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

[justbreathe]

Why would there need to be a 'warning' posted against doing a ridiculously foolish and dangerous thing? Thats like needing a warning at a restaurant saying don't allow your child to drink your tequila shot or to suck on the steak knife.

We live in a “don’t allow children to place plastic bag over face or head, chance of suffocation” society.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

There is something about free booze that can make a person who normally doesn't drink much start drinking like a fish. And then you add the vacation malady of leaving your brain at home.

Alcoholic beverages on a cruise are not "free". Guests either pay for individual drinks or purchase a beverage package that entitles them to a certain number of drinks for the duration of the cruise. Alcohol sales accounts for much of cruise line profits. Beverage packages aren't cheap, and cruise lines count on passengers spending a lot of money on alcohol drinks.

Cruise Drink & Beverage Packages | Royal Caribbean Cruises

 

[al66pine]

Katydid23 posted:
"And if there was water, would that have prevented the tragic death? NO."

Maybe Chloe's mom thought water wouldn't have been as lethal as the concrete dock. Adults who go overboard into the water can survive if someone sees them fall and tosses life-rings into the water.

@katydid23 and @BetteDavisEyes Getting a bit more technical about it >>>>

"Injuries caused by falls from buildings vary depending on the building's height and the age of the person....Overall, the height at which 50% of children die from a fall is between four and five storey heights (around 12 to 15 metres or 40 to 50 feet) above the ground." bbm

Re Chloe's Mom, possibly thinking a fall to water may have been survivable?
"The severity of injury increases with the height of the fall but also depends on body and surface features and the manner of the body's impacts against the surface.[25] The chance of surviving increases if landing on a highly deformable surface (a surface that is easily bent, compressed, or displaced) such as snow or water." bbm
^. Falling (accident) - Wikipedia

In life-ring-toss survival cases, like BTE referenced, all subjects survived impact w water. Swimmers then swam, caught life ring, etc, while non-swimmers who survived impact likely died from drowning or hypothermia. imo.
Different from poor baby Chloe who did not survive impact on concrete (probably would not have survived water landing).

 

[justbreathe]

Exactly. Jay Leno used to do a segment on ridiculous warning labels back in the day.

Now I understand why they exist; to protect companies from frivolous lawsuits from people who refuse to accept personal responsibility.

Oh come on my MassGuy! I’m from Mass, too. You know we understood why these stupid warnings exist bef

Is this worth $21.5 million?

Steel bars on all the windows and balconies will let the breeze through, heck put a cage right around the ship to prevent suicides and in an emergency nobody will survive.

Seriously! Can you imagine making no one able to get through any openings to the outside of the ship. Yah - a giant steal cage over every deck, like in prison. You can still see and feel the breeze!

Ship sinks, no one can escape, down they go banging on the “safety” bars.

I get so annoyed when people say it is a floating hotel. No. It is a ship with ship-appropriate regulations. Not regulations appropriate for a building sitting on the ground.

 

[Kindred]

In Australia we have laws that bar staff must refuse alcohol to someone who’s drinking too much.
Would/should that be the same on a ship?
IMO if grandpa did have too much to drink then could the bar staff/cruise line then be responsible for Chloe’s death?
In that case he should’ve had a breathalyser.

Just a thought and hope that made sense.

Maritime law is complicated because once out in international waters laws don't really apply because, well who's law do you apply? But the courts have already addressed whether or not cruise ships can be held liable for what their guests do when drunk. It boils down to if it is not something that they could have anticipated happening. I pointed this out in a previous thread here:

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

Hypothetical situation: Mr Smith is living it up on his cruise and has had several long islands over the past 3 hours and can no longer feel his face. Deciding to go for a walk he stumbles around and ends up on the top deck and is just enamored with the way the moonlight sparkles on the water. He leans over the railing to get a better look and goes overboard. Even though the ship got him drunk the ship isn't liable because they couldn't have anticipated that he would intentionally lean over the rail in a way that he'd fall off.

Same night but different scenario. Mr Smith goes down to an unfamiliar floor that is not restricted and finds a door to the elevator mechanical room unsecured, left by some careless employee that had been trying to fix it earlier and hadn't realized when he left for the night that he hadn't resecured it. Mr Smith goes in because curiosity and ends up dying in a horrible way because he was too drunk to not realize he was in a dangerous area. In that instance, the cruise line would totally be liable, still probably not for letting him drink so much, but for the fact that they knew that was a dangerous area that guests shouldn't be in and steps were not taken to make sure it was properly secured.

The window falls into the first situation and would be covered by the precedent of the other cases. The windows are located at levels that are chest high on an adult. There are railings in place to keep people from leaning too close to the open windows. The ship has passed inspections by the Coast Guard and other agencies and those windows are in compliance with regulations. No one could have anticipated that SA would have put a helpless toddler on that railing in violation of ships saftey rules in front of that open window. SA created the hazard, not the ship.

Yes, both can go forward at their own pace and are not related. Except, that a finding of criminal negligence for SA would be able to be used as evidence in the civil trial that would weigh heavily against the cruise line bearing any responsibility. (Argh - forget the term, but basically if another judge in another court (any court) has previously determined something to be a fact, that fact cannot be disputed in another court.)

Precedence is the term. And yes it does exist. See above. So that combined with the fact that Chloe is the first child since at least 1995 as available by public documentation to have ever fallen off a cruise ship, the family really doesn't have much of a case that RC is at fault.

 

[justbreathe]

Maybe Chloe's mom thought water wouldn't have been as lethal as the concrete dock. Adults who go overboard into the water can survive if someone sees them fall and tosses life-rings into the water.

At 18 months, Chloe was a fashionista, foodie, sports fan, etc. Maybe she could swim, too.

I’m pretty sure hitting water from 11 stories up would be the same as hitting concrete?

And I read that she...hit the ship on the way down before landing on the ground.

 

[justbreathe]

In many states you can actually have your license suspended for refusing the breathalyzer.
In most cases, it's not even needed.
A police officer can testify that the persons breath smelled of alcohol and they appeared inebriated and they don't need a breathalyzer test to prove it.

Imo

Better to have your license suspended for refusal to breathalyze than have a dui on your record. Never. Take. The. Breathalyzer.

They are not even accurate.

 

[justbreathe]

<modsnip> Her attorney may be able to get a copy and edit it for Chloe’s loved ones to view. You’re not Chloe’s loved one so you wouldn’t know exactly when she is going to fall. So if you saw the video you’d see the moment she left his hands.

It almost seems like there’s a blood thirstiness here that supersedes the reality of what happened to this baby. Grandpa is being held accountable by the law for his negligence. But this little girl actually died. Some may be excited to see the evidence that vindicates their position. I am not.

Yes, there is a dead baby here. Tragic. What has me so, to use your term, “bloodthirsty” is that the family seems determined to not accept one teeny bit of responsibility for what happened here. And it makes responsible adults, parents, cruisers, etc sick.

Also, the immediate lawsuit, and the funding page that collected 21k already disgusts me. Especially since, imo, this money will go towards paying lawyers to defend what is clearly gross negligence. MOO

And their civil lawyer seems bent on mischaracterizing, or downright LIEING, about every circumstance surrounding this. And he is who they chose as their advocate. A slimy ambulance chaser who had no other objective than $$. MOO

 

[Kindred]

Better to have your license suspended for refusal to breathalyze than have a dui on your record. Never. Take. The. Breathalyzer.

They are not even accurate.

Actually breathalyzers aren't even admissible in court (because as justbreath pointed out, they are inaccurate) so I'm not sure how you can have your license suspended for not taking one. It's a tool used to get probable cause for a DUI just like the physical field test is.

You can have your license suspended and still be charged with a DUI for failure to submit to blood or urine testing because those are admissible in court. You can refuse a breathalyzer and still keep your license if you submit to the more accurate blood test and come back in the legal limits.

 

[katydid23]

Katydid23 posted:
"And if there was water, would that have prevented the tragic death? NO."

@katydid23 and @BetteDavisEyes Getting a bit more technical about it >>>>

"Injuries caused by falls from buildings vary depending on the building's height and the age of the person....Overall, the height at which 50% of children die from a fall is between four and five storey heights (around 12 to 15 metres or 40 to 50 feet) above the ground." bbm

Re Chloe's Mom, possibly thinking a fall to water may have been survivable?
"The severity of injury increases with the height of the fall but also depends on body and surface features and the manner of the body's impacts against the surface.[25] The chance of surviving increases if landing on a highly deformable surface (a surface that is easily bent, compressed, or displaced) such as snow or water." bbm
^. Falling (accident) - Wikipedia

In life-ring-toss survival cases, like BTE referenced, all subjects survived impact w water. Swimmers then swam, caught life ring, etc, while non-swimmers who survived impact likely died from drowning or hypothermia. imo.
Different from poor baby Chloe who did not survive impact on concrete (probably would not have survived water landing).

All ^^ true. But she was only 18 months old, and wasn't wearing a life jacket. If she fell 150 ft into the ocean, I'm thinking she would have gone below the surface immediately. Would she be able to swim back up to the surface before inhaling lethal amounts of water? I doubt it.

 

[justbreathe]

This is true, although it doesn't always work out that way. Take the OJ case, for example. Not Guilty in the Criminal Trial, but that certainly did not help him in the Civil Trial. Unfortunately, he has had to pay very little of that Civil judgement, and is currently still "searching" FL golf courses for the real killer(s).

Yes, a ‘not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ might not be much help in surpassing the threshold in a civil trial which is a “preponderance of the evidence” - more likely than not, as per the admitted evidence. It could 51% for and 49% against and the 51% is “more” and wins. A not guilty verdict sure wouldn’t hurt.

But it will be dang hard to reach that civil court threshold that any other entity is more responsible than SA, if a criminal court has already determined SA was criminally negligent.

 

[al66pine]

Civil Case & Criminal Case, Res Judicata?

Yes, both can go forward at their own pace and are not related. Except, that a finding of criminal negligence for SA would be able to be used as evidence in the civil trial that would weigh heavily against the cruise line bearing any responsibility. (Argh - forget the term, but basically if another judge in another court (any court) has previously determined something to be a fact, that fact cannot be disputed in another court.) ..

. @justbreathe
"(Argh - forget the term, but basically if another judge in another court (any court) has previously determined something to be a fact, that fact cannot be disputed in another court.) ..."
Maybe you're thinking of 'res judicata'? Yes, that's the general idea of what you described.
Not as simple as saying X was determined as a fact in a previous procedure, so in this subsequent legal proceeding, RJ applies and, either
- X must be found as a fact in this subsequent case, or
- this entire subsequent case must be dismissed.
More below & much more at link.

For RJ to be applicable and binding in second/subsequent procedure, several factors must be met, including identity of the parties to the action.
Civil case (not filed yet, but threatened ATM) ---- Mom & Dad - vs - cruise line.
PR Crim case --------------------------------------------- PR - vs -G'father
^ Different parties ^^ RJ is not app, imo.

'Res judicata' or claim preclusion, Latin for a matter [already] judged refers to either of two concepts:
---" a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and ---the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties....
"In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.[1]
"The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system."
^ Res judicata - Wikipedia

 

[Safeguard]

The end result of whatever Grandpa was doing, tells the story.

Maybe Chloe's mom thought water wouldn't have been as lethal as the concrete dock. Adults who go overboard into the water can survive if someone sees them fall and tosses life-rings into the water.

At 18 months, Chloe was a fashionista, foodie, sports fan, etc. Maybe she could swim, too.

I imagine with water below, you could at least hope for a miracle, concrete, not gonna happen. As a parent even knowing my child was gone, I would rather not have had her hit rock if given a choice. Maybe I could hold her for a bit still...

 

[mjp1228]

<modsnip> Her attorney may be able to get a copy and edit it for Chloe’s loved ones to view. You’re not Chloe’s loved one so you wouldn’t know exactly when she is going to fall. So if you saw the video you’d see the moment she left his hands.

It almost seems like there’s a blood thirstiness here that supersedes the reality of what happened to this baby. Grandpa is being held accountable by the law for his negligence. But this little girl actually died. Some may be excited to see the evidence that vindicates their position. I am not.

The only part of the video I’d be interested in seeing is GPa’s movements prior to arriving at the window. Did his walk seem OK? Did he stop at other windows first? Or did it seem like he went directly to that particular window? The open one? If he did, it would make me think that he saw that it was open and thought they’d see more. No bad intentions. Still think it was an accident. But all his fault. IMO there would be no way not to tell the difference between an open v closed ship window.

 

[justbreathe]

Maritime law is complicated because once out in international waters laws don't really apply because, well who's law do you apply? But the courts have already addressed whether or not cruise ships can be held liable for what their guests do when drunk. It boils down to if it is not something that they could have anticipated happening. I pointed this out in a previous thread here:

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

Hypothetical situation: Mr Smith is living it up on his cruise and has had several long islands over the past 3 hours and can no longer feel his face. Deciding to go for a walk he stumbles around and ends up on the top deck and is just enamored with the way the moonlight sparkles on the water. He leans over the railing to get a better look and goes overboard. Even though the ship got him drunk the ship isn't liable because they couldn't have anticipated that he would intentionally lean over the rail in a way that he'd fall off.

Same night but different scenario. Mr Smith goes down to an unfamiliar floor that is not restricted and finds a door to the elevator mechanical room unsecured, left by some careless employee that had been trying to fix it earlier and hadn't realized when he left for the night that he hadn't resecured it. Mr Smith goes in because curiosity and ends up dying in a horrible way because he was too drunk to not realize he was in a dangerous area. In that instance, the cruise line would totally be liable, still probably not for letting him drink so much, but for the fact that they knew that was a dangerous area that guests shouldn't be in and steps were not taken to make sure it was properly secured.

The window falls into the first situation and would be covered by the precedent of the other cases. The windows are located at levels that are chest high on an adult. There are railings in place to keep people from leaning too close to the open windows. The ship has passed inspections by the Coast Guard and other agencies and those windows are in compliance with regulations. No one could have anticipated that SA would have put a helpless toddler on that railing in violation of ships saftey rules in front of that open window. SA created the hazard, not the ship.



Precedence is the term. And yes it does exist. See above. So that combined with the fact that Chloe is the first child since at least 1995 as available by public documentation to have ever fallen off a cruise ship, the family really doesn't have much of a case that RC is at fault.

Res judicata
A matter already judged

If he is found guilty by a criminal judge, he cannot go in front of another court and try to argue he really wasn’t guilty.

 

[HMSHood]

A tragic case has more twists.

 

[justbreathe]

Actually breathalyzers aren't even admissible in court (because as justbreath pointed out, they are inaccurate) so I'm not sure how you can have your license suspended for not taking one. It's a tool used to get probable cause for a DUI just like the physical field test is.

You can have your license suspended and still be charged with a DUI for failure to submit to blood or urine testing because those are admissible in court. You can refuse a breathalyzer and still keep your license if you submit to the more accurate blood test and come back in the legal limits.

Many states do have laws that say refusal to submit results in a license suspension. It would make sense to me that a person could refuse to breathalyze but instead submit to a more accurate testing method.

 

[SuzDuJour]

In NC:
Drivers who are arrested for DWI are generally taken to a local police department for chemical testing of their blood or breath. The arresting officer must advise the driver of certain rights and potential consequences. This advisement must include informing the driver:

• of the right to refuse testing, but that such a refusal will result in immediate license revocation of at least one year
  
  
• that a test result showing a BAC of .08% or higher will result in a license revocation of at least 30 days
  
  
• of the right to contact an attorney and have a witness present to observe the testing procedures (provided that consultation with counsel and selecting a witness doesn’t delay testing more than 30 minutes), and
  
  
• of the right to seek an independent alcohol test—in addition to that ordered by the officer—upon release.
  

 

[Lilibet]

@gitana1 I think you missed the sarcasm notation in the post by @justbreathe to which you were replying:

“Nope. You have to watch the whole thing, or not at all. That apparently is the “rule” that cannot be broken. /s”
BBM

<modsnip> Her attorney may be able to get a copy and edit it for Chloe’s loved ones to view. You’re not Chloe’s loved one so you wouldn’t know exactly when she is going to fall. So if you saw the video you’d see the moment she left his hands.

It almost seems like there’s a blood thirstiness here that supersedes the reality of what happened to this baby. Grandpa is being held accountable by the law for his negligence. But this little girl actually died. Some may be excited to see the evidence that vindicates their position. I am not.

BBM

I have to disagree about “blood thirstiness” and “excited to see the evidence” @gitana1...and you know I think you’re terrific. But that’s simply not true of your fellow posters IMO and is an unfair characterization of people you deal with here all the time. The consensus is that what the grandfather was doing with Chloe up to (but not including) the moment she was dropped or fell is the part we think is very important. I have enough regard for members here to know that no one here has the desire to watch Chloe fall.
JMO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Actually breathalyzers aren't even admissible in court (because as justbreath pointed out, they are inaccurate) so I'm not sure how you can have your license suspended for not taking one. It's a tool used to get probable cause for a DUI just like the physical field test is.

You can have your license suspended and still be charged with a DUI for failure to submit to blood or urine testing because those are admissible in court. You can refuse a breathalyzer and still keep your license if you submit to the more accurate blood test and come back in the legal limits.

Much like debt, deny, deny. Refuse, refuse, refuse.