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

[Stinalyn]

Has anyone been reading the comments on any of the other forums?
I don't know if we can specifically discuss them here, I'm assuming we can't, but they seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of RCCL not being liable or responsible for SA's behavior and most are calling on the parents to drop their civil suit.
Very interesting how public opinion seems to have shifted since the release of the video allegedly showing SA "dangling" or holding Chloe out (or towards) the window.
I tend to agree that it's very hard to have sympathy for SA when it appears he had his head out the window prior to picking Chloe up.
I must admit that as much as I don't want to let myself think so, I have started to wonder if this truly was a tragic accident after all...?
MOO JMO

 

[wackyw]

Has anyone been reading the comments on any of the other forums?
I don't know if we can specifically discuss them here, I'm assuming we can't, but they seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of RCCL not being liable or responsible for SA's behavior and most are calling on the parents to drop their civil suit.
Very interesting how public opinion seems to have shifted since the release of the video allegedly showing SA "dangling" or holding Chloe out (or towards) the window.
I tend to agree that it's very hard to have sympathy for SA when it appears he had his head out the window prior to picking Chloe up.
I must admit that as much as I don't want to let myself think so, I have started to wonder if this truly was a tragic accident after all...?
MOO JMO

Haven't looked at other forums, but I do think the "not fully explained" video is deceptive. I wonder the % of people who think the video shows "out of the window" as soon as he/CW disappears from view, rather than knowing there is a gap between that and the window. Doesn't alter my personal judgement after seeing the photos on here, but looking at twitter you can see people think that is the case.

 

[WiseGuy]

I read through that case 3 times. I just find the law fascinating. It is indeed like a big game, with rules that can change at any time. The summary judgement for the defendant was eventually reversed.

What I came away with, re: ASTM standards, was that those are manufacturing standards, and not end-user "industry standards".

While these standards may not be the law per se, various appellate courts are of the opinion that the duty of care owed to "invitees" extends beyond "industry standards".


"As noted, the court based its determination that defendants owed no duty to take “additional protective measures for the subject window” in part on the fact that the window met applicable building code requirements.  

However, “a defendant property owner's compliance with a law or safety regulation, in and of itself, does not establish that the owner has utilized due care.   The owner's compliance with applicable safety regulations, while relevant to show due care, is not dispositive, if there are other circumstances requiring a higher degree of care.”

"The burden and cost to hotel owners of providing such protective devices to prevent children from falling out of windows is minimal compared to the risk of small children suffering serious injury or death from such falls, particularly in light of the obvious public policy of protecting children from accidental serious injury and death.  (Martinez v. Bank of America (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 883, 897 [“A policy favoring preventing death by injury to children has extremely high value.”].)"

"We conclude that the same evidence that raises a triable issue of fact as to breach of duty also raises a triable issue of fact as to causation. Because a trier of fact could reasonably find defendants were negligent in failing to take reasonable measures that would have prevented Michael's accident, it could also reasonably find that defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident." 

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

As I previously stated, none of the cases mentioned in the above document are exactly the same in surrounding circumstances as the case we have been discussing.

However, IMO, it gives us a good idea as to what direction it may be heading.

Would RCL have a strong defense of its windows by stating something like: “Our open windows have a substantial safety feature: they close.” All it requires is a sentinent human to detect the opening, grab the handle, and slide it to the right/left.

Even if you believe an open window is this monstrous danger, doesn’t a person, particularly a child’s caregiver, “owe a duty” of competent care, and to mitigate any dangerous condition he encounters?

 

[Forever Young]

Would RCL have a strong defense of its windows by stating something like: “Our open windows have a substantial safety feature: they close.” All it requires is a sentinent human to detect the opening, grab the handle, and slide it to the right/left.

Even if you believe an open window is this monstrous danger, doesn’t a person, particularly a child’s caregiver, “owe a duty” of competent care, and to mitigate any dangerous condition he encounters?

Yes, of course. With this qualification:

 a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm;  but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 180, 187.) IBID

In other words, the negligence of one party, does not absolve another party from negligence.

The second part, about conduct...........

"if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct".

Is there any other way possible, besides the conduct of SA, that a child could have gone out that window?

 

[Forever Young]

Haven't looked at other forums, but I do think the "not fully explained" video is deceptive. I wonder the % of people who think the video shows "out of the window" as soon as he/CW disappears from view, rather than knowing there is a gap between that and the window. Doesn't alter my personal judgement after seeing the photos on here, but looking at twitter you can see people think that is the case.

Thank you for noticing that. That is what I have noticed as well.

 

[Forever Young]

Has anyone been reading the comments on any of the other forums?
I don't know if we can specifically discuss them here, I'm assuming we can't, but they seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of RCCL not being liable or responsible for SA's behavior and most are calling on the parents to drop their civil suit.
Very interesting how public opinion seems to have shifted since the release of the video allegedly showing SA "dangling" or holding Chloe out (or towards) the window.
I tend to agree that it's very hard to have sympathy for SA when it appears he had his head out the window prior to picking Chloe up.
I must admit that as much as I don't want to let myself think so, I have started to wonder if this truly was a tragic accident after all...?
MOO JMO

Thank you for noticing this as well.

I compare my thinking on this case as something akin to the 7 stages of grief, as far as shifting of opinion goes.

 

[wackyw]

Thank you for noticing that. That is what I have noticed as well.

In my catching up I had noticed you were fighting a "little battle" with that one It annoys me that something like that can go out in MSM without them doing even some cursory checking, but that is modern online media unfortunately. And whilst we don't know who leaked it, I hope it doesn't work against RCCL.

 

[Aydrianna523]

Has anyone been reading the comments on any of the other forums?
I don't know if we can specifically discuss them here, I'm assuming we can't, but they seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of RCCL not being liable or responsible for SA's behavior and most are calling on the parents to drop their civil suit.
Very interesting how public opinion seems to have shifted since the release of the video allegedly showing SA "dangling" or holding Chloe out (or towards) the window.
I tend to agree that it's very hard to have sympathy for SA when it appears he had his head out the window prior to picking Chloe up.
I must admit that as much as I don't want to let myself think so, I have started to wonder if this truly was a tragic accident after all...?
MOO JMO

I'm doing the reverse. At first I thought it was the cruise fault.
But now I believe that the railing was there for a reason. Any logical person could guess why.
I would like to know exactly where he put her and if it's true he put her outside the window. I can't see the video very good. But it looked like he lifted her very high and up over the railing.

 

[katydid23]

Would RCL have a strong defense of its windows by stating something like: “Our open windows have a substantial safety feature: they close.” All it requires is a sentinent human to detect the opening, grab the handle, and slide it to the right/left.

Even if you believe an open window is this monstrous danger, doesn’t a person, particularly a child’s caregiver, “owe a duty” of competent care, and to mitigate any dangerous condition he encounters?

Not to mention the GUARD RAIL.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, of course. With this qualification:

 a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm;  but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 180, 187.) IBID

In other words, the negligence of one party, does not absolve another party from negligence.

The second part, about conduct...........

"if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct".

Is there any other way possible, besides the conduct of SA, that a child could have gone out that window?

I think that ^^^ question is why RCCL is going to be safe from this lawsuit.

Without the reckless conduct of SA, that child would never have gone out that window. Even if she tried, she could not have achieved it.

Could a 14 yr old? Sure, an older child could conceivably pull a chair and table close, climb on top, perhaps climb over the guard rail, etc, etc...

However that same child could go over any balcony as well, so the windows are not the issue.

But this lawsuit says it was ACCIDENTAL. And the company is at fault because of this accident.

And I don't think the family can label this an accident because of the criminally negligent behaviour of the grandfather. Without his criminally reckless actions, this child would be alive and well.

 

[katydid23]

I'm doing the reverse. At first I thought it was the cruise fault.
But now I believe that the railing was there for a reason. Any logical person could guess why.
I would like to know exactly where he put her and if it's true he put her outside the window. I can't see the video very good. But it looked like he lifted her very high and up over the railing.

The family's attorney did us a favour and did a 'reenactment' for us. In their somewhat comical presentation, they did show us clearly that Grandfather DID lift her very high, up and over the railing, and then also held her up onto the window ledge.

So any doubts about that have been erased. They did not show her being held outside the window, but perhaps newer enhanced videos will solve that mystery in the future?

 

[oviedo]

Hi there,

new poster here. Saw the video on the Daily Mail/Mail Online and thought I'd do some google enquiries and I came across you lot. You all seem a lovely bunch, I've only read link #6, and the media link, so please forgive my ignorance of anything discussed earlier and be gentle with me And I'm from the UK, so there may be some times when words/phrases may be slightly different.

On the video from behind I think it shows the closest window is a non-opener. Despite what I have read in earlier quotes/posts about CW falling "from the only open window in the wall of glass" I think recent video from behind shows the window to the right has been slid to open and he should have seen that as he approached. Anyway, he approaches the non-opener section and then moves to the left to the open section where that window has been slid over the non-opener, so a double layer of tint. After leaning over the rail, he then lifts and moves CW to his left.

video is the second one in this article

Video: grandfather dangled toddler out of Royal Caribbean window for THIRTY SECONDS | Daily Mail Online


Current defence is "he thought there was glass in the window" ... . BS. There's just no way anyone with an iota of awareness would fail to register all the many clues, visual and otherwise. And I don't think he could have hidden, in day to day life, the amount of visual impairment that would have required. There's also a picture of him walking without glasses.

The photo in post #1124 from "@they'll get you" of the lifeguard casually opening the window using the handle, standing upright and with a bent arm, seems to me the best demonstration of "you couldn't fail to notice when you leaned over the railing", as he did for 8 seconds before lifting CW, and 34 seconds afterwards.

To me, all roads lead to SA and his mental state ....

1) "Drunk/Otherwise Intoxicated" - MW claims he "wasn't a drinker" and hadn't used his "drinks card". Maybe, maybe not, could have drunk his own stash before he "looked after" CW. Can't say the video shows this one way or the other, but a risky defence when presumably he was interviewed by LE soon after. Although by refusing a breath/toxicology test there's no longer any proof, just opinion of those whose spoke to him.

2) "Lights on, nobody home". I hope this expression translates for non-UK readers Surely the family would already know this though and would not leave him in sole charge?

3) "Narcissism/Depraved indifference" - just not really giving a ****. Observes behaviours expected of people, and can and does replicate them, however there's a different thought process going on behind the appearance. And one day his real thoughts/impulses won over for reasons unfathomable to the rest of us. But again, could you know someone for 12 yrs and not see something of this, enough to mistrust surely?

4) "Murder" - Extension of above.

I'm thinking number 3 at present, both through my thought process above, and instinctively ... he seems evasive, perhaps there's some deviant cunning behind the cuddly (s)GF fascade.

But I have read comments about him changing his story, and would be interested in reading further. I thought he had done just one interview, with CBS, so I guess there is some previous reporting of his story. In particular is it independently reported what his first words were after dropping CW? I have been through Oviedo's excellent media thread, although not every link in there, and see PRLE quotes about "playing games", "lost his balance" and "lost his grip", and also 48hrs after the incident we have MWs "banging on the glass" statement. The quotes of course are not necessarily exactly what SA said and could be a little loose, and don't necessarily contradict the glass thing. Anything from MW cannot be taken at face value.

Anyone got any links to anything more concrete? Or provide me with a few clue words for me to search on the other threads?

Everything JMO of course.

EDIT - just for clarity I'm putting extreme stupidity in 2), and extreme recklessness in 3).

Welcome to WS! You’ve already been to our media thread but this video of the ship is a really good introduction to Freedom IMO - I was on MOTS in December and going again in March and the windows are easily opened (layout is very similar to FOTS) and the breeze is so strong - my only question at this point is was it intentional or truly an accident and by intentional I mean he intended to hold her out there for 34 seconds and in his arrogance (perhaps he’s done this many times before at other venues) he never dreamed he would drop her?
JMO

 

[al66pine]

Any Other Way for Chloe to Have Come to Harm?

...."if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct". Is there any other way possible, besides the conduct of SA, that a child could have gone out that window?

@Forever Young sbm. I was asking myself - any other way for Chloe to have fallen? But the critical point is SA lifting and holding her by and close to window, as RCL's Mo/Dis characterizes this actions.
Did not sprout wings; did not scale furniture or parkour her way up. It's all on SA, imo.

 

[Forever Young]

Court documents say:

snip> "Chloe’s step grandfather who, as surveillance footage unquestionably confirms: (1) walked up to a window he was aware was open; (2) leaned his upper body out the window for several seconds;"
Royal Caribbean says video proves grandfather knew window was open before dropping toddler

snip> "The only reasonable conclusion from the video is that Mr. Anello knew the window was open before picking up Chloe. "
Royal Caribbean says video shows grandfather knew window was open before dropping toddler

Weasel words

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch - Wikipedia

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, of course. With this qualification:

 a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm;  but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 180, 187.) IBID

In other words, the negligence of one party, does not absolve another party from negligence.

The second part, about conduct...........

"if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct".

Is there any other way possible, besides the conduct of SA, that a child could have gone out that window?

RBBM

No.

A child of Chloe’s age could not possibly climb up to and out of that window without either -

1) an adult lifting her up or
2) an angled ladder or ramp for them to climb.

Imo at 18 months, if the child did climb up onto a table still could not reach to the window sill.


These deck chairs were approx a metre away from the windows and too low and too heavy for a child to get out.

In that area all tables are low in height and heavy to move.

No. A child could not and has not climbed up and out of that window unassisted before.
The design is not dangerous for children imo.

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, of course. With this qualification:

 a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm;  but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 180, 187.) IBID

In other words, the negligence of one party, does not absolve another party from negligence.

The second part, about conduct...........

"if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct".

Is there any other way possible, besides the conduct of SA, that a child could have gone out that window?

In Australia any commercial floor to ceiling windows and doors have a frosted or painted motive to show they are doors and not windows so people can detect there is glass.

 

[Fidobell]

Here are the borders around the windows that open. iirc they don’t open fully so you see the handle and border.
I hope this helps.
View attachment 227092
View attachment 227093

Until you see these photos or similar , in your mind you picture ' a wall of glass ' as described by Winkerman . So misleading ( just one of many details he has tweaked to suit his client )but mere words wont resolve this case , hard facts and solid evidence will

 

[Forever Young]

Any Other Way for Chloe to Have Come to Harm?
@Forever Young sbm. I was asking myself - any other way for Chloe to have fallen? But the critical point is SA lifting and holding her by and close to window, as RCL's Mo/Dis characterizes this actions.
Did not sprout wings; did not scale furniture or parkour her way up. It's all on SA, imo.

Any Other Way for Chloe to Have Come to Harm?
@Forever Young sbm. I was asking myself - any other way for Chloe to have fallen? But the critical point is SA lifting and holding her by and close to window, as RCL's Mo/Dis characterizes this actions.
Did not sprout wings; did not scale furniture or parkour her way up. It's all on SA, imo.

"but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th"

But, could another child have scaled furniture or in some other way climbed on top of the railing? The result would be the same. The substantial factor is the open window. IMO

 

[wackyw]

Welcome to WS! You’ve already been to our media thread but this video of the ship is a really good introduction to Freedom IMO - I was on MOTS in December and going again in March and the windows are easily opened (layout is very similar to FOTS) and the breeze is so strong - my only question at this point is was it intentional or truly an accident and by intentional I mean he intended to hold her out there for 34 seconds and in his arrogance (perhaps he’s done this many times before at other venues) he never dreamed he would drop her?
JMO

Thankyou I'm with your "intentional" and his character means the risk doesn't cross his mind or somehow does not register as important. I do indeed think he has done similar before, surely you wouldn't think about doing this for the first time 100+ ft up and with outstretched arms and think it was a good idea, does not compute! With the obvious risks here with a live child, I cannot even consider this "an accident", although we all may have slightly different interpretations of that word, unintentional possibly. It might be possible to think of it as an accident if you believe the "I thought there was glass" story. However I don't, and hence my interest in any reporting of what he said in the aftermath, not much from what I can gather so far.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Going into the legal aspect of the case I think the Wiegands are going to have a tough time, especially with their own reconstruction emphasizing how difficult it is for a nearly 6 foot tall adult to go out the window. It's like RCCL set a trap for Winkleman and he walked right into it with his pictures showing that SA took effort to put Chloe on the windowsill and that's it not remotely at all like a child climbing up to and out a window. This required SA to act negligently for Chloe to even be in that position on the windowsill, which I don't think adults placing children on windowsills is something that can be reasonable expected - only children themselves putting themselves in that position.

But Miami-based maritime lawyer Jim Walker says proving negligence won’t be an easy feat for the family.

“In order for a cruise line to be legally liable for this child’s death, the family’s lawyer must prove that the cruise line acted unreasonably and that the cruise line knew or should have known of the specific danger on its ship,” he told news.com.au.

“This will be an exceedingly difficult burden for the lawyer to meet in this very sad and tragic set of circumstances.

“Without evidence (prior incidents or proof that the cruise line knew of a dangerous condition on the cruise ship) the chances are slim that the court (if suit is filed) would permit this case to proceed to a jury trial,” he added.
Missing piece in toddler’s tragic fall