Grandfather sentenced for death of granddaughter

[beerman2]

17 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

So Royal could drag it out for years if they wanted to but what would be point.

The point would be to show that "no fault" is on them. Also to prevent a design change to ships.

 

As I mentioned to Sparks, where would the design changes stop. Plexiglass on ALL balconies and open deck space instead of the railings? That would create another problem of ventilation on open decks, you would be putting pax in an oven.

[coffeebean]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:04 PM, livingonthebeach said:

What I find odd is that the Wiegand's attorney states that this was a child's play area -- when I viewed the video it looks like the window is next to an adult bar.  How sadly coincidental that he chose the one window that was open in a huge wall of closed glass windows, to have his grand daughter bang at the glass.  Just seems like a senseless, preventable tragedy -- sad all around. 

That is not how I took what Anello did. He held Chloe up to an open window so she would have a non obstructed view. He held his head out of the window for several seconds before he picked her up. That is very clear on the security video. There should be no doubt what "Grandpa" did.

[coffeebean]

On 2/9/2021 at 11:59 AM, nelblu said:

What a joke.  The parents of the toddler should be suing the Grandfather and not RCL.

There is no money in that compared to a company like RCCL.

[livingonthebeach]

12 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

 "if Royal had safety measures in place the grandfather wouldn't have been able to do what he did and Chloe would still be alive" is basically what their answer to the motion to dismiss says...

 

RCI could argue there are already safety measures in place, namely the tinted glass which clearly differentiates the closed from the open windows, as well as the safety railing which would indicate to any normal adult person there is risk involved going past it, especially on the 11th deck of a cruise ship docked at port on the pier side where anything falling overboard would land on cement or a passerby. 

 

It was reported on another forum that the family was compensated by RCI for hotel rooms in San Juan and flights back home.  They received some insurance $$ of their own as well as funds through a funding web site and people from their community in Indiana.  

 

That they are pressing on with a lawsuit against RCI under the guise of "they want to fix the ship",  seems disingenuous.  I can understand the maritime attorney's motives for moving forward.  However, this doesn't seem like a case that is driven solely by the maritime attorney, as the mother herself is an attorney.  If money is really not the issue for the family (as they claim), then as others have pointed out, it may be some form of coping mechanism.  

 

I'm not familiar with the safety code requirements of cruise ships and under which jurisdiction they fall, but surely FOS must meet the industry standards of "Title 46 U.S. Code § 3507 - Passenger vessel security and safety requirements" otherwise FOS wouldn't have been allowed to set sail from US ports to begin with.   

[Vagabondvoyager]

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

[beerman2]

How about the cruise lines just play a recording over and over again near the windows,of the 5 Man Electrical Band signing.

"Signs, signs everywhere a sign, blocking out the scenery, blockin out my mind. Do this, don't do that ,can't you read the signs."

Edited February 11, 2021 by beerman2

[ryano]

9 minutes ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

 

I cant tell if you are being sarcastic or not?  Its so hard these days.  So holding his toddler granddaughter out the window from the 11th deck wasnt wrong?  They were just suppose to overlook the gross negligence?    You cant believe charges were brought against the grandfather.  Most of us cant believe the family is suing the cruise line. 

[tinkertwo]

25 minutes ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

Tripping while carrying her down stairs would have been a tragic accident.  Lifting her outside a window, 11 stories up while holding her with only one arm is negligent homicide in my eyes.  You can not call it a tragic accident.  

 

Let's also not forget she had been playing in the children's water area minutes before and was probably slathered in sun screen which would make her slippery.  The grandfather should have received a lot more than what he did.  

Edited February 11, 2021 by tinkertwo

[LilBlackDress]

25 minutes ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

Yes, the entire situation is tragic... But how can you say it was an accident, that the grandfather did nothing wrong?!??  Have you seen the videos? There is no way you should hold a toddler out a window, with one are on the 11ths deck!! I don't think you should do that on ground level! 

I do agree the cruise line did nothing wrong!! 

 

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, beerman2 said:

If to get the design changed , what's next. Plexiglass on ALL balconies, open deck spaces? You may as well put people in a bubble. The design has worked for years. 

Lets say they do win ( on getting design changed) what do they do for ventilation? That's why they open in the first place.

 

Nobody has just fallen off a cruise ship, they have gone overboard because of doing something stupid or a desire to jump. In this case the grandfather dangling the child out a window that is plainly open.

 

The design hasn't been an issue before, it's only an issue now because of one person, who's total lack of judgement is why it's at this point.

 

 

I am sure that Royal will be making that very case if it goes to trial.

[coffeebean]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:50 PM, Baron Barracuda said:

With cruising suspended how about bringing Freedom in to Miami and letting jury come aboard to view pool deck windows and draw their own conclusions.  Might shorten trial considerably.

 

 

Freedom had a renovation of the area and those windows are now gone.

[sparks1093]

45 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

RCI could argue there are already safety measures in place, namely the tinted glass which clearly differentiates the closed from the open windows, as well as the safety railing which would indicate to any normal adult person there is risk involved going past it, especially on the 11th deck of a cruise ship docked at port on the pier side where anything falling overboard would land on cement or a passerby. 

 

It was reported on another forum that the family was compensated by RCI for hotel rooms in San Juan and flights back home.  They received some insurance $$ of their own as well as funds through a funding web site and people from their community in Indiana.  

 

That they are pressing on with a lawsuit against RCI under the guise of "they want to fix the ship",  seems disingenuous.  I can understand the maritime attorney's motives for moving forward.  However, this doesn't seem like a case that is driven solely by the maritime attorney, as the mother herself is an attorney.  If money is really not the issue for the family (as they claim), then as others have pointed out, it may be some form of coping mechanism.  

 

I'm not familiar with the safety code requirements of cruise ships and under which jurisdiction they fall, but surely FOS must meet the industry standards of "Title 46 U.S. Code § 3507 - Passenger vessel security and safety requirements" otherwise FOS wouldn't have been allowed to set sail from US ports to begin with.   

I hate to parrot what I just wrote but I would expect that Royal will bring all of this up if it goes to trial. I was just talking to my supervisor who is a lawyer and she is familiar with this case. She believes that in order to prevail the family will have to show gross negligence on the part of Royal. I don't see that happening for a good number of reasons.

[coffeebean]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:53 PM, Two Wheels Only said:

 

 

Anello claims that since he is "colorblind", he can't tell the open windows from the closed windows. 

Even if all Anello can see is greys, the open windows would be LIGHT grey and the closed windows would be DARK grey. That is a pitiful excuse and not believable at all.

[tinkertwo]

4 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Even if all Anello can see is greys, the open windows would be LIGHT grey and the closed windows would be DARK grey. That is a pitiful excuse and not believable at all.

I've wondered about this since the beginning.  He says he is color blind but has that been proven?  It's easy to say but to prove is another matter.  It would/should be on record somewhere if true.  

[Seville2Cabo]

3 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

Yes, it can be done. If a company is sued because their product hurt someone and another company manufactured the component that failed they can add the other company to the suit as a co-defendant and then the court would have to determine which company was at fault. But I don't think it would help Royal because the case doesn't hinge on the actions of the grandfather at all. The family is claiming had Royal acted with proper safety precautions that the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place. 

Not a lawyer, but involved in many cases (have 2 pending now).  The Plaintiff usually includes as many people/companies as they can and can continue to add defendants until the statute expires.   I don’t think the defendant can add another defendant.  The defendant can sue them separately.  Also, Royal, in theory can sue the grandfather as he is responsible to defend them (ticket contract).  But he probably has no money.   

[coffeebean]

On 2/10/2021 at 6:34 AM, 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.

Not only Freedom OTS but the Freedom class ships have a railing in front of the window. Any halfway intelligent person would take that railing as a WARNING not to put your head or anything else out of the window. Those railings warn everyone to stay clear of the windows. Period. These railings have been in place on RCCL ships for years and have always been the safety railing to prevent this type of accident from occurring. Anello is not your typical halfway intelligent adult. So sad for the toddler.

[robtulipe]

26 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Even if all Anello can see is greys, the open windows would be LIGHT grey and the closed windows would be DARK grey. That is a pitiful excuse and not believable at all.

Here are the windows in that area in B&W.

I agree it is easy still to see which windows are open especially since the closed portion  now has two layers of tinted glass so is now much darker than the open window beside it.

Edited February 11, 2021 by robtulipe

[livingonthebeach]

18 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

I hate to parrot what I just wrote but I would expect that Royal will bring all of this up if it goes to trial. I was just talking to my supervisor who is a lawyer and she is familiar with this case. She believes that in order to prevail the family will have to show gross negligence on the part of Royal. I don't see that happening for a good number of reasons.

 

I agree with her assessment.  There could be a settlement if RCI deems it would be bad publicity to proceed with a trial.  

[sparks1093]

18 minutes ago, Seville2Cabo said:

Not a lawyer, but involved in many cases (have 2 pending now).  The Plaintiff usually includes as many people/companies as they can and can continue to add defendants until the statute expires.   I don’t think the defendant can add another defendant.  The defendant can sue them separately.  Also, Royal, in theory can sue the grandfather as he is responsible to defend them (ticket contract).  But he probably has no money.   

It's called joinder. A lawyer's website puts it this way "A defendant is permitted to bring into the action or implead another person or persons whom the defendant claims would be liable to him or her for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. ... It is up to the court whether to permit a defendant to add a third party."

[not-enough-cruising]

37 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Freedom had a renovation of the area and those windows are now gone.

The EXACT window may be gone, but there are several hundred feet of the exact same window on either side of the ship that could be a jury visitation site. 

[sparks1093]

19 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Not only Freedom OTS but the Freedom class ships have a railing in front of the window. Any halfway intelligent person would take that railing as a WARNING not to put your head or anything else out of the window. Those railings warn everyone to stay clear of the windows. Period. These railings have been in place on RCCL ships for years and have always been the safety railing to prevent this type of accident from occurring. Anello is not your typical halfway intelligent adult. So sad for the toddler.

Yes, he doesn't appear very bright but if the court agrees that Royal breached a duty of care it doesn't matter what his intelligence level is.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, livingonthebeach said:

I'm not familiar with the safety code requirements of cruise ships and under which jurisdiction they fall, but surely FOS must meet the industry standards of "Title 46 U.S. Code § 3507 - Passenger vessel security and safety requirements" otherwise FOS wouldn't have been allowed to set sail from US ports to begin with.  

That section of USC you reference mainly deals with crimes, and things like door peepholes.  The really only structural safety measure it mentions is having handrails at least 42" high.  This is already a SOLAS requirement, and is merely window dressing to appease the "man overboard" lobby.  As a signatory nation of SOLAS, we agree that we cannot enact any stricter regulations, except for ships of our own flag.  This is why I say this is window dressing, as SOLAS requires us to pass "enabling legislation" that copies the SOLAS convention terms into US law, which was done back in the 70's.

 

So, the safety code requirements are those set out by SOLAS, in statutory terms, and by the various classification societies that the IMO recognizes as competent to interpret, implement, and inspect those safety construction requirements.  Nothing in US law, other than the terms of SOLAS, can be applied to a foreign flag ship.  And, having dealt with SOLAS for 4 decades, I can say that there are no requirements for screens or limited window openings on any ship, and the use of a handrail inside those windows, at the SOLAS prescribed 42" is the only structural safety measure that affects this case.  Now, whether SOLAS needs to be modified to protect US morons is a different discussion, and one that requires input from 162 sovereign nations.

[cruiselvr04]

I suppose for ventilation the top windows could be made to open instead.  However those windows she fell from aren’t easy to open and close anyway.  I mean for this grandma it takes some strength to do it as they don’t slide really easy. They are usually kept open but I’ve reached over and shut them during rain or a really cold day to enjoy the view without getting wet or blown away.  I wouldn’t like the idea that they would be permanently open for sure.  
 

It’s sad to even have thoughts like that.  You can’t protect protect people from every possibility to harm themselves or others.  There is such a thing as personal responsibility.  My daughter has 3 younger kids.  She won’t book a balcony because she’s concerned one of them might escape her attention for a minute.  (She knows about the child locks, it’s just a risk she’s not willing to take.). She also keeps life vests on the little ones while on the pool deck.  You can’t protect kids and adults from everything.  They still have had stitches and broken bones.  But you can use common sense.

[tonit964]

3 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

If it's frivolous the judge will dismiss it, but they do have a potentially valid argument for the jury to hear. For instance, if the ship were designed so that the window ledge extended 2 feet higher than the railing would that have prevented this from happening? Is it reasonable for that to be done? It is questions similar to that which the court/jury has to decide. Again, I do hope that Royal prevails but I don't think it is such a slam dunk.

I would think it would have to be a pattern where this has happened more than once in order to be a design flaw that need to be rectified so to speak. In all the years these windows have been on these class of ships, this is the only time this happened. It's not like she was running, tripped and fell out of the window. I know you know but the sole reason this happened was he lifted her UP over the safety railing and OUT of that window.

[tonit964]

2 hours ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

You clearly have not seen the videos.