Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Qextor said:

........  At the same time, I have done the whole 'sit my toddler nieces/nephew on the railing so they can see better' bit.  But you better be sure I had them in a proper bear hug, so I would never lose grip on them.......

 

That will never be a safe thing to do, no matter how great of a hold you have on a child. I know most people believe they are infallible and immune to a medical "event" but it can still happen, even to young folks. All it takes is for a medical "event" such as an unexpected seizure, a dizzy spell, chest pain....(you get the picture) and that proper bear hug is gone. That is why kids should never be placed on railings that are meant to be a {{{WARNING}}} such as the railing Anello placed Chloe on.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, trey420 said:

That may be true but I don't think it was done on purpose.  Do you thin he intentionally put the kid in harm's way?  I don't know gramps at all but I will assume he did not.  His claim is he thought there was a window there.  For me he did not pay close attention to the fact there was no window.  

Window glass or not......Anello placed Chloe in harm's way just by lifting her up nearly four feet off the ground and placed her on a guard rail. The video makes it look as though Anello was holding on to Chloe with one hand as the other arm was clearly visibly not holding onto the child. I will never understand how this man could have thought this was safe for a toddler.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, legaljen1969 said:

I think they are definitely going to push as far as they can-both sides. However, I have seen cases that settled on the morning of trial just before the judge calls the roster of cases on the docket for the day or the week.  It happens more often than people would think.  

 

Why would RCI settle? They have an iron clad case in their favor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2020 at 9:32 PM, brillohead said:


I don't think Royal is going to back down at this late date -- if they were going to settle with the family to make it go away, they would have done it at the very beginning.  

I sincerely hope they take this all the way to the end -- these ships are NOT unsafe, and the world needs to hear about it after the outrageous accusations this family has spewed. 

I work for a PI Attorney and RCI may still settle.  We don't know how much the family is demanding, nor how much RCI would be willing to settle for.  They will be weighing nuisance value v. perception, etc.  There may still be negotiations going on behind the scenes.  I hope they don't settle because I don't believe RCI was liable.  I believe the GF made an extremely poor decision. 

 

The lawyers for RCI will probably continue the case until the criminal trial is finished.  If the GF is found guilty of any degree of homicide/manslaughter/murder, it will bode well for RCI, and against the family, thus bolstering RCI's case.

Edited by btregoning
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Anello has been charged with negligent homicide.

I will edit my post, however my statement stands that if he is convicted of any responsibility toward the death of the child, it will severely undermine the family's case against RCI.

Edited by btregoning
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, btregoning said:

I will edit my post, however my statement stands that if he is convicted of any responsibility toward the death of the child, it will severely undermine the family's case against RCI.

 

I understand. I just didn't want anyone to expect a manslaughter or murder conviction since it won't happen.

 

The PR prosecutor isn't pushing for much and even offered a (verbal) plea deal which would have been little more than a slap on the wrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gatour said:

I wish we would stop calling him grandfather (that has certain age connotations and perhaps cognitive connotations).  He is actually younger than I am by a year or two, and I have no grandchildren.  I have a full time professional job and won't be retiring within the next 10+ years.

But he is the child's grandfather (granted, step- but still).  There is not much of an age requirement to being a grandfather.  In theory, you could be one at forty (if not younger).  If you make age judgements based on calling him that, that's on you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

I understand. I just didn't want anyone to expect a manslaughter or murder conviction since it won't happen.

 

The PR prosecutor isn't pushing for much and even offered a (verbal) plea deal which would have been little more than a slap on the wrist.

I cannot fathom why the GF doesn't take the offer if it is the no jail offer that I read about.  After seeing the video I don't think it looks good for the GF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

Why would RCI settle? They have an iron clad case in their favor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As someone else said, there are considerations of nuisance value, public perception.  Not everyone is a die hard "RCI is always right" person.   I have worked on both sides of the Personal Injury law equation- for the Plaintiffs and Defendants.  Juries are strange.  You can believe you had an iron clad case and you can believe that you will win on that one little piece of evidence that you think would sway any reasonable person, but then the jury doesn't come out the way you planned.  
The Judge could rule that some testimony or piece of evidence may be included or excluded, which could go against the way the attorneys and corporation thought it might go.  
I am sure that RCI has an arbitration clause in their terms of contract.  I would believe that the parties must go through some sort of alternative dispute resolution- arbitration or mediation- prior to going to trial on this matter.  Another chance for the parties to see how strong their case is and whether there is any incentive to settle. 
The fact is that you are relying upon 1 human being to rule on the evidence and provide a verdict if you choose a bench trial and you are relying upon at least 12 human beings if you choose a jury trial.   Yes, your jury pool should be completely objective but we are all humans with experiences that do lead us to look at things through our own lens of experience.  We believe or disbelieve testimony based on our own experience and understanding.   You can watch your entire case fall apart with a couple of rulings from the bench that turn the tide.  That impacts a jury too. 
I am not saying the family will win. I am not saying RCI will win. I don't know.  What I do know is that jurists are human and juries are human, as are the lawyers and the people in the expensive suits counting all the beans.  On any given day, you may believe you have your case in the bag and you may walk out with an adverse verdict. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2020 at 10:35 PM, SRQbeachgirl said:

 

Another deceptive thing about this photo is the "bulk" of the doll compared to the bulk of a child. If the person in this photo was holding a doll of comparable bulk to that of the actual little girl, it would be pressed right up against the glass, even without the man's arms extended.

Also, that doll is not going to make human movements. It isn't going to wiggle, spontaneously kick back or forward. It isn't going to even breathe- not one inhalation or exhalation.   That doll is going to do exactly what the re-enacter makes it do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, btregoning said:

I cannot fathom why the GF doesn't take the offer if it is the no jail offer that I read about.  After seeing the video I don't think it looks good for the GF.

One of the articles said the prosecutor has NOT made any offer.  I'm pretty sure it was one of the Daily Mail articles. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, legaljen1969 said:

I think people are being extraordinarily harsh to this family.  I realize they made some terribly dangerous decisions, but I don't really think there is a soul on this board or on this thread that would just walk away if their child died and say "Hey RCI, my bad. It's all on me. Thanks for a nice cruise."   This is a grieving family.  And an "ambulance chaser" lawyer. 

I'm sure I would not be in my right mind after a tragedy like this.  But at some point, I would hope family or friends would come to me and tell me what the video showed.  They're either not getting good advice or not listening to the advice.  

 

And here's a claim I have heard (and has been mentioned here)... assuming Winkleman took the case on contingency (which wouldn't surprise me), would it be common in the family's contract with them that if they decide to withdraw the lawsuit, then they're liable for all of his charges up until that point?  If that's the case, I could understand them not withdrawing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, legaljen1969 said:

That's not MY opinion of what should be done.  It just seems to be the prevailing attitude of how most people are reacting. My personal opinion of the end result?  Grandpa will either find himself with a very light sentence or none at all, and RCI will settle with the family.  I don't think the family will get much, probably a low nuisance value verdict and all will carry on. 

I think people are being extraordinarily harsh to this family.  I realize they made some terribly dangerous decisions, but I don't really think there is a soul on this board or on this thread that would just walk away if their child died and say "Hey RCI, my bad. It's all on me. Thanks for a nice cruise."   This is a grieving family.  And an "ambulance chaser" lawyer.  


If my step-father put my baby out of the window and let go, you can bet I would blame him and not the cruise ship.  Same as if it happened on any other window not on a bottom floor.  Not everyone tries to blame innocent people or companies.

The mother was in the pool area first with her daughter.  I am sure she saw the windows and never thought they were a danger.  

Edited by TNcruising02
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

One of the articles said the prosecutor has NOT made any offer.  I'm pretty sure it was one of the Daily Mail articles. 

 

The offer was verbal but was not written according to Anello's actual attorney.....

 

There's no plea deal in writing yet, according to the attorney representing the Indiana grandfather. But he tells CBS News the agreement would require Anello to plead guilty to negligent homicide in the death of Wiegand. In exchange, he would get no jail time and minimum probation and supervision.

 

Puerto Rican defense attorney Jose Perez said Anello doesn't want to plead guilty and would rather clear his name at trial.

"It's firm that he is innocent and he does not want to plea," Perez said, but added that Anello is considering the deal.

 

...this was months ago. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, btregoning said:

I cannot fathom why the GF doesn't take the offer if it is the no jail offer that I read about.  After seeing the video I don't think it looks good for the GF.

Him pleading guilty would probably torpedo the civil case.  I'm sure Anello is doing whatever the Weigand's and Winkleman are telling him to do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 That may be, but there are a lot of people in this world who jump to the conclusion that if someone is charged with something, they are guilty of that.  
And there are some who look at the whole picture and realize that the step grandpa did something over the top stupid and his actions killed an innocent child.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, legaljen1969 said:

That's not MY opinion of what should be done.  It just seems to be the prevailing attitude of how most people are reacting. My personal opinion of the end result?  Grandpa will either find himself with a very light sentence or none at all, and RCI will settle with the family.  I don't think the family will get much, probably a low nuisance value verdict and all will carry on. 

I think people are being extraordinarily harsh to this family.  I realize they made some terribly dangerous decisions, but I don't really think there is a soul on this board or on this thread that would just walk away if their child died and say "Hey RCI, my bad. It's all on me. Thanks for a nice cruise."   This is a grieving family.  And an "ambulance chaser" lawyer.  

I think we all just want the person at fault to take the blame and accept  the consequences for what happened.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course a typical grieving family would take the valid path of I make a terrible mistake...not this crap, family and Gf are engaged in.  I am on Independence have been since 2/13 and in looking around not one single kid has been near any of the windows, not not looking around. Or out nothing and there are plenty of kids, they are playing..... ,  not even interested...  stupid double dumb ass GF either called her over or allowed her to follow and then did not have common sense or even a shred of logic to move her away..even worse, and more upsetting I went to the windows open and not open,  in port and out at Sea...if a person and deaf and blind they would  KNOW the window was open.. at first I was part of the group thinking OMG how would  I feel if  I were the Mom.  But that is over.... I still have compassion . Extreme for Mom and Dad but nothing now but anger for GF how could a toddler enjoy thus,  even if the brainless GF did not drop her, I would think she was terrified, how often would she have been held out out or next to.  What ever story high open window,  banging floor level at a hockey game is something else entirely, this has been in my mind since I got on the boat

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The offer was verbal but was not written according to Anello's actual attorney.....

 

There's no plea deal in writing yet, according to the attorney representing the Indiana grandfather. But he tells CBS News the agreement would require Anello to plead guilty to negligent homicide in the death of Wiegand. In exchange, he would get no jail time and minimum probation and supervision.

 

Puerto Rican defense attorney Jose Perez said Anello doesn't want to plead guilty and would rather clear his name at trial.

"It's firm that he is innocent and he does not want to plea," Perez said, but added that Anello is considering the deal.

 

...this was months ago. 

You made me look it up...

 

Prosecutors have not offered Anello a formal plea deal, contrary to reports.

Link

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, legaljen1969 said:

I think people are being extraordinarily harsh to this family.  I realize they made some terribly dangerous decisions, but I don't really think there is a soul on this board or on this thread that would just walk away if their child died and say "Hey RCI, my bad. It's all on me. Thanks for a nice cruise."   This is a grieving family.  And an "ambulance chaser" lawyer.  


The grandfather made more than a terribly dangerous decision, he made a life ending decision.  Unfortunately, it was someone else’s.

 

Having lost a young child a extremely rare brain disorder, I can tell you unequivocally that we would not go after the cruise line. We would gather the internal strength to find resolve, and clarity to accept what he did. That is how we got through our daughters time on earth, knowing at 3 months of age that her time was limited. I will say though, if there was a lawyer involved it would be to guarantee the GF was gone for good from our lives. 
 

I’m not sure if being Canadian makes a difference to this no sue attitude.  Or, is it the fact that we have lived through watching our two year old daughter pass away in my arms. If this happened in our household, we would be destroyed to lose a child to such idiotic and life ending actions, but the though of suing would never cross our minds.  
 

I guess we are not the “norm”, but this is who we are. 

Edited by A&L_Ont
  • Like 29
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:


The grandfather made more than a terribly dangerous decision, he made a life ending decision.  Unfortunately, it was someone else’s.

 

Having lost a young child a extremely rare brain disorder, I can tell you unequivocally that we would not go after the cruise line. We would gather the internal strength to find resolve, and clarity to accept what he did. That is how we got through our daughters time on earth, knowing at 3 months of age that her time was limited. I will say though, if there was a lawyer involved it would be to guarantee the GF was gone for good from our lives. 
 

I’m not sure if being Canadian makes a difference to this no sue attitude.  Or, is it the fact that we have lived through watching our two year old daughter pass away in my arms. If this happened in our household, we would be destroyed to lose a child to such idiotic and life ending actions, but the though of suing would never cross our minds.  
 

I guess we are not the “norm”, but this is who we are. 

 

Good for you!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@A&L_Ont, first I want to say, I am so sorry for your loss.  I know you did not write your post looking for sympathy, but losing a child at any age is heart-wrenching.

 

Second, I agree with you.  To me the US especially has become very sue-happy because it seems no one takes responsibility for their own actions any longer, it’s always someone else’s fault.  The baby didn’t toddle over to a window and fall out.  Nor, was it any other type of accident caused by poor construction or design.  I don’t even think the cruise line is negligent regardless if there is no additional signage around stating not to set your child on the railing or window sill.  As an adult with cognitive ability, we should be able to determine when our actions unduly put a child at risk.  Good grief, putting a kid in a car seat and driving to school, day care or the store could qualify for that.  But, there are safety restraints at least.

 

I remember when we lived in Monterey we went to a beach amusement park in Santa Cruz.  My oldest was probably about the same age as Chloe.  We went on the sky ride which went above the beach from one side of the park to the other, your feet dangled from a chair, like a ski lift.  Chris started squirming, he lost a shoe.  By the end of that ride I had hold of him so tight and was terrified.  I’m not saying I never let him ever do anything again.  But, I certainly didn’t do that ride or anything similar until he was older because I felt I could not safely control my child.  I was a new Mom and didn’t think about things like that but I sure did after that.  He was always the dare-devil type and did a lot of stupid things growing up.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A&L_Ont said:


The grandfather made more than a terribly dangerous decision, he made a life ending decision.  Unfortunately, it was someone else’s.

 

Having lost a young child a extremely rare brain disorder, I can tell you unequivocally that we would not go after the cruise line. We would gather the internal strength to find resolve, and clarity to accept what he did. That is how we got through our daughters time on earth, knowing at 3 months of age that her time was limited. I will say though, if there was a lawyer involved it would be to guarantee the GF was gone for good from our lives. 
 

I’m not sure if being Canadian makes a difference to this no sue attitude.  Or, is it the fact that we have lived through watching our two year old daughter pass away in my arms. If this happened in our household, we would be destroyed to lose a child to such idiotic and life ending actions, but the though of suing would never cross our minds.  
 

I guess we are not the “norm”, but this is who we are. 

Heartfelt condolences from us to you and your family for the very sad loss of your dear daughter.

We are from the UK and our niece has been a daughter to us all her life and I totally agree with you that the GF would never be forgiven if he did that  to her.

To try to sue someone else is totally wrong.

The step GF should accept he was an idiot and admit RC were blameless.

Regards Graham & Pauline.

Edited by grapau27
  • Like 3
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...