Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[alphawave1]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:03 AM, A&L_Ont said:

Thanks for the info. 🙂

I am a 66 year old nurse and I can tell you there is something missing about the grandpa. A 51 year old could be taking meds( pain) such as Lyrica,Tramadol, opiates, or the like. Drinking or not, it could have led to the behavior which from a legal standpoint Is NOT what a prudent person would do. 
 

[Another_Critic]

35 minutes ago, fred30 said:

Either the family is in denial about it being the grandfather's fault or they are looking for a payout.

 

I think it's both.

[Another_Critic]

1 hour ago, rusty nut said:

The problem with all of the conjecture in this thread is that no one knows, with absolute certainty, what state of mind the GF was in at the time of the incident.

 

I posted that very early in this thread and kinda got shot down on it at the time.  Maybe it was too early to accept that.

[alphawave1]

17 hours ago, brillohead said:

A few years ago, I was on a jury for an Open Murder charge. Of fourteen jurors (12 plus 2 alternates), a full FIVE of us were nurses.

 

I definitely don't live in an area where a third of the residents are nurses, so it's pretty obvious that both the prosecution and the defense were more than willing to have nurses on the jury, likely because nursing involves objective, unemotional observation of facts and critical thinking skills.
  
In the civil case against Royal, the parents would NOT want nurses on the jury, because they are wanting jurors who will be emotional about the loss of the baby, rather than objective about Anello's complete and utter disregard of every possible safety measure known to mankind and just basic common sense when it comes to small children.
 

Yep. Agree. I am a nurse as well. 
my thoughts are, “was he on pain meds, drinking, being treated for mental disorder( or not being treated at all for many disorders that come to mind).

[perditax]

4 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Because it was dumb.

 

It's dumb pointing out that we don't know what mental/physical state the grandfather was in?

[mjkacmom]

34 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Given your logic, there should not be any balcony cabins. Every single balcony railing can be climbed over by a drunken person or an adult can hold a small child over it. This pretty much goes for balconies all over the world.

There are open decks all over cruise ships, should they all be blocked?

[mjkacmom]

4 minutes ago, perditax said:

 

It's dumb pointing out that we don't know what mental/physical state the grandfather was in?

It’s dumb to think he purposely threw his granddaughter off of the ship.

[jagsfan]

10 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

I understand that but just saying there are some real stupid people these days so just maybe that window should of been closed ..  

Even with really stupid people, it would be almost impossible for anyone to fall over the rail and out the window. 

It would take the exact scenario of someone holding a person over the railing and at the window. 

Cutting off air circulation for the area just in case someone chooses to do that would be ridiculous. 

[phabric]

There was a You Tube video posted a few years ago on CC I think a Princess ship of 2 boys (looked like a teenage and a older boy) in the cabin by themselves and the pool.  On this ship had an indoor pool with a deck above the pool with loungers.  You see the boys jumping from the railing from the  above deck into the pool that had a few people, late at night.

 

Someone posted the video on CC and since the boys had their cabin number in the video, the poster was going to inform it to the cruiseline.

 

If the boys had landed on the cement around the pool, who do you think the parents were going to blame for the accident??

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by phabric

[Another_Critic]

16 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

It’s dumb to think he purposely threw his granddaughter off of the ship.

 

I don't think anyone said that GF purposely threw her off.  The point of the posts were that WE do not know what the GF was thinking; only GF knows.  Did he or didn't he?  Most likely not, but WE don't know.

 

Case in point, the pilot that ran the plane into the mountain several years ago ... what was the initial reaction?  What was the final determination?

[xpcdoojk]

30 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

It’s dumb to think he purposely threw his granddaughter off of the ship.

 

It might be dumb, but it is, also possible.

 

Who knows?  How could we know?

 

jc

[mjkacmom]

7 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

 

I don't think anyone said that GF purposely threw her off.  The point of the posts were that WE do not know what the GF was thinking; only GF knows.  Did he or didn't he?  Most likely not, but WE don't know.

 

Case in point, the pilot that ran the plane into the mountain several years ago ... what was the initial reaction?  What was the final determination?

I can’t think of anything more horrific than tossing a toddler off of a cruise ship, I don’t think I could toss a stranger’s off with a gun pointed to my head. There has been absolutely nothing negative said about this man, no signs of mental instability, it appears the parents trusted him with Chloe, he was involved in her life. Suggesting he dropped her on purpose makes less sense than the folks who want a dome and nets on ships. But there are always extremists.

[HalfHand]

2 hours ago, mayleeman said:

The extreme reactions in this thread are ridiculous. One lawsuit will not change the industry...

 

At least one pool and one hot tub were open 24 hours on all RCCL ships. I believe it was an 8 year old boy that drowned because the parents couldn't be bothered to watch their kid. The parents sued, won, now there are life guards and life jackets on all RCCL ships and the pools close at 8pm (I believe).

 

One lawsuit, industry changed.

[rusty nut]

48 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

It’s dumb to think he purposely threw his granddaughter off of the ship.

Why? What if he did? He's literally getting away with murder.

[rusty nut]

21 minutes ago, xpcdoojk said:

 

It might be dumb, but it is, also possible.

 

Who knows?  How could we know?

 

jc

And we'll more than likely never know.

[mayleeman]

17 minutes ago, HalfHand said:

 

At least one pool and one hot tub were open 24 hours on all RCCL ships. I believe it was an 8 year old boy that drowned because the parents couldn't be bothered to watch their kid. The parents sued, won, now there are life guards and life jackets on all RCCL ships and the pools close at 8pm (I believe).

 

One lawsuit, industry changed.

 

And for the better, although I think pools are open later than you say. Kids having 24 hour unsupervised access to pools is a recipe for disaster. On land in virtually every jurisdiction a pool is what is called an "attractive nuisance" where owners have long been held to account when they know kids are likely to use it and don't reasonably control access. But exactly how has that lawsuit hurt cruising? Is it better to have no lifeguards? Life jackets? -- for whom?

[Baron Barracuda]

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

 

And for the better, although I think pools are open later than you say. Kids having 24 hour unsupervised access to pools is a recipe for disaster. On land in virtually every jurisdiction a pool is what is called an "attractive nuisance" where owners have long been held to account when they know kids are likely to use it and don't reasonably control access. But exactly how has that lawsuit hurt cruising? Is it better to have no lifeguards? Life jackets? -- for whom?

 

Less than 3 years ago the only cruise line with lifeguards was Disney.  Royal and Norwegian added them in 2017.  Prior to that Royal simply posted a sign that basically said no lifeguard on duty - swim at your own risk.  Adding lifeguards hurt cruising in that someone (passengers) has to shoulder the cost.  

 

Related to this came across interesting 2017 quote by Anello's lawyer in the Miami Herald.  Wonder if it applies to oen windows as well:

 

"Cruise lines are protected by a 1920 law, known as the Death on the High Seas Act, that exempts them from nearly all financial responsibility in the death of a non-wage earner, such as a child or retiree. The only financial burden on the lines would be funeral costs for the victims, which doesn’t incentivize cruise lines to post lifeguards", said maritime attorney Michael Winkleman, of Miami-based firm Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman.

[Two Wheels Only]

52 minutes ago, Baron Barracuda said:

Related to this came across interesting 2017 quote by Anello's lawyer in the Miami Herald.  Wonder if it applies to oen windows as well:

 

Winkleman isn't Anello's attorney.

Winkleman represents the Wiegands (parents of Chloe).

[Kids-and-Chickens]

I've been following this thread - such a sad story.

 

There is a new article in the Miami Herald posted yesterday that has reenactment photos from a different angle, and it does change the perspective of what might have actually happened and why the GF didn't realize there was glass:

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article239684053.html

 

[not-enough-cruising]

3 minutes ago, Kids-and-Chickens said:

I've been following this thread - such a sad story.

 

There is a new article in the Miami Herald posted yesterday that has reenactment photos from a different angle, and it does change the perspective of what might have actually happened and why the GF didn't realize there was glass:

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article239684053.html

 

There is nothing new in this article, and it offers an extremely biased perspective, obviously the legal team were the ghostwriters of the article

[Eeyore1962]

27 minutes ago, Kids-and-Chickens said:

I've been following this thread - such a sad story.

 

There is a new article in the Miami Herald posted yesterday that has reenactment photos from a different angle, and it does change the perspective of what might have actually happened and why the GF didn't realize there was glass:

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article239684053.html

 

 

 

That article is OVER 6 months old and a LOT more info has come out now that contradicts the parents and grandfather on what took place that day.

[TNcruising02]

I was impressed the last time I cruised with Royal and saw life guards.  I think that's a good move.  None of the pools have barriers, so it just seems like common sense to have lifeguards.  I think all cruise ships should do it.

As far as the GF not knowing there was an open window, he leaned out the window before he picked up the little girl and also while he was holding the little girl.  He was 18 inches from the window.  He knew it was open.  It's really ridiculous for him to claim he didn't know a window was open 18 inches from his face while holding his granddaughter out the window.

[grandgeezer]

2 hours ago, Baron Barracuda said:

 

Less than 3 years ago the only cruise line with lifeguards was Disney.  Royal and Norwegian added them in 2017.  Prior to that Royal simply posted a sign that basically said no lifeguard on duty - swim at your own risk.  Adding lifeguards hurt cruising in that someone (passengers) has to shoulder the cost.  

 

Related to this came across interesting 2017 quote by Anello's lawyer in the Miami Herald.  Wonder if it applies to oen windows as well:

 

"Cruise lines are protected by a 1920 law, known as the Death on the High Seas Act, that exempts them from nearly all financial responsibility in the death of a non-wage earner, such as a child or retiree. The only financial burden on the lines would be funeral costs for the victims, which doesn’t incentivize cruise lines to post lifeguards", said maritime attorney Michael Winkleman, of Miami-based firm Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman.

If you would have checked, the Death on the High Seas Act only pertains to situations that occurs three nautical miles, or more, from shore. Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

[happicruzer]

Out of curiosity - where do you stick a sign that says

 

*** This window is open ***

 

As everyone could see, there was a very dark window next to the opening due to the double glass window tinting.  Fresh air and maybe even a breeze usually comes through the opening.   If the GF lives any type of a normal life, he has opened car and house windows over the years and knows the difference when open or closed.
 

A responsible person does not dangle a child outside a window or even place them on a ledge.  
 

I still believe this was an accident, but that alone does not stop the judicial system. I can sue the person and the auto company, deeper pockets (RCI) if a driver hits my car and causes me injury.  However, the driver is responsible for the accident not the auto maker (unless something on the car was defective).  Too many cruisers (probably over 10-25 million) have cruised safely because they don’t climb over railings or dangle outside windows.
 

 

[retiredgram]

I have watched the videos, short ones and the 16 minute one, from what I observed, did the GF pick the little girl up and put her out the window, YES. was it his fault, YES.

Sadly in these times, no one wants to take responsibility of their own actions. It is always some thing or some one else's fault.