Jump to content

Grandfather sentenced for death of granddaughter


Recommended Posts

How long do you think it will take for the case to reach court? A friend of mine here in UK has medical case in Louisiana and it has been more than 14 years. The case is being contested but the surgeon nicked the bowel which he had no business touching during an operation end of story and that case has been running for 14 years now and has yet to reach court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

How long do you think it will take for the case to reach court? A friend of mine here in UK has medical case in Louisiana and it has been more than 14 years. The case is being contested but the surgeon nicked the bowel which he had no business touching during an operation end of story and that case has been running for 14 years now and has yet to reach court.

Some cases can be done within weeks, some years, some never get resolved... 

There is no standard that I know of in the US

19 minutes ago, loman said:

As you may have heard ... common sense is not that common anymore .

Point Taken. But I didn't want to reference the video, again! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

Just glanced over the plaintiff's preliminary response in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss.  I'm not an attorney but I believe you are.  Could you translate this for us?

 

COUNT I – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE …. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to Chloe’s untimely death because the subject incident would not have occurred but for such acts and/or omissions. COUNT II – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN …. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to Chloe’s untimely death because the subject incident would not have occurred but for Defendant’s failure to adequately inspect and/or maintain the Deck 11 windows aboard the vessel. COUNT III – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN …. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to Chloe’s untimely death because the incident would not have occurred had Defendant and/or its agents, servants and/or employees adequately warned and/or communicated the foregoing to the family.

Nope, as I said in an earlier post I'm not an attorney, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, once. Those counts all speak to the duty of care owed by the cruise line as I read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LilBlackDress said:

Another point that has always bothered me about this case was the grandfather's statement that he picked her up to let her bang on the glass like she does at the ice hockey rink! Hello!! Ice Hockey Rinks glass are made of a very thick plexiglass. Most windows are made of glass.  I would guess the cruise ships windows are made of a plexiglass as well but not rated the same, not as thick, not made to be BANGED ON!!! 

Again, Common Sense!! 

 

I understand the plexiglass panels used in hockey stadiums are strong enough so that a flying puck can not break them -- very different from the glass windows on cruise ships.  Yes, common sense would dictate that you would not place a toddler on an 11th floor deck window ledge, open or not.  I can't see the plaintiffs winning much in monetary awards on this one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

Nope, as I said in an earlier post I'm not an attorney, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, once. Those counts all speak to the duty of care owed by the cruise line as I read it.

 

LOL you and I both.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

I know it won't take place in your state but as a cruiser would you even be allowed on that jury - though you are not really a Royal customer you are more NCL like me - ? Or would you be ruled out during the jury selection process because of your affinity for cruising?

I have cruised with Royal and intend to cruise with them again. I am the customer of which ever line is charging the least for the itinerary we want to go on. I would expect that cruisers might not make it through jury selection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for settlement, I wouldn't expect that to occur until Royal has exhausted means of getting the case dismissed outright or through summary judgment. If the court rules against them then they might try to reach a settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

The Gorilla Glue hair lady is a prime example. How many warnings and signs does one need, but yet here comes the lawsuit. 

So far she has raised $17,000 in a go fund me campaign.  If she hits $20,000 I'm thinking I might try it and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I haven't read the entire thread but I had a thought last night that maybe we are looking at this from the wrong angle. In a civil case like this the jury is going to have to decide if the cruise line owed passengers a duty of care not to have windows in that area open without having safety measure in place. To answer that question one doesn't need to look at anything the grandfather did because it is irrelevant. If the jury finds that Royal owed a duty of care and didn't take proper precautions to prevent such a tragedy then none of the rest of this matters, Royal will be found at fault. Common sense statements like "anyone could tell that the window was open" or "no one in their right mind would hang a child over the railing" will matter, all that matters is did Royal owe a duty of care and did they breach this duty. So while I believe that the grandfather had no defense criminally I am no longer sure that this is a drop kick for Royal.

But then what do you say about balconies in balcony cabins or the railings around the ship.

Anyone could put a child on the top of the railings everywhere around the ship unless they were 12 feet high.

I seriously question why Anello did what he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

But then what do you say about balconies in balcony cabins or the railings around the ship.

Anyone could put a child on the top of the railings everywhere around the ship unless they were 12 feet high.

I seriously question why Anello did what he did.

I do as well, but for this civil case that's generally irrelevant because what is important is duty of care. Had I been Royal's attorney I would have probably moved to add him as a co-defendant as the primary person responsible (at least I think that's an option, but of course the "look" to the public might not be worth it). I'm sure that if this goes to trial that very point will be broached but since those open rails don't have windows around them I'm not sure the argument will carry weight. I do hope that the case is dismissed outright.

Edited by sparks1093
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a tragic accident.  It was preventable if the grandfather had had any sense at all.  If he was not used to being around toddlers then the parents bear some blame too.  However I think he was used to caring for her and used very poor judgement.

 

There is no doubt that he knew the window was open. He used poor judgment holding her there in the first place compounded with using one hand. 


Sometimes things are so traumatic that you can convince yourself of a lie and actually believe what is easier to believe.  I think this may be what he has done. That doesn’t change the facts nor should it let him of the hook.

 

We can’t keep everyone from doing stupid things like using gorilla glue on their hair or dangling babies out a window.  At least hair could be shaved off and started over.  Baby Chloe is lost forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cruiselvr04 said:

 


Sometimes things are so traumatic that you can convince yourself of a lie and actually believe what is easier to believe.  I think this may be what he has done. That doesn’t change the facts nor should it let him of the hook.

 

I believe this is what the grandfather is doing.

Unfortunately, the rest of the family is going along with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cruiselvr04 said:

This was a tragic accident.  It was preventable if the grandfather had had any sense at all.  If he was not used to being around toddlers then the parents bear some blame too.  However I think he was used to caring for her and used very poor judgement.

 

There is no doubt that he knew the window was open. He used poor judgment holding her there in the first place compounded with using one hand. 


Sometimes things are so traumatic that you can convince yourself of a lie and actually believe what is easier to believe.  I think this may be what he has done. That doesn’t change the facts nor should it let him of the hook.

 

We can’t keep everyone from doing stupid things like using gorilla glue on their hair or dangling babies out a window.  At least hair could be shaved off and started over.  Baby Chloe is lost forever.

Absolutely.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

But then what do you say about balconies in balcony cabins or the railings around the ship.

Anyone could put a child on the top of the railings everywhere around the ship unless they were 12 feet high.

I seriously question why Anello did what he did.


Graham, your post has me wondering what type of stateroom the family booked - inside or ocean view, or balcony staterooms on that cruise.
 

 If balcony, how would they have been OK with having a stateroom with open balcony - not enclosed with windows opening only 4” , as they are demanding on pool deck?   
 

Curious, too, if the family had ever cruised before - on any line.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BSocial said:


Graham, your post has me wondering what type of stateroom the family booked - inside or ocean view, or balcony staterooms on that cruise.
 

 If balcony, how would they have been OK with having a stateroom with open balcony - not enclosed with windows opening only 4” , as they are demanding on pool deck?   
 

Curious, too, if the family had ever cruised before - on any line.  

Very good points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BSocial said:

 ( Current cruise ticket on RC site has been modified with a lot of CoVid info, and I can’t find the safety clause from before about not climbing in or over railings or safety barriers). 

 

At the time (long before Covid stuff), the contract was....

 

f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising from or related to Passenger's conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or (iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the Passenger

 

 

 

...the railings are mentioned, too...

 

 

 

Unsafe Behavior

Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers, or tampering with ship’s equipment, facilities or systems designed for guest safety is not permitted.

 

 

 

All of this points to the fact/opinion that the Wiegands should be suing Anello, not RCCL. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, at the time, I remember looking at those two clauses of the ticket contract, and thinking that there is no way this case has any traction at all.  He admits to lifting her over the railing, at the very least, and most likely has admitted to having her stand on the railing.  This is a pretty common clause even with respect to US buildings and businesses.  It would be like suing the zoo for holding your kid over the railing at the alligator pond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

At the time (long before Covid stuff), the contract was....

 

f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising from or related to Passenger's conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or (iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the Passenger

...the railings are mentioned, too...

Unsafe Behavior

Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers, or tampering with ship’s equipment, facilities or systems designed for guest safety is not permitted.

All of this points to the fact/opinion that the Wiegands should be suing Anello, not RCCL. 

 

Right, and by placing the toddler beyond the safety railing (which is there to prevent people from going past it and not for decorative purposes), in order to place her on the ledge, open window or not, he participated in unsafe behavior which is not permitted, and since it caused the toddler's death, it was a negligent act which he "shall be held liable for and indemnify the Carrier" (RCI). 

 

It's now clear as day that the open / closed window defense does not hold water.  That also nixes the 4" opening, and warning signs as a defense, since it was in the cruise contract that it is not permitted to climb on, over or across any interior or exterior railings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LilBlackDress said:

Another point that has always bothered me about this case was the grandfather's statement that he picked her up to let her bang on the glass like she does at the ice hockey rink! Hello!! Ice Hockey Rinks glass are made of a very thick plexiglass. Most windows are made of glass.  I would guess the cruise ships windows are made of a plexiglass as well but not rated the same, not as thick, not made to be BANGED ON!!! 

Again, Common Sense!! 

 

Amazingly enough, most arenas are actually real glass and not plexiglass. Still, a very stupid thing to let the kid do on a ship or on land. Surprised the girl didn’t break a window in their own house, where it would not shatter into a million small pieces like at the arena. Think about the scene in Ghost as an example of the outcome. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Tree_skier said:

So far she has raised $17,000 in a go fund me campaign.  If she hits $20,000 I'm thinking I might try it and see what happens.


TMZ is reporting that a plastic surgeon in CA is going to give her a free treatment, to which will hopefully take the glue out. It’s about $12K. Doubt this TicTocker will give the funds back and is getting new followers from her poor decision. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

 

Amazingly enough, most arenas are actually real glass and not plexiglass. Still, a very stupid thing to let the kid do on a ship or on land. Surprised the girl didn’t break a window in their own house, where it would not shatter into a million small pieces like at the arena. Think about the scene in Ghost as an example of the outcome. 
 

Is this home video @A&L_Ont


 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the parents would have to be depraved sociopaths to allow this to go to trial. I'm sure their attorneys have made clear to them how it would play out. If it were my child, re-living this event over and over, complete with audio and video would drive me stark raving mad.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CraigG said:

I think the parents would have to be depraved sociopaths to allow this to go to trial. I'm sure their attorneys have made clear to them how it would play out. If it were my child, re-living this event over and over, complete with audio and video would drive me stark raving mad.  

 

Their lawyers are driving this as they will probably take 2/3rds of whatever settlement is awarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Ponant Cruises & Expeditions - Return to Europe!
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • 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...