But here's the thing, their own argument that it's "physically impossible" for a grown adult to reach his long man arms out the windows automatically blows that argument out of the water. If he couldn't reach the window from the rail, how could her tiny baby arms? They can't really make both arguments at the same time. Not to mention, you know, biology also doing that. Even if a toddler could reach the railing from the barstool, do you know the kind of gymnastics she would have to be able to perform to get from barstool, to on top of the rail, to the window frame and out? That would require a lot of hand and arm strength, especially since her little hands probably can't fit entirely around the rail, not to mention balance and dexterity that most adults don't have if put to a similarly scaled obstacle. If you have an 18 month old who could do that sign them up for American Ninja Warrior now. Also anyone can argue as much could haves and would haves as they like but that is irrelevant to this case. This case is about how RCCL should have prevented Chloe's death. Chloe's death didn't involve bar stools or tables or chairs, it involved SA putting her on the other side of a safety rail and out the window. RC's lawyers could easily get that thrown out on that.