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

[MyBelle]

Its a walking path, where those windows are. In any case, I prefer the windows be operational for fresh air and people be responsible for their kids. Maybe too much to expect from some people I guess.

If that is what you prefer, why not go to an area away from the children's area?

I've seen no evidence that the family wasn't being responsible for the children traveling with them.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

Seat belt violations don't imperil the safety of anyone but the person who fails to buckle up for whatever reason. That's their choice. Has nothing to do with the man's attention to safety of his grandchildren.

Well, anyone unbelted in an accident can injure other belted passengers when they are thrown around the car. Buckling up is the law, not an optional choice. The point I’ve made is that SA has a long-standing pattern of disobeying safety laws (including speeding...75 in a 55 mile zone in one case) which can certainly endanger others. And his repeated violations display an unwillingness to learn from his mistakes.

Just as you would never stay with a child in a multistory hotel with windows that open, I would never trust such a reckless, law-defying person to supervise my child. I really doubt the pink ear protectors were his idea, but if they were, good for him.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Lilibet]

I've seen no evidence that the family wasn't being responsible for the children traveling with them.

LE has apparently seen enough evidence that the grandfather wasn’t being responsible for Chloe to charge him with negligent homicide.

 

[MsFacetious]

Yes, unbuckled passengers can kill a child in a car seat in a crash. If you are driving alone then do what you want I guess. When you have passengers, buckle up.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

According to Sun article in above post, “mum” has time and temperament to post pictures on social media account.
I’d be in a coma from the shock.
I guess people react differently to tragedy.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Keep scrolling and rolling, or hit the ignore button on inane posts. Difference of opinion is one thing. Baseless, senseless and biased comments need to be ignored. We want to keep this thread alive and well.
We’ll self monitor or mods will step in and monitor for us pursuant to WS Rules and TOS.
<modsnip>

 

[they'll get you]

Its a walking path, where those windows are. In any case, I prefer the windows be operational for fresh air and people be responsible for their kids. Maybe too much to expect from some people I guess.

I’ve been on a few RC cruises and those windows usually have some salt spray on them, not always perfectly clean and have a green tinge in the glass so IMO it’s fairly obvious if the windows are open or closed. I’m 5’3” and the bottom of the windows are my chest height so I’m on tippy toes to look out and down.
It’s like holding a child over an railing or banister not thinking that kid might wriggle free.

 

[Kindred]

the way i see it, this family has not endeared itself to the public with their accusations against the cruise ship-- they did not come across very well-- i see this as horrible judgment on the part of grandpa----and i think most people see it that way

That's your opinion. I don't agree. The local media in NW Indiana and Chicago suburbs sure support the family and their goal of ensuring child safety rather than the corporation. Experts are now weighing in and will continue to do so.

Glad I don't own the stock. It's been one scandal after another involving an incredible disregard for passenger safety.

JMO

I recall reading many cruise forum members saying those windows are operational by passengers due to how hot and suffocatingly muggy that deck can become. I have read quite a few people who have traveled on that very same ship, state that it is not easily accessible to children, and the area they were in is not a "play area". Seems quite like the windows were made to open, for passenger comfort, hense the safety railing. ( which you won't find on the 11 floor of any Hotel).

While it makes sense that people local to the family are sympathetic it's quite clear going to any forums or articles posted to see that public sentiment is that the blame falls squarely on the grandfather. It's all well and good to insist "there shouldn't be windows that open on the 11th floor" but you forget this is a cruise ship.

If open windows at chest height scare you then don't go up on the 12th deck, or out any balconies or promenades because there is nothing but railing that doesn't even have windows! The ships rules state no climbing, standing or sitting on the rails. Should families with children be barred from staying in rooms with balconies because some other careless person could set their child on that rail and they could fall over? Or do cruise lines now need to get protective netting wrapping around anything that is open to the exterior?

And besides that, there is a lot of precedence for cruise lines being found not at fault for overboard deaths where the victims put themselves on the rails. This is why it is posted/provided that such actions are not permitted. This is why it is addressed in the safety briefings they make all passengers sit through before departing. Courts have ruled repeatedly in cruise lines favor with this and I don't see why they wouldn't again in this case. The windows were not in any way accessible to the 2 year old. She was placed there through the negligence of her grandfather's actions. If not for him, she wouldn't have fallen. IMO I highly doubt there is going to be a jury in FL that is going to put the blame on the cruise line for this.

The PR Port Authority has jurisdiction of the port but the incident happened on the U.S. ship. George Smith fell from a RC ship which is why the FBI was called in. Chloe fell from a RC ship. The crimes allegedly occurred on the ships. Both victims were U.S. citizens. Defendant is a U.S. citizen.

Crimes Against Americans on Cruise Ships

George Smith fell overboard while the ship was out in open water. Not docked in the port. This is why PR has jurisdiction. The ship was not out in territorial waters, it was firmly affixed to the dock. From your own link.

"Jurisdiction

First, I would like to briefly discuss where the FBI obtains its jurisdiction over crimes committed on cruise ships. The authority of the FBI to investigate criminal offenses and enforce laws of the United States on cruise ships on the high seas or territorial waters of the United States depends on several factors: The location of the vessel, the nationality of the perpetrator or victim, the ownership of the vessel, the points of embarkation and debarkation, and the country in which the vessel is flagged all play a role in determining whether there is federal authority to enforce the laws of the United States.

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S. has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:

• The ship, regardless of flag, is a U.S.-owned vessel, either whole or in part, regardless of the nationality of the victim or the perpetrator, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state;
• The offense by or against a U.S. national was committed outside the jurisdiction of any nation;
• The crime occurred in the U.S. territorial sea (within 12 miles of the coast), regardless of the nationality of the vessel, the victim or the perpetrator; or
• The victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on any vessel during a voyage that departed from or will arrive in a U.S. port."

It had not left port yet. So it the vessel and everything that happened was still under the ports authority, so therefore the FBI waved jurisdiction to the local authorities.

 

[MsFacetious]

They take the sitting on railing things VERY seriously too.
In fact they will ban you from cruising for LIFE over it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/trav...fe-after-she-recklessly-stands-railing-photo/

 

[Kindred]

Also there's something else I'm trying to pin down. Lawyers statement from the People article.

"Winkleman tells PEOPLE the family is preparing a lawsuit against Royal Caribbean but have not yet filed it because they have not yet accessed the CCTV footage that shows Chloe falling out the window.

He says “there are safety regulations that exist regarding windows to prevent children from falling out.”

“If you’re going to not follow those regulations, put a warning on the windows,” he adds."

But there are NO REQUIREMENTS that state that cruise ship windows should not open or must have screens. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that RC is not following the safety regulations. Per RC: Safety & Security onboard Our Cruises | Royal Caribbean Cruises

"All of our ships are designed and operated in compliance with the strict requirements of the International Maritime Organization, the UN agency that sets global standards for the safety and operation of cruise ships, codified in the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. Safety-related regulations are rigorous – and we often go above and beyond what is required; for example, carrying backup mechanical, navigational and safety provisions.

In addition, our vessels, regardless of where they sail in the world, comply with the U.S. Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act (CVSSA) requirements, including railing heights, access control, closed circuit TV, medical preparedness, crime allegation reporting and crew training. Our own requirements generally exceed those specified within the CVSSA. We work closely with regulatory authorities to improve safety laws, and regularly participate in discussions and studies to inform legislators of current practices and offer our perspective on regulations and standards to assure safety.

Flag State authorities and other maritime safety regulatory bodies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, from each country our ships visit also regularly inspect our ships. Their examinations focus on life-saving equipment and safety and environmental protection items and these officials have the authority to prevent our ships from sailing if we fail to adhere to regulations. In addition to these inspections, ongoing system of internal as well as external (independent) marine expert audits also helps us remain vigilant, safely operate our ships and maintain effective systems."

CVSSA even goes into such details as security latches on doors and peep holes, but there is not one damn thing that says that windows on the decks can not or should not be able to open. And if openable windows were against violation, don't you think the US Coast Guard would have failed their inspections and made them seal them? The ONLY requirement is that ships "equipped with ship rails that are located not less than 42 inches above the cabin deck" which again, no 2 year old would be able to reach unless placed there by an adult. So the question is what regulations is the family lawyer trying to infer they were in violation of?



CVSSA - https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ207/PLAW-111publ207.pdf


International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974

 

[katyy]

I take comments by the ship's staff with a grain of salt. Of course they would blame the guest rather than admit liability. They want to keep their jobs.

JMO

The only way I think that RC could be at fault here is based on their staff's comments - if a staff member saw grandpa sitting Chloe on the railing or similar, why didn't they intervene and explain that their rules forbid it for safety reasons? I suppose it's possible that they thought startling him could make him lose grip of her. MOO.

On another note, does anyone know how many of the windows were open? From the video that someone posted earlier, I can actually see how you could mistake the window as being closed if every other window is open, making the blue/green-clear-blue/green look like a pattern. However, only from quite a distance! I think anyone up close would definitely be able to realise that the window is open. I thought I read something about it being the only window open, if that's the case then it's even less likely that grandpa didn't realise it was open. All MOO.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Basically:
The ship is registered in the Bahamas. It’s headquarters is in Florida. As a Bahamian ship, it flies the Bahamian flag. The Bahamas is its flag state. It falls under the control of various rights and duties of the Bahamas, including safety, inspections, crews and BAHAMIAN LAWS. Ship registration - WikipediaShip registration - Wikipedia

However, on the main website, in the fine print, it appears that all personal injury litigation must be commenced in FL courts. And no class actions, but in individual capacity only.

There is an arbitration policy in place for other matters. The shipping line cannot be sued in a court. 4 unrelated exceptions to binding arbitration are listed.

Maritime Law is specialized area of law. Apparently suing RCCL is not an easy road.

edit: another poster listed other maritime agencies that are involved with the ship’s operation. Makes for good reading if you can’t sleep at night.

 

[Kindred]

On another note, does anyone know how many of the windows were open? From the video that someone posted earlier, I can actually see how you could mistake the window as being closed if every other window is open, making the blue/green-clear-blue/green look like a pattern. However, only from quite a distance! I think anyone up close would definitely be able to realise that the window is open. I thought I read something about it being the only window open, if that's the case then it's even less likely that grandpa didn't realise it was open. All MOO.

It's hard to say. Most of the released pictures of the scene were taken at night and it's hard to tell in the dark which ones are open and which ones are not from the glare and angles.

 

[SuzDuJour]

The baby didn’t ask to be held up to bang the glass at the hockey game. She could’ve banged the lower windows on the cruise ship without being lifted. I don’t want to the watch the fall, but I’m curious about how he was holding her. Also, according to the pic I saw of the windows right after the incident, it appears to be the only one open. What a coincidence that he chose that one.

 

[oviedo]

bbm
I have always viewed that move as a preemptive strike. Someone was going to be held responsible. If they could place the blame on the cruise line, then Grampa gets a pass. ( possibly). But they had to move fast before charges were brought. imo.

I agree - I think their strategy was preemptive as well and a little monetary wouldn’t hurt IMO

 

[IceIce9]

The baby didn’t ask to be held up to bang the glass at the hockey game. She could’ve banged the lower windows on the cruise ship without being lifted. I don’t want to the watch the fall, but I’m curious about how he was holding her. Also, according to the pic I saw of the windows right after the incident, it appears to be the only one open. What a coincidence that he chose that one.

IMO he held her up to the open window so she could see out.
IF the “banging on the glass” story was true why did he pick the only window that she couldn’t have banged on?

JMO

 

[IceIce9]

I think Royal Caribbean is the winner.
I imagine the family can’t sue them now because it appears to be grandpa’s fault if he’s been charged.

Ya just can’t help stupid.

Anyone can sue at any time for anything. Doesn’t mean they will win.

Example: mom leaves toddler unattended in grocery cart seat, toddler stands and falls, gets injured.

There is a warning clearly visible on the cart handle, “WARNING: Do not leave child unattended. Do not allow child to stand in seat.”

Can mom sue the grocery store, and the manufacturer of the cart? Yes. Will mom win suit? Not likely.

 

[Medstudies]

Well, anyone unbelted in an accident can injure other belted passengers when they are thrown around the car. Buckling up is the law, not an optional choice. The point I’ve made is that SA has a long-standing pattern of disobeying safety laws (including speeding...75 in a 55 mile zone in one case) which can certainly endanger others. And his repeated violations display an unwillingness to learn from his mistakes.

Just as you would never stay with a child in a multistory hotel with windows that open, I would never trust such a reckless, law-defying person to supervise my child. I really doubt the pink ear protectors were his idea, but if they were, good for him.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Right?! Because yep. It’s a true story: buckling up is NOT a choice. It’s not a suggestion. It is the law.

One that SA apparently refuses to comprehend or obey.

Those flying bodies become potential flying weapons. They also cause irreparable financial harm to the public. It’s not a victimless crime. (ask the family members, the first responders and insurance industry.)

And yea the speeding.

MOO: If we’re giving free passes to a family member for her negligent death I hope we’re giving the cruise line the same grace.- Afterall, little 18 mo CW, didn’t just trip and fall 4 feet up into the air and then out of the only open window in the vicinity.

And as previously noted: there is a long list of rules of conduct when booking, which SA chose to ignore.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Wonder if the child banged on windows in their home?

Actually I don’t give much credibility to the “banging on the glass” reason for holding her up in the window. It wasn’t mentioned until the lawyer stated it later so I think it was an afterthought. Or after suggestion.

Not to mention that the family happened to have a photo of Chloe banging on glass in a hockey arena. The family and their lawyer were attempting to justify Chloe wanting to bang on the glass because she was allowed to do it in hockey arenas.

 

[oviedo]

I have cruised RCCL many times, and the windows open on every ship I've been on. From my own first hand knowledge, I always knew which windows were opened and which were closed. There was never a doubt in my mind. This is a tragedy IMO but it was entirely preventable. Any lawsuit moving forward against RCCL is a nuisance one IMO. I hope they don't even file it because all of the details will come out and IMO - it won't be good.
JMO