IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

[justice4allnow]

DBM (double post)

 

[mheido67]

I see what you’re saying, but I think even if they claim the video isn’t solid proof with regard to being able to actually see his head in relation to the opening, it can be proven he knew there was no glass.
IMO, it could be done with a re enactment that is truly scientifically accurate.... unlike the one by the attorney.

SAs body position is quite obvious in the video, i.e., he’s bent over at the waist to the point his upper body is almost, not quite, parallel to the floor. They could surely measure the angle .... and then actually using a man of SAs size... height and weight and then using exact body position, it seems to me it could be done. Or, how about using SA himself?

Then again, there were all the people who ran over after the tragedy who were leaning there heads out the windows with no difficulty at all. Not to mention eye witnesses , bartenders were right there, possibly other? Shouldn’t need a recreation, but just MOO.

I also should have added it will be VERY interesting to see what any witnesses have to say about what they observed.

I assume RCCL will have access to witness info from the criminal trial. Or would they have to have recorded contact info from potential witnesses following the incident? Employees are easy but I doubt they had their lawyers take statements from passengers at the time. Or would they have?

 

[al66pine]

Jaques' Exp-Wit Report & Qualifications in Other Case. Challenged by Def.
Jaques was hired by plaintiff in case resulting from a catamaran propeller accident on a cruise ship shore excursion. On a swim stop, a pax going into the water for a dip, was injured. Jaques report concluded pax' injuries were caused by him being drawn into the engaged propellers which the crew failed to dis-engage before allowing him and other pax to enter the water.

In taking Jaques' deposition, def atty challenged his qualifications as an expert in multiple fields: human factors, Mechanical Engineering, Tides, Underwater Topography, Currents, operating catamarans, and said not he was not qualified. Def atty also noted Jaques failed to identify any relevant St. Lucia laws, policies, and procedures applying to the catamaran.
^ Meyer v. Carnival: Randall Jaques Affidavit / Tour Inspector

W ^ case, the slip & fall in cabin case (post 987), and some other cases for which he's been hired, there's a broad range of areas in which he is an expert witness (or professing to be?). In the propeller case, IDK if knowledge of all those ^ disciplines the def atty asked about was actually necessary to forming an expert opinion. But then I'm not a maritime expert and don't play one on TV.
Some attys raise flimsy challenges to expert witnesses' very solid qualifications and conclusions. Flip side? Having been employed for many years in law/regulatory compliance dept of a large corp, I'm aware of situations where a plaintiff's purported "expert" witness was not. Some submitted CVs w. bogus uni. degrees, falsified professional certifications & licenses, sham former employment, etc. Not just padding a bit, but making up from the whole cloth. Very creative writing. In discovery when we would request uni transcripts & other authenticating doc's for an expert witness, on occasion a new expert witness would magically materialize or complaint would wither on the vine or be withdrawn.

 

[LietKynes]

I may be wrong, but from what I understand if an incident happens in port they can claim unlimited damages, whereas if it happens at sea, there are very strict caps on the payout.

bbm
Very interesting.
How fortuitous.

 

[katydid23]

Probably so. But maybe they can still get enough people ticked off at RCC to be worth settling with, on social media, among the demographic that gets its information mostly from newsfeeds, and that is inclined to be against corporations given a halfway plausible tale sympathetically presented.

I am not sure that RCC will settle, because those same people that you describe, would only hear the news blurb that they settled the case, which is like accepting blame.

 

[mheido67]

If it was planned then why there, at port in front of all those witnesses.

Why not at sea from a private balcony where no body would be found, far away from LE and and cameras.

Or was it those windows, cameras and witnesses they needed.

It’s still hard to understand it would be staged but statically its a high possibility.

As far as why not on a private balcony they would not be able to make the hidden danger claim in such a situation. For one thing. No way little CW accessed the balcony (if they even had one) and managed to climb up and over the glass railing.

 

[al66pine]

Jaques' Expert Witness Testimony, Excluded in Slip & Fall Case.
After a pax slip & fall in her cabin, w alleged resultant back injuries, Jaques was hired by pax's atty as an ... The court granted the defendant’s motion to exclude.
^ from 2018 Admiralty & Maritime Expert Witness Not Allowed

sbm
Oooops. Too late to edit my own post.
From expertwitnessblog dot com July 30, 2018.
Admiralty & Maritime Expert Witness Not Allowed

 

[Safetybug]

Next thing ya know SA will blame it on the “Mandela Effect” as more plausible than “I’m color blind”/“I thought there was glass” <sarc>

 

[IM2CYNICAL]

I may be wrong, but from what I understand if an incident happens in port they can claim unlimited damages, whereas if it happens at sea, there are very strict caps on the payout.

Yes, I believe you are right. IMO, MW will say and do anything and everything to get this to trial. It is the "Perfect Storm" of Cruise ship deaths. (1) Toddler is dead, body recovered (2) Happened in Port with no caps on recovery payout (3)Sympathy factor with jury, regardless of fault.
On a different subject,If you want to go there, (and I don't) a comment I read from some one who saw video thought SA was looking out window to see where impact point would be. Just writing that puts my stomach in a knot.

 

[drama_farmer]

All this talk of hidden danger made me realize that they may have a point, but probably not the point that would be most valuable to them.

There was a hidden danger onboard that vessel, and it walks and talks and dropped a baby to her death. IMO

 

[al66pine]

As far as why not on a private balcony they would not be able to make the hidden danger claim in such a situation. For one thing. No way little CW accessed the balcony (if they even had one) and managed to climb up and over the glass railing.

@mheido67 Yes, ^ this ^ .
And if an overboard situation happened at sea, rather than at dock, or at least in port's calm waters, body recovery would not be certain. Which may/may not have any effect on outcome of this hypo.

 

[LietKynes]

Yes, I believe you are right. IMO, MW will say and do anything and everything to get this to trial. It is the "Perfect Storm" of Cruise ship deaths. (1) Toddler is dead, body recovered (2) Happened in Port with no caps on recovery payout (3)Sympathy factor with jury, regardless of fault.
On a different subject,If you want to go there, (and I don't) a comment I read from some one who saw video thought SA was looking out window to see where impact point would be. Just writing that puts my stomach in a knot.

bbm
Omg.
There was speculation from passengers that he may have attempted this earlier but people saw him and stopped him.
Hoping they'll come forward.

 

[WiseGuy]

I see what you’re saying, but I think even if they claim the video isn’t solid proof with regard to being able to actually see his head in relation to the opening, it can be proven he knew there was no glass.
IMO, it could be done with a re enactment that is truly scientifically accurate.... unlike the one by the attorney.

SAs body position is quite obvious in the video, i.e., he’s bent over at the waist to the point his upper body is almost, not quite, parallel to the floor. They could surely measure the angle .... and then actually using a man of SAs size... height and weight and then using exact body position, it seems to me it could be done. Or, how about using SA himself?

Then again, there were all the people who ran over after the tragedy who were leaning there heads out the windows with no difficulty at all. Not to mention eye witnesses , bartenders were right there, possibly other? Shouldn’t need a recreation, but just MOO.

In the civil case, RCCL is accused of negligence. For RCCL to be found guilty, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that RCCL knew of a dangerous condition, or that a reasonably prudent person (or company I guess) would know there was a dangerous condition. The dangerous condition must be reasonably foreseeable.
So much of the legal battle we are about to witness will center on the definition of reasonable.
I know that to me, and I do believe I am a reasonable person, RCCL acted reasonably, and SA acted unreasonably. We’ll see how a jury feels.

 

[WiseGuy]

I see what you’re saying, but I think even if they claim the video isn’t solid proof with regard to being able to actually see his head in relation to the opening, it can be proven he knew there was no glass.
IMO, it could be done with a re enactment that is truly scientifically accurate.... unlike the one by the attorney.

SAs body position is quite obvious in the video, i.e., he’s bent over at the waist to the point his upper body is almost, not quite, parallel to the floor. They could surely measure the angle .... and then actually using a man of SAs size... height and weight and then using exact body position, it seems to me it could be done. Or, how about using SA himself?

Then again, there were all the people who ran over after the tragedy who were leaning there heads out the windows with no difficulty at all. Not to mention eye witnesses , bartenders were right there, possibly other? Shouldn’t need a recreation, but just MOO.

Just a reminder. SA is not a party to the civil suit. In the civil suit RCCL is defending itself against accusations of negligence. Not sure to what extent RCCL’s defense will hinge on trying to prove SA was negligent.

Do our lawyer members have an idea?

 

[mheido67]

Just a reminder. SA is not a party to the civil suit. In the civil suit RCCL is defending itself against accusations of negligence. Not sure to what extent RCCL’s defense will hinge on trying to prove SA was negligent.

Do our lawyer members have an idea?

Not a lawyer but I agree it will be interesting to see how they defend. Clearly they went after SA as negligent in their motion to dismiss. I think they will want to attempt to do more than just try and convince a jury that the windows as they exist do not pose a danger to a reasonable person. If they don’t go after the idea that he may have actually thought there was glass they increase the risk of having sympathetic jurors decide in Wiegand’s favor IMO.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

All this talk of hidden danger made me realize that they may have a point, but probably not the point that would be most valuable to them.

There was a hidden danger onboard that vessel, and it walks and talks and dropped a baby to her death. IMO

BBM That right there would make a great statement in a lawsuit or criminal trial.

 

[Yellowbeak]

If it was planned then why there, at port in front of all those witnesses.

Why not at sea from a private balcony where no body would be found, far away from LE and and cameras.

Or was it those windows, cameras and witnesses they needed.

It’s still hard to understand it would be staged but statically its a high possibility.

They would have no reason to sue if it was from a balcony.

 

[loveandhugs]

Yes, I believe you are right. IMO, MW will say and do anything and everything to get this to trial. It is the "Perfect Storm" of Cruise ship deaths. (1) Toddler is dead, body recovered (2) Happened in Port with no caps on recovery payout (3)Sympathy factor with jury, regardless of fault.
On a different subject,If you want to go there, (and I don't) a comment I read from some one who saw video thought SA was looking out window to see where impact point would be. Just writing that puts my stomach in a knot.

I wonder if SA was looking out the window the first time to make sure there would be nothing to break the fall of CW. I feel awful for having these thoughts, but nothing surprises me sometimes when I read about parents who have taken their children’s lives.

 

[In vino veritas]

Just a reminder. SA is not a party to the civil suit. In the civil suit RCCL is defending itself against accusations of negligence. Not sure to what extent RCCL’s defense will hinge on trying to prove SA was negligent.

Do our lawyer members have an idea?

I am not an attorney, but I believe the crux of the lawsuit hinges on the assumption that SA could not discern if window was open or closed because of lack of sufficient warning by RCL. Hence the negligence by RCL.
I would think RCL would have to try to show that , despite the obvious warnings of the railing, the tinted glass and the window handles, that SA did act recklessly and negligently.

 

[In vino veritas]

Sorry..... didn’t complete my thought. RCL must certainly attempt to prove that SA did, in fact, know window was open to negate the claim by MW and the Wiegands that it was impossible for him to tell