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

[In vino veritas]

If it is dismissed, bet they appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Out of curiosity, why do you think this? I value your opinion and insights, as your previous posts have been very instructional for me

So SA gets probation in a system where his step-daughter and step-son-in-law work and the community is sympathetic to his situation.

Not really a punitive sentence there.

I don't think the judge will poke SA. The family doesn't need to hear SA tell the story and admit anything. I think this will be an uneventful hearing.

I truly hope you are wrong.
BTW.... has a hearing date been set yet? I haven’t seen anything to that effect

 

[JulieBEMT]

Here are 2 pics of people at the open Windows from the Ovation of the Seas.
The have a slight tint of gray, about the same height and NO RAIL.
Same area around the pools.

I am boarding Adventure of the Seas tomorrow morning. It has the exact same windows that Freedom does. You can bet I'll be taking some photos to post here!

I, too, am quite cynical. I’ve always believed that the Wiegands came out so aggressively condemning RCL from the onset because they were confident the cruise line would settle quickly to avoid bad publicity in light of a toddlers death.
When this immediate settlement did not transpire, the family , especially KSW, came out with more guns blazing. The unbelievable audacity of asking PR prosecutors to drop charges against SA so the family could properly grieve was the clincher for me as far as any remaining sympathy for them. I really don’t know what is in their heads or hearts, but Chloe almost seems forgotten. I’d like to believe they’d set up a non-profit, especially if they do receive proceeds from this travesty.... but I seriously doubt it.
In the meantime.... I anxiously check news sources, hoping for news of a dismissal by the federal judge.

I could not agree more! Like a number of others on these boards, I believe her death was intentional. IMO, the W's come off as so cunning and greedy, that I honestly cannot see them running a non-profit unless they were taking huge salaries for themselves.

Mandating Safety Measures? Court or Congress?
@Chewy bbm sbm
First, Chewy, not specifically ^ post, but a continuing theme in your posts, generally is --- RCL should do something. I agree RCL should review Fr/Seas or entire fleet to determine what 'safety measures.' if any, to make in the near future. But imo that is a decision for the corp, not this court to make, and likely not any court.
BBM 1. What should this US Dist. Ct do re this case?
Review the pleadings, motions, other filings before the court from both parties, and make a decision on the case/issues before it. Just like any other case. May/may not result in trial; could be $$$ damages award or not.
In the US, a court is the (most) approp. forum for these parents to seek a remedy for RCL's alleged negligent window design-construction which allegedly was the proximate cause of their daughter's death, and their Complaint explicitly demands $$$ damages as the only remedy sought.
Despite MW's & parent's stmts/blather about other countless children whose lives they purportedly want to save, the Complaint does not seek injunction, for court to order RCL to modify windows, or install new safer, windows.
BBM 2. Waiting for people to die? What about future dangers?
The very real possibility that dozens or hundreds (of 200,000 or 2,000,000?) future passengers could hold a child up to a window and drop child is not an issue for this court to address in this lawsuit. The issue is simply not before the court to decide. If these parents had asked the court to order RCL to make change/improvements to prevent those hypothetical injuries or deaths that may or may not occur in the future, imo parents would hit a brick wall. Not a function of the courts to write legislation.

The issue of possible injuries or deaths in the future is one for RCL to address by the method(s) it thinks approp. Maybe stickers/decals on operable windows, maybe four inch maximum open windows, or guards, or who-knows? Maybe no change. Or maybe thru changes in booking/boarding procedures, actually requiring each adult passenger (or age 12+ y/o?) to sign Guest Conduct Policy, to ack receipt & agreement. IOW let each cruise line make decisions.

A toddler being held close to/out of a window and dropped. Will there be a next time? If so, next month, or 20 yrs? How many? At a certain point, Congress will jump in to mandate certain 'safety measures' for cruise ships. And the required safety measures can then be uniform for the defined classes of ships.
jmo

Since none of these ships are flagged in the U.S. I don't see congress being able to do anything. I suppose they could ban them from using U.S. ports if they don't meet certain requirements, but I don't see that happening. It would be a HUGE loss to the economy.

<modsnip>

 

[al66pine]

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.

mheido67 Just a random thought: Anyone remember a 'victim family' in the past incorporating a 501(c)(3), conducting big fundraisers for their worthwhile, legit charitable cause, then using virtually all the proceeds for their own livin' large and personal fun, fun, fun?
@mheido67 Your post ^ entitles you to a free annual membership w TeamCynic, but if you'd prefer we can offer 50% off the lifetime dues.

 

[al66pine]

from my previous post re Safety Mandates. Courts or Congress?
".... At a certain point, Congress will jump in to mandate certain 'safety measures' for cruise ships. And the required safety measures can then be uniform for the defined classes of ships."

....Since none of these ships are flagged in the U.S. I don't see congress being able to do anything. I suppose they could ban them from using U.S. ports if they don't meet certain requirements, but I don't see that happening. It would be a HUGE loss to the economy....

@JulieBEMT sbm
Thank you for raising the flagging issue. Re idea of Congress mandating certain window 'safety measures,' maybe I should not have been so glib about saying -- at a certain point, it will happen. Should have said it could happen. I never worked in DC, but worked for multiple yrs for a legislative committee in a state Capitol and as the legislative aide to a statewide elected official, so have experience w state-level procedure.
For Congress to act, injuries/deaths would have to reach a "tipping point." If/when/after sufficient momentum develops, conceivably Congress would enact a law allowing cruise lines to chose from menu of window 'safety measures.' And as you say, @JulieBEMT, the enforcement could be banning non-compliant ships from US ports. Or perhaps exacting higher fees or taxes on port usage.
And like w some other industry-specific legislation, the effective date could be set ten or more years in the future.* Would fed legislation be effective in actually preventing injuries/deaths? IDK. As some posters have said here, in essence, the concept of 'safety measures' for these ship windows is a solution in search of a problem.

Most of my previous post was about why courts cannot force the 'safety measures' that some posters here should be mandated. Our US gov't is not designed for courts to originate, write, enact, & enforce legislative mandates. W personal injuries/wrongful death actions in courts, it's largely one/couple tort-feasors & one/couple victims at a time/per case <--- a fractured approach, if this is an industry wide problem.
Practically speaking, courts, whether state or federal cannot address the issue broadly enough. Imagine if this FL court in this case ruled that RCL had to install a certain window safety device on Fr/Seas or all the fleet, & RCL installed those devices and then along comes another toddler death case, in which a different court, say US Dist Ct in Seattle, ruled that that those exact safety devices were not sufficient. jmo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For Congressional timetable, ten yrs is not unheard of. For example, consider US railroads saga of the Positive Train Control feature, a RR "safety feature" which the NTSB placed on its 1990 wish list. In 2008 Congress passed legislation requiring RRs to install the PTC safety measure and Pres. signed. In 2010 Fed. RR Admn issued rules & regulations, with a 2015 compliance/installation deadline. In 2018 a law extended 'final compliance' deadline to end of 2020. Bill passage to final implementation: 12 yrs. Positive train control - Wikipedia

 

[Chewy]

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.

This is exactly my point. It doesn't matter if it's never happened before. It's happened now. Chloe's death becomes the "prior knowledge" in any future case of a child being hurt in such a way.

<modsnip>

I'm just glad that the grandfather at least admitted guilt and I was very happy they charged him. I'm so sick of children being killed because of lazy reckless bad parenting. Any time a child dies under the care of another person that person should be prosecuted.. I'm so sick of parents and family members getting away with it because people feel bad for them instead feeling bad for the child who is the victim.

 

[Chewy]

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?

Because it's a window and it's intermittenly able to be opened by people on the boat. If the windows ALL were opened it would be different. The balcony levels are wide open. What's the difference in a hotel with a balcony and a window?

A person instinctively knows the dangers associated wit h a balcony. Think about the height of the railing around the open air levels. They have put thought into creating a reasonable amount of customer protection. Dropping her out the wind is beyond ridiculous. No one could have anticipated something that bad. But now that it's happened it's going to raise concerns about potential problems in the future. And frankly it's got more to do with distracted parenting and the way people don't watch their kids the way they used to because they are constantly on their phone. I often marvel at the difference when I took my kids to a playground. Cell phones didn't exist back then. I'd usually be bored and watching them and talking to other moms.

It's different these days. Personally I think the reason he took one hand off of her is he was trying to take a picture of her with his phone.

 

[katydid23]

I don't know why people keep harping on this point as if it is a "logical" statement in any way. The point isn't that SA dropped her out the window. It's that it is POSSIBLE for people to drop a child out the window or for a child to climb out the window. (ETA if you look at the video in the next post you can see that there are couches right up next to the windows. There's also a rolling cart that could be pushed over by an unattended child.)

You could have a deranged mentally ill killer on a cruise like this, who could turn around and snatch a kid and throw her out the window. Here in NYC we regularly have people push people onto the subway platform.

The issue with the safety of the windows is if it is reasonable to assume they are safe for the customers that you are serving. And if you know the customers you are serving can be clumsy, get drunk, make mistakes or take stupid risks it's unreasonable to not address this issues. Especially if you are targeting children by creating an environment encouraging families of small children to come.

There is a difference between a McDonald's that has a child play place and a Wendys that serves similar food but doesn't encourage children to run around and play. If a child was running in a Wendy's and slipped on a wet floor it wouldn't be the same type of liability as a child falling in the McDs because they are different types of set ups.

Example, if you had a group of kids running around, a 12 year old might think it's cool to try to lift his younger sibling up to look out the window. It shouldn't be possible for a child to fall out the window like this. If they opened a window in the Wendy's and a kid climbed up on the table and pushed his brother out, that is one thing. But if they did the same thing in a McDs with a play place I think they would have a different type of liability. I don't know the term for this but maybe someone here does.

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

When you start to see people doing these things the idea that you have to wait for a bunch of people to die to do anything won't fly in a court of law. Once they have seen the potential problem with these windows if they don't do something about it, they are being grossly negligent for any future situation similar to this. That's when lawsuit punitive damages go through the roof.

If it is such a grievous possibility, why has it NEVER EVER happened before this case?

I can tell you why----it's because there is a safety rail which makes it harder for someone to put a child over the rail and onto the ledge.

And that rail makes it very difficult for a child to get past it themselves, if they tried to climb up by themselves.

IF IT WASN'T FOR GRANDPA'S RECKLESS ACTIONS, CHLOE WOULD BE ALIVE AND WELL.

 

[Chewy]

Proximate Cause. Ultimate Cause?


@Chewy sbm Thanks you for ^ interesting link, which gives examples of these term being used in the following fields:1. In biology, 2 In philosophy, 3 In sociology, but I'm not noticing law-related references.
May be helpful to read/refresh from these and/or related articles, oriented to causation in law:
Proximate cause - Wikipedia
Causation (law) - Wikipedia specifically this section Intervening cause

@ilovewings
Like you, I do not recall any civil pleadings or briefs using the term "ultimate cause."
Proximate cause and intervening cause, yes.

Yes, very interesting. I wasn't suggesting it as a legal term. More just as an understanding of different types of culpability. There are often lawsuits that target more than one person or company for the same one crime. I think that's why the lawyer so glibly pointed out that the grandfather admitting guilt had nothing to do with their lawsuit. I guess a similar situation would be if a NYC bus driver crashed a bus while drinking and driving. He's guilty but that's not going to stop people from suing the MTA as well.

 

[katydid23]

This is exactly my point. It doesn't matter if it's never happened before. It's happened now. Chloe's death becomes the "prior knowledge" in any future case of a child being hurt in such a way. So that's why I said INTERNALLY RCCL will make changes to prevent future lawsuits. Right now they will settle with the parents to make it go away and they will absolutely put something in place. This case is too high profile for them not to. Even if it's just stickers on the window or signs warning people about children and windows. Or perhaps even installing warning red stripes along the railing warning people "open windows do not cross barriers" something will be done. Otherwise the next time an idiot does something even remotely like this they will be slammed in a lawsuit. They have no choice but to change something and pay off the parents in a settlement.

I don't know why people think it will go down otherwise. They parents won't get a huge settlement. We'll probably never hear the number.. But its pretty obvious that this is what will happen. I'll check back when it does.

I'm just glad that the grandfather at least admitted guilt and I was very happy they charged him. I'm so sick of children being killed because of lazy reckless bad parenting. Any time a child dies under the care of another person that person should be prosecuted.. I'm so sick of parents and family members getting away with it because people feel bad for them instead feeling bad for the child who is the victim.

But it does matter that it has never ever happened before. It matters because it is not something that is easily done by a child themselves or 2 children. It took a reckless, irrational action by a grandfather for this death to happen.

How the heck are window stickers going to work? If the window is open, NO STICKER will be visible.

And will passengers want to look at the beautiful ocean view, through a wall of windows with 80
WARNING--WINDOWS MAY BE OPEN Stickers plastered across their lovely ocean vista?

 

[katydid23]

What are they going to do about all those open railings on the ship , to keep nut jobs from dropping babies overboard?

The very nature of a ship is to be open to the ocean air. That’s why it’s a ship in the ocean, it’s not an Amtrak train that travels on land. That there are some areas on the ship with windows appears to be at least in part because that area is a covered area were people can sit under cover out of the sun and have a drink. Thus they provide windows so the passengers can still feel, smell, and experience the fresh ocean air. A rational person doesn’t pick someone up and put them out a window several feet off the floor. They just don’t do that.

IMO the whole complaint against windows that open is absurd and irrational. If a child is thrown out a car window should they stop making car windows that open? Sure, let’s just trap everyone inside, death trap on wheels. SMH

And what happens in case of an EMERGENCY? Do we want all windows frozen shut in case of fire on deck, or flooding, or the ship going down, or listing to the side---is it good to make it impossible for passengers to exit through an open window in case of a sudden emergency?

 

[Chewy]

But it does matter that it has never ever happened before. It matters because it is not something that is easily done by a child themselves or 2 children. It took a reckless, irrational action by a grandfather for this death to happen.

How the heck are window stickers going to work? If the window is open, NO STICKER will be visible.

And will passengers want to look at the beautiful ocean view, through a wall of windows with 80
WARNING--WINDOWS MAY BE OPEN Stickers plastered across their lovely ocean vista?

Yep something like that. I think they might actually stripe the bar in front of the windows instead. Red and white striped, "do not cross this barrier - windows may open." That is probably the best way to do it without ruining the view.

<modsnip>

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip>
I guess we will have to wait and see if RCCL pays off the family. I tend to believe they won't pay them a cent. They will not want to reward reckless, dangerous actions in that way. Nor would they want to admit any guilt. JMO

As you said, he KNEW the window was open. So it doesn't matter if he did or didn't lean out the window. He knew it was open, and he picked up a toddler, and propped her up in the open window ledge, 11 stories up. There is no excuse for that, and neither he nor his family should be financially rewarded for that criminal negligence.

Sure, maybe they will make some changes with future remodels, etc. But I don't see them slapping ugly warning stickers across the wall of glass, where passengers want to see their ocean view.

 

[katydid23]

Yep something like that. I think they might actually stripe the bar in front of the windows instead. Red and white striped, "do not cross this barrier windows may open." That is probably the best way to do it without ruining the view.

I don't know why it's so shocking the way idiots ruin nice things for other people. It happens all the time.

Dailybreak

This one was especially annoying.

Tourists and people on vacation are the worst. It's funny, one of my pet peeves is when tourists come to NYC and then go home and tell everyone how rude and disgusting NYers were to them. Meanwhile the tourists went to tourist traps where no NYer would be caught dead. The people who they met were not NYers but other tourists who are rude obnoxious stupid people when they are on vacation.

People aren't quite the same when they are traveling. It's sad.

But here is the thing---Grandpa knew it was open. So how would warning stickers have changed anything?

They wouldn't have. No one has any problem knowing the windows might open.
<modsnip>

 

[Chewy]

<modsnip>

I guess we will have to wait and see if RCCL pays off the family. I tend to believe they won't pay them a cent. They will not want to reward reckless, dangerous actions in that way. Nor would they want to admit any guilt. JMO

As you said, he KNEW the window was open. So it doesn't matter if he did or didn't lean out the window. He knew it was open, and he picked up a toddler, and propped her up in the open window ledge, 11 stories up. There is no excuse for that, and neither he nor his family should be financially rewarded for that criminal negligence.

Sure, maybe they will make some changes with future remodels, etc. But I don't see them slapping ugly warning stickers across the wall of glass, where passengers want to see their ocean view.

Yes we shall see who is right. As I said I think they will settle with the parents and put up some safety measures by the windows to cover their butts. But let's see if you are right and they won't give them a cent and will do nothing except on future models. No point in arguing about it. We'll see.
<modsnip> We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Chewy]

Here are 2 pics of people at the open Windows from the Ovation of the Seas.
The have a slight tint of gray, about the same height and NO RAIL.
Same area around the pools.

Thanks for sharing these. It's a very good example of the difference. These are huge obvious windows. The other ones were smaller. Personally I'd prefer these ones.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

This is exactly my point. It doesn't matter if it's never happened before. It's happened now. Chloe's death becomes the "prior knowledge" in any future case of a child being hurt in such a way. So that's why I said INTERNALLY RCCL will make changes to prevent future lawsuits. Right now they will settle with the parents to make it go away and they will absolutely put something in place. This case is too high profile for them not to. Even if it's just stickers on the window or signs warning people about children and windows. Or perhaps even installing warning red stripes along the railing warning people "open windows do not cross barriers" something will be done. Otherwise the next time an idiot does something even remotely like this they will be slammed in a lawsuit. They have no choice but to change something and pay off the parents in a settlement.

I don't know why people think it will go down otherwise. They parents won't get a huge settlement. We'll probably never hear the number.. But its pretty obvious that this is what will happen. I'll check back when it does.

I'm just glad that the grandfather at least admitted guilt and I was very happy they charged him. I'm so sick of children being killed because of lazy reckless bad parenting. Any time a child dies under the care of another person that person should be prosecuted.. I'm so sick of parents and family members getting away with it because people feel bad for them instead feeling bad for the child who is the victim.

My opinion is RCCL is not going to settle. If they were going to settle, it would have been done before now. From their court filings their position seems quite clear that CW's death is not the fault of the cruise line it's the fault of SA whose actions were unforeseeable. Maybe they will lose in a court trial (doubtful but theoretically possible) but I am not seeing a settlement.

 

[loveandhugs]

I am boarding Adventure of the Seas tomorrow morning. It has the exact same windows that Freedom does. You can bet I'll be taking some photos to post here!



I could not agree more! Like a number of others on these boards, I believe her death was intentional. IMO, the W's come off as so cunning and greedy, that I honestly cannot see them running a non-profit unless they were taking huge salaries for themselves.



Since none of these ships are flagged in the U.S. I don't see congress being able to do anything. I suppose they could ban them from using U.S. ports if they don't meet certain requirements, but I don't see that happening. It would be a HUGE loss to the economy.



Chikkamma - I'm SO with you. I love cruising!

Love your posts. My friends are sailing on adventure of the seas today!

 

[CocoChanel]

THREAD IS CLOSED FOR CLEAN UP OF POSTS THAT WERE OFF TOPIC AND DISRUPTIVE TO THE THREAD, AND POSTS THAT QUOTED/RESPONDED TO THE DISRUPTIVE OFF TOPIC POSTS.

CHECK BACK LATER. THIS MAY TAKE AWHILE AND RESULT IN SOME TIME OUTS.

 

[CocoChanel]

THREAD HAS REOPENED.

PLEASE KEEP POSTS ON TOPIC, AND REPORT ANY POSTS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF TOS. DO NOT RESPOND TO THOSE AS THAT WILL RESULT IN A MESS THAT CLOSES THE THREAD FOR CLEANUP.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING UPHOLD THE HIGH STANDARDS OF THE WEBSLEUTHS FORUMS.

Faithfully,
CocoChanel
Moderator

 

[justice4allnow]

There are two members of WS whom I want to acknowledge: Kindred, who has brought so many documents to us, and Oviedo, who created our excellent media timeline. The short video here bears watching for anyone who wasn't part of this case discussion from the beginning. Most of you have seen this, but I'm posting for the few members who more recently joined us. This video and the LaComay video were both key to my understanding of the case. As well, this video shows how windows on cruise ships differ from hotel windows in form and function. The media timeline is a treasure trove for anyone wanting to get up to speed with discussions here. Thank you again, Oviedo!