Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

On 1/29/2020 at 8:04 AM, bobmacliberty said:

I want to address several posts about color blindness.  I am red/green color blind.  Doesn't mean that I can't differentiate between red and green.  I can tell the colors of a stop light just fine, even if you swapped the location of the red and the green.  It's the subtle shades/brightness that give me problems.  I will see 2 different shades of color as being the same color, while my wife sees them as completely different and is still amazed that they look the same to me.  People like to use me as a party game when watching fireworks..."what color is that one?...REALLY?  It looks green to you??"

 

Are you me?

 

I am literally in the same situation as you - red/green color blindness, although I use the term "shade blindness."  I have trouble telling certain shades of blue from purple or reds from orange.  I also get the same party game questions as people point to various objects and ask "what color is that"?  And the occasional "how can you drive if you can't tell the color of the traffic light?" Hint: It's always the top one or the one on the far left. And to your point of the location is swapped: It's still the color that looks red to me!

 

Having said all that, I never had an issue knowing if a window was open.   The windows are never so clean that I could not distinguish dirt, salt, streaks, etc on them from a clear window.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mayleeman said:

But exactly how has that lawsuit hurt cruising? Is it better to have no lifeguards?


Honestly, I think parents watch their children even less diligently now... "there's a lifeguard, I can take a nap / read a book while Snowflake Susie goes swimming alone..."  

At least if there is no lifeguard, more parents understand that their child's safety is always their responsibility.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

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.
 

Lifeguards were only put in place after a couple of children drowned and a couple more almost did because there wasn't an adult with them in the pool on a couple of different cruise lines.  We're not talking 12 year olds that can swim. They were like 5-7 years old.  Once again, lack of parental responsibility.  The pools on cruise ships, especially older ships were never meant for children to be in unattended as they're too deep.  And, yes, I know that kids drown even when someone is right there, but in all these cases, from what I remember, the child wasn't being watched and the families blamed the cruise line.  

 

BTW, pretty sure all cruise lines (at least those out of the US) do have life guards now.  

Edited by BND
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eeyore1962 said:

 

 

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.

Actually no.  It's dated January 29, 2020.  Pretty plainly.  

 

The writer bought the lawyer's story hook, line, and sinker.  AND they used photos provided by the lawyer.  Look at this comparison...

Wiegand%20response%20comparison%205.JPG

Not a bad idea (for the comparison).  BUT, if you watch the video, it's very plain Anello leaned over at the waist, maybe not at a 90 degree angle, but better than 70 degrees.  The picture they use above, he might be leaning at a 10 degree angle.  

 

Regardless, even if you believe he was holding Chloe at the same place the actor is holding the doll, how did she end up out the window?  If the actor lets go of the doll, she's going to drop straight down.  Even if Chloe leaned forward, if he lets go, she would go out AND down.  Her legs would not clear the sill.  And keep in mind the window is angled out. He had to be holding her AT the window.  Which means his only defense is the "I didn't know the window was open".  

 

So, watch the video again.  Remember he leans over quite a bit (sort of like standing at a table and resting your elbows on the table).  That would put his head well less than a foot from the window (I'm being generous, I think he put his head through the window to look around).  AND he held that pose for ~30 seconds before picking up Chloe.  That's a REALLY long time.   So now you're trying to tell me a grown man held his head 6-10" from an open window for 30 seconds and DIDN'T know the window was open?  Is that realistic?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BND said:

Lifeguards were only put in place after a couple of children drowned and a couple more almost did because there wasn't an adult with them in the pool on a couple of different cruise lines.  We're not talking 12 year olds that can swim. They were like 5-7 years old.  Once again, lack of parental responsibility.  The pools on cruise ships, especially older ships were never meant for children to be in unattended.  And, yes, I know that kids drown even when someone is right there, but in all these cases, from what I remember, the child wasn't being watched and the families blamed the cruise line.  

 

BTW, pretty sure all cruise lines (at least those out of the US) do have life guards now.  

In my experience, Carnival does not have life guards. The last time I was on Norwegian they didn’t have life guards. Maybe Norwegian has them now.
 

Anyway, I was happy to see life guards during my last Royal Cruise. It takes only minutes for someone to drown.

 

My son almost drowned during swimming lessons! Thankfully, I was right there watching him and started yelling and running toward him. The swim teacher pulled him up. Drowning is silent. Someone just starts bobbing and sinking silently. I think water safety is so important and life guards save lives. To me, it’s a small price for the cruise ships to pay. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

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.


I'm gonna quote you simply because you're the most recent person to mention it, but I've seen it repeated over and over by multiple people in this thread.

The "eighteen inches" number came from Winkleman's team, and it's referring to the distance from Anello's head when standing straight up-and-down at the railing, and where the glass would be AT THAT LEVEL (5'11" off the ground) if the window was closed.

Because those windows angle out as they go upward, the railing itself is only a foot away from the open windowsill.  See for yourself in Winkleman's own photos:

a0110835-4552-4c67-bf57-53a59d99500f-hwh5h.jpeg.8a7f4746bff71d1eb730662aa0faf51f.jpeg

 

rail-sill.jpg.0b49b76c4230e8aaa237bac2753e43b7.jpg
 

So when he put his head over the railing... even if he didn't put it out the window (which I personally believe he did, but even if he didn't....) putting his head anywhere past the railing meant he was less than a few inches from the opening of the window. 

 

Here's their re-enactor standing a foot behind the railing and then leaning over the railing at upper chest level (instead of standing right at the railing with it smooshed into Anello's  abdomen and then bending over as the video shows):

23794548-7922419-image-m-70_1579817689034.jpg.f072dedaa3fc546402081e71f1535c27.jpg

 

With Anello standing closer to the rail and smooshed up against it, his face would have been even closer to the glass than in the above photo.  The family and their lawyer and Anello and his lawyer are saying that at a distance of less than six inches away, he couldn't tell the difference between an open window and a closed one.  And we're all supposed to believe that?

Okay, now back to the measurement issue.
 

There was only a foot of space -- not eighteen inches -- for him to place the baby over the railing before her feet would have hit the window.  That's why -- again, in Winkleman's own photo -- the doll's feet are actually ON THE WINDOWSILL:

23794542-7922419-image-a-71_1579817697155.jpg.af044dbd2cd5051785e1621102b8f6e0.jpg

 


In the video, it's obvious that Anello is bent way over the railing, so his head is AT LEAST where the re-enactor's hands are in the photo above.  You can see in this still from the video that his head is WAY over the railing:


694940094001_6125038461001_6125039459001-vs.jpg.d0b2988a0af22397e751ce37ae5e66cd.jpg


So my question is, if Anello's head is where the re-enactor's hands are.... where was the baby's body for those 34 seconds?

 

 

 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happicruzer said:

 

 

 Too many cruisers (probably over 10-25 million) have cruised safely because they don’t climb over railings or dangle outside windows.
 

 

 

What does "probably over 10-25 million" even mean? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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?

 

I was responding to this part of your original post...

 

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

 

I then posted an example of where one lawsuit did change the industry. Are you pretending now you didn't make that statement? and that we were discussing if a lawsuit hurt cruising? Now we are discussing if lifeguards and jackets are a good or bad thing? If those would have been your premise and your statements I wouldn't have replied. They weren't.

 

You said, "The extreme reactions in this thread are ridiculous. One lawsuit will not change the industry..." I gave you an example where one lawsuit did indeed change the industry. A proper response from you could have been "I stand corrected" or something similar.  Instead you decide to throw up a straw man and completely change the topic of discussion?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Brillohead. At the most, his head was within a couple of inches of the window frame.
 

I think his head was out the window before he even picked up the little girl. He made a conscious decision to pick her up and put her out of the window. I really hope the prosecution does a good job with a re-enactment to show this. There is no possible he way he could have thought the window was closed. That makes me much less sympathetic to him. I hope the truth comes out at the trial. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HalfHand My comment about one lawsuit not changing the industry was about the extreme reactions people were putting forward, with ridiculous suggestions of how even settlements could cause closing balconies, etc. Those things would change the industry by changing the passenger experience in a very detrimental fashion.

 

Look at the context of my comment.

 

Your example was about one cruise line changing the hours of pools and adding life guards. If only one child was ever harmed by their negligence in leaving pools unattended, and if that one lawsuit changed that so their practices could be brought in line with recognized safety practices, good. That is a change within the industry, but it did not change the industry in the negative way I was responding to. If a kid-centric line like Disney already had those practices in place, the lawsuit did not cause the adoption of practices for the industry as a whole.

 

You could have responded to me by acknowledging my context was about negative drastic changes. But if you feel all smarmy inside thinking you corrected me, okay, here is your trophy: it was a change. 

 

And not the kind I meant.

Edited by mayleeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brillohead said:

So my question is, if Anello's head is where the re-enactor's hands are.... where was the baby's body for those 34 seconds?

 

Another thing...if you take the length from elbow to wrist of the reenactor (attorney Jason Margulies), where would the doll be if he was to reach over and down like Anello did when he picked Chloe up/out? 

 

I guess all of the people who have leaned out of the window on that ship, even those shorter than Anello (5'11") and Margulies (5'11"?...sure), were able to do the "physically impossible".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much noise was drifting up towards the window.  Noise could have caught his attention and be why he was leaning out the open window.  
 

Our last cruise balcony was over the pier area.  The area was very noisy due to the dockyard mini-trucks moving the various food and beverage supplies and luggage onto the ship.  Interesting to watch but happy to close the infinite balcony to shut out the noise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Another thing...if you take the length from elbow to wrist of the reenactor (attorney Jason Margulies), where would the doll be if he was to reach over and down like Anello did when he picked Chloe up/out? 

 

I guess all of the people who have leaned out of the window on that ship, even those shorter than Anello (5'11") and Margulies (5'11"?...sure), were able to do the "physically impossible".

I think the window being open or able to be open is irrelevant in this particular case. Even the lawyers there have provided photos that prove there is a railing set back from the glass walled sides. That being the case and with the demonstration of the guy in pink holding the doll beyond the rail, if the window was closed or non existent then it would have still been inevitable the child had fallen and in that case smashed the back of their head on the guard rail and also their face on the frame which at that age would have resulted in death due to the back of the head being hit during the fall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened here is the very definition of negligent homicide, which is what grandpa is charged with.  He'd have done well to have taken a plea deal.  But that might prejudice the family lawsuit.  It's not supposed to, but.....

 

Good on RCI for not giving in to the Miami ambulance chaser.  From what I have read of him, his MO is to create as much negative publicity for the line as he can then settle out of court.  That may be backfiring in this case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, brillohead said:



So my question is, if Anello's head is where the re-enactor's hands are.... where was the baby's body for those 34 seconds?

 

 

 

Dangling outside of the window.

Edited by rusty nut
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

 

I saw the video on CBS News and they said Royal Caribbean released the videos. It's funny that they only released the one that favored their position, maybe some of the other ones weren't so flattering. It's also strange as it seems they are reluctant to release the rest, I wonder why? I wonder if they still exist?? If not, the video released should be excluded so it doesn't reek of a cover up.

This video isn't the only piece of evidence out there and will not be the only factor in the final decision, all the defense has to show is reasonable doubt.

What if the other videos show the child falling to her death?  Do you really want RCI to release those?  Would that satisfy the need of the public?

 

I'm not sure what other angles on that deck would show that would incriminate RCI.  Is there a view where he bumps his head on a closed window?  

 

Again, public opinion only really matters for future cruisers, not this specific case.  Why do people have to solve this problem for themselves so badly?  If you think RCI has some responsibility- great- cancel your cruise.  If not, don't.

 

Otherwise, the court system is the area where it matters the most.

Edited by alfaeric
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfaeric said:

But to give you credit for your dismay of RCCL- if more people like you cancel their cruise over this, the rest of us will save money due to your cancellations. 

 

I suspect they don't sail on RC at all, but it regretfully happens on other lines as well. Thinking back, this Carnival story came to mind, where a 8 year old girl fell to her death while looking over the interior 5th floor balcony while standing on her tippy toes.

 

Taken directly from the story is an excerpt from Spencer Aronfeld, a personal injury lawyer, who wrote the article.

 

"As a cruise ship accident lawyer, I have investigated thousands of accident claims over the last 26 years, including the Glory. The question that many are asking is why and how could this tragic accident have been prevented. Sadly, we may never know exactly what happened as Carnival, which is the largest cruise line in the world, does not routinely have CCTV cameras in most of the common areas of their ships.

 

Secondly, Carnival, like most cruise lines, does not have to abide by the same building code requirements that land-based public hotels and resorts and other businesses have to abide. There are not building code inspectors that come on to cruise ships to make sure they meet minimum standards for things like step height, lighting, signage and or for most other major architectural features found on ships".

 

I have linked below the article.  It is in interesting read.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/who-is-to-blame-for-8-year-olds-death-on-carnival-ship_b_59e7b48fe4b0432b8c11ec3e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours 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

 


This article was actually initially published by the Daily Mail last week. While it does illustrate the forced perspective of the upright pillars making it look like SA had half his body hanging out the windows when he first looked out them, I would put more stock in them had they used an appropriately sized doll. They were so careful to make sure they had an actor that was the same size/stature as SA, but I wonder how the pics would look if they used a toddler-sized doll and not a glorified Barbie. Hell, even a Cabbage Patch would have been a closer representation to show how much space would have been taken up once she was on the other side of the railing. Even if he *was* holding her with that awkward position (which I don’t believe for a second) her body would be touching the window, or lack thereof. 
 

I also can’t remember if it’s been mentioned (sorry if it has) but SA has previously demonstrated reckless behavior and disregard for the law/rules. He has several speeding tickets - I know, I know, me too - but also multiple citations for not wearing a seat belt. There are signs posted everywhere - on highways, in vehicles - about the necessity of buckling up. But he doesn’t. So the family claims that if there were signage about open windows he never would have done what he did. Really? Are you so sure about that?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me personally, the issue of the window being opened or not is moot. Once Mr. Anello picks her up off the ground and then places her on a railing he is at fault. He didn't hold her in his arms while standing at the railing. He placed either her feet or her bottom on the railing. Bad choice, sad ending. There are a lot of things in life that don't have warning labels but "we know" there is inherent danger (climbing a tree, running in a driveway, stepping out of the shower). Setting a child on a railing is inherently dangerous. He did it anyway, probably without much thought.

 

I have two nephews. They are VERY active boys. They play all kinds of things in their cul de sac. The cul de sac also has mailboxes for all 6 houses that surround it. One afternoon the boys and friends were playing baseball. My youngest nephew was chasing a fly ball and happened to turn around (looking for the mailbox) and smacked his head right into said mailbox. Stitches in his eyebrow. Is the kid who hit the ball at fault? The homeowner of the mailbox? My sister because she was watching from the front porch and couldn't stop him? Nope. Just an accident.

 

In the case we're discussing had Chloe somehow climbed onto the railing alone and had fallen it would be a terrible accident. Chair too close to the rail, distracted care giver, etc. Yet, that's not what happened. She was put in harm's way by another human. Therefore, he is negligent.

  • Like 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

 

I saw the video on CBS News and they said Royal Caribbean released the videos. It's funny that they only released the one that favored their position, maybe some of the other ones weren't so flattering. It's also strange as it seems they are reluctant to release the rest, I wonder why? I wonder if they still exist?? If not, the video released should be excluded so it doesn't reek of a cover up.

This video isn't the only piece of evidence out there and will not be the only factor in the final decision, all the defense has to show is reasonable doubt.

Favored their position? Cover up? The only thing that is relevant is that the GF lifted the child up and over a safety railing and dropped her. That is why she is dead.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JennyB1977 said:

For me personally, the issue of the window being opened or not is moot. Once Mr. Anello picks her up off the ground and then places her on a railing he is at fault. He didn't hold her in his arms while standing at the railing. He placed either her feet or her bottom on the railing. Bad choice, sad ending. There are a lot of things in life that don't have warning labels but "we know" there is inherent danger (climbing a tree, running in a driveway, stepping out of the shower). Setting a child on a railing is inherently dangerous. He did it anyway, probably without much thought.

 

I have two nephews. They are VERY active boys. They play all kinds of things in their cul de sac. The cul de sac also has mailboxes for all 6 houses that surround it. One afternoon the boys and friends were playing baseball. My youngest nephew was chasing a fly ball and happened to turn around (looking for the mailbox) and smacked his head right into said mailbox. Stitches in his eyebrow. Is the kid who hit the ball at fault? The homeowner of the mailbox? My sister because she was watching from the front porch and couldn't stop him? Nope. Just an accident.

 

In the case we're discussing had Chloe somehow climbed onto the railing alone and had fallen it would be a terrible accident. Chair too close to the rail, distracted care giver, etc. Yet, that's not what happened. She was put in harm's way by another human. Therefore, he is negligent.

Perfectly stated.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

I saw the video on CBS News and they said Royal Caribbean released the videos

 

RCCL released the videos (2 camera angles) a month after the same 2 videos were leaked and broadcast.

 

2 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

It's funny that they only released the one that favored their position, maybe some of the other ones weren't so flattering.

 

It's like a replay in football. If camera A shows the runner stepped out of bounds and cameras B & C don't clearly show the runner's foot, why show B & C?

 

2 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

It's also strange as it seems they are reluctant to release the rest, I wonder why?

 

Not necessarily. The other cameras probably either don't show anything relevant (B & C) or might show something graphic (Chloe impact).

 

What's strange is the family wanting the video removed from public record.....

 

2 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

If not, the video released should be excluded so it doesn't reek of a cover up.

 

Why exclude the video of what happened but allow Winkleman's "reenactment" photos?

 

2 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

This video isn't the only piece of evidence out there and will not be the only factor in the final decision, all the defense has to show is reasonable doubt.

 

The videos released are RCCL's response to the civil lawsuit against them. The criminal case against Anello is separate.

 

If RCCL can get the case against them thrown out by releasing video, they will.

 

Anello has to create reasonable doubt in the case against him.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...