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

[Forever Young]

I have noticed this particular paragraph several times:

"Anello says he's colorblind and didn't realize the 11th story window was open, but Royal Caribbean says video evidence proves it doesn't matter because he knew the window was open."
Royal Caribbean says video proves grandfather knew window was open before dropping toddler

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

I'm reading in two other forums and there's a lot of misinformation out there, but I'm not seeing any support for SA. I've noticed people on the fence waiting for the court to decide have jumped off the fence now and want SA to be held responsible.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

"but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th"

But, could another child have scaled furniture or in some other way climbed on top of the railing? The result would be the same. The substantial factor is the open window. IMO

It sounds like the substantial factor would be improper supervision by the parent or guardian, which on land such an event happening of allowing a child to fall out a window is a chargeable criminal offense to the child's guardian:
Toddler Falls from Roof, Babysitter Arrested
Mother speaks after child falls out of window under care of babysitter

 

[they'll get you]

Until you see these photos or similar , in your mind you picture ' a wall of glass ' as described by Winkerman . So misleading ( just one of many details he has tweaked to suit his client )but mere words wont resolve this case , hard facts and solid evidence will

Winkleman is being a typical lawyer who is a trained ‘wordsmith’.

In Australia we had a spate of ‘king hits’ or ‘one punch’ attacks where an unsuspecting person was punched from behind.

One lawyer argued it was not the punch that killed the victim but the concrete that his head hit.

Or if a victim who runs from an assailant and gets hit by a car, was it the attack or the car that caused the death?

This is the kind of word games that Winkleman is playing IYKWIM. That’s their job.

Of course Australia went berserk when this tripe was presented and there is a law against such an attack.

 

[FactFinder3000]

I have noticed this particular paragraph several times:

"Anello says he's colorblind and didn't realize the 11th story window was open, but Royal Caribbean says video evidence proves it doesn't matter because he knew the window was open."
Royal Caribbean says video proves grandfather knew window was open before dropping toddler

Yeah, and apparently he discovered his color blindness after the incident. Like that has anything to do with this incident, frankly. It's not about color, it's about opaqueness. Tinted windows let through less light. Anybody can see that. And what is particularly damning, in my view, is that doubled windows, such as exists directly to the right of the opening, are very obviously darker.

 

[they'll get you]

"but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th"

But, could another child have scaled furniture or in some other way climbed on top of the railing? The result would be the same. The substantial factor is the open window. IMO

Or is the substantial factor the concrete that truly killed Chloe?
Jeeze now I’m thinking like a lawyer. Arghhhh

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Going into the legal aspect of the case I think the Wiegands are going to have a tough time, especially with their own reconstruction emphasizing how difficult it is for a nearly 6 foot tall adult to go out the window. It's like RCCL set a trap for Winkleman and he walked right into it with his pictures showing that SA took effort to put Chloe on the windowsill and that's it not remotely at all like a child climbing up to and out a window. This required SA to act negligently for Chloe to even be in that position on the windowsill, which I don't think adults placing children on windowsills is something that can be reasonable expected - only children themselves putting themselves in that position.

But Miami-based maritime lawyer Jim Walker says proving negligence won’t be an easy feat for the family.

“In order for a cruise line to be legally liable for this child’s death, the family’s lawyer must prove that the cruise line acted unreasonably and that the cruise line knew or should have known of the specific danger on its ship,” he told news.com.au.

“This will be an exceedingly difficult burden for the lawyer to meet in this very sad and tragic set of circumstances.

“Without evidence (prior incidents or proof that the cruise line knew of a dangerous condition on the cruise ship) the chances are slim that the court (if suit is filed) would permit this case to proceed to a jury trial,” he added.
Missing piece in toddler’s tragic fall

exactly. You summed it up perfectly.

The site needs a “love” button.

 

[Forever Young]

Going into the legal aspect of the case I think the Wiegands are going to have a tough time, especially with their own reconstruction emphasizing how difficult it is for a nearly 6 foot tall adult to go out the window. It's like RCCL set a trap for Winkleman and he walked right into it with his pictures showing that SA took effort to put Chloe on the windowsill and that's it not remotely at all like a child climbing up to and out a window. This required SA to act negligently for Chloe to even be in that position on the windowsill, which I don't think adults placing children on windowsills is something that can be reasonable expected - only children themselves putting themselves in that position.

But Miami-based maritime lawyer Jim Walker says proving negligence won’t be an easy feat for the family.

“In order for a cruise line to be legally liable for this child’s death, the family’s lawyer must prove that the cruise line acted unreasonably and that the cruise line knew or should have known of the specific danger on its ship,” he told news.com.au.

“This will be an exceedingly difficult burden for the lawyer to meet in this very sad and tragic set of circumstances.

“Without evidence (prior incidents or proof that the cruise line knew of a dangerous condition on the cruise ship) the chances are slim that the court (if suit is filed) would permit this case to proceed to a jury trial,” he added.
Missing piece in toddler’s tragic fall

Another snip> from FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

“[A] parent may be guilty of contributory negligence in not giving proper supervision over a child, but ․ it is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether such lack of supervision was negligence under all the circumstances.”  (Christiana v. Rattaro (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 597, 599;  Baker, supra, 73 F.2d at p. 828

Here is, IMO, a court opinion stating that conduct that might be considered negligence in one situation, might not be considered to be negligence in another situation.

Now I think I know why the subject of banging on glass at the hockey rink is pertinent to this case. Is the act of allowing a child to bang on glass, in and of itself, negligent?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Adult supervision is required at all times for children under 12:
Q: Can I leave my child under the supervision of a lifeguard?
A:Lifeguards are not babysitters. They are there to reduce risk and take action in the event of an emergency. Although lifeguards are on duty, adult supervision is required for children ages 12 and under at all times.
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/...my-child-under-the-supervision-of-a-lifeguard
So even if this happened in the H20 Zone, SA was still responsible for supervising Chloe that she didn't go out any windows even if she somehow climbed up there on her own.

 

[they'll get you]

Wow. You know, it has been noted that you joined this forum after the incident occurred, and you are continuously trying to twist things in SA's favor. I have definitely noted your manipulation of language as well.

I understand Forever Young’s healthy debate as she/he is presenting the thinking and speaking of a lawyer, this is exactly what twists and turns that will be presented.

Here’s another, SA said he lost his footing or slipped so why isn’t he suing RCC for a spillage that caused him to slip and lose his grip?
I’m surprised Winkleman hadn’t thought of that one yet!

 

[Midwestmom2019]

@Forever Young Thanks for the link to appellate court opinion* on La Jolla child/fall/window case. Very interesting. In child/fall/window hotel & apt cases the app ct analyzed, there were many similarities to this case and to each other. Several screen-popped claims. No Thought-There-Was-Glass claims, and most importantly, imo, no case in which adult was holding child at window. Did you notice injury was in Oct 2008, app ct opn was issued Oct 2014. Six yrs. Then another trial? Maybe parties reached a settlement since. I wonder about final outcome.
* FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

BTW, after plaintiffs' atty in ^ case alleged a certain ASTM re windows applied to that hotel, def's expert testified that it did not. Same thing my post 993 said ---example of Atty-W alleging violation of safety std (ASTM F2006- 17) that does not apply (not relevant/not pertain) to cruise ship.

Even simpler:
Those window cases had children who could gain access to them on their own. Here, the distinguishing feature is that Chloe never could have reached the window, even standing on a table.
That’s the difference.
In other words, RCCL DID more than window standards. They met industry standards by ONLY having opening windows across the top tier. The second and floor level windows do not open for that very reason. It poses a danger to little ones.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Another snip> from FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

“[A] parent may be guilty of contributory negligence in not giving proper supervision over a child, but ․ it is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether such lack of supervision was negligence under all the circumstances.”  (Christiana v. Rattaro (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 597, 599;  Baker, supra, 73 F.2d at p. 828

Here is, IMO, a court opinion stating that conduct that might be considered negligence in one situation, might not be considered to be negligence in another situation.

Now I think I know why the subject of banging on glass at the hockey rink is pertinent to this case. Is the act of allowing a child to bang on glass, in and of itself, negligent?

Absolutely putting a child on tall railing to bang on glass is itself negligent, like the picture put out on the family doesn't show her banging on glass on something like this:
Stock Photo - Curious boy standing at railing watching ice hockey rink
Instead she's banging on glass at the ground level because falling backwards off something like the hockey glass pictured above could result in injury or death, especially with the confession by SA of only holding Chloe with one closed fist while on the sill. You hold a child loosely with one closed fist like on the hockey railing picture I've linked to, you're asking for dire consequences. Just look at page 4 of the Winkleman re-enactment where they show how negligent SA was by putting Chloe on the sill.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Another snip> from FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

“[A] parent may be guilty of contributory negligence in not giving proper supervision over a child, but ․ it is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether such lack of supervision was negligence under all the circumstances.”  (Christiana v. Rattaro (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 597, 599;  Baker, supra, 73 F.2d at p. 828

Here is, IMO, a court opinion stating that conduct that might be considered negligence in one situation, might not be considered to be negligence in another situation.

Now I think I know why the subject of banging on glass at the hockey rink is pertinent to this case. Is the act of allowing a child to bang on glass, in and of itself, negligent?

This isn’t a contrib case. It’s not even negligence. It’s malice and aforethought.
But you know that, don’t you?

 

[wackyw]

I understand Forever Young’s healthy debate as she/he is presenting the thinking and speaking of a lawyer, this is exactly what twists and turns that will be presented.

Here’s another, SA said he lost his footing or slipped so why isn’t he suing RCC for a spillage that caused him to slip and lose his grip?
I’m surprised Winkleman hadn’t thought of that one yet!

Because there was no spillage and he lost his "balance and grip" due to the forward movement of a falling CW maybe? Or drunk maybe. And those comments are " he said xxxxx" from local officials aren't they? I wonder if they are verbatim from an official questioning and whether they will stand up in court if it eventually gets there? I have a feeling not, but RCCL claim they have witnesses, so maybe they will back it up.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Wow. You know, it has been noted that you joined this forum after the incident occurred, and you are continuously trying to twist things in SA's favor. I have definitely noted your manipulation of language as well.

Don’t bite. The thread will get shut down.

 

[wackyw]

Yeah, and apparently he discovered his color blindness after the incident. Like that has anything to do with this incident, frankly. It's not about color, it's about opaqueness. Tinted windows let through less light. Anybody can see that. And what is particularly damning, in my view, is that doubled windows, such as exists directly to the right of the opening, are very obviously darker.

I refer you to posts #424 (snoods) and #426 (chikkamma) of this thread that put this colour blindness crap to bed

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Yes, of course. With this qualification:

 a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm;  but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 180, 187.) IBID

In other words, the negligence of one party, does not absolve another party from negligence.

The second part, about conduct...........

"if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct".

Is there any other way possible, besides the conduct of SA, that a child could have gone out that window?

Not only NO, but HELL NO.

 

[Stinalyn]

I'm doing the reverse. At first I thought it was the cruise fault.
But now I believe that the railing was there for a reason. Any logical person could guess why.
I would like to know exactly where he put her and if it's true he put her outside the window. I can't see the video very good. But it looked like he lifted her very high and up over the railing.

I agree with you. And I should clarify my post from earlier because I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position.
I 100% think SA is responsible for Chloe's death. I do not think RCCL is at fault here. The simple fact is that Chloe would not have been able to reach that window without help, he is the one that put her in danger IMO. He (SA) killed her, as horrific as that is to wrap my head around. IMO JMO

My only point of uncertainty has been in trying to figure out what (in the name of all- that- is -holy) could have caused Gramps to pick her up and put her in that position, and then drop her (ugh).
I have considered every possible ( I think) reason or explanation and the only two that seem to make sense to me are that either he was impaired in some way (drugs/medication/drinking) or the unthinkable (IMO)alternative...namely that this was somehow a planned act, or deliberate and that SA is an evil man.
***I'm not saying I think he is evil, but that if this was a deliberate act, it would follow that he is evil in that case. IMO JMO
I know there are other possibilities, as many of you have done a great job of listing them, but they don't seem as likely to me.

As much as I hate to let my mind go there, I have to admit I have wondered if this was indeed about money, and I really really hope it wasn't. But I want justice for Chloe, even if that means discovering something horrific and nefarious. I haven't made up my mind, and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that it wasn't an accident, but it certainly seems like something is "off" with this family and SA in particular w/ the changing stories, excuses and lies. My gut feeling is that there is a whole lot more to this than we know, and I hope the whole truth does come out. JMO MOO etc.

 

[al66pine]

"but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th"
But, could another child have scaled furniture or in some other way climbed on top of the railing? The result would be the same. The substantial factor is the open window. IMO

@Forever Young Yes, could happen w same results. Not sure if you are commenting on Wiegand or RCL. Are you saying because (you think/someone thinks) there is a condition on RCL ship was could be made safer, that someone should file a lawsuit to encourage, or for a court to order, RCL to make condition safer, even without any being injured?
Or saying something else? (I've been having crippling-brain-denseness-spells lately, so pls be patient ).

 

[wackyw]

Hi there,

SNIPPED
Current defence is "he thought there was glass in the window" ... . BS. There's just no way anyone with an iota of awareness would fail to register all the many clues, visual and otherwise. And I don't think he could have hidden, in day to day life, the amount of visual impairment that would have required. There's also a picture of him walking without glasses.
SNIPPED

.

replying to my own post to correct the bit BBM - He does have glasses on in the picture I was thinking of, I just didn't see them. Revealed to me in a larger picture. There's a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going to hunt for it