Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, AlanF65 said:

I believe at some point the step father was criminally charged, not sure what came of that but that's probably the criminal matter.

Actually, the step grandfather who dropped her was charge with negligent homicide - in October, I think.  He decided to take a plea deal earlier this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

There are areas along the sides of the pool deck that are under cover.  I forget if above is a track or another level of deck chairs.  I can see how that could get a bit oppressive.  Maybe that's what coffeebean was referring to.

Yes, it is what I was referring to. One side of that deck is smoking also. I can imagine what that would like with no cross ventilation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

This was Royal's response back when the Wiegands wanted to strike the video footage:

https://www.docdroid.net/Y9gah8J/rc-response-to-motion-to-strike-video.pdf

 

That fits with what I've read Winkleman's SOP.  J`accuse, J`accuse, J`accuse to create enough bad press to make 'em settle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Why?  Picture the Boardwalk area of an Oasis class ship... open to above and the rear, but 6-7 stories of cabins on each side.  When the ship is moving, you're not going to get airflow from the back.  So where's it's ventilation?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the open windows and don't think they need to be closed.  But if the court says those windows need to close, RCI will close the windows and people will continue to cruise.   

The court can’t order the windows closed, these things are dictated by an international maritime authority. SOLAS has already determined that these windows are SAFE 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

The court can’t order the windows closed, these things are dictated by an international maritime authority. SOLAS has already determined that these windows are SAFE 

Fine.  I'll rephrase... the court holds RCI liable for Chloe's death and the (RCI) lawyers say "close the windows".  Guess what, the windows will be closed and people will continue to cruise.  It won't be the "end cruising as we know it". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Fine.  I'll rephrase... the court holds RCI liable for Chloe's death and the (RCI) lawyers say "close the windows".  Guess what, the windows will be closed and people will continue to cruise.  It won't be the "end cruising as we know it". 

Sure, but couldn’t a similar accident happen on a balcony?  In fact, haven’t more people gone over balcony rails than out those windows (only one window case ever, I believe)? Perhaps Chloe’s parents (or somebody like minded) might feel need to protect all of us from dangerous balconies next by enclosing those, too?  Where does it end?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parents' attorney goes on about how it was a wall of glass and there was no indication that there were windows that opened.  There were no decals or warnings.  They submitted a picture from far away to boost their claim.  The thing is, Anello was at the railing, not across the deck.  It's ridiculous reading their attorney's claims.  What a joke.  The parents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their attorney to mislead and make knowingly false claims.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Starry Eyes said:

Sure, but couldn’t a similar accident happen on a balcony?  In fact, haven’t more people gone over balcony rails than out those windows (only one window case ever, I believe)? Perhaps Chloe’s parents (or somebody like minded) might feel need to protect all of us from dangerous balconies next by enclosing those, too?  Where does it end?

Totally agree with you.  All I'm saying is if RCI decides for whatever reason that the windows need to be closed, the windows will be closed.  And people will still cruise on those ships.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Totally agree with you.  All I'm saying is if RCI decides for whatever reason that the windows need to be closed, the windows will be closed.  And people will still cruise on those ships.  

 

And the other point being made is that if RC is held LIABLE for an idiots ability to be an idiot and drop a baby out a window....then they would also have to worry about being held liable for an idiots ability to idiotically drop themselves of a ship in all those unsafe areas of the ship where an adult can so easily climb over a railing....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

The parents' attorney goes on about how it was a wall of glass and there was no indication that there were windows that opened.  There were no decals or warnings.  They submitted a picture from far away to boost their claim.  The thing is, Anello was at the railing, not across the deck.  It's ridiculous reading their attorney's claims.  What a joke.  The parents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their attorney to mislead and make knowingly false claims.

 

You can see on the surveillance video that other windows were open at the time of the incident. You can also see the gentleman in the hat leaning over/looking out of the exact railing/window before Anello did the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

The parents' attorney goes on about how it was a wall of glass and there was no indication that there were windows that opened.  There were no decals or warnings.  They submitted a picture from far away to boost their claim.  The thing is, Anello was at the railing, not across the deck.  It's ridiculous reading their attorney's claims.  What a joke.  The parents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their attorney to mislead and make knowingly false claims.

It's Winkleman's SOP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

The parents' attorney goes on about how it was a wall of glass and there was no indication that there were windows that opened.  There were no decals or warnings.  They submitted a picture from far away to boost their claim.  The thing is, Anello was at the railing, not across the deck.  It's ridiculous reading their attorney's claims.  What a joke.  The parents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their attorney to mislead and make knowingly false claims.

What about the big handles on the windows? What are the handles for? Honestly, the attorney doesn't seem very bright.

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

1 minute ago, coffeebean said:

What about the big handles on the windows? What are the handles for? Honestly, the attorney doesn't seem very bright.


He is refusing to call it a window in the lawsuit and refers to it as a wall of glass.  Royal will easily be able to discredit him should this go to trial.  Anello leaned out the window.  This entire lawsuit is bogus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TNcruising02 said:


He is refusing to call it a window in the lawsuit and refers to it as a wall of glass.  Royal will easily be able to discredit him should this go to trial.  Anello leaned out the window.  This entire lawsuit is bogus.

The attorney is ridiculous. His case will be punched full of holes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

Also, this is interesting.  I wonder what separate criminal matter they are referring to.

 

"Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim references several extrinsic sources of information, including a surveillance video, a statement made by a nonparty as to a separate criminal matter..."

 

Page 4
https://www.docdroid.net/QDQQ4zh/court-order-2-6-20.pdf#page=4


This is from the parents' case against Royal, referring to Anello's criminal case.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if anyone else has noticed the wording in the original document or in the response; it's referring to the distance from the kids' play area to the window as 'mere feet' -- as in "none of the glass panes, which were mere feet from the kids’ H2O Zone, contained a warning, design decal on the glass, or anything to warn passengers,such as Mr. Anello, of the hidden danger that some of the glass pane windows in the middle row may be slid open."  

 

To me, 'mere' refers to a few -- as in 3-4, not 30 to 40.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dodgestang said:

 

And the other point being made is that if RC is held LIABLE for an idiots ability to be an idiot and drop a baby out a window....then they would also have to worry about being held liable for an idiots ability to idiotically drop themselves of a ship in all those unsafe areas of the ship where an adult can so easily climb over a railing....

What if all ships were made adult only because of Anellos actions and the family succeeding in wrongly sueing RCI?

 

Edited by grapau27
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • 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...