Pressed on why she decided to sue Royal Caribbean, Kimberly says: 'Well I think it's fair to say I didn't think that that window should be open in that particular location.'
...
'Mr Anello can distinguish between different shades of colors when he approaches a traffic signal. He does not have any restrictions on his drivers' license,' the firm's lawyers write.
'Mr Anello does not recall having problems seeing or distinguishing glass or tinted glass prior to the subject incident. He has never walked into a glass door.'
...
'This case has never been about money, it's about holding Royal Caribbean accountable,' Winkleman told DailyMail.com.
Mother of Chloe Wiegand describes breaking down during video deposition | Daily Mail Online
Asked if it would be dangerous to hold a toddler up in an open window 11 floors up, SA said 'absolutely.'
Asked if someone was going to hold a toddler up to glass that is 11 stories high, should they check to see whether there is glass there SA answered "One should be sure that there's glass there."
Is it just me or did KW and SA both indicate that sitting a kid in front of an open window was a stupid thing to do? And SA has never walked into a glass door, tinted or not, and didn't even have a restriction on his driver's license? Yet they both feel it was RCL's fault?
It's so frustrating that the family will likely walk away with something even though IMO they deserve nothing. Sadly, sometimes the law doesn't follow logic or common sense so anything can happen in this case. MOO.