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

[WiseGuy]

NEW DOCUMENT

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIONCase 1:19-cv-25100-DLG
Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2020 14 Pages

32 - RCCL Response 3-4.pdf

I'm just going to put my favorite part right here:

"The Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs’ improper request for leave to amend embedded in the Response because they fail to attach a proposed pleading or point to any evidence showing that amendment would not be futile because of the lack of notice."

The status conference is next Wednesday morning. Unless the judge decides to toss all this before then that's probably when we'll get an answer if this dog and pony show is going to be continuing or if it's getting shut down.

Kindred, as you already know, you ROCK - Thanks!

There are so many gems in here, starting with my favorite:

Plaintiffs’ failure to allege even one similar prior incident is not an oversight, but rather evidence of their inability to make such allegations, and the futility of further amendment.

the court explained that the cruise line “had no duty to warn Plaintiff about something that she should have noticed through the ordinary use of her senses.”

“[t]he obviousness of a danger and adequacy of a warning are determined by a ‘reasonable person’ standard, rather than on each particular plaintiff’s subjective appreciation of the danger. Individual subjective perceptions of the injured party are irrelevant.

The Complaint fails to allege that a passenger has ever done what Mr. Anello did. This is because any reasonable person would have 1) not placed an 18-month old child where he did, and 2) would have perceived with their ordinary senses that the window, open to the outside light, noise and air, was open.

 

[Indy_ar]

@Kindred Only a few selected in Indiana, most of us see through this charade .

 

[neesaki]

@Kindred Only a few selected in Indiana, most of us see through this charade .

That’s very good to know. I can’t imagine what the rest of the family is thinking, they know by now that SA isn’t being truthful, and that this civil suit is groundless. Not to mention fellow employees, etc.
SA seems to be determined to make himself look even worse than he already did after this tragedy.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

SA's hand moving forward is consistent with his claim to have been reaching forward for the glass. The fact that he was, at that point, holding CW with only his left arm in not indispute. He admitted this in his interview with DB and made a motion where he positioned his left arm as if holding CW against his body while reaching forward with his right. Although DB incorrectly referred to this as having CW in a "bear hug" which it clearly was not.

My (won't speak for others) referring to SA likely dropping a phone, had he been holding one at the time CW fell, was meant as after the fact. I doubt, realizing he had dropped CW to her death and himself falling to the deck, that he would have remained holding the phone. In which case it would have been somewhere on the deck in close proximity to SA. JMO.

When I watch the video, his hand isn't moving forward. He's holding CW in his left hand, and his right hand is holding something (cell phone?) which he swings in front of him right before she fell as if to take a picture. I don't see him reaching forward to the glass when she fell, to me it seems like he was going to take a picture. Any way you look at it, right before she fell he was only holding her with one hand in front of an obviously open window. It's mind boggling.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

When I watch the video, his hand isn't moving forward. He's holding CW in his left hand, and his right hand is holding something (cell phone?) which he swings in front of him right before she fell as if to take a picture. I don't see him reaching forward to the glass when she fell, to me it seems like he was going to take a picture. Any way you look at it, right before she fell he was only holding her with one hand in front of an obviously open window. It's mind boggling.

Totally. As well as why SA was chosen as babysitter, why no one seems upset and/or angry with him, and WHY it seems to be OK to dump a child out a window and waltz away with no jail time?! And why anyone in or out of their right mind would think that RCCL has any blame in this case whatsoever? JMOO

 

[neesaki]

The

The Judge would receive a pre-sentencing report from the DA office before the next hearing since SA will be changing his plea. She (the judge) would know all the facts and evidence of the case as that is her job.
Good question about the victim impact statement since it’s the step-grandparent and the family won’t be there. Maybe the DA?

Is it known the family won’t be present during the change of plea hearing? I’ve been curious about that as well. TIA

 

[al66pine]

Why SA to Mind Chloe?

Totally. As well as why SA was chosen as babysitter...

@SagauroSpirit sbm Yes, this question has been raised repeatedly. Seems practically speaking we won't receive an answer, but not stopping me from wandering.
When KSW needed a minder for Chloe ---
--- Did KSW hesitate to ask one of the other 5 g'parents, thinking they would feel imposed on?
--- Had any of the other five said, My babysitting days are done. Or maybe specific to the cruise - no toddler-watch for me this week, I'm on vacay. In essence, refusing in advance?
--- Where all members of their group? Close by? The Complaint is silent on location of the various family members (Except to the extent that it alleges "as such" SA came "up" to supervise). Some early-ish MSM said AW & Chloe's (half) bro were at a (the?) pool. If true, was their distance a factor?
--- Was SA 'chosen' by default: nobody else in the group was there at splash pad or reachable by cell?
---Was there another basis for KSW's decision?
I've not seen others walking on video - which might hint at possible mobility or health/medical issues making them unlikely candidates to mind Chloe. Seems unlikely that would be the case for all five of the other g'parents. Anyone seen vids w indications?
--- Did the other g'parents have histories of inattention to safety issues? History of unsafe choices while babysitting Chloe or bro on previous occasions? Ppl have posted numerous examples of these behaviors by unthinking relatives. Or drivers license violations indicating same lack of awareness, perhaps worse or more recent than SA's tickets (altho no driving dangers here)?
Seems unlikely that all five other g'parents had mobility issues, or were oblivious to toddler safety concerns, or had flat out refused, even a split of these issues among them.

So why SA? SagauroSpirit, IDK.

 

[Wicked Strong]

Why SA to Mind Chloe?
@SagauroSpirit sbm Yes, this question has been raised repeatedly. Seems practically speaking we won't receive an answer, but not stopping me from wandering.
When KSW needed a minder for Chloe ---
--- Did KSW hesitate to ask one of the other 5 g'parents, thinking they would feel imposed on?
--- Had any of the other five said, My babysitting days are done. Or maybe specific to the cruise - no toddler-watch for me this week, I'm on vacay. In essence, refusing in advance?
--- Where all members of their group? Close by? The Complaint is silent on location of the various family members (Except to the extent that it alleges "as such" SA came "up" to supervise). Some early-ish MSM said AW & Chloe's (half) bro were at a (the?) pool. If true, was their distance a factor?
--- Was SA 'chosen' by default: nobody else in the group was there at splash pad or reachable by cell?
---Was there another basis for KSW's decision?
I've not seen others walking on video - which might hint at possible mobility or health/medical issues making them unlikely candidates to mind Chloe. Seems unlikely that would be the case for all five of the other g'parents. Anyone seen vids w indications?
--- Did the other g'parents have histories of inattention to safety issues? History of unsafe choices while babysitting Chloe or bro on previous occasions? Ppl have posted numerous examples of these behaviors by unthinking relatives. Or drivers license violations indicating same lack of awareness, perhaps worse or more recent than SA's tickets (altho no driving dangers here)?
Seems unlikely that all five other g'parents had mobility issues, or were oblivious to toddler safety concerns, or had flat out refused, even a split of these issues among them.

So why SA? SagauroSpirit, IDK.

But AW and son were swimming in the pool. After looking at the deck 11 pictures on the media thread, they are in close proximity to each other (I think). Didn't the father want to watch Chloe for a few minutes? Or didn't KW want to ask him. I hope I'm wrong, but maybe no one wanted to watch Chloe, so it fell on SA.

MOO

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Totally. As well as why SA was chosen as babysitter, why no one seems upset and/or angry with him, and WHY it seems to be OK to dump a child out a window and waltz away with no jail time?! And why anyone in or out of their right mind would think that RCCL has any blame in this case whatsoever? JMOO

The mom lost me completely when she said what purpose is served by prosecuting a misdemeanor offense. To me it would be one thing if SA tripped, or was careless, and accidentally dropped CW. I get that and in that type of fact pattern maybe don't prosecute him. But this is not that fact pattern. SA held CW up to an open window 11 stories up for over 30 seconds, to the point where right before she fell he was only holding her loosely by one hand. So the purpose that is served by prosecuting SA is to throw a monkey wrench in your self serving lawsuit against the cruise line when the entire cause of your child's death is the complete recklessness (if not something more) of your own family member!

 

[Kindred]

Why SA to Mind Chloe?
@SagauroSpirit sbm Yes, this question has been raised repeatedly. Seems practically speaking we won't receive an answer, but not stopping me from wandering.
When KSW needed a minder for Chloe ---
--- Did KSW hesitate to ask one of the other 5 g'parents, thinking they would feel imposed on?
--- Had any of the other five said, My babysitting days are done. Or maybe specific to the cruise - no toddler-watch for me this week, I'm on vacay. In essence, refusing in advance?
--- Where all members of their group? Close by? The Complaint is silent on location of the various family members (Except to the extent that it alleges "as such" SA came "up" to supervise). Some early-ish MSM said AW & Chloe's (half) bro were at a (the?) pool. If true, was their distance a factor?
--- Was SA 'chosen' by default: nobody else in the group was there at splash pad or reachable by cell?
---Was there another basis for KSW's decision?
I've not seen others walking on video - which might hint at possible mobility or health/medical issues making them unlikely candidates to mind Chloe. Seems unlikely that would be the case for all five of the other g'parents. Anyone seen vids w indications?
--- Did the other g'parents have histories of inattention to safety issues? History of unsafe choices while babysitting Chloe or bro on previous occasions? Ppl have posted numerous examples of these behaviors by unthinking relatives. Or drivers license violations indicating same lack of awareness, perhaps worse or more recent than SA's tickets (altho no driving dangers here)?
Seems unlikely that all five other g'parents had mobility issues, or were oblivious to toddler safety concerns, or had flat out refused, even a split of these issues among them.

So why SA? SagauroSpirit, IDK.

But AW and son were swimming in the pool. After looking at the deck 11 pictures on the media thread, they are in close proximity to each other (I think). Didn't the father want to watch Chloe for a few minutes? Or didn't KW want to ask him. I hope I'm wrong, but maybe no one wanted to watch Chloe, so it fell on SA.

MOO

I still don't think there is any indication that it was a "choice" per se. We have no confirmation where anyone else in the group was. And due to the fact that the family says (and RCCL doesn't deny) that there was some type of errand that KW had to complete, the only thing that makes any sense is that SA had been down in the staterooms when someone called/came looking for her, and he came up to let her know there was an issue she had to handle. Like seriously, that's probably all it was.

I'm not sure why people keep trying to make something sinister out of that, but logically the simplest answer is likely the correct one. He probably came up to tell her she needed to take care of something. She probably didn't want to have to drag a wet baby along and besides, why stop Chloe from having fun for something that would be taken care of quickly? So SA ends up watching her while waiting for mom to get back. No "choice". No "who wants to take her". Just a simple "hey, can you keep an eye on her in the splash pad till I get back?" that I'm sure she's regretting to this day.

 

[al66pine]

I still don't think there is any indication that it was a "choice" per se. We have no confirmation where anyone else in the group was. And due to the fact that the family says (and RCCL doesn't deny) that there was some type of errand that KW had to complete, the only thing that makes any sense is that SA had been down in the staterooms when someone called/came looking for her, and he came up to let her know there was an issue she had to handle. Like seriously, that's probably all it was.
I'm not sure why people keep trying to make something sinister out of that, but logically the simplest answer is likely the correct one. He probably came up to tell her she needed to take care of something. She probably didn't want to have to drag a wet baby along and besides, why stop Chloe from having fun for something that would be taken care of quickly? So SA ends up watching her while waiting for mom to get back. No "choice". No "who wants to take her". Just a simple "hey, can you keep an eye on her in the splash pad till I get back?" that I'm sure she's regretting to this day.

@Kindred bbm sbm
Not trying to make anything sinister out of this and it's possible that it happened as your post says. Entirely possible.* From Complaint itself ---
Paragraph 11. Re KSW & Chloe, ~ "2:40 p.m. they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship. 12. At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs. Schultz Wiegand needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise, and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise Chloe..."
Complaint is silent on whether ship's crew summoned KSW and location of group members other than KSW & Chloe.

And yes, plenty of reason for KSW to regret that request to this day.
{{{ETA: And a BIIIIG TY, @Kindred, for getting us the pdfs/images and links to the filings.}}}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*. But a couple loose threads.
--- Per RCL & other cruisers here, crew would typically summon a pax by using ship's phone system to call pax cabin, then either talk to person answering or leave message light on or leave voice mail message. But crew would call KSW (or AW?) at their cabin, not SA's cabin. But it's possible SA was in their cabin and answered phone & responded as you said.
--- Per some cruisers here, crew does not 'come looking' for a pax, like black & white pre-WWII movies w bellhops (pages?). Also crew is very busy on embarkation day.
But maybe crew had a very important, urgent reason to summon KSW.

 

[Kakidoll]

I'd like to know what she had to take care of. The ONLY thing i've ever seen people need to go to guest services for to take care of, other than excursions, was setting up your sign and sail for cash or credit.. IF they hadn't done it before boarding. Could have been childcare, i suppose. But boarding day is always hectic...

And SA could have volunteered to watch Chloe....

 

[Kindred]

I'd like to know what she had to take care of. The ONLY thing i've ever seen people need to go to guest services for to take care of, other than excursions, was setting up your sign and sail for cash or credit.. IF they hadn't done it before boarding. Could have been childcare, i suppose. But boarding day is always hectic...

And SA could have volunteered to watch Chloe....

One of the frequent cruisers stated that traveling with babies/toddlers requires certain things like crib and diaper disposal arrangements, which makes sense at least to me. I could see someone either calling up to or stopping by the rooms to drop off the crib and wanting to talk to her and finding the grandparents instead. I'm pretty sure no one from guest services would have wasted time and gone wandering around deck 11 looking for KW

 

[JerseySleuth17]

One of the frequent cruisers stated that traveling with babies/toddlers requires certain things like crib and diaper disposal arrangements, which makes sense at least to me. I could see someone either calling up to or stopping by the rooms to drop off the crib and wanting to talk to her and finding the grandparents instead. I'm pretty sure no one from guest services would have wasted time and gone wandering around deck 11 looking for KW

You would be surprised the line at guest services on sail day is very long - people are making show reservations, issues about dining arrangements, issues about cabins and possible upgrades, it could have been any number of things.

 

[In vino veritas]

M

You would be surprised the line at guest services on sail day is very long - people are making show reservations, issues about dining arrangements, issues about cabins and possible upgrades, it could have been any number of things.

Perhaps that will be the new spin MW puts on the lawsuit..... RCL is responsible because had KSW not been called away on a cruise related errand, Chloe would still be alive......
Pardon my extreme facetiousness.... but this is exactly how MW has approached this lawsuit ... one absurd reason after another.

 

[al66pine]

One of the frequent cruisers stated that traveling with babies/toddlers requires certain things like crib and diaper disposal arrangements, which makes sense at least to me....I'm pretty sure no one from guest services would have wasted time and gone wandering around deck 11 looking for KW

@Kindred sbm bbm
Yep, agree 100%.

 

[neesaki]

But AW and son were swimming in the pool. After looking at the deck 11 pictures on the media thread, they are in close proximity to each other (I think). Didn't the father want to watch Chloe for a few minutes? Or didn't KW want to ask him. I hope I'm wrong, but maybe no one wanted to watch Chloe, so it fell on SA.

MOO

Good point... It does appear that no one really wanted to watch Chloe, so SA was the chosen one.
So why did they take her on this cruise in the first place?..... I honestly don’t know. I know everyone won’t agree with me, but my opinion, a toddler has no place on a cruise ship if her parents don’t want to bother looking after her. And I mean, she would be under their watch 24/7 , unless she’s in the care of a very responsible Nanny.
Why vacation with your child if you don’t want to watch her and spend time with her ? What then is the point? JMO
Yes, This case makes me quite angry.
ETA: Not to mention, if you have a child that small, wouldn’t everyone be looking out for her more, and watching her even more closely ? This whole situation screams Very Dysfunctional. IMO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

@Kindred bbm sbm
Not trying to make anything sinister out of this and it's possible that it happened as your post says. Entirely possible.* From Complaint itself ---
Paragraph 11. Re KSW & Chloe, ~ "2:40 p.m. they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship. 12. At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs. Schultz Wiegand needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise, and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise Chloe..."
Complaint is silent on whether ship's crew summoned KSW and location of group members other than KSW & Chloe.

And yes, plenty of reason for KSW to regret that request to this day.
{{{ETA: And a BIIIIG TY, @Kindred, for getting us the pdfs/images and links to the filings.}}}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*. But a couple loose threads.
--- Per RCL & other cruisers here, crew would typically summon a pax by using ship's phone system to call pax cabin, then either talk to person answering or leave message light on or leave voice mail message. But crew would call KSW (or AW?) at their cabin, not SA's cabin. But it's possible SA was in their cabin and answered phone & responded as you said.
--- Per some cruisers here, crew does not 'come looking' for a pax, like black & white pre-WWII movies w bellhops (pages?). Also crew is very busy on embarkation day.
But maybe crew had a very important, urgent reason to summon KSW.

The urgent reason to summon KSW was SA was spotted throwing Baby Chloe up and down through an open window on another floor not 10 minutes ago. Where is SA and your child right now? And she replied, “oh, don’t be silly. SA has NEVER endangered our child before.”
Yep. That’s it.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I'd like to know what she had to take care of. The ONLY thing i've ever seen people need to go to guest services for to take care of, other than excursions, was setting up your sign and sail for cash or credit.. IF they hadn't done it before boarding. Could have been childcare, i suppose. But boarding day is always hectic...

And SA could have volunteered to watch Chloe....

So SA tried to sign for a cocktail and couldn’t. So KW was called in to sign off on the paperwork so SA could continue to cruise and cocktail with no hassles. Hmm.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Good point... It does appear that no one really wanted to watch Chloe, so SA was the chosen one.
So why did they take her on this cruise in the first place?..... I honestly don’t know. I know everyone won’t agree with me, but my opinion, a toddler has no place on a cruise ship if her parents don’t want to bother looking after her. And I mean, she would be under their watch 24/7 , unless she’s in the care of a very responsible Nanny.
Why vacation with your child if you don’t want to watch her and spend time with her ? What then is the point? JMO
Yes, This case makes me quite angry.
ETA: Not to mention, if you have a child that small, wouldn’t everyone be looking out for her more, and watching her even more closely ? This whole situation screams Very Dysfunctional. IMO

BBM ITA, the family should never have had her on the cruise at that age, I don't care if that sounds judgemental or not. There is just no good reason and nothing to be gained by having a child that age on a ship. UNLESS...! JMOO