IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[Midwestmom2019]

Somebody thought that it was not applicable to cruise ships. Winkleman, as a maritime lawyer, knows what is and what is not applicable to cruise ships, and that even if it was not at the time applicable to cruise ships, does not mean that a judge cannot find it relevant and decide to make it applicable.

Yep and Dr. Winkleman is also a Best Young ophthalmologist specializing in color blindness and it’s effects on visual acuity while playing with toddlers.
He was spouting off hotel safety because in this case, there is no maritime safety issue. This vessel is under maritime law. It does not “heave to or take a broadside” threat from some young buccaneer who is rattling his sabers. I suspect the maritime veteran will likely just plow over any threats. All we’ll see is the wake.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Not if the windows in question are remedied to be prevented from opening more than 4 inches.

What if the kid is skinny? I bet plenty of kids could squeeze through a 4 inch wide gap. Not all babies are chubby cheeked cherubs.

 

[justbreathe]

Even if that was the truth, and he planned to prop her up in the window ledge of a closed window, that would have been dangerous and negligent on his part. She would have been pushed up right against the glass. What was he thinking?

It would have been an unsteady situation and a good chance she would have fallen. Igt could have been a nasty fall with a severe head injury.

So claiming he thought it was a closed window doesn't really prevent him from being reckless and negligent for lifting a baby up and over the guard rail, to stand her up in a tiny window ledge, where her feet would have only inches of support before she was up against the glass.

It’s unfathomable.

 

[they'll get you]

Not if the windows in question are remedied to be prevented from opening more than 4 inches.

Would that include every railing on the ship?

I appreciate the healthy opposing angles Forever Young.

 

[Area52]

Not if the windows in question are remedied to be prevented from opening more than 4 inches.

I don't understand this logic. If this is the case, why have balcony rooms, why have outside decks and walking areas on these ships. Maybe if they simply did a moronocity test, we could weed out that one in a million idiot who is going to bypass a hand rail and hang a baby out a window on a cruise ship!

 

[Forever Young]

As to the bolded above, how does that^^^ help this family win a monetary award? What would it matter if another older child decided, at some future date, to climb on the table and up on the railing and then out the window? [which I doubt could ever happen anyway?]

How would that future hypothetical have anything to do with this particular case, which is nothing like thAt? In Chloe's tragic death, her caregiver physically placed her in a deadly situation and she died a brutal death.

I don't think the jury will ignore that part of the equation, and reward them monetarily because someday, some kid may figure out away to jump.

It is not the circumstances, or how it happens. The common and preventable element in other hypothetical cases would be the open window.

"How would that future hypothetical have anything to do with this particular case, which is nothing like thAt? In Chloe's tragic death, her caregiver physically placed her in a deadly situation and she died a brutal death."

Because there was an open window.

 

[they'll get you]

Law on a cruise ship (or any other ship) starts with the flag the ship is flying under. ... So when a ship is docked at the Port of Miami, all U.S. (and Florida) laws apply to the ship, its passengers and its crew.
Once a ship is 24 miles from any coastline, it's on the high seas (or international waters). With the exception of certain rights within the contiguous zone, the law of that ship is the law of the country whose flag it's flying. So, a Liberia-registered cruise ship that's 25 miles off the coast of California isn't subject to U.S. law; it's subject to Liberian law.
If I'm on a cruise ship, what laws do I have to adhere to?

 

[Forever Young]

Would that include every railing on the ship?

I appreciate the healthy opposing angles Forever Young.

I would say that typically, even a newborn baby's head could not breach a 4 inch opening.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Who said that he had it all his life? I believe that it was "BettyDavisEyes" who stated that she had just been diagnosed as being color blind, and she also said she will be 70 on her next birthday.

Yeah, but God love her, she wasn’t hoisting her babies up to cruise ship windows and dangling them outside the frame. Her husband would have killed her.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Yea I know. I do it for a living. With a speciality in vitreoretina research

Yep. Our hero!!!!!

 

[justbreathe]

From what I've read in media, the step grandfather's exclamation about there being glass on the window (closed) came when he fell to his knees right after the tragedy, not in the elevator. But I'm sure the closest witnesses will be able to give a genuine account of what was said!

I got this info from the doctor’s statement who first ran to Chloe on the dock, then went emergency direct up in the elevator to the 11th deck and escorted SA down to the medical area. It was in the documents Winkleman filed.

 

[al66pine]

(Earlier post discussed inaccurate measuring techniques in 'reenactment'.)

Gosh! I feel like that is so unethical and illegal to purposely mislead the courts in this manner. JMO

@Yellowbeak

Pls do not interp this comment as supporting Winkleman or any atty deliberately using inaccurate or slapdash techniques for (potential) evd to present in ct, but keep in mind: In every civil action, there is another side ready, willing, & able to challenge. Now not speaking to this case or not to these parties specifically, but deceit and subterfuge can and does run in both directions.

Agreeing about unethical and illegal. This kind of behavior forces the opposing party to unnecessarily spend sooo much time and money reviewing these materials, analyzing the inaccuracies, doing legal research, drafting motions and briefs to refute, and then wastes the judge's time and ultimately clogs the courts. jmo

 

[justbreathe]

Somebody thought that it was not applicable to cruise ships. Winkleman, as a maritime lawyer, knows what is and what is not applicable to cruise ships, and that even if it was not at the time applicable to cruise ships, does not mean that a judge cannot find it relevant and decide to make it applicable.

You can’t hold the cruise line liable for standards applied retroactively by a judge. If this ever gets to trial there will be many expert witnesses who will testify why the design has been determined to be safe.

 

[mheido67]

Somebody thought that it was not applicable to cruise ships. Winkleman, as a maritime lawyer, knows what is and what is not applicable to cruise ships, and that even if it was not at the time applicable to cruise ships, does not mean that a judge cannot find it relevant and decide to make it applicable.

On the flip side I’ve got to believe RCCL’s counsel is also well versed in what building standards apply to ships. They’ll have to see who makes the more compelling case.

 

[they'll get you]

What if the kid is skinny? I bet plenty of kids could squeeze through a 4 inch wide gap. Not all babies are chubby cheeked cherubs.

These railings are strewn absolutely everywhere all over the ship and imo they are a 6” gap and a baby of Chloe’s size could easily climb through.
I saw parents holding children around these and they can’t be all changed.

 

[justbreathe]

Yup, he can still be found to be negligent. That is for the judge and jury to decide. But there are two cases, one to decide SA's negligence, and one to decide RCCL's negligance. What he did is one part, what the conditions of the ship was is another.

No. One is a civil suit brought by the parent’s claiming the ship is broken. SA will be expected to testify, if he has a guilty verdict over his head it will have been determined to be a fact that SA is criminally responsible for her death. I suppose theoretically the civil court could assign some partial liability to RCL. But this doubtful. The blame lies 100% with SA imo.

The criminal case is The People charging SA with criminally being responsible for taking Chloe’s life by his actions.

They are both about the same circumstances and facts.

 

[they'll get you]

I don't understand this logic. If this is the case, why have balcony rooms, why have outside decks and walking areas on these ships. Maybe if they simply did a moronocity test, we could weed out that one in a million idiot who is going to bypass a hand rail and hang a baby out a window on a cruise ship!

There is now a precedence.
It’s now a possibility it can happen again.

imo the colour blindness came from this site and I really don’t want to give Winkleman another angle.

 

[justbreathe]

The photo was taken from outside the ship at night, and they appear to be two uniformed officers, IRC. IMO

And the reenactment from the ship at night had the officer seeming to demonstrate holding Chloe the same way as in MW’s reenactment.

In the nighttime video from le he opens his hands after shaking them up and down while in the “hold chloe straight out in front of me.” As if she was just let go.

 

[Yellowbeak]

I don't understand this logic. If this is the case, why have balcony rooms, why have outside decks and walking areas on these ships. Maybe if they simply did a moronocity test, we could weed out that one in a million idiot who is going to bypass a hand rail and hang a baby out a window on a cruise ship!

Agreed. Also, what about any railings whatsoever.... Railings going down stairs, railings by the elevators gaps, railings on the 2nd levels of theaters. Etc... stuff can happen if you are reckless.

 

[justice4allnow]

I think that is LE, talking about what SA said happened.

Ok, thank you, justbreathe and Forever Young, you both think that these are two officers reenacting what Sam described. Were his hands outside the window?