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

[Medstudies]

That claim is so hard for people to believe.

And the excuses, the justifications....So much argumentative fallacies by MW. I just can’t.

 

[mheido67]

Still does not prove that SA knew the window was open, even if he would have been able to reach outside the window. That does not show that he could see that the window was open.

Does RCCL have to prove he knew the window was open? Or do they just have to convince a judge/jury that a reasonable person in that circumstance should have observed that the window was open? Hence, as a reasonable person, been aware of the danger posed by placing the child in that position.

 

[Forever Young]

Oh come on. lol So we are to believe that this guy had color blindness his entire life, to such a debilitating degree that he couldn't tell a 'clear ' open window from a tinted glass panel, and he wouldn't instantly know it was because of his visual disability? He'd need someone to tell him that? After 51 years of living with it?

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.

 

[Medstudies]

Oh come on. lol So we are to believe that this guy had color blindness his entire life, to such a debilitating degree that he couldn't tell a 'clear ' open window from a tinted glass panel, and he wouldn't instantly know it was because of his visual disability? He'd need someone to tell him that? After 51 years of living with it?

If this is the case he should be suing his optometrists/ophthalmologists. He has honestly never had an Ishihara color plate test? Ever?

 

[justbreathe]

OK, so were they complying with applicable safety regulations? But I do disagree, because court opinion shows that a "foreseeable" danger, i. e. a possibility, is a "triable issue of fact for a jury to decide". A verdict can indeed be rendered on the basis of what was a possibility.

This is why the re-enactment photos show other ways that any other child could have climbed upon the railing and went out the open window.

I think it has been stayed that the ship complied with all current regs, and that this is the first incident of its kind.

A jury cannot find a foreseeable danger in a circumstance designed and shown to comply with current safety standards. That is not a triable issue of fact. The fact has been determined by experts - this is safe.

If say a person dug a giant hole in the middle of a often used bike path, one might say that is a “foreseeable danger.”

But the point of safety regulations is that experts have already taken into account the foreseeable dangers, and accounted for them (height of railings, tint, etc, etc, etc). The standard is already in place and not subject to interpretation by a jury.

No one could foresee a man in full command of his faculties holding a baby 1) up, 2) over a safety rail, and 3) and in front of an open window on the 11th deck.

It is shocking. Even as this group discussed it, we could not believe he actually picked her up and over the railing, and apparently held her on the edge of the window frame, with ONE ARM, for over 30 seconds.

But that is what he did. And it was not foreseeable.

And a verdict, civil or criminal, can’t be rendered on a possibility, except in narrow circumstances.

In a criminal case you might be tried for “attempted murder.” That is the crime - trying to kill someone. You can’t try them for murder based on the fact their victim *could* have died.

In civil cases you need damages, usually monetary. How can you be damaged by something that could possibly happen? Who is the plaintiff - every person in the world?

 

[Andreee]

I wouldn't be buying a made to measure suit from him that's for sure.

lol A moment of levity amid all of this horrible tragedy!

 

[justbreathe]

If this is the case he should be suing his optometrists/ophthalmologists. He has honestly never had an Ishihara color plate test? Ever?

And he wears glasses, so he is seeing someone about his eyes.

 

[In vino veritas]

Still does not prove that SA knew the window was open, even if he would have been able to reach outside the window. That does not show that he could see that the window was open.

Perhaps not. BUT, when one looks at ALL the behaviors leading up to Chloe being dropped, followed by all the absurd assertions and contradictions after the fact, it all screams NEGLIGENCE!!
Furthermore, it can be argued that SA took aim for that particular window because he KNEW it was open. The video footage from the rear angle shows SA getting up from his crouch and walks around to that window. He does not go in a straight line to the windows in front of him, or to the right. He turns to the left... to that particular window.
Then he bends over from the midsection and looks down... not once, but twice. What is looking down at.... the floor, his toes???

 

[Medstudies]

And he wears glasses, so he is seeing someone about his eyes.

I hope RCL demands a neuroophthalmic evaluation to document the “color blindness” and the etiology.

 

[justbreathe]

I'm not sure that SA is the one who used the description "solid wall of glass". Those are Winkleman's words, and he is the Wiegands attorney, not SA's.

Then he needs to correct the attorney representing his family n a lawsuit to which he will surely be a witness.

If SA didn’t think it was a “solid wall of glass with a hidden hole” he should say so before appearing at a presser held by Winkleman.

In fact, SA should probably stop saying anything to anyone except his criminal attorney. All these things are going to come back to haunt him as they travel through Chloe’s legacy of court cases.

 

[justbreathe]

I hope RCL demands a neuroophthalmic evaluation to document the “color blindness” and the etiology.

I imagine his current dr will be asked for too.

 

[mheido67]

Perhaps not. BUT, when one looks at ALL the behaviors leading up to Chloe being dropped, followed by all the absurd assertions and contradictions after the fact, it all screams NEGLIGENCE!!
Furthermore, it can be argued that SA took aim for that particular window because he KNEW it was open. The video footage from the rear angle shows SA getting up from his crouch and walks around to that window. He does not go in a straight line to the windows in front of him, or to the right. He turns to the left... to that particular window.
Then he bends over from the midsection and looks down... not once, but twice. What is looking down at.... the floor, his toes???

SA followed CW to that window. That's very clear from the video. I believe he was looking down at CW between the railing and the window frame while she was still on the floor, apparently unable to reach the window that was right in front of her if SA is to be believed.

 

[justbreathe]

Does RCCL have to prove he knew the window was open? Or do they just have to convince a judge/jury that a reasonable person in that circumstance should have observed that the window was open? Hence, as a reasonable person, been aware of the danger posed by placing the child in that position.

No, they don’t have to. But of they needed to, they could.

 

[Forever Young]

If this is the case he should be suing his optometrists/ophthalmologists. He has honestly never had an Ishihara color plate test? Ever?

Color blindness can be acquired and worsen over time.

Acquired Colour Vision Defects - Colour Blind Awareness

 

[Forever Young]

snip>

I think it has been stayed that the ship complied with all current regs, and that this is the first incident of its kind

Why does Winkleman keep saying that they did not comply with current safety regulations then? He must have some reason for alleging that.

 

[Wehwalt]

snip>

Why does Winkleman keep saying that they did not comply with current safety regulations then? He must have some reason for alleging that.

This was discussed earlier in this thread. He is citing from standards for hotels and other land buildings that have no applicability to ships.

 

[mheido67]

snip>

Why does Winkleman keep saying that they did not comply with current safety regulations then? He must have some reason for alleging that.

My understanding is that the two parties are in dispute about what regulations are applicable. I believe both introduced case law that touches on issues of how building standards developed for land structures apply to maritime vessels and how they don't. Having not read any of the cases I don't know more than that.

 

[justice4allnow]

I believe that there is at least one witness. Remember when it first happened and a short video appeared taken from outside the ship, after the accident? There were two people standing at a window on that deck and one of the men was rapidly moving his arms inside and outside the window, as if demonstrating what he saw. It went along with the initial statement that Sam was playing a game with her. And that repeated motion also sort of goes along with a later story we heard, that Chloe and Sam were moving forward several times- Winkleman said it was so they could get a better view. We will be hearing from that witness later, no doubt.

 

[Forever Young]

snip>

How can you be damaged by something that could possibly happen? Who is the plaintiff - every person in the world?

You can't be damaged until it happens. But you can allege that the damage was foreseeable and should have been remedied before the damage happened, even if you are the first and only one that it happened to.

 

[katydid23]

IMO, it was easy to discern, after she fell, that the window was open. He claims he did not know it was open before she fell.

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.