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

[katydid23]

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?

YES, it would be negligent if the one year old child was placed high up in a small window ledge, on the 11th floor, to bang on the glass, and was only being held by one arm, and was dropped.

 

[they'll get you]

Experienced WebSleuthers, please help me out here. I've had a couple posts removed. I just noticed the "report" button, so I suppose it can happen either from a mod noticing a post or from it being reported by a member/s. Do you ever get a note from the site that your post has been removed? If I've written something that violated TOS, it was unintentional. Thank you!

A mod will sometimes tell you why it’s been removed but I haven’t noticed anything untoward.
We usually give a friendly heads up to one and other.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

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".

PR is handling the criminal case under its laws.
Neesaki was referring to ForeverYoung’s continued and exclusive use of California law, use of only one case actually, when the Wiegand civil case has been filed in the Florida federal court system. As an aside, never mind California vs. Federal, this is a maritime case. High Seas. Hotels, apartments and high rises are an entirely different category of law. Talk about mixing apples and oranges.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

YES, it would be negligent if the one year old child was placed high up in a small window ledge, on the 11th floor, to bang on the glass, and was only being held by one arm, and was dropped.

Yes, a pig’s butt is pork. Agreed.

 

[they'll get you]

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.

How do you stop these multiple suicides on ships?
Maybe a huge grill around any decks like the Empire State Building.

Chloe’s death is a one off and we’ll see who’s fault it really was.
Your friendly banter is opening up my mind.

 

[justice4allnow]

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.

What are those "different and safer" kinds of windows on other cruise ships? A description or photo would be helpful. Where did you learn about those windows? Thank you for sharing.
RCCL, like all the companies, refurbishes all of their cruise ships on a regular schedule planned years in advance. In March 2018 an announcement was made about the refurbishment of Freedom of the Seas, scheduled for Jan 2020. It read:

• new cabins added, stateroom renovations
• Cupcake Cupboard
• DreamWorks Experience
• Nursery
• 3D Cinema
• outdoor movie screen
• BRITTO Gallery
• R-Bar
• Giovanni's Table, Sabor Modern Mexican

• all staterooms renovated, redesigned mini-golf course, many existing venues will be also redesigned and renovated
• Perfect Storm with waterslides (Cyclone, Typhoon)
• The Blaster (water coaster) and Riptide (mat racing slide)
• Splashaway Bay (interactive water playground)
• pool deck's sunbathing areas will receive more shaded seating (including daybeds, hammocks, swing seats, casitas/wooden cabins), Solarium renewed
• new venues - To Dry For (blow-dry bar), Lime and Coconut (2-level bar with live music), Bamboo Room (bar lounge), Johnny Rockets Express, Playmakers Sports Bar and Arcade, Starbucks Bar, The Observatorium (Royal Escape Room)
• new restaurants - El Loco Fresh, Giovanni’s Italian Kitchen, Hooked Seafood, Izumi Hibachi & Sushi
• Battle for Planet Z (laser tag course at Studio B) for "Clash for the Crystal City" gaming experience

 

[Midwestmom2019]

View attachment 227299 View attachment 227300

Just what we all want to see when we’re at sea. A grid. I can see that at the zoo.

 

[they'll get you]

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.

No, he followed Chloe over to that place.

 

[Lilibet]

So, you’re standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon and you decide to hold your 18 month old child out over the abyss...and you drop her...and she dies. Do you sue the National Park Service so it will make the edge of the canyon impervious to stupidity and pay you for your stupidity? I didn’t think so...although no stupidity would surprise me, having watched parents allow their children climb on rocks near the edge of the Grand Canyon.

 

[they'll get you]

So, you’re standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon and you decide to hold your 18 month old child out over the abyss...and you drop her...and she dies. Do you sue the National Park Service so it will make the edge of the canyon impervious to stupidity and pay you for your stupidity? I didn’t think so...although no stupidity would surprise me, having watched parents allow their children climb on rocks near the edge of the Grand Canyon.

It happens as well at zoos. High fences and still a child is lifted up and dropped.
At what point can you prevent stupid?

 

[justice4allnow]

PR is handling the criminal case under its laws.
Neesaki was referring to ForeverYoung’s continued and exclusive use of California law, use of only one case actually, when the Wiegand civil case has been filed in the Florida federal court system. As an aside, never mind California vs. Federal, this is a maritime case. High Seas. Hotels, apartments and high rises are an entirely different category of law. Talk about mixing apples and oranges.

Oops, sorry, I'm mixing up the civil and criminal cases...time for me to take a break ; ) Thank you all for sharing your thoughtful reflections on this very heartbreaking case. We are here with different perspectives but we all care about Chloe's passing.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

No, he followed Chloe over to that place.

Why would a year and half old toddler want to walk away from a splash pool unless someone said oh, look! Windows. Let’s go bang on the windows!!!I could lift you up, and we’d fly!!!! Yep. Fly right out of the window!!!!
Sure he followed her. Whose idea was it?

 

[Midwestmom2019]

It happens as well at zoos. High fences and still a child is lifted up and dropped.
At what point can you prevent stupid?

Punish the perp. Only way. We all know you can’t fix stupid. Or intent. Or evil. Or color blindness. Or any other cocka may me excuse SA and family have concocted.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Oops, sorry, I'm mixing up the civil and criminal cases...time for me to take a break ; ) Thank you all for sharing your thoughtful reflections on this very heartbreaking case. We are here with different perspectives but we all care about Chloe's passing.

No need to apologize. Non legals can get so lost in the legal maze. But when an apparent legal person mixes apples and oranges, we need to straighten out the mess. You’re good. Really. You are.

 

[katydid23]

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.

This passage you posted looks really bad for SA.
"...such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  ...
Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  

Wow that sounds ominous for the defendant, SA. Just because he had never dropped anyone from a window previously, it should have been reasonably anticipated that it could happen, if he acts irresponsibly under such dangerous conditions.

 

[katydid23]

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.

"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. "

Then why didn't Grandpa heed these same warnings about staying away from high windows, and holding their little ones close? Why didn't he recognise the danger, even with a guard rail right in front of his nose?

 

[katydid23]

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?

"Any Reasonable Person' is a LEGAL term, used in these kind of cases. You cannot escape the use of this term because it is the standard by which 'negligence' will be measured.

Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which theconduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons withgreater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physicianwho aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

Cross-references
Negligence.

Reasonable Person

 

[KR72]

This whole case stunk to me as soon as the whole "she loved to bang on glass" statement came out. It's both dangerous and annoying and gives you some insight into how the family functions ie..allowing their child who doesn't know any better to disrupt others for their own entertainment and also to be put in a potentially dangerous situation. I honestly can't think of any reasonable parent that allows this. One would think that if a toddler began to bang on glass, the parent would stop out because of potential danger and out of respect. The other day I was at the mall when a young tween who was intellectually challenged ran up to a store front to bang on the window. The first thing adult who was with him did was run up to him and gently lead him away and direct him elsewhere.

I've harped on this before, (I know, sorry) but it just irks me that they came up with this lousy excuse as to why SA lifted her and placed her so close to a window. It makes the family sound irresponsible and as if SA is somehow a victim because he was only trying to placate Chloe. Any normal adult would have simply held her up and stood back from the window especially since we all know, and SA knew, that window was open.

 

[Andreee]

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.

DBM

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Experienced WebSleuthers, please help me out here. I've had a couple posts removed. I just noticed the "report" button, so I suppose it can happen either from a mod noticing a post or from it being reported by a member/s. Do you ever get a note from the site that your post has been removed? If I've written something that violated TOS, it was unintentional. Thank you!

I just had some posts removed the other day and the alerts said it was removed because I quoted a removed post. I believe it was around the Winkleman name that we were warned about.