IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #8

[neesaki]

SBM for brevity

The difference is that most people would not expect a window that is open over a 11 story drop to just be open like that when children are around.

Apparently most people that take cruises do expect the windows to open, as this was the first time in history that anyone has ever picked a baby up and dropped her out, while afterwards claiming he didn’t know the window was open.

Even if they initially didn’t “expect “ them to open they would quickly realize that they do open when they see some of the windows are in fact open. It also doesn’t appear that anyone else has ever used a toddler baby to check if the windows are open or closed. Like, hey, I wonder if this window is open or closed, check it out for me, baby granddaughter. Uh oh, there she goes, whoops!

One person has ever committed this tragic crime, one. Out of how many millions of people over how many years?

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

On thing that may be being overlooked a little is that the lawsuit is based on the "hidden danger" and "I thought there was glass" aspect. Even they implicit admit that if SA knew it was an open window then what he did was so reckless and unforeseeable that RCCL would not be at fault. Even the lawsuit is not asking for it be be impossible for an adult to intentionally toss or hold a baby out a window, or over a stair railing. etc.

 

[mheido67]

On thing that may be being overlooked a little is that the lawsuit is based on the "hidden danger" and "I thought there was glass" aspect. Even they implicit admit that if SA knew it was an open window then what he did was so reckless and unforeseeable that RCCL would not be at fault. Even the lawsuit is not asking for it be be impossible for an adult to intentionally toss or hold a baby out a window, or over a stair railing. etc.

This is a very important point. The idea that a cruise ship needs to be constructed in such a way that no one can actually throw anything (a beer can, a cigarette butt...a child) overboard because some people are irresponsible is absurd. That's why the reasonable person standard exists. You can't legislate safety standards to account for the aberrant behavior of a few people.

 

[Kakidoll]

The difference is that most people would not expect a window that is open over a 11 story drop to just be open like that when children are around. I mean just full stop think about it. Think about hotel windows that high up? There's at the very least a screen in the window. All these ridiculous equivocations are meaningless. I've pointed out several similar examples and instead of addressing those ones, you are coming up with new unrelated ones. A subway is not "sold" as playground for children? Hence my example between a Wendy's fast food restaurant and a McDonald's with a play place. If you set up a situation where people are likely to be drinking and encourage them to bring their kids along and have a pool area your responsibility for safety is very important. Even in someone's own backyard there are safety standards for owning a pool. If someone breaks into your backyard and jumps in your pool and drowns they can still sue you if you didn't have a locked gate in place.

So it doesn't matter how we personally feel in this situation it's that the family is going to get a settlement and RCCL is going to be forced to make changes on the windows. Period the end. No matter how pissed off everyone gets over this doesn't change what the outcome is going to be. The same way I stated he'd likely do an Alford Plea and he did.

BBM/ Anyone who has ever LOOKED at those ships can see that the upper decks have NO windows. They are WIDE open to the air. It gets VERY windy. The windows are on lower deck where food is JUST to prevent the wind from carrying your napkins, food, drinks away and keep the pool areas a bit 'warmer'. On those decks they have RAILING around even though there are windows. Kids can't just climb up and fall over. They are built to stop that. Someone picking someTHING up and throwing it OUT the window is a different game entirely. Picking up a CHILD is mind boggling. It would get WAY too hot if it was enclosed completely. Will NEVER happen. There are too many cruiselines making TOO much money to make an uneeded change to hundreds of ships.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

Well, I would like to know if each adult individually acknowledged the safety rules or if one did all acting for the group in the W group.

Perhaps a change is needed in requiring individuals agreeing to the safety rules in person prior to departure.

More time and headaches for everyone but that would be a better option to me than locking down the ship...JMO

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

Continuing my thought...

The moment SA breached the guardrail with little Chloe was a major safety violation (as it should be) as I understand from what posters with cruising experience have said. It does not matter if it were a “wall of glass,” operational window or whatever.

People need to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

dbm...image posting dummy here

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Similar to the woman who dropped her child in the Pittsburg zoo, they zoo settled AND made changes.

My understanding of the zoo situation is that was a different set of facts than this case. With the zoo, they had prior knowledge that there were safety concerns with the way the enclosure and barriers were constructed - they even memorialized those concerns in minutes of board meetings. So not only was there a reasonable danger they acknowledged that danger - in writing. Imo that's why the zoo case settled even though mom was negligent in lifting the child up on the railing to see better.

With SA, as far as I know there was no prior knowledge on the part of the cruise line that an open window on a deck of a cruise ship, with a railing placed around it, was dangerous. In fact, it wasn't dangerous until grandpa lifted a toddler over the railing, held her with one hand - ONE HAND - and then she fell out. Maybe he even let go of her, I don't know. But please find me a jury of 6 or 12 people to stand in that exact spot even on the most perfect, windless day in history, lean over the railing so their head is only inches from where "glass" would have been (if not actually outside the window), and have them find it was reasonable to think the window was closed. That jury does not exist - because SA knew the window was open all along and his excuses are hiding something else going on, imo. I don't think RCCL is going to settle this case and I don't think they would lose in court. I've been on many many cruises, there are open windows like the one SW fell out of everywhere - it's a ship. You cannot stand in front of an open window without knowing the difference, the view is more clear, there is a breeze, etc. You could even be blind and know the window was open versus closed on a cruise ship from your other senses. His statement and continuing this ridiculous theory is just making it even more suspicious. Imo.

 

[JulieBEMT]

The difference is that most people would not expect a window that is open over a 11 story drop to just be open like that when children are around. I mean just full stop think about it. Think about hotel windows that high up? There's at the very least a screen in the window.
So it doesn't matter how we personally feel in this situation it's that the family is going to get a settlement and RCCL is going to be forced to make changes on the windows. Period the end. No matter how pissed off everyone gets over this doesn't change what the outcome is going to be. The same way I stated he'd likely do an Alford Plea and he did.

Shortened for clarity. First of all, people do expect windows to open on the pool deck of a ship because the ocean air is one of the biggest reasons they cruise. There was no "hidden danger" as anyone can see which windows are open and which are closed. I don't believe RCCL is going to settle this one. It may have been a possibility before the family went on a national media tour, but now RCCL is in it for the long haul. I can only pray they do not get a settlement because, if they do, we'll see many more "accidents" on cruise ships. IMO, screens would pose a much bigger danger than the open windows. They can easily fall out causing injury. They also create a false sense of security.

ETA I mentioned this before. It's not even a matter that the child went out the window. The open gaping window 11 stories up above a deck. A person could have walked over the window and leaned out and dropped a beer bottle out the window which then smashed a person in the head below. That could kill someone. Someone could drop their phone out trying to take a selfie. It's an unreasonably dangerous situation that could potentially maim or even kill someone.

One could say the same about balconies, or the open upper decks. Why would a window pose more of a danger than any of those? The answer is, it doesn't. Also, the ship is not bigger on the bottom than it is on the top. If someone did drop something, it would hit the water, not another deck. Finally, the cruise lines make it very well known that anyone caught throwing anything overboard will be put off of the at the next port.

If we're going with your logic, there's no real reason to take a cruise. You might as well be in a hotel on land since you aren't exposed to any ocean air at all. Just stay in a hotel with air conditioning. These are cruise ships, not prisons. How far are we supposed to go to protect people from their own stupidity?

 

[mheido67]

Continuing my thought...

The moment SA breached the guardrail with little Chloe was a major safety violation (as it should be) as I understand from what posters with cruising experience have said. It does not matter if it were a “wall of glass,” operational window or whatever.

People need to take responsibility for their actions.

Well, that gets to the distinction that RoadtoSerfdom reiterated above. The Wiegand's lawsuit was filed on the grounds that SA didn't know the glass window was in fact a window that could be opened and closed, hence it constituted a hidden danger that RCCL was obliged to rectify or warn about. As soon as one concedes that he knew the window was open their case is destroyed. And frankly, the claim that it's a children's play area is irrelevant as a child by themselves could not have been harmed by the condition. Assuming you believe SA genuinely thought there was glass the case will succeed or fail on a) the plaintiff making the case that a safety violation existed that RCCL should have known about because of things like ASTM standards existing (hence the relevance of that topic) and/or b) the defense making the case that an open window constitutes a clear and apparent danger that a reasonable person would in those circumstances be able to observe. The fact that MW included a deceptive photo of the windows (all windows closed) in his filling to claim it was difficult to tell which windows are open and which are closed is very telling to me on that point.

 

[mheido67]

Shortened for clarity. First of all, people do expect windows to open on the pool deck of a ship because the ocean air is one of the biggest reasons they cruise. There was no "hidden danger" as anyone can see which windows are open and which are closed. I don't believe RCCL is going to settle this one. It may have been a possibility before the family went on a national media tour, but now RCCL is in it for the long haul. I can only pray they do not get a settlement because, if they do, we'll see many more "accidents" on cruise ships. IMO, screens would pose a much bigger danger than the open windows. They can easily fall out causing injury. They also create a false sense of security.



One could say the same about balconies, or the open upper decks. Why would a window pose more of a danger than any of those? The answer is, it doesn't. Also, the ship is not bigger on the bottom than it is on the top. If someone did drop something, it would hit the water, not another deck. Finally, the cruise lines make it very well known that anyone caught throwing anything overboard will be put off of the at the next port.

If we're going with your logic, there's no real reason to take a cruise. You might as well be in a hotel on land since you aren't exposed to any ocean air at all. Just stay in a hotel with air conditioning. These are cruise ships, not prisons. How far are we supposed to go to protect people from their own stupidity?

That comment you quoted basically calls any open balcony anywhere an unreasonably dangerous situation. Anyplace a person can drop any object onto a person standing on a lower surface below is now an unreasonably dangerous situation. This would rule out two of the very solutions proposed by the commenter, bars and limiting devices, since a person could still drop a phone or a can of beer onto someone through either of those. So screens on a 4” opening it is I guess. And no open areas between decks inside either? All those interior multideck spaces have to go since someone could easily drop a phone or a beer can onto someone. Sounds like a super place to vacation to me.

 

[In vino veritas]

What I find very interesting is that all the media outlets are referring to MW as SA’s attorney. How can MW insert himself this way? Isn’t he a civil attorney, not a criminal defense attorney? If MW is representing SA, wouldn’t that constitute a conflict if interests?

Or is the representation of MW as Anello’s attorney just erroneous reporting by the news outlets?

 

[mheido67]

What I find very interesting is that all the media outlets are referring to MW as SA’s attorney. How can MW insert himself this way? Isn’t he a civil attorney, not a criminal defense attorney? If MW is representing SA, wouldn’t that constitute a conflict if interests?

Or is the representation of MW as Anello’s attorney just erroneous reporting by the news outlets?

I've seen MW referred to as 'the family's attorney'. Haven't seen him referred to as SA's attorney. But I don't really read too many of the media stories as they're usually filled with inaccuracies so...

 

[Razz]

How and why did "Moday" get the video? Just how legit is it? The duck dressed up as a woman, the interviewer, the dramatic music.....it all seems odd to me. It would be like leaking the video to Sesame Street.

Who leaked it and why haven't they released official videos? That's why I'm hesitant to hang SA out to dry. How do we know for certain that the current video hasn't been doctored by the leakers or the Duck Show? (Moday) Just how official is this video?

 

[mheido67]

How and why did "Moday" get the video? Just how legit is it? The duck dressed up as a woman, the interviewer, the dramatic music.....it all seems odd to me. It would be like leaking the video to Sesame Street.

Who leaked it and why haven't they released official videos? That's why I'm hesitant to hang SA out to dry. How do we know for certain that the current video hasn't been doctored by the leakers or the Duck Show? (Moday) Just how official is this video?

MW hasn't made any claims that the video was doctored. He called the video deceptive due to the angle of the camera but he hasn't to my knowledge disputed any of the content of the leaked video. In fact, when it first leaked reporter David Begnaud publicly said the video he was shown by MW was altered to compress the time that SA and CW were near the window before she fell. MW claimed that was the result of a software issue. He did not question the leaked video at all.

Also, in their original motion to dimiss RCCL described the contents of the video, the timing of the events leading to CW falling and included still images. All match up with the leaked video.

I don't see any reason to question the leaked video. No idea who leaked it.

 

[Wehwalt]

I would think the time to settle would be before someone like MW throws six months of bad press at you, not after. I don't think RCI'll settle. They are very respectfully, but very firmly, fighting the case. I expect that to continue until the case ends. At which time the Wiegands will have repositioned themselves as safety advocates for cruise kids, and will probably have a nonprofit to go with it.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

How and why did "Moday" get the video? Just how legit is it? The duck dressed up as a woman, the interviewer, the dramatic music.....it all seems odd to me. It would be like leaking the video to Sesame Street.

Who leaked it and why haven't they released official videos? That's why I'm hesitant to hang SA out to dry. How do we know for certain that the current video hasn't been doctored by the leakers or the Duck Show? (Moday) Just how official is this video?

I will go to my grave believing his actions were both purposeful and intentional...JMHO of course.
There is no way the man didn’t know the window was open IMO of course.
You are certainly free to have your own thoughts and opinions, but my take on this is quite different.
Personally, I have no problems “hanging SA out to dry.”
An innocent 18 month child died as a direct result of his actions. Most reasonable people would quite rightly predict catastrophic consequences.

 

[mheido67]

I would think the time to settle would be before someone like MW throws six months of bad press at you, not after. I don't think they'll settle. They are very respectfully, but very firmly, fighting the case. I expect that to continue until the case ends. At which time the Wiegands will have repositioned themselves as safety advocates for cruise kids, and will probably have a nonprofit to go with it.

I can see them doing the nonprofit thing. Could also see them losing interest if they lose their suit. These times are making me very cynical.

 

[Razz]

I will go to my grave believing his actions were both purposeful and intentional...JMHO of course.
There is no way the man didn’t know the window was open IMO of course.
You are certainly free to have your own thoughts and opinions, but my take on this is quite different.
Personally, I have no problems “hanging SA out to dry.”
An innocent 18 month child died as a direct result of his actions. Most reasonable people would quite rightly predict catastrophic consequences.

I'd just like to view the video that goes through the correct chain of evidence and not through a talking duck program.

 

[Wicked Strong]

How and why did "Moday" get the video? Just how legit is it? The duck dressed up as a woman, the interviewer, the dramatic music.....it all seems odd to me. It would be like leaking the video to Sesame Street.

Who leaked it and why haven't they released official videos? That's why I'm hesitant to hang SA out to dry. How do we know for certain that the current video hasn't been doctored by the leakers or the Duck Show? (Moday) Just how official is this video?

Who is Moday? Are you writing about La Camay? If so La Camay is a popular Puerto Rico puppet (not duck). I've read but can't find the link now that La Camay is the gossipier, searcher of the truth.

It is very legit in Puerto Rico, definitely not Sesame Street. Political people have all appeared on this show and it is respected in PR.

No one knows who leaked the video to La Camay, but it is the video that RCCL has shown in still pictures from their cameras. I believe it is official.

MOO