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

[MsBetsy]

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time and am still struck by how strange it was that this man went straight into denial rather than shameful devastation.

Didn't Chloe's parents consider filing a lawsuit right away?
I think that may be one reason why he has never actually admitted fault.
If he does, his daughter might consider it a betrayal or think it will hurt their case.
I think things would have been much different if they had never blamed the company.

Imo

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Didn't Chloe's parents consider filing a lawsuit right away?
I think that may be one reason why he has never actually admitted fault.
If he does, his daughter might consider it a betrayal or think it will hurt their case.
I think things would have been much different if they had never blamed the company.

Imo

It seems like they were screaming "lawsuit" before that baby was even cold...JMOO

 

[they'll get you]

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time and am still struck by how strange it was that this man went straight into denial rather than shameful devastation.

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time and am still struck by how strange it was that this man went straight into denial rather than shameful devastation.

Was it mum who said SA was banging on the windows saying ‘I thought there was glass, I thought there was glass!’?

We know differently now.
Damage control at its best.

 

[MsBetsy]

It seems like they were screaming "lawsuit" before that baby was even cold...JMOO

Yeah, that's what I thought.
They seem to be a close, loving family and are probably loyal to one another.
The Grandpa probably feels limited in what he can say.
I thought during his last interview he said something like, "I see what I did wrong," when he was talking about how he took one hand away from her to adjust his hold on her.
Then he followed up with, "Fix the ship!"
I'm sure he is being advised in what to say and what not to say.

I think he will likely feel the guilt and remorse for the rest of his life.
How could he not? He held her over the railing and lost his grip, and as a result he dropped her. He will probably always blame himself even though he can't admit it right now.

Imo

 

[In vino veritas]

IMO, it does not matter if it has never happened before. IMO, if it can happen, it will happen.

So how do you account for the fact that modifications have NOT been made to balconies and open deck railings, where people HAVE gone overboard????

 

[Jewels53]

Maritime Law

II. The general maritime law of the United States applies.

When an injury occurs on navigable waters, federal maritime law governs the substantive legal issues. See Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 912 F.2d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1990);

7

Case 1:19-cv-25100-DLG Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2020 Page 8 of 20

Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 1989); Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1334 (11th Cir. 1984). Maritime law governs passenger suits against cruise lines and exclusively sets substantive liability standards, superseding state substantive liability standards. See Keefe, 867 F.2d 1318; Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 628 (1959). Because this incident occurred while Plaintiffs were passengers aboard RCL’s cruise vessel, the general maritime law must be applied.

This is from page 7 and 8 of the motion to dismiss from RCCL. I don't have a link as this is saved on my computer. I think it is somewhere in this thread. Unless someone else has it handy. tia

 

[they'll get you]

Setback, yes. IMO, I have said before that I DO think SA's conduct was negligent. But his negligence does not mean that RCCL cannot be found to have a degree of negligence, too.

Say for example in Aust we have laws on pool fencing, height, width of rungs and self-closing gates. Etc.

Say if a neighbour’s child gets in and drowns.

If the poolowner has all these safety features installed should the pool owner be held responsible?

If RCC was cleared safe by whoever writes the codes, how can they be held responsible?
If RCC were told to fix them and they didn’t then, yes, let them hang.

 

[they'll get you]

Setback, yes. IMO, I have said before that I DO think SA's conduct was negligent. But his negligence does not mean that RCCL cannot be found to have a degree of negligence, too.

Yes a triviality like ‘he was still able to place a child there’.

 

[MassGuy]

Say for example in Aust we have laws on pool fencing, height, width of rungs and self-closing gates. Etc.

Say if a neighbour’s child gets in and drowns.

If the poolowner has all these safety features installed should the pool owner be held responsible?

If RCC was cleared safe by whoever writes the codes, how can they be held responsible?
If RCC were told to fix them and they didn’t then, yes, let them hang.

Exactly. And if this child died as a result of something inherently unsafe (a low open window or something), I’d be all for a lawsuit.

That’s not what happened though. For her to find herself in danger, some idiot had to put her in that position.

Someone had to (recklessly) go out of their way to kill her. How about some personal responsibility?

 

[they'll get you]

not trying to butt in with corrections, but those bars are for when the deck is flooded (it's a mostly open deck 11 and 12) the water can flow out without anything going overboard,

A crew member told me it was for window cleaning and maintanance and he could’ve been pulling my leg.

 

[al66pine]

Freedom of the Seas Refurbishment/Amping Up. Return to Service Date?

Royal Caribbean has been undergoing a process of "Amping up" it's ships, and Freedom has been scheduled to undergo this transformation for some time. They plan them years in advance, and she's scheduled to go in this year. I'm attaching the RCCL Fleet Guide.

JulieBEMT Thanks for the link to Fleet Guide. Amping Up is good term. More than a facelift. IIRC, in Mar 2018 RCL publicly announced Fr/Seas refurb.
Also ~ a mo. ago, IIRC, I saw last cruise ended Jan 20 and would return to service ~ 8 weeks later. Sounded like a fast turn around for the extensive changes.

Looking now for the date of first cruise/return to service this spring. Not finding it. Anyone?

 

[Pigey]

Perhaps little CW was tired of the water activity and SA was overheated. In which case he should have sat down at the tables. Babies that age can be distracted with anything. The contents of a wallet a key fob.

 

[they'll get you]

It seems like they were screaming "lawsuit" before that baby was even cold...JMOO

Confronting but possibly true.

 

[they'll get you]

Exactly. And if this child died as a result of something inherently unsafe (a low open window or something), I’d be all for a lawsuit.

That’s not what happened though. For her to find herself in danger, some idiot had to put her in that position.

Someone had to (recklessly) go out of their way to kill her. How about some personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility bbm.

If America is like Aust we are now living in an nanny state where the great unwashed can’t think for themselves and there are laws EVERYWHERE to protect us from ourselves.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Yeah, that's what I thought.
They seem to be a close, loving family and are probably loyal to one another.
The Grandpa probably feels limited in what he can say.
I thought during his last interview he said something like, "I see what I did wrong," when he was talking about how he took one hand away from her to adjust his hold on her.
Then he followed up with, "Fix the ship!"
I'm sure he is being advised in what to say and what not to say.

I think he will likely feel the guilt and remorse for the rest of his life.
How could he not? He held her over the railing and lost his grip, and as a result he dropped her. He will probably always blame himself even though he can't admit it right now.

Imo

BBM I didn't see a lot of guilt and/or remorse from SA in the David Begnaud interview. I saw an evasive person being evasive. JMOO

 

[mheido67]

Say for example in Aust we have laws on pool fencing, height, width of rungs and self-closing gates. Etc.

Say if a neighbour’s child gets in and drowns.

If the poolowner has all these safety features installed should the pool owner be held responsible?

If RCC was cleared safe by whoever writes the codes, how can they be held responsible?
If RCC were told to fix them and they didn’t then, yes, let them hang.

My understanding from the RCCL motion to dismiss is their argument is that they can not be considered negligent if they did not have notification of a dangerous condition existing. They laid out this out in detail. Someone claiming after the fact of an injury/death that a condition which did not violate any codes/regulations should have been understood to be dangerous does not open the owner to negligence claims if there was no due notification of such dangerous condition existing. My less than perfect paraphrase anyway.

 

[mheido67]

I've puzzled over this, too. Why didn't he move into the shade? Instead went into the squat. Someone else on here mentioned children doing that was indicative of a heart problem. When he does get to the railing, my interpretation, he almost flops onto it, and allows the railing to support him.

"...he almost flops onto it, and allows the railing to support him."

My interpretation of that was that he was leaning over to look down at CW between the railing and the window frame. SA watches her in that position for several seconds and then squats down, lifts her up and puts her on the railing where he holds her in various positions before he falls backwards reacting to having dropped her. One thing I have found very odd is that in interviews SA claimed that they could not easily reach the glass at the lower window level. He offered that as a reason for why he lifted CW onto the railing. But this makes no sense since, as is clearly evident in the recreation images with Winkelman, it is harder to reach the glass at the middle panes (because of the wood railings presence) than at the lower. CW could easily have banged on the glass "like at the hockey games" standing at the lower window. There was no need to raise her up and doing so actually made it harder to bang on the glass. I also find it hard to believe SA could have stood before an open window for 34 seconds looking out and not realized it was in fact open unless he was paying zero attention to what he was doing.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Somewhat tedious reading, but here is the passenger contract to which all ticketed passengers agree when they book a cruise with RCCL. The cruise ticket contract outlines the legal liability limits of the cruise line. I think it's safe to say that SA probably didn't read the passenger contract, and, if he did, he doesn't think that rules apply to him.

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/dam/royal/resources/pdf/cruise-ticket-contract.pdf

OT: DH and I are packed and ready to leave tomorrow for our cruise onboard Sky Princess. I've been busy with last minute errands and packing but have kept up with the discussion. I will follow the thread while I'm away. Bon Voyage!

 

[JulieBEMT]

Freedom of the Seas Refurbishment/Amping Up. Return to Service Date?
JulieBEMT Thanks for the link to Fleet Guide. Amping Up is good term. More than a facelift. IIRC, in Mar 2018 RCL publicly announced Fr/Seas refurb.
Also ~ a mo. ago, IIRC, I saw last cruise ended Jan 20 and would return to service ~ 8 weeks later. Sounded like a fast turn around for the extensive changes.

Looking now for the date of first cruise/return to service this spring. Not finding it. Anyone?

As of now, Freedom is scheduled to resume revenue sailings on March 1st. In the past, however, a number of ships have been late in returning to service. Usually between one and four weeks.

Correction: I just looked to see the March 1st sailing is closed to bookings. So, as of now it looks like March 8th.

 

[FactFinder3000]

If Chloe wanted to bang the glass she could have simply banged the glass. There would be no reason to pick her up for that.

Simple. Easy. Completely destroys SA's ridiculous excuse.