IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #8

[mheido67]

Please indulge me for just a moment. What if the Judge asks SA if he knew there was no glass. SA says no, your honor, I thought there was glass. Judge says “roll the video”, showing SA’s head out the opening.

Is that scenario even a possibility? Wishful thinking, right? Ok, so if something like this did happen, would the plea be denied? Then what would happen? Any lawyers on board this a.m.? TIA

I highly doubt anything like that will happen. The judges questions will likely focus on making sure it is clear, in SA's own voice, that SA understands what he is doing. Unless I'm mistaken there is no evidence on record before the court at this point so the judge would have no grounds to show the cctv video. Might even open up the judge to misconduct allegations I would think. Lawyers?

What I would be interested in seeing is the judge in the civil case smack down MW for using a photo in his filing purportedly showing how difficult it is to distinguish which windows on deck 11 are open and which are closed where ALL the windows are actually closed. Talk about being deceptive!

 

[Chewy]

These safety standards were designed and implemented specifically for use in multifamily residential buildings. Meaning within apartments, where kids live. They were not intended to apply to every operable window everywhere. And it bears repeating that they were designed to prevent unattended children from accessing windows and falling, not to prevent adults from dropping children out windows.

I don't know why people keep harping on this point as if it is a "logical" statement in any way. The point isn't that SA dropped her out the window. It's that it is POSSIBLE for people to drop a child out the window or for a child to climb out the window. (ETA if you look at the video in the next post you can see that there are couches right up next to the windows. There's also a rolling cart that could be pushed over by an unattended child.)

You could have a deranged mentally ill killer on a cruise like this, who could turn around and snatch a kid and throw her out the window. Here in NYC we regularly have people push people onto the subway platform.

The issue with the safety of the windows is if it is reasonable to assume they are safe for the customers that you are serving. And if you know the customers you are serving can be clumsy, get drunk, make mistakes or take stupid risks it's unreasonable to not address this issues. Especially if you are targeting children by creating an environment encouraging families of small children to come.

There is a difference between a McDonald's that has a child play place and a Wendys that serves similar food but doesn't encourage children to run around and play. If a child was running in a Wendy's and slipped on a wet floor it wouldn't be the same type of liability as a child falling in the McDs because they are different types of set ups.

Example, if you had a group of kids running around, a 12 year old might think it's cool to try to lift his younger sibling up to look out the window. It shouldn't be possible for a child to fall out the window like this. If they opened a window in the Wendy's and a kid climbed up on the table and pushed his brother out, that is one thing. But if they did the same thing in a McDs with a play place I think they would have a different type of liability. I don't know the term for this but maybe someone here does.

Similar to the woman who dropped her child in the Pittsburg zoo, they zoo settled AND made changes.

When you start to see people doing these things the idea that you have to wait for a bunch of people to die to do anything won't fly in a court of law. Once they have seen the potential problem with these windows if they don't do something about it, they are being grossly negligent for any future situation similar to this. That's when lawsuit punitive damages go through the roof.

 

[Chewy]

Please indulge me for just a moment. What if the Judge asks SA if he knew there was no glass. SA says no, your honor, I thought there was glass. Judge says “roll the video”, showing SA’s head out the opening.

Is that scenario even a possibility? Wishful thinking, right? Ok, so if something like this did happen, would the plea be denied? Then what would happen? Any lawyers on board this a.m.? TIA

Where is the video that clearly shows him sticking his head out the window? I've seen several but not one where I can conclusively say he did that. He just looks like he's leaning over the railing to me. Obviously he knew the window was open but is there another angle that shows him leaning out?

 

[neesaki]

I don't know why people keep harping on this point as if it is a "logical" statement in any way. The point isn't that SA dropped her out the window. It's that it is POSSIBLE for people to drop a child out the window or for a child to climb out the window.

You could have a deranged mentally ill killer on a cruise like this, who could turn around and snatch a kid and throw her out the window. Here in NYC we regularly have people push people onto the subway platform.

The issue with the safety of the windows is if it is reasonable to assume they are safe for the customers that you are serving. And if you know the customers you are serving can be clumsy, get drunk, make mistakes or take stupid risks it's unreasonable to not address this issues. Especially if you are targeting children by creating an environment encouraging families of small children to come.

There is a difference between a McDonald's that has a child play place and a Wendys that serves similar food but doesn't encourage children to run around and play. If a child was running in a Wendy's and slipped on a wet floor it wouldn't be the same type of liability as a child falling in the McDs because they are different types of set ups.

Example, if you had a group of kids running around, a 12 year old might think it's cool to try to lift his younger sibling up to look out the window. It shouldn't be possible for a child to fall out the window like this. If they opened a window in the Wendy's and a kid climbed up on the table and pushed his brother out, that is one thing. But if they did the same thing in a McDs with a play place I think they would have a different type of liability. I don't know the term for this but maybe someone here does.

Similar to the woman who dropped her child in the Pittsburg zoo, they zoo settled AND made changes.

When you start to see people doing these things the idea that you have to wait for a bunch of people to die to do anything won't fly in a court of law. Once they have seen the potential problem with these windows if they don't do something about it, they are being grossly negligent for any future situation similar to this. That's when lawsuit punitive damages go through the roof.

What are they going to do about all those open railings on the ship , to keep nut jobs from dropping babies overboard?

The very nature of a ship is to be open to the ocean air. That’s why it’s a ship in the ocean, it’s not an Amtrak train that travels on land. That there are some areas on the ship with windows appears to be at least in part because that area is a covered area were people can sit under cover out of the sun and have a drink. Thus they provide windows so the passengers can still feel, smell, and experience the fresh ocean air. A rational person doesn’t pick someone up and put them out a window several feet off the floor. They just don’t do that.

IMO the whole complaint against windows that open is absurd and irrational. If a child is thrown out a car window should they stop making car windows that open? Sure, let’s just trap everyone inside, death trap on wheels. SMH

 

[mheido67]

I don't know why people keep harping on this point as if it is a "logical" statement in any way. The point isn't that SA dropped her out the window. It's that it is POSSIBLE for people to drop a child out the window or for a child to climb out the window.

You could have a deranged mentally ill killer on a cruise like this, who could turn around and snatch a kid and throw her out the window. Here in NYC we regularly have people push people onto the subway platform.

Okay? So your point is NYC needs to modify the subway so people can't be pushed in front of a train or face liability? Also, what steps does RCCL need to take to prevent a mentally deranged killer from throwing a child over a ships railing and off the ship? Or off a balcony?

The issue with the safety of the windows is if it is reasonable to assume they are safe for the customers that you are serving. And if you know the customers you are serving can be clumsy, get drunk, make mistakes or take stupid risks it's unreasonable to not address this issues. Especially if you are targeting children by creating an environment encouraging families of small children to come.

There is a difference between a McDonald's that has a child play place and a Wendys that serves similar food but doesn't encourage children to run around and play. If a child was running in a Wendy's and slipped on a wet floor it wouldn't be the same type of liability as a child falling in the McDs because they are different types of set ups.

Example, if you had a group of kids running around, a 12 year old might think it's cool to try to lift his younger sibling up to look out the window. It shouldn't be possible for a child to fall out the window like this. If they opened a window in the Wendy's and a kid climbed up on the table and pushed his brother out, that is one thing. But if they did the same thing in a McDs with a play place I think they would have a different type of liability. I don't know the term for this but maybe someone here does.

Minors are supposed to be attended at all times by adult guardians. But again, what prevents the 12 year old from picking up a younger sibling and hoisting him/her over a ships railing?

Similar to the woman who dropped her child in the Pittsburg zoo, they zoo settled AND made changes.

When you start to see people doing these things the idea that you have to wait for a bunch of people to die to do anything won't fly in a court of law. Once they have seen the potential problem with these windows if they don't do something about it, they are being grossly negligent for any future situation similar to this. That's when lawsuit punitive damages go through the roof.

MW referenced the ASTM window safety codes specifically in his filing. He claims they apply to ships, RCCL is claiming they do not. That's why it is relevant to the case.

So your point is NYC needs to modify the subway so people can't be pushed in front of a train or face liability since people have been pushed in front of trains in the past? Also, what steps does RCCL need to take to prevent a mentally deranged killer from throwing a child over a ships railing and off the ship? Or off a balcony?

Minors are supposed to be attended at all times by adult guardians. But again, what prevents the 12 year old from picking up a younger sibling and hoisting him/her over a ships railing?

The zoo had been warned numerous times that people were dangling their children over the exhibit to get a better view and did nothing to prevent it. That's called constructive notice. I imagine, even if RCCL is not found liable in this case they will indded place warning stickers on the window sills to inform people that the open window may be open. YOu can't hold someone liable for something it was not reasonable for them to foresee or something they were not warned about.

By your logic RCCL, or any other cruise line, or to take it further any building that has a balcony with an open railing, is liable for any idiot that hoists a child up over the safety railings and drops them to their death. Tell me, is RCCL liable if someone holds their child over the railing in their balcony suite and the child falls overboard and dies?

 

[Wehwalt]

I do not think the judge is likely to challenge SA, not during the plea (it's unclear to me if he would be sentenced then or if any sort of pre-sentence report would be requested). But if Puerto Rico criminal procedure is anything like what I've seen in my (mostly Virginia and DC) practice, at some point, the judge will expect a proffer of the facts. That is where, conceivably, something like video could be done, by the prosecutor. Wouldn't count on it though.

I wonder who gets to file the victim impact statement?

 

[Chewy]

MW referenced the ASTM window safety codes specifically in his filing. He claims they apply to ships, RCCL is claiming they do not. That's why it is relevant to the case.

So your point is NYC needs to modify the subway so people can't be pushed in front of a train or face liability since people have been pushed in front of trains in the past? Also, what steps does RCCL need to take to prevent a mentally deranged killer from throwing a child over a ships railing and off the ship? Or off a balcony?

Minors are supposed to be attended at all times by adult guardians. But again, what prevents the 12 year old from picking up a younger sibling and hoisting him/her over a ships railing?

The zoo had been warned numerous times that people were dangling their children over the exhibit to get a better view and did nothing to prevent it. That's called constructive notice. I imagine, even if RCCL is not found liable in this case they will indded place warning stickers on the window sills to inform people that the open window may be open. YOu can't hold someone liable for something it was not reasonable for them to foresee or something they were not warned about.

By your logic RCCL, or any other cruise line, or to take it further any building that has a balcony with an open railing, is liable for any idiot that hoists a child up over the safety railings and drops them to their death. Tell me, is RCCL liable if someone holds their child over the railing in their balcony suite and the child falls overboard and dies?

The difference is that most people would not expect a window that is open over a 11 story drop to just be open like that when children are around. I mean just full stop think about it. Think about hotel windows that high up? There's at the very least a screen in the window. All these ridiculous equivocations are meaningless. I've pointed out several similar examples and instead of addressing those ones, you are coming up with new unrelated ones. A subway is not "sold" as playground for children? Hence my example between a Wendy's fast food restaurant and a McDonald's with a play place. If you set up a situation where people are likely to be drinking and encourage them to bring their kids along and have a pool area your responsibility for safety is very important. Even in someone's own backyard there are safety standards for owning a pool. If someone breaks into your backyard and jumps in your pool and drowns they can still sue you if you didn't have a locked gate in place.

<modsnip>

 

[Chewy]

Um, window screens are NOT a window safety device and lots of kids have been injured because people thought they were. They are in fact meant to keep insects out of interior spaces not to keep kids from falling out windows.

What about all the other open air parts of the ship where there is just a railing? What, 8 foot tall glass to keep all the maniacs from tossing kids off the ships?

Window screens are not a safety device but most people expect windows to have a window screen. A window screen wouldn't have necessarily prevented the fall but it would create a reasonable barrier. Frankly at 11 stories up I would expect there to be a window guard. I can't believe they had a wide open window that high up on a cruise ship. I do think SA knew it was open but it's shocking to me that this wasn't ever previously addressed. <modsnip>


ETA I mentioned this before. It's not even a matter that the child went out the window. The open gaping window 11 stories up above a deck. A person could have walked over the window and leaned out and dropped a beer bottle out the window which then smashed a person in the head below. That could kill someone. Someone could drop their phone out trying to take a selfie. It's an unreasonably dangerous situation that could potentially maim or even kill someone.

 

[mheido67]

Where is the video that clearly shows him sticking his head out the window? I've seen several but not one where I can conclusively say he did that. He just looks like he's leaning over the railing to me. Obviously he knew the window was open but is there another angle that shows him leaning out?

Some people are convinced the cctv video shot from behind shows his head out the window. I personally do not believe it does. Yes, he leans over the railing which would have put his head very close to where he glass would be but definitively outside the window, no.

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

Or adjustable brackets that limit the window only opening 4 inches? All that is beyond the possibility of reason to use as a simple solution?

Image being in the bar area floating in your life jacket and the water rising as the ship is sinking. The ship is listing 45 degrees, The windows (or "wall of glass") are above you on your left, and bar area ceiling is above you on your right forming an "A" trapping you in. As the ship slowly sinks the water you are floating in brings you up to the window. When you finally reach the window you start to open it, thinking you are safe, but what is this? It only opens 4 inches? You are dead. Your family hires a lawyer and sues RC due to the window not meeting home residential basement egress standards.

There is a reason ships have their own safety standards. And residential buildings don't have life boats.

As for bug screens on a ocean going ship others have already explained how ridiculous that is (and a safety hazard itself).

 

[mheido67]

The difference is that most people would not expect a window that is open over a 11 story drop to just be open like that when children are around. I mean just full stop think about it. Think about hotel windows that high up? There's at the very least a screen in the window. All these ridiculous equivocations are meaningless. I've pointed out several similar examples and instead of addressing those ones, you are coming up with new unrelated ones. A subway is not "sold" as playground for children? Hence my example between a Wendy's fast food restaurant and a McDonald's with a play place. If you set up a situation where people are likely to be drinking and encourage them to bring their kids along and have a pool area your responsibility for safety is very important. Even in someone's own backyard there are safety standards for owning a pool. If someone breaks into your backyard and jumps in your pool and drowns they can still sue you if you didn't have a locked gate in place.

<modsnip> .

There are children on the entire ship! How is deck 11 and different than deck 12 which just has a 4 foor tall railing? Or a balcony suite with a 4 foot tall railing? Assume the windows were not there on deck 11 and it just had a 4 foot tall railing and SA did exactly what he did and CW fell to her death just like she did. Is RCCL liable?

Sorry I'm not addressing you Wendy's hypothetical examples. You're the one who brought up the NYC subway! How about we stick to the situation at hand. In backyards there are safety standards for pools. You are correct. And what are those standards? A 4 foot high fence. Self closing and latching gates. Audible warnings on doors that lead directly into the pool enclosure. Should all of thos be mandated on cruisee ships that have pools?

And pool gates do NOT need to lock. They need to be child proof. The latch needs to be mounted high on the 4 foot gate and on the inside so a child can't reach. The gate needs to swing out. If an adult trespasses into your yard, maneuvers the required saftey devices and drowns you should not be liable. SA lifted CW over the safety devices and dropped her out the window.

<modsnip>

 

[Chewy]

But with SA pleading guilty of negligent homicide does that not
imply that he was in fact responsible for Chloe's death?

When dealing with causation there is both a proximate and an ultimate cause. So there can be more than one reason why something happened. In this case the proximate cause is that SA picked up C and put her by the window and dropped her. But the ultimate cause would be that the cruise ship left the window open with a large enough space for him to be able to do that in the first place.

So although he is guilty in the criminal case, the civil case will take aim at the liability of RCCL. Some of the area of interest will be "reasonable expectation" which is why some of the arguments made here seem silly to me. Stair ways are not considered "play areas for children." However if all down the banister of a stair case RCCL tied helium balloons, it's reasonable to assume that children would be distracted and might even start trying to play with them. Now they have created a potential risk that a typical parent would not anticipate. So yes the parent would anticipate stairs being dangerous but they would not anticipate their children being encouraged to play on stairs.

In this case I think it's the lack of window screen and/or window guard that created the risk. I'm sure they will change that.

Here's a wiki link that explains Proximate and Ultimate Causation.

Proximate and ultimate causation - Wikipedia

 

[In vino veritas]

MW referenced the ASTM window safety codes specifically in his filing. He claims they apply to ships, RCCL is claiming they do not. That's why it is relevant to the case.

So your point is NYC needs to modify the subway so people can't be pushed in front of a train or face liability since people have been pushed in front of trains in the past? Also, what steps does RCCL need to take to prevent a mentally deranged killer from throwing a child over a ships railing and off the ship? Or off a balcony?

Minors are supposed to be attended at all times by adult guardians. But again, what prevents the 12 year old from picking up a younger sibling and hoisting him/her over a ships railing?

The zoo had been warned numerous times that people were dangling their children over the exhibit to get a better view and did nothing to prevent it. That's called constructive notice. I imagine, even if RCCL is not found liable in this case they will indded place warning stickers on the window sills to inform people that the open window may be open. YOu can't hold someone liable for something it was not reasonable for them to foresee or something they were not warned about.

By your logic RCCL, or any other cruise line, or to take it further any building that has a balcony with an open railing, is liable for any idiot that hoists a child up over the safety railings and drops them to their death. Tell me, is RCCL liable if someone holds their child over the railing in their balcony suite and the child falls overboard and dies?

Excellent rebuttal !!

 

[Chewy]

Image being in the bar area floating in your life jacket and the water rising as the ship is sinking. The ship is listing 45 degrees, The windows (or "wall of glass") are above you on your left, and bar area ceiling is above you on your right forming an "A" trapping you in. As the ship slowly sinks the water you are floating in brings you up to the window. When you finally reach the window you start to open it, thinking you are safe, but what is this? It only opens 4 inches? You are dead. Your family hires a lawyer and sues RC due to the window not meeting home residential basement egress standards.

There is a reason ships have their own safety standards. And residential buildings don't have life boats.

As for bug screens on a ocean going ship others have already explained how ridiculous that is (and a safety hazard itself).

That's actually the first good argument I've heard so far. That's a real consideration. I'm curious about the screens though, what's the issue with that?


ETA I imagine the solution would be window stickers or also maybe that all the windows can open, but if the staff opens a window they use a bracket to keep it open only 4 inches at a space. This could be something as simple as the way you can put a short stick in your sliding glass doors floor track to prevent it from being slid fully open. Easily removable and easily useable.

<modsnip>

 

[mheido67]

When dealing with causation there is both a proximate and an ultimate cause. So there can be more than one reason why something happened. In this case the proximate cause is that SA picked up C and put her by the window and dropped her. But the ultimate cause would be that the cruise ship left the window open with a large enough space for him to be able to do that in the first place.

So although he is guilty in the criminal case, the civil case will take aim at the liability of RCCL. Some of the area of interest will be "reasonable expectation" which is why some of the arguments made here seem silly to me. Stair ways are not considered "play areas for children." However if all down the banister of a stair case RCCL tied helium balloons, it's reasonable to assume that children would be distracted and might even start trying to play with them. Now they have created a potential risk that a typical parent would not anticipate. So yes the parent would anticipate stairs being dangerous but they would not anticipate their children being encouraged to play on stairs.

In this case I think it's the lack of window screen and/or window guard that created the risk. I'm sure they will change that.

Here's a wiki link that explains Proximate and Ultimate Causation.

Proximate and ultimate causation - Wikipedia

<modsnip>

Parents would not anticipate stairs being dangerous?

Where does the 'play area for children' stop and start? There was a bar much closer to the windows than the children's play area so why isn't it considered a adult beverage consumption area? Children are allowed anywhere on the ship so what does it matter if it's a children's play area?

<modsnip> CW could have easily walk to any stair on the ship by herself and fallen down them and died. She walked over to the windows on deck 11 and stood there safely below the open window which was 4 feet above her and safely out of her reach. She could have stood there the entire 7 day cruise and come off the ship alive. But for the fact that her adult guardian lifted her up, swung her over a safety railing and held her in an open window for 33 seconds. The child only got hurt because of the negligence of the adult responsible for caring for her.

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

The idea that you think 'window screens" or "window guards" is going to block the "open air" and create "prisons" is just um...........for lack of a better word, baffling to me. Again, most HOMES have these? Are they PRISONS?

Are cars PRISONS because the windows only roll halfway down in the back? I'm going to bow out of this dialogue if you don't mind. I don't understand the way you think and I fear I may come across as disrespectful if I continue the discussion.

Thanks though. Have a great day!

Most homes have bug screens for bugs. If not for bugs the screens would not be in any of those homes. Some people remove them during winter when no bugs are out. And many kids have bounced on beds into the bug screen and out the window as bug screens don't hold people in. They can be more dangeraous than not having them at all as some people are not smart don't understand how bug screens work. They are very weak just enough to stop bugs.

What about egress when the ship is sinking?

Cars windows in back go half way because the door is too small to fit the window. If the door had more room (or Tardis technology was real and affordable) the window would go down further. You are not thinking this through your posts are not make logical sense. People want the full breeze and full clear view of the open window. They have a right to that and SA will not take it away.

No one said a car was a prison but a ship would have to be prison to satisfy your ideas as your standard is that it would have to be physically impossible for an adult to throw a baby overboard anywhere on the ship even with planning ahead of time.

 

[Laria Rivera]

The

I do not think the judge is likely to challenge SA, not during the plea (it's unclear to me if he would be sentenced then or if any sort of pre-sentence report would be requested). But if Puerto Rico criminal procedure is anything like what I've seen in my (mostly Virginia and DC) practice, at some point, the judge will expect a proffer of the facts. That is where, conceivably, something like video could be done, by the prosecutor. Wouldn't count on it though.

I wonder who gets to file the victim impact statement?

The Judge would receive a pre-sentencing report from the DA office before the next hearing since SA will be changing his plea. She (the judge) would know all the facts and evidence of the case as that is her job.
Good question about the victim impact statement since it’s the step-grandparent and the family won’t be there. Maybe the DA?

 

[In vino veritas]

Yup. The same way children shouldn't go to zoos because parents can't be responsible enough for their safety. Or zoos have to make sure parents can't lift children up over animal exhibits and drop them in. Oh wait........zoos are considered responsible for protecting children in the zoo because parents and children can be responsible.

Soap box stand all you want. SA is absolutely responsible for this. But RCCL will be held accountable as well. I think some don't have the ability to look at a situation without taking one side completely or the other. I tend to focus on the logic more than the emotion. In this case the only person I am worried about is Chloe.

I can understand your points about looking at both sides of the equation.
That said, the Wiegands and MW have publicly refuted their own initial arguments that the windows were the proximate cause of Chloes death. With their absurd reconstructions and the publicly declared assertions of the “physical impossibility” of SA being able to lean out the window or put Chloe out the window, they implicitly prove that the window design is safe and the barrier is an excellent deterrent.

Consequentlty, IMO, it is not a forgone conclusion that RCL will make a settlement to the Wiegands.

 

[Chewy]

I can understand your points about looking at both sides of the equation.
That said, the Wiegands and MW have publicly refuted their own initial arguments that the windows were the proximate cause of Chloes death. With their absurd reconstructions and the publicly declared assertions of the “physical impossibility” of SA being able to lean out the window or put Chloe out the window, they implicitly prove that the window design is safe and the barrier is an excellent deterrent.

Consequentlty, IMO, it is not a forgone conclusion that RCL will make a settlement to the Wiegands.

I actually don't think lawsuit really has anything to do with changes to the safety regulations. It will be an internal decision. Maybe I wasn't clear in that. They will be held accountable as far as the settlement with Chloe's parents. But to me that's just a foregone conclusion to make it go away. But now that they know this is a possibility of children being harmed this way they will internally research this and make changes. I think it's a bit different than say , Yellowstone where sometimes people get injured or killed by going off the designated path and falling into the hot springs. We've had many cases of that and they put up warning signs and whatnot. But if a child were to be hurt the same way I think they'd put up railings.

Up to now it's only been adults. But as we can see, more and more parents are doing completely careless and reckless things with their kids. And again, add alochol to the mix and you have the perfect storm of bad parenting. I'm certain they will make changes.

 

[ilovewings]

Every personal injury firm that I am familiar with works on a contingency basis which means they make money only if there is monetary recovery from a settlement or verdict. I don't believe Winkelman would ask his clients to pay for costs incurred if they
backed out of the case, which of course they won't--- the firm I work for have had clients back out of a case and we never asked them for any monies.

When dealing with causation there is both a proximate and an ultimate cause. So there can be more than one reason why something happened. In this case the proximate cause is that SA picked up C and put her by the window and dropped her. But the ultimate cause would be that the cruise ship left the window open with a large enough space for him to be able to do that in the first place.

So although he is guilty in the criminal case, the civil case will take aim at the liability of RCCL. Some of the area of interest will be "reasonable expectation" which is why some of the arguments made here seem silly to me. Stair ways are not considered "play areas for children." However if all down the banister of a stair case RCCL tied helium balloons, it's reasonable to assume that children would be distracted and might even start trying to play with them. Now they have created a potential risk that a typical parent would not anticipate. So yes the parent would anticipate stairs being dangerous but they would not anticipate their children being encouraged to play on stairs.

In this case I think it's the lack of window screen and/or window guard that created the risk. I'm sure they will change that.

Here's a wiki link that explains Proximate and Ultimate Causation.

Proximate and ultimate causation - Wikipedia

Thank you for that info: I am familiar with proximate cause but was unfamiliar with ultimate cause - in fact in all of the pleadings I have reviewed in civil cases, i have never seen the term "ultimate cause'.