IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

[justbreathe]

I liked this part:

Plaintiffs allege no facts to support that the standards were designed to help adults discern when windows are open or to prevent adults from lifting children onto them...

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

One of the lawyers I worked for ALWAYS put the best stuff in footnotes.

Footnote 7 is fantastic.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

I liked this part:

Plaintiffs allege no facts to support that the standards were designed to help adults discern when windows are open or to prevent adults from lifting children onto them...

So many gems in these documents.

 

[oviedo]

oviedo was the child sitting on a railing? What parent does that!?

No she was standing about a foot in front of the railing - her little dress was blowing everywhere - and had she been sitting unattended I would have carefully approached and grabbed her

 

[justbreathe]

MW had to know this, right?

Love it. Cannot be both counsel and fact witness at the same time. Maybe this is MW’s way of withdrawing from a loser case?
If not, it’s still a big problem. How is he going to get around this?

The judge isn’t going to let Winkleman withdraw for that. Their “re-enactment” would never be admissible anyway.

But Winkleman never addressed the issue - failure to state a claim.

How many times will they go back and forth before Winkleman has to address the issue directly.

edit to delete ddbl post

 

[justbreathe]

So many gems in these documents.

Help adults discern when windows are open hahaha, gets me everytime.

 

[they'll get you]

Due to the drowning of a child Winkleman was responsible of making cruise lines have lifeguards on cruise ships.

@ 3:21 there’s the Death on the High Seas Act.

 

[BeachSky]

I was involved in a court case several years ago. The defendant, a 50 year old woman, came clattering into court on a walker. She had never even used a cane before yet she made a grand entrance on a walker, stopping every few steps to gather the energy to walk a few more steps. She made a great deal of noise with the walker, and had come in late, so she definitely had the eyes of everyone on her, to see how “disabled” she was.

Sounds like Harvey Weinstein IMO

 

[Kindred]

I expect MW to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint if in fact they are in error (RCL and their failure to state a cause of action) if they don’t and go to hearing that’s a huge gamble IMO we shall see

The judge isn’t going to let Winkleman withdraw for that. Their “re-enactment” would never be admissible anyway.

But Winkleman never addressed the issue - failure to state a claim.

How many times will they go back and forth before Winkleman has to address the issue directly.

edit to delete ddbl post

Well remember, he only filed a 'preliminary response' to the motion to dismiss. Which means he probably intends to file another response because everything is just so rushed and he'd been denied so much for so long how can he properly state his case without those darned videos?

Also, fun fact, this is actually the SECOND docket they filed on this but apparently the first one was errored and closed out to open this one. There are no documents in it though just a notice stating that it was "administratively closed":





It doesn't really mean much of anything IMO, just a fun little useless fact

 

[Montrealaise]

I would really like to see that higher-resolution video.

I’ve got a few thoughts on a couple of subjects, so here it goes.

Regarding the “elderly” thing:

1. 51 is not elderly
2. Elderly can imply weak. A weak person couldn’t lift Chloe up and over the railing with such ease, as he does.
3. Elderly could imply not there cognitively. If so, then it was Chloe’s parents’ responsibility to not leave her in the care of someone that is cognitively impaired.
4. Thus, I see no benefit to that argument by the plaintiff. I really don’t know where they are going by trying to paint SA as elderly.

Regarding the refusal to take a blood test for alcohol/drugs:

1. If he had taken the test and was impaired by alcohol served on the ship, that could actually HELP the plaintiff’s case, IMO. If the plaintiff can prove that SA was over-served, I would think RCCL could be have some liability, just as a restaurant/bar can have liability for over-serving a patron who then gets into an accident.
2. OTOH, if SA was impaired by something else, it would hurt the plaintiff’s case as the parents left Chloe in the hands of someone who was impaired.

I'm guessing that they keep referring to him as "elderly" in order to elicit sympathy and pity for him, as in "that poor, poor old man lost his granddaughter and is now being unfairly persecuted".

 

[Safetybug]

I'm guessing that they keep referring to him as "elderly" in order to elicit sympathy and pity for him, as in "that poor, poor old man lost his granddaughter and is now being unfairly persecuted".

imo SA will be feebly wobbling in with a walker flanked by 2 “aides.” If he was disabled that’s one thing but this whole 51 is the new “elderly” is bunk.

 

[Kindred]

Actually I had to go back through the docs and double-check and it's quite possible there will be another "response" filing from Winkleman. Their original Motion to Compel also included:

"The Plaintiffs also respectfully request, unopposed,an extension of time to file their response in opposition to Royal Caribbean’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 7] upon 14 days from the date Royal Caribbean produces all video footage"

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UPON PRODUCTION OF VIDEO FOOTAGE

demand for all videos.pdf

So keep your eyes peeled I'm sure I'll have something more for you all in a few days lol

 

[BeachSky]

imo SA will be feebly wobbling in with a walker flanked by 2 “aides.” If he was disabled that’s one thing but this whole 51 is the new “elderly” is bunk.

He has no problem lifting IMO

 

[al66pine]

I would really like to see that higher-resolution video.... was impaired by alcohol served on the ship, that could actually HELP the plaintiff’s case, IMO...

@Kayjabbe sbm Yes, I think just about everyone would like to see this hi-res vids. Jumping off your point about alcohol served on ship, I had not thought about the window for possible overserving, not that it necessarily happened, and imo, was not likely
Per Complaint.
1:15 ................family boarded.
___................ fam went to W. Café for lunch, on boarding.
after lunch .... Mom & Chloe suited up.................................Where's SA? Still in Cafe? Bar? His cabin?
~ 2:40 ............Mom & Chloe began playing in pool.............Where's SA now? Cafe? Bar? His cabin?
~ 3:50.......... ..SA "came up" to supervise.
About 2 1/2 hours in which he c/h/been served, if ^ times are accurate, .
Purchases w/h/been recorded on ship $ records. Also vid recordings at W Cafe. And ship bars, if any.
Conceivably SA could have gotten 'an early start' on drinking, either from overindulging the night before or w eye-openers before boarding. And/or after lunch w fam, maybe hitting private supply in cabin, BYO limitations notwithstanding. And/or drug interactions, Rx, OTC, or street?

Or it's entirely possible that he was an utter blustering blockhead.

 

[oviedo]

Actually I had to go back through the docs and double-check and it's quite possible there will be another "response" filing from Winkleman. Their original Motion to Compel also included:

"The Plaintiffs also respectfully request, unopposed,an extension of time to file their response in opposition to Royal Caribbean’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 7] upon 14 days from the date Royal Caribbean produces all video footage"

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UPON PRODUCTION OF VIDEO FOOTAGE

demand for all videos.pdf

So keep your eyes peeled I'm sure I'll have something more for you all in a few days lol

Is there an agreed order on this motion for extension of time ? I’m very interested in the mechanics of this lawsuit so thanks so much for your help

 

[WiseGuy]

Love it. Cannot be both counsel and fact witness at the same time. Maybe this is MW’s way of withdrawing from a loser case?
If not, it’s still a big problem. How is he going to get around this?

I was wondering how that would play out at trial. MW’s law partner served as the stand-in for AW. Would the RCL team be able to question him under oath at trial? Could RCL pose such questions as:

“Mr. Margulies, during your reenactment did you notice any difference in tint between open and closed windows?”
-or-
“Mr. Margulies, how far from the windows were you when you first were able to determine that the open window in front of you was in fact open?

That would force him to make an awkward decision:
a. claim he couldn’t tell the difference either, thereby casting doubt on his mental faculties and/or on the veracity of anything else he has said.
b. admit it is easy to see the difference, thereby preserving his own reputation but casting doubt on the veracity of SA’s claim that he couldn't tell the difference.

I suspect that, with client-attorney privilege, Margulies could not be compelled to testify against his client, but wouldn’t that make the whole reenactment inadmissible?

 

[MsMarple]

I was involved in a court case several years ago. The defendant, a 50 year old woman, came clattering into court on a walker. She had never even used a cane before yet she made a grand entrance on a walker, stopping every few steps to gather the energy to walk a few more steps. She made a great deal of noise with the walker, and had come in late, so she definitely had the eyes of everyone on her, to see how “disabled” she was.

Lol! Was it a slip and fall case?

And, being over 50 I'm in great shape and walk every day. I get that everyone ages differently and illnesses can impact physical well being but if SA is so infirm then WTH was he doing babysitting a toddler?

 

[MsMarple]

DOCUMENT DROP!

Hello my clever sleuths! Got some more civil documents for perusal. I have to say I'm really digging using DocDroid for some of these massive files.


For the plaintiffs :

PLAINTIFFS’NOTICE OF FILING PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
WIEGAND VS RCCL
filed on 1/23/20

notice of affidavit.pdf

short and sweet 2 page doc identifying their recreation expert before filing his affidavit. nothing really special.

PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
filed on 1/23/20

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

Mr. Jaques introduces himself to the court, explains why he's an 'expert', and then gives a rundown of their little trip to the ship and what he was doing/what he believes he has proved with his investigation. This includes the full 100something page inspection previously filed, so the new stuff is the first 4 pages.


PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed on 1/27/20

further motion to compel.pdf

3 pages. Winkleman admits that RCCL has already voluntarily produced video from 10 cameras between the filing of the motion to compel and this one, but basically states this isn't good enough. The thing that confuses me about this document is that they don't ask for any kind of remedy or what they still want the court to actually compel the defense to do at this point, they just kind of... gripe and moan.



Defense documents:

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

RC response to plaintiff 1-29.pdf

10 pages. RCCL not backing down. Continues to argue that the Wiegands have no case and tears apart the staged photos from the plaintiff's inspection.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed 1/31/20

RC response to motion to strike video.pdf

For some reason this might be my favorite one of the bunch. Possibly because RCCL points out that Winkleman was told before filing and before the court granted permission for the conventional filing that this was happening and had no objection at the time. Basically RCCL says "no-take-backsies"

Happy reading/debating!

Thanks +10! I know what I'll be doing tonight!

 

[WiseGuy]

@Kayjabbe sbm Yes, I think just about everyone would like to see this hi-res vids

Yes hi-res would be nice but I wonder if folks wishing for it might have unrealistic expectations.
I “think” that all we get with hi-res, or proprietary software, is smoother flow between frames, and less pixelation. I suspect we will not see anything in hi res that is completely absent in low res, but I could be wrong. And we won’t see new angles.

Hi res uses computer algorithms to compare 2 adjacent jumpy low res frames, and figure out what probably happened in between them. So for example it can take a lousy 10 frames per second, and improve it to a smooth 60 by manufacturing 50 new frames. But it can’t add new detail that does not exist in the low res source. Any WS media experts, feel free to correct any mis statements.

 

[neesaki]

Lol! Was it a slip and fall case?

And, being over 50 I'm in great shape and walk every day. I get that everyone ages differently and illnesses can impact physical well being but if SA is so infirm then WTH was he doing babysitting a toddler?

What’s amazing and equally horrifying to me, is the extremely short period of time he was “watching “ Chloe. And to think that in such a very small time frame, she was just gone.

How on earth does this kind of thing happen, that an 18 month old baby dies at the hand of a “caregiver” in such a short amount of time. This man has to have either some serious mental / cognitive issues, or he’s a cold hearted sadistic killer. That’s it... I can’t help it but that’s how I see it.

The whole thing is just too outrageously , incomprehensibly, ridiculously reckless , and with complete and utter disregard for human life. A BABYS life. Who does that? Morons, child abusers, and depraved killers... take your pick.
But I’m all ears, and appreciate all of your input. As it’s all JMO