IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #4

[SouthAussie]

I know I had posted this in the original thread that was deleted. I’ve worked occasionally on the medic crew at a large professional sporting venue. I only work on days when events are being held, so maybe 20 days a year average.

This sporting venue’s owner is well known for having “deep pockets.” In the 20 years I have worked there I have seen a huge shift in how lawsuits are handled.

The lawsuits resulted mostly from slips and falls, and usually involved someone who had been drinking or horsing around. Most injuries were very, very minor. Someone would sue because they bruised their knee after slipping in the beer that they spilled themselves. I could go on listing examples but most were in that category.

Up until maybe 7 or 8 years ago nearly all lawsuits had been settled with a small token amount. This was basically thought of as a cost of doing business, settling nuisance lawsuits for $3,000 - $10,000 each, just to make them go away.

Well it became known that people were getting quick payouts for their injuries and the lawsuits increased greatly. So the owner of the venue decided to fight back and stopped paying anything out as settlement, but instead took every case to court. Most cases were dropped by the injured party after they didn’t get the quick settlement that they had expected.

Several cases that I had been involved with were fans who claimed to have fallen and injured their backs. They sued, and when the attorney for the venue investigated it was found that each of these people had prior back issues that required surgery and they didn’t have insurance. So they went to “deep pockets” venue to “slip and fall” so they could sue and “deep pockets” would have to pay for their surgery.

I am very happy that this venue no longer pays to settle frivolous lawsuits. I could seriously write a book on the crazy stuff people have sued this venue for.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, I just wanted to mention this as an example of a company that no longer pays settlement on lawsuits when they have no responsibility for injury.

Just to add to your post ... I have an old friend in the US whose fulltime job is to investigate the lawsuit plaintiffs. His are all medically related claims. People who have injured themselves 'somehow' and go on to sue.

There is a whole team at his office that investigate various aspects of an injury lawsuit claim. Yes, the insurance and other companies are fighting back.

 

[drama_farmer]

Forgot to mention - the breeze? It’s like having a fan blowing straight at your face - I’m on a cabana sofa and it’s blowing my hair all over - he knew the window was open IMO totally guilty of being dangerous with a baby

If you want smaller files to upload, check the settings from within your camera app. I have an android, and there are several options, from "huge" to "not so huge." IMO.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

For being in “a children’s play area” it is odd that you see so many adults and no other children in the video.

That's because the open window was in a bar area

 

[MsFacetious]

That's because the open window was in a bar area

Winkleman is just confused. He means to say an “over 21 play area.”

 

[SouthAussie]

For being in “a children’s play area” it is odd that you see so many adults and no other children in the video.

I was looking at the many, many photos of the H2O deck at this link. Many more adults than children. Adults in the jacuzzis, and laying out sunbathing.

Royal Caribbean Freedom of the Seas H2O Zone Photos - 73 Pictures

I checked out the Squeeze bar in the corner to see if it was only a juice bar. Alcohol bottles clearly can be seen.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Winkleman is just confused. He means to say an “over 21 play area.”

LOL! Compare video of Grandpa w/Chloe in the bar area of the ship with the photo (shopped?) of her standing alone in H2O Zone. Squeeze is clearly where the action is!

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I was looking at the many, many photos of the H2O deck at this link. Many more adults than children. Adults in the jacuzzis, and laying out sunbathing.

Royal Caribbean Freedom of the Seas H2O Zone Photos - 73 Pictures

I checked out the Squeeze bar in the corner to see if it was only a juice bar. Alcohol bottles clearly can be seen.

View attachment 221449

Booze is among the (many) ways that cruise lines make money Plenty of alcoholic beverages that include fruit

Note: Very easy to see which windows are open/closed in the photo.

 

[SouthAussie]

Booze is among the (many) ways that cruise lines make money Plenty of alcoholic beverages that include fruit

That bar is going to seriously affect a judge's decision on whether this is a kids zone where children are given free reign (and, therefore, no windows should ever be open - as per the lawsuit suggestion).
And such kids zones usually do not have jacuzzis, as there are restrictions for children and jacuzzis. H2O deck has jacuzzis.

I am wondering, too, if there is a sign there that children below a certain age must be accompanied by an adult (hopefully, a responsible one). Therefore, a responsible adult who would successfully oversee a young child's general safety and take responsibility. The present lifeguards are lifeguard(s), not babysitters.

 

[LietKynes]

Winkleman is just confused. He means to say an “over 21 play area.”

 

[Kindred]

RCCL CHANCES OF SETTLING

If past actions predict future actions, the family will come out with a statement again condemning the release of the video, and reaffirming their support of SA, and continue in their lawsuit. And may go one step further with more memories/images of how special Chloe was.

IIRC from legal info that has been posted here, they could still end up with some settlement from RCCL even if SA takes a plea. RCCL may have to follow the recommendation of their insurers to settle. (Although since RCCL has been publicly blamed, I hope they don't.) If the family receives any kind of settlement, they will be able to tell their son this is proof that RCCL bore some fault.

No. A civil suit, including the standards of proof, is very different from a criminal trial. In a civil trial, the family would only need to prove the cruise line was partially responsible. Even 10% responsible, and they would get something.

I hope, if they do this, that RCCL will not be found liable for even 1%. IMHO, it was SA 100%, and the videos even seem to show more than negligence.

I addressed this in one of the previous threads so I'm not going to go too in depth into this, but the chances of RCCL settling out of court for this is close to, if not actually 0. Why? Because of precedent.

The burden of proof, in this case, that the plaintiffs have to meet is was RC negligent in that they didn't know/predict that SA would put the child in the window and drop her from the 11th deck, and take steps that would have prevented him from doing it. The answer is that no, the Wiegands will never be able to prove that.

For one thing, the claim in the suit that the ship is in violation of regulations is bunk. They are trying to hold the cruise ship to building/hotel standards, not seagoing vessel standards. While they say that cruise ships are basically "floating hotels" the safety codes and regulations between the two are very different for very obvious reasons, they are in no way the same. All that RC has to do is to provide coast guard and other agency inspection reports showing that those windows are in full compliance with current applicable regulations and that argument is tossed.

For another, there has never been a child under the age of about 13-15 who has gone overboard/out of a window going back some 30 years of records. An online database going back to 1995 and listing all incidents of passengers/staff going overboard on commercial passenger vessels (cruise ships and ferrys) Chloe is the ONLY small child. The only other child listed is a 7-year-old involved in a suicide in which the mother took him and jumped with him. There has never been one previous incident of a child falling out of a window on a cruise ship, because most people have enough common sense to keep them away from them. No one else has ever needed to be warned to not put a child into the window on a cruise ship, so why would they have ever thought SA would have needed to be protected from himself? The standards they are claiming were set because children had fallen out of hotel/building windows, but since that hasn't happened on a cruise ship there isn't any reason to say that RC should be following those ones instead of the ones already in place. Cruise Passengers Overboard

And of course, RC already has clear safety instructions that passengers are issued prior to even showing up at the docks that SA ignored, stating that it's dangerous to sit/stand/climb on the railings. He was provided with those instructions prior to boarding and ignored them, putting her on the other side of said railing. By violating that set rule he takes on 100% of the blame.

As far as I can see, my opinion, there is absolutely NO CASE against the cruise line and absolutely no reason they or their insurer would settle in this instance. This case will probably be dismissed because they are suing on inapplicable standards or if it even goes to trial will be decided in RC favor, just as countless other lawsuits blaming them for people going overboard have been.

 

[they'll get you]

Agreed.
The video showed him leaning way out and twisting on his stomach.
Very odd as it took him a while to 'drop to the floor' in "anguish".
Imo.

I find it strange that no-one came to help him but all got up and walked away. Why?

Secondly, the smoking section has upright seats, ashtrays and tables, not those day-lounges.

Chilling new video of toddler cruise fall

 

[SouthAussie]

I find it strange that no-one came to help him but all got up and walked away. Why?

Secondly, the smoking section has upright seats, ashtrays and tables, not those day-lounges.

Chilling new video of toddler cruise fall

Probably most people just saw and heard a man crying and acting erratic on the deck floor. imo

Anyone who saw what actually happened was probably shocked and immobile for a minute. We don't see much at all of the aftermath.

 

[Montrealaise]

I know I had posted this in the original thread that was deleted. I’ve worked occasionally on the medic crew at a large professional sporting venue. I only work on days when events are being held, so maybe 20 days a year average.

This sporting venue’s owner is well known for having “deep pockets.” In the 20 years I have worked there I have seen a huge shift in how lawsuits are handled.

The lawsuits resulted mostly from slips and falls, and usually involved someone who had been drinking or horsing around. Most injuries were very, very minor. Someone would sue because they bruised their knee after slipping in the beer that they spilled themselves. I could go on listing examples but most were in that category.

Up until maybe 7 or 8 years ago nearly all lawsuits had been settled with a small token amount. This was basically thought of as a cost of doing business, settling nuisance lawsuits for $3,000 - $10,000 each, just to make them go away.

Well it became known that people were getting quick payouts for their injuries and the lawsuits increased greatly. So the owner of the venue decided to fight back and stopped paying anything out as settlement, but instead took every case to court. Most cases were dropped by the injured party after they didn’t get the quick settlement that they had expected.

Several cases that I had been involved with were fans who claimed to have fallen and injured their backs. They sued, and when the attorney for the venue investigated it was found that each of these people had prior back issues that required surgery and they didn’t have insurance. So they went to “deep pockets” venue to “slip and fall” so they could sue and “deep pockets” would have to pay for their surgery.

I am very happy that this venue no longer pays to settle frivolous lawsuits. I could seriously write a book on the crazy stuff people have sued this venue for.

I hope this isn’t too off topic, I just wanted to mention this as an example of a company that no longer pays settlement on lawsuits when they have no responsibility for injury.

Thank you for your very informative post. This is exactly why I hope RCCL doesn't offer them anything, because it would only encourage similar lawsuits. "I dropped the baby overboard, can I have several millions of dollars please".

 

[Montrealaise]

For being in “a children’s play area” it is odd that you see so many adults and no other children in the video.

And a bar! And bar stools! And people drinking!

 

[Medstudies]

Okay if I were to measure from my abdomen to the top of my head - I’d say it’s a bare minimum of 2 feet.

That also seems to be the bare minimum distance his body is out past the wall/rail. And that is not adding in his outstretched arms. Or the child that has been placed forward...Yea he thought a window was there

 

[they'll get you]

Forgot to mention - the breeze? It’s like having a fan blowing straight at your face - I’m on a cabana sofa and it’s blowing my hair all over - he knew the window was open IMO totally guilty of being dangerous with a baby

Enjoy oviedo. Isn’t it amazing everything seems totally ridiculous when we look at it faceon.
Do you agree those large lounge chairs are not in the smoking area?
In hindsight I should’ve done my research before we set sail while I had good cell service as when out to sea I had Buckley’s.

 

[they'll get you]

Wind 12 mph. Direction, from the East?
@oviedo Pls pardon interruption to your vacay, but do you know the orientation of ship at dock, when you boarded? From google earth images, I have the impression while at dock, a gi-norrrrmous ship like Frdm/Seas has bow pointed north at dock.
If so, anyone at starboard window would mos' def' feel ~ 12 mph breeze coming from 90 degrees east, coming straight at them. Whoops, did we figure out for sure G'pa was on starboard side?

Or ask crew member (not sure who specifically) if Frdm/Seas always docks at north orientation?.

After ^ then back to sofa for drinks w umbrellas. Cheers & enjoy.
----------------------------------------
* The average hourly wind speed in San Juan is essentially constant during July, remaining within 0.2 miles per hour of 12.4 miles per hour throughout.
** The hourly average wind direction in San Juan throughout July is predominantly from the east, with a peak proportion of 99% on July 15.
Average Weather in July in San Juan, Puerto Rico - Weather Spark

You could be right.
The smoking section is on the starboard side of the Voyager but I’m not sure about the Freedom.

The area Chloe fell had the big sun lounges which is not the smoking section but then the smoking section was separated by a little hedge.

Sideways.

 

[IceIce9]

Since Chloe had 4 grandparents as well as her father on the cruise, I wonder why SA was chosen to take care of her when her mother had to go attend to an issue in the office.

 

[al66pine]

Pix, Taken at Different Times?

You could be right.
The smoking section is on the starboard side of the Voyager but I’m not sure about the Freedom. The area Chloe fell had the big sun lounges which is not the smoking section but then the smoking section was separated by a little hedge. View attachment 221463
Sideways.

@they'll get you Thanks for the pic.
The 'hedge' in your pic ^ looks like the divider-planter-boxes in a pic in Complaint, page 5.* Your pic shows "Smoking/No Smoking" sign, but I do not see any of those in the Complaint pix.

Page 5 bottom pic shows divider-planter box(es), between yellow wet-floor cone in foreground and Squeeze bar in background. Someone/employee stands inside Squeeze bar enclosure. A few ppl in chairs.Compare to other pix in Complaint.
---Pic on top of p. 5 has yellow "Caution" tape up, but no hedge/planter boxes. Has wet-floor cone at bottom right corner of pic. All windows closed. No ppl in pic.
---Pic on p. 6 shows no hedge/planter boxes (at least not where I think pic should show them). Based on the Squeeze bar's ceiling to counter grid position (shutter?), looks like bar is closed. All windows closed. No ppl in pic.

Seems pix were taken at different times, some post-incident. <---Understandably, but were things moved around post-incident? Am I just not seeing hedge-planter-box(es)? Smoking/No Smoking signs?

{{{ETA: I found a 'missing' hedge/planter box in Complaint pic, page 4. See bottom right corner of pic showing hot tub w black net draped over it? Now look just above that, on very right side of pic. The first ^ pic w ppl in it made it look like planter boxes were muuuuuch closer to Squeeze, and in this pic planter boxes look like they're out in the 'North Forty. Is that the camera angle or were they moved? If so, why?}}}
'--------------------------------------------------------
* lipcon.com, then tab "Success Stories" then dropdown "Work in Progress" scroll down to chrono list, Dec 11 Wiegman v Royal Caribbean.

 

[Laria Rivera]

RCCL CHANCES OF SETTLING







I addressed this in one of the previous threads so I'm not going to go too in depth into this, but the chances of RCCL settling out of court for this is close to, if not actually 0. Why? Because of precedent.

The burden of proof, in this case, that the plaintiffs have to meet is was RC negligent in that they didn't know/predict that SA would put the child in the window and drop her from the 11th deck, and take steps that would have prevented him from doing it. The answer is that no, the Wiegands will never be able to prove that.

For one thing, the claim in the suit that the ship is in violation of regulations is bunk. They are trying to hold the cruise ship to building/hotel standards, not seagoing vessel standards. While they say that cruise ships are basically "floating hotels" the safety codes and regulations between the two are very different for very obvious reasons, they are in no way the same. All that RC has to do is to provide coast guard and other agency inspection reports showing that those windows are in full compliance with current applicable regulations and that argument is tossed.

For another, there has never been a child under the age of about 13-15 who has gone overboard/out of a window going back some 30 years of records. An online database going back to 1995 and listing all incidents of passengers/staff going overboard on commercial passenger vessels (cruise ships and ferrys) Chloe is the ONLY small child. The only other child listed is a 7-year-old involved in a suicide in which the mother took him and jumped with him. There has never been one previous incident of a child falling out of a window on a cruise ship, because most people have enough common sense to keep them away from them. No one else has ever needed to be warned to not put a child into the window on a cruise ship, so why would they have ever thought SA would have needed to be protected from himself? The standards they are claiming were set because children had fallen out of hotel/building windows, but since that hasn't happened on a cruise ship there isn't any reason to say that RC should be following those ones instead of the ones already in place. Cruise Passengers Overboard

And of course, RC already has clear safety instructions that passengers are issued prior to even showing up at the docks that SA ignored, stating that it's dangerous to sit/stand/climb on the railings. He was provided with those instructions prior to boarding and ignored them, putting her on the other side of said railing. By violating that set rule he takes on 100% of the blame.

As far as I can see, my opinion, there is absolutely NO CASE against the cruise line and absolutely no reason they or their insurer would settle in this instance. This case will probably be dismissed because they are suing on inapplicable standards or if it even goes to trial will be decided in RC favor, just as countless other lawsuits blaming them for people going overboard have been.

I was wondering how many other kids had been thrown out of a cruise ship window, so thanks for the answer. Statistically speaking ships are pretty safe. That will certainly be part of RCCL’s defense.