after much thought I don't believe SA's color blindness made any difference in his inability to know that the window was open. The railing is about 10" - 12" from the window so not very far at all. The video showed that he leaned forward to see out the window so he had to have been no further than 5 or 6 inches from the open space.

IMO if he couldn't tell the window was open then something else was in play. What it could be I don't know. All MOO.

I'm a few pages behind so apologies if someone else has mentioned this.
ETA: And sure enough I just saw that @oviedo has already addressed the ship policy. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
That's what makes this a great place for discussion---we are all different. :)

I agree with you that many grandpas don't make an effort to get involved. And it is nice when they do.

But in doing so, they need to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their involvement. That means watching the children, caring for them and safeguarding them.

I don't give him the benefit of the doubt because he himself created the horribly dangerous situation for this sweet baby girl. She would have been fine standing up against the bottom window and looking at the view below.

There was no need at all for her to be swept up into that top window ledge. She was too young to even need to look out that window for any reason. She doesn't even understand. She would have been happy as can be just looking out the bottom window at the big blue ocean wAves.

His 'enjoyment' was at the cost of her life. He used ZERO common sense. That makes me very angry. He literally ruined his family's life by being so reckless and careless. It is heartbreaking.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me.
 
MsMarple said:
Technically, SA did break a safety rule. According to the Guest Conduct Policy passengers are no allowed to sit, stand climb on or over any of the ship's railings, not just the exterior ones. From the policy statement:
Unsafe Behavior
Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers, or tampering with ship’s equipment, facilities or systems designed for guest safety is not permitted. Guests may not enter or access any area that is restricted and for the use of crew members. Any other unsafe behavior, including failure to follow security instructions, is not permitted.
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/dam/royal/resources/pdf/guest-conduct-policy.pdf

Also, I learned that railing heights are 42" - I'll try and find the source again. The railing not only serves to help steady people in choppy seas but also to keep them a safe distance away from the windows. To me that alone indicates a safety feature and shouldn't require an additional sign saying to keep a safe distance from the windows. Or that the windows may be open. IOW I believe RCCL did their due diligence in keeping the passengers safe from falling out open windows.

And finally, after much thought I don't believe SA's color blindness made any difference in his inability to know that the window was open. The railing is about 10" - 12" from the window so not very far at all. The video showed that he leaned forward to see out the window so he had to have been no further than 5 or 6 inches from the open space.

IMO if he couldn't tell the window was open then something else was in play. What it could be I don't know. All MOO.

I'm a few pages behind so apologies if someone else has mentioned this.
ETA: And sure enough I just saw that @oviedo has already addresses the ship policy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
SA said in his interview Chloe couldn't reach the lower windows, that's why he put her on rail. Now I know what he meant, in order for Chloe to bang on the lower windows, she would have to go under the railing which isn't allowed, so he decided he would lean over the rail, holding her around the waist with one arm so he could use the other arm to touch the glass which wasn't there. This sounds nonsensical.
 
Thanks, lawyers @gitana1 and @Alethea for chiming in!

Question for y'all: As a layperson my understanding of the civil suit means that the family must prove negligence on RCCL's part by arguing that RCCL should have known that sitting a child on the railing could result in the child falling out of an open window either because it had happened before or because it is reasonable to assume that sitting a child on the railing in front of an open window could result in the child falling out.

IOW that RCCL should have foreseen potential harm in such actions and failed to take precautions to prevent it.

It makes no sense to me as there has never been a similar accident on a cruise ship. Am I missing something? I know that historically cruise line operators have not been held responsible for passengers falling overboard due to drunkenness or suicide. What would Winkleman's strongest argument be?

Thanks! I don't want to put either of you on the spot so no pressure - I'm looking for opinions only.
 
MsMarple said:
Thanks, lawyers @gitana1 and @Alethea for chiming in!

Question for y'all: As a layperson my understanding of the civil suit means that the family must prove negligence on RCCL's part by arguing that RCCL should have known that sitting a child on the railing could result in the child falling out of an open window either because it had happened before or because it is reasonable to assume that sitting a child on the railing in front of an open window could result in the child falling out.

IOW that RCCL should have foreseen potential harm in such actions and failed to take precautions to prevent it.

It makes no sense to me as there has never been a similar accident on a cruise ship. Am I missing something? I know that historically cruise line operators have not been held responsible for passengers falling overboard due to drunkenness or suicide. What would Winkleman's strongest argument be?

Thanks! I don't want to put either of you on the spot so no pressure - I'm looking for opinions only.
Click to expand...
I’m not either of these awesome attorneys but I think his early arguments were that there shouldn’t be windows that open at all and the cruise line is negligent in this design that doesn’t clearly differentiate between open and closed windows IMO otherwise I can’t see any negligence he could be pursuing
 
gitana1 said:
Ok. And the video appears to show him leaning forward, then putting her on the rail standing up and leaning forward, then backing up and sitting her on the rail, then leaning forward again. So not fast.
Click to expand...

Im talking about the msm video of SA and his defense counsel walking out. That’s when defense said

Edited to add above never got sent and has been edited for ease of following.

This superimposed picture is unreal.

BetteDavisEyes said:
Freedom of the Seas Fatality?
Click to expand...
upload_2019-11-30_19-20-52.png

Freedom of the Seas Fatality?
 
Last edited:
oviedo said:
I’m not either of these awesome attorneys but I think his early arguments were that there shouldn’t be windows that open at all and the cruise line is negligent in this design that doesn’t clearly differentiate between open and closed windows IMO otherwise I can’t see any negligence he could be pursuing
Click to expand...

can you get this blog and pic over to your time line before it disappears?
Freedom of the Seas Fatality?
 
oviedo said:
I’m not either of these awesome attorneys but I think his early arguments were that there shouldn’t be windows that open at all and the cruise line is negligent in this design that doesn’t clearly differentiate between open and closed windows IMO otherwise I can’t see any negligence he could be pursuing
Click to expand...
Yep! And also, I know I sound like a broken record but this whole business about banging on the glass has my dander up.

Who the heck wants to sit near some kid pounding on the windows while they're trying to enjoy their vacation? For that matter who wants to go to their kid's hockey game and listen to some kid pounding on the glass? Are these people clueless about common courtesy?

The CCTV video had no audio so SA's claim of lifting Chloe up to let her bang on the glass must have come from what he said to the parents later. Would he have said that to Chloe's mom while she was screaming and trying to understand what happened to her child? I doubt it. So when did he say it?

I do think this was a tragic accident that happened while a caregiver acted irresponsibly and I certainly am sorry for the entire family who have lost such a sweet little girl. But it pisses me off that they closed ranks and defended SA's actions and threw up smoke and mirrors to deflect where the real blame lies. MOO.
 
Last edited:
I've always heard the word "reasonable" bandied about where negligence is concerned. In other words, the standard needed to find culpability is what would a reasonable person do, what would a reasonable person expect to happen if they engage in that behavior? IMO

I can't imagine any reasonable person expecting a pane of window glass to be, somehow, a greater distance away from the window frame than every other window in a set of windows. And that's what SA implied, IMO, when he expected the window to be there when he leaned out of it. What I wrote might be hard to understand, but maybe that's exactly the point. . . I can't understand it!

I don't believe a reasonable person would move a toddler from a relatively safe floor, and place her on a precarious perch over 3 feet off the ground, surrounded by glass, then hold her with only one arm while leaning towards a window, much less out of or through a window. And certainly not 150 feet off the ground. Even if she didn't get dropped, there's a pretty good chance she'd be startled and frightened by the sight, especially if she's never been exposed to such heights previously.

For me, it goes far beyond the kind of accident where a child rolls off a couch, or bangs their head on a piece of furniture or gets their hand caught in a door. All of those types of incidents occur because of the actions of the child. Bumps and bruises are part of every kid's development. They learn, first hand, that the world around them can inadvertently hurt them. They begin to notice these things. They learn from experiences. They figure out that actions have consequences. In most cases, they become more observant of their environment as they grow and mature.

And, until that time, I think its reasonable to expect that adults will make sure they come between the child and a world of danger that surrounds them.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 184 more.
Total: 727 (members: 185, guests: 542)

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
542
Total visitors
727
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,207
Messages
18,236,277
Members
234,320
Latest member
treto20
Back
Top