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

[Lawnguylander1964]

I do not believe this is intentional yet. I still believe SA is just a dumb butt.

I still need a motive. I don't see evidence yet of him/them needing money.

Speaking of money, I'm not sure if I've said this out loud yet, but I keep wondering why we haven't heard from witnesses who want their 15 minutes of fame. Usually when there are cases like this that make national headlines, people come out of the woodwork to talk about what they heard and saw. Even bystanders who add no value but can say they saw them board the ship or something like that.

It seems unusual in this day and age to have such a tight lid on information.

 

[oviedo]

So, you’re standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon and you decide to hold your 18 month old child out over the abyss...and you drop her...and she dies. Do you sue the National Park Service so it will make the edge of the canyon impervious to stupidity and pay you for your stupidity? I didn’t think so...although no stupidity would surprise me, having watched parents allow their children climb on rocks near the edge of the Grand Canyon.

This is why I believe he’s done this type of thing to her before - some other venue perhaps? jmo

 

[Montrealaise]

It happens as well at zoos. High fences and still a child is lifted up and dropped.
At what point can you prevent stupid?

You can't. As my Prussian great-grandfather used to say, "Gegen Dummheit ist kein Kraut gewachsen" (translation: there is no remedy for stupidity). The best and most secure safety devices are useless if somebody deliberately breaches them.

 

[Yellowbeak]

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?

No, unless she could retrieve and climb a ladder.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I may be wrong, but IMO, there will be no changes made to the existing windows on deck 11 or any similar windows on other decks because 1. There is nothing unsafe about the current windows; 2. Changing the windows would be a costly and unnecessary renovation considering there is nothing wrong with the current design; and 3. If they change the current windows, that may look like they are admitting the windows were a “danger.” JMO

I forget the name of the building code that the cruise industry generally follows, but there would be retrofits for things like that depending on the nature of the remodeling. Depending on the nature of a remodel it can remove grandfathered parts requiring a retrofits...which actually if they were following the code on when retrofits are required, it would show that both the prior construction and the existing construction were up to code. Ironically Winkleman acts like there's no such thing as grandfathering.

 

[redabby]

Surely grandpa must have been petrified when Chloe began running to the bottom open window? I assume he thought it open as the one above was closed.

 

[wackyw]

Surely grandpa must have been petrified when Chloe began running to the bottom open window? I assume he thought it open as the one above was closed.

No!
He knew there was a wall of glass there ....... because ............ he could ...... see the glass,
......................................................................... but when ......... he couldn't .. see the glass ..
he knew there was a wall of glass there !!

hang on, I'm confused

I'll be very interested in this colour blindness rubbish if that get's played in court. Must order the popcorn.

EDITED - formatted to make clearer, I think.

 

[neesaki]

No, he followed Chloe over to that place.

She went ahead of him to the windows, but I really doubt she’s the one that chose the open one, IMO. She wouldn’t have known either way. Aside from that, after seeing him lean down and appear to talk to her, my impression is that he told her to go over to the windows.... then he squatted down against the post, watched until the man left the open window, then he got up and went to the window.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

She went ahead of him to the windows, but I really doubt she’s the one that chose the open one, IMO. She wouldn’t have known either way. Aside from that, after seeing him lean down and appear to talk to her, my impression is that he told her to go over to the windows.... then he squatted down against the post, watched until the man left the open window, then he got up and went to the window.

I think he was telling her "goodbye". JMOO.

 

[WhatDidYouDo]

I apologize if this has already been discussed as I'm just joining the thread here but no reasonable person would lift the child up in the air to the point that he did to lift her on to the ledge. I understand the type of accidents that happen where a caregiver sits the child on something lower chest level to themselves and the child falls forward but this is not that. He had to maneuver her in such a way that all sense should have told him he was doing something wrong. There's no protection any cruise line could put in place to protect against men like him. He'd likely drag a chair over to an open window if it wasn't within his reach.

 

[Indy_ar]

You can't. As my Prussian great-grandfather used to say, "Gegen Dummheit ist kein Kraut gewachsen" (translation: there is no remedy for stupidity). The best and most secure safety devices are useless if somebody deliberately breaches them.

I remember seeing this in one of those non-motivational postings, "Make it stupid proof and somebody will make a better stupid"

 

[sloane7777]

This passage you posted looks really bad for SA.
"...such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  ...
Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  

Wow that sounds ominous for the defendant, SA. Just because he had never dropped anyone from a window previously, it should have been reasonably anticipated that it could happen, if he acts irresponsibly under such dangerous conditions.

How Many People Fall Overboard on Cruise Ships?

Cruise Liners Responsible for Passenger Safety
"Short of a passenger trying to jump off the ship intentionally, cruise liners are responsible for the safety of their passengers. Ensuring that railings are high and secure, or ensuring that passengers are not drunk enough to endanger themselves or others, is vital for ship owners and crew members. When they fail to maintain a safe environment for passengers, they ought to be held responsible for the results."


I just don't know what to think I really think SA is just a bit of a clown and drama queen, on purpose seems just insane , I just cant find a motive good enough to drop a toddler out of a window unless he has some kind of munchausen by proxy thing going on

 

[Stinalyn]

I just cant find a motive good enough to drop a toddler out of a window

BBM SBM

$$$$$$ < ----???????

MOO JMO

 

[justice4allnow]

BBM SBM

$$$$$$ < ----???????

MOO JMO

A little clueless here-I understand most of the acronyms used on the site... but cannot think of what BBM, DBM, and SBM stand for. Anyone?

 

[MsBetsy]

She went ahead of him to the windows, but I really doubt she’s the one that chose the open one, IMO. She wouldn’t have known either way. Aside from that, after seeing him lean down and appear to talk to her, my impression is that he told her to go over to the windows.... then he squatted down against the post, watched until the man left the open window, then he got up and went to the window.

How could he see the man leave the open window if he was kneeling down on the floor?
There is no evidence that he told her to go to the open window. The only evidence we have seen is the video of him following Chloe directly to the window. As far as I know, there is no audio or any witness who heard what he said so there is no way to know if he said anything to her at all.

For all we know, she saw the man looking out the window and wanted to go look out herself.

Imo

 

[IceIce9]

A little clueless here-I understand most of the acronyms used on the site... but cannot think of what BBM, DBM, and SBM stand for. Anyone?

BBM= bolded by me
DBM = deleted by me

 

[bluedivergirl]

A little clueless here-I understand most of the acronyms used on the site... but cannot think of what BBM, DBM, and SBM stand for. Anyone?

Bolded By Me; Snipped By Me; Deleted By Me.

I am horrified to think this may have been motivated by greed.

 

[justice4allnow]

Bolded By Me; Snipped By Me; Deleted By Me.

I am horrified to think this may have been motivated by greed.

Thank you, IceIce9 and bluedivergirl for taking the time to answer my question : )

 

[SoCalDavidS]

This whole case stunk to me as soon as the whole "she loved to bang on glass" statement came out. It's both dangerous and annoying and gives you some insight into how the family functions ie..allowing their child who doesn't know any better to disrupt others for their own entertainment and also to be put in a potentially dangerous situation. I honestly can't think of any reasonable parent that allows this. One would think that if a toddler began to bang on glass, the parent would stop out because of potential danger and out of respect. The other day I was at the mall when a young tween who was intellectually challenged ran up to a store front to bang on the window. The first thing adult who was with him did was run up to him and gently lead him away and direct him elsewhere.

It is so utterly ridiculous. But then again, so is this whole case, and the fact we're even discussing it.

The plexiglass at hockey games does get banged on occasionally by spectators. It is a thing. But it is made of a special material that is designed not to easily break. It is constantly getting slammed into by players, and more importantly, by a small rubber puck traveling at extremely high speeds. There is no way whatsoever that a 2 year old banging on it is going to do a thing.

To extrapolate that to banging on All glass, or All windows, is......I don't know....words escape me. To even encourage it, or to use it as an excuse by saying, "she wanted to bang on the glass," is at best EXTREMELY negligent. It is not normal. They are trying to imply that all glass is created equal. If she is able to bang on hockey rink glass, why not let her bang on cruise ship glass? Or automobile glass. Or a glass window at your residence.

 

[justice4allnow]

It is so utterly ridiculous. But then again, so is this whole case, and the fact we're even discussing it.

The plexiglass at hockey games does get banged on occasionally by spectators. It is a thing. But it is made of a special material that is designed not to easily break. It is constantly getting slammed into by players, and more importantly, by a small rubber puck traveling at extremely high speeds. There is no way whatsoever that a 2 year old banging on it is going to do a thing.

To extrapolate that to banging on All glass, or All windows, is......I don't know....words escape me. To even encourage it, or to use it as an excuse by saying, "she wanted to bang on the glass," is at best EXTREMELY negligent. It is not normal. They are trying to imply that all glass is created equal. If she is able to bang on hockey rink glass, why not let her bang on cruise ship glass? Or automobile glass. Or a glass window at your residence.

Or the oven door glass when a roast was cooking? No, adults must protect and guide little ones into safe activities. It's doubtful whether Chloe even wanted to 'bang on the glass" aboard ship. When Grandpa told his story on CBS, he said he bent down to Chloe, thought that she couldn't reach she glass, so he decided to pick her up. He did not indicate that she made a motion nor a sound that indicated that she wanted to be picked up.