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

[Forever Young]

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.

What if SA saw the windows as being multi-colored?

 

[Forever Young]

Tut tut, children. Let’s not be snippy when we snip snip.

Well, honestly. To me, that is the psychological effect of putting into any document such words - "unquestionably" "any reasonable person" "only logical conclusion", or "the majority thinks". How many times throughout history has the majority been majorly wrong?

 

[Midwestmom2019]

What if SA saw the windows as being multi-colored?

Yes. He SAW them.
I don’t care if they were pink with purple polka dots. Multicolored. Striped.
I guess you’ve figured it out, too.
He SAW the windows.

 

[al66pine]

Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.....

@Forever Young sbm
Yes, and the Wiegands have filed their wrongful death action.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Well, honestly. To me, that is the psychological effect of putting into any document such words - "unquestionably" "any reasonable person" "only logical conclusion", or "the majority thinks". How many times throughout history has the majority been majorly wrong?

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
This time, the majority is majorly right.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

@Forever Young sbm
Yes,and the Wiegands have filed their wrongful death action.

Against the wrong party.
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00.

 

[they'll get you]

What if SA saw the windows as being multi-colored?

Like on LSD?

 

[al66pine]

dbm

 

[Forever Young]

Check the 11th Circuit cases instead of California. Never know. There might be some different court rulings supporting malice and aforethought in these types of cases.

Granted, I found all that case law from just one case in California that took 6 years to resolve. But, I think it gives an accurate and truthful depiction of how these kinds of cases can play out.

It seems that no one wants to implement change for health and safety reasons. Remember when everyone was allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted to? Even the doctor's office?

Or the working conditions in factories? Asbestos in schools? Fire exits in sweatshops? What an outcry when change is advocated for. Oh the cost, the cost.

But now days, aren't we all grateful for the changes that mandate no smoking in restaurants, hotels, and common areas, OSHA laws, etc. We are a nation of laws.

Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of windows the Freedom of the Seas will have after refurbishment, given that other cruise ships, even their own, have a different and safer kind.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Granted, I found all that case law from just one case in California that took 6 years to resolve. But, I think it gives an accurate and truthful depiction of how these kinds of cases can play out.

It seems that no one wants to implement change for health and safety reasons. Remember when everyone was allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted to? Even the doctor's office?

Or the working conditions in factories? Asbestos in schools? Fire exits in sweatshops? What an outcry when change is advocated for. Oh the cost, the cost.

But now days, aren't we all grateful for the changes that mandate no smoking in restaurants, hotels, and common areas, OSHA laws, etc. We are a nation of laws.

Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of windows the Freedom of the Seas will have after refurbishment, given that other cruise ships, even their own, have a different and safer kind.

Relying on just one case? Putting all of your eggs in one basket is dangerous. Diversify your portfolio. You’ll get a better rate of return on your investment. It’s safer. And no egg on your face, either.

 

[neesaki]

Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.

I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

The trial court also based its no duty determination on the fact that “there were no prior incidents of anyone or anything falling from any windows․” 8  However, “ ‘[t]he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not ․ show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  [Citation.]  Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47;  Lane v. City of Sacramento (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1346 [absence of other similar accidents is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the issue of whether a condition is dangerous].)

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

Is California law of significance here? I’m not a lawyer, so forgive me if I’m misunderstanding. I just find it confusing seeing all the quotes from California law, if anyone can fill me in, TIA.

 

[justice4allnow]

I did not get a note, but I haven't signed up for notifications. I believe I had maybe 3 posts removed when I told about something funny I saw and explained how to turn on CC and translate, too, on YouTube. Off topic, I guess. I too, did not mean to violate any terms of service. Que sera sera.

Thank you for the response.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Is California law of significance here? I’m not a lawyer, so forgive me if I’m misunderstanding. I just find it confusing seeing all the quotes from California law, if anyone can fill me in, TIA.

California law has no particular significance here. ForeverYoung found one case to develop her arguments. See her previous post discussing choice of one case. From California. Prudent legal research searches across the board. State and federal laws, cases, appellate and supreme court decisions.

 

[neesaki]

"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

Except for SA’s actions, the harm would not have occurred at all, i.e..... Chloe would not have had a chance of falling to her death if SA had not picked her up, then put her out of that window.

 

[justice4allnow]

Is California law of significance here? I’m not a lawyer, so forgive me if I’m misunderstanding. I just find it confusing seeing all the quotes from California law, if anyone can fill me in, TIA.

As we all know, PR is a territory of the US and thus is part of the US, however this from the Internet Puerto Rico Legal System: "The Puerto Rico legal system differs greatly from the legal system utilized throughout the Continental United States".

 

[katydid23]

"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

Not a young child. The safety bar prevents a child from doing that unless they were an older, teen age for example, child.

 

[1&2&3]

This case still makes my stomach turn! What in the world was an 18 month old baby to gain by holding her up to the open window?

There wasn’t really anything exciting going on for her to see or that would catch her interest. None of it makes sense to me. And no, I don’t buy for one second that SA thought there was glass in that window. The RCCL videos can prove that is a lie because the videos show him sticking his head out.

Knowing there is proof of his lie regarding the window and sticking his head out, the juries in each case, the civil and criminal, will quickly doubt everything else he says. JMO.

 

[neesaki]

What if SA saw the windows as being multi-colored?

But he saw the windows, if multicolored, a difference. Any reasonable person, color blind or not, would be able to tell the windows are open. Open to the air, no reflection, the open window is completely clear while the closed window has a tint, breeze coming through, etc.
Not to mention that SA put his upper body and arms out. And then he put Chloe out. Oh he knew it was open alright. IMO, he chose that window BECAUSE it was open. See the video? He went straight for it.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Granted, I found all that case law from just one case in California that took 6 years to resolve. But, I think it gives an accurate and truthful depiction of how these kinds of cases can play out.

It seems that no one wants to implement change for health and safety reasons. Remember when everyone was allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted to? Even the doctor's office?

Or the working conditions in factories? Asbestos in schools? Fire exits in sweatshops? What an outcry when change is advocated for. Oh the cost, the cost.

But now days, aren't we all grateful for the changes that mandate no smoking in restaurants, hotels, and common areas, OSHA laws, etc. We are a nation of laws.

Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of windows the Freedom of the Seas will have after refurbishment, given that other cruise ships, even their own, have a different and safer kind.

I may be wrong, but IMO, there will be no changes made to the existing windows on deck 11 or any similar windows on other decks because 1. There is nothing unsafe about the current windows; 2. Changing the windows would be a costly and unnecessary renovation considering there is nothing wrong with the current design; and 3. If they change the current windows, that may look like they are admitting the windows were a “danger.” JMO

 

[they'll get you]

What if SA saw the windows as being multi-colored?

The windows are not squeaky clean. It’s impossible to keep them clean & that’s why I took this photo to show the dirt and salt spray on the windows.

To me it was a blind Freddy moment between an open and closed window.

I hope the jurors see the windows in an ‘everyday’ environment.