Grandfather sentenced for death of granddaughter

[Ashland]

7 hours ago, tinkertwo said:

I really doubt they will win but they may just give any settlement money away in the name of Chloe.  Don't know.  

All I'm saying is they need to blame someone.  If they blame the Grandfather then they have to blame themselves for leaving her with him.  That could, mentally, be hard to do.  This might be how they are coping.  Not saying it's the right way, saying it could be their way. 

I hope it's not about money.

I'm hoping they don't win....and thinking they will give the money away is as far fetched as them thinking RCI holds any responsibility for Grandpa's actions !!!!

[Sunshine3601]

5 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

 

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

Yes, I heard that in the beginning several times.   If you watch the video, you will see he clearly hung his head out the window before the mother dropped the toddler off to him.   He then scoops up the toddler and puts her out the window.    The mother was walking away texting or doing something on her cell phone.     It's clear as day what he did.    

I would think her parents would want this to be over and just drop whatever suit they have against RCL.     None of this is easy on them.   

[livingonthebeach]

To think it's a good idea to place a toddler on an eleventh deck safety railing to pound on glass is incredibly reckless. The argument that there should have been warning signs and the windows only able to open four inches to prevent this accident is preposterous.  Would one place a toddler on the railing of an apartment's 11th floor balcony on land?  Should the builder be sued for not placing a warning sign and allowing the sliding glass door to open only 4 inches?  

 

There was glass on the bottom portion of the wall of glass that the baby could have safely punched; he didn't have to hoist her up in the air and encourage her to hit glass above his height.  There was also a children's play area nearby which would have kept her better and more safely entertained.

 

Last I read the family is seeking a win on two of the three counts they filed in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court -- they must have dropped one count after the guilty verdict -- I haven't been able to read the entire law suit yet. 

[tinkertwo]

58 minutes ago, Sunshine3601 said:

Yes, I heard that in the beginning several times.   If you watch the video, you will see he clearly hung his head out the window before the mother dropped the toddler off to him.   He then scoops up the toddler and puts her out the window.    The mother was walking away texting or doing something on her cell phone.     It's clear as day what he did.    

I would think her parents would want this to be over and just drop whatever suit they have against RCL.     None of this is easy on them.   

I'm not sure that is correct.  The mother and father were down at the service desk, they weren't in the area.  Chloe ran to the window and grandfather followed her.  Then he leans out, picks her up and puts her out.  

 

ETA- found this  (279) Surveillance video shows moment Indiana toddler drops from cruise ship - YouTube

Edited February 10, 2021 by tinkertwo

[Sunshine3601]

31 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

I'm not sure that is correct.  The mother and father were down at the service desk, they weren't in the area.  Chloe ran to the window and grandfather followed her.  Then he leans out, picks her up and puts her out.  

 

ETA- found this  (279) Surveillance video shows moment Indiana toddler drops from cruise ship - YouTube

Sorry I thought she was with her mother when she was playing at the child area and met up with grandfather who was in lounge area.

None of that matter much as he clearly knew window was open when he held her out the window.

Imagine the people on the dock seeing it happen, how horrible for them too.

[tinkertwo]

Just now, Sunshine3601 said:

Sorry I thought she was with her mother when she was playing at the child area and met up with grandfather who was in lounge area.

None of that matter much as he clearly knew window was open when he held her out the window.

Imagine the people on the dock seeing it happen, how horrible for them too.

That would be horrifying.  I feel so sorry for them.  That would give you nightmares for years.  

To me, it looked like he held her out with one arm around her, not both his arms.  

[CraigG]

3 hours ago, atanac said:

I believe he thinks if he can convince himself it wasn't his fault he can then live with himself.

Exactly.

[tonit964]

20 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

That would be horrifying.  I feel so sorry for them.  That would give you nightmares for years.  

To me, it looked like he held her out with one arm around her, not both his arms.  

You're right, he only held her with one arm.

[Two Wheels Only]

1 hour ago, livingonthebeach said:

To think it's a good idea to place a toddler on an eleventh deck safety railing to pound on glass is incredibly reckless. 

 

Actually, she was beyond the wooden safety rail. Anello's gut and right hand were on the rail while Chloe was extended with Anello's left arm. You can see him lift her over the rail, extend his arm forward and down at an angle. At that point, Chloe was on the window frame. Her arms (when extended) were in direct sunlight. Anello later switches hands so that his right hand is holding her. Chloe's back may have (at times) been braced against the railing but then she leans forward and....well, you know.

 

19 minutes ago, Sunshine3601 said:

Imagine the people on the dock seeing it happen, how horrible for them too.

 

People on the ship saw the body before it was quickly covered. The people who ran to the windows immediately after the fall most certainly saw the body. I have photos/video of the covered body and you can still see body fluids on the concrete. Not trying to upset people but it happened and people saw the result.

[grapau27]

6 hours ago, tonit964 said:

You're right, he only held her with one arm.

That makes it even worse.

[ace2542]

15 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

He now has a record and for at least the next 3 years his movements are limited

I suspect he will probably never be allowed into Canada after this.

[ace2542]

2 hours ago, grapau27 said:

That makes it even worse.

Ironically I think in UK he would have got a harsher sentence. "Probably for causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult".

 

An absolute joke of a law by the way and hardly enough justice for Baby P or Jimmy Prout in your neck of the woods just to name two. That law should be replaced with a charge and conviction for murder like in America where you act with depraved indifference causing deaths and you get life.

 

I really do love the American courts but they have come up short in this case.

[grapau27]

4 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Ironically I think in UK he would have got a harsher sentence. "Probably for causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult".

 

An absolute joke of a law by the way and hardly enough justice for Baby P or Jimmy Prout in your neck of the woods just to name two. That law should be replaced with a charge and conviction for murder like in America where you act with depraved indifference causing deaths and you get life.

 

I really do love the American courts but they have come up short in this case.

I Agree.

[sparks1093]

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.

[livingonthebeach]

3 minutes 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.

 

It seems that by Anello pleading guilty in the negligent homicide criminal case against him, there is an admission of contributory negligence.  Could this reduce the plaintiff's compensation if the family actions increased the likelihood of the incident occurring?

 

My guess is that this will settle before going to trial.  

[sparks1093]

7 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Ironically I think in UK he would have got a harsher sentence. "Probably for causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult".

 

An absolute joke of a law by the way and hardly enough justice for Baby P or Jimmy Prout in your neck of the woods just to name two. That law should be replaced with a charge and conviction for murder like in America where you act with depraved indifference causing deaths and you get life.

 

I really do love the American courts but they have come up short in this case.

"Wanton disregard" is the term you are probably referring to, but I have seen hundreds of similar cases with similar results in my lifetime. Let's say someone gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk and runs over a two year old. That could be perceived as depraved indifference by most people. Here in my state here is the penalty:

If you are involved in an accident while driving under the influence, you may face the following penalties for causing personal injury or death: Prison sentence of up to five years and a fine between $1,000 and $5,000 for the serious injury of another person.

 

It is possible that the facts of such a case might lead to a more serious manslaughter or murder charge, but there would have to be evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to support such charges. Getting behind the wheel drunk does not rise to the level of wanton disregard all by itself. Again, a thorough investigation was conducted that did not develop enough evidence for a higher charge (and that likely included viewing the video footage that we've all seen). 

[A&L_Ont]

3 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

My guess is that this will settle before going to trial.  

Yes, mine too. 

[sparks1093]

4 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

It seems that by Anello pleading guilty in the negligent homicide criminal case against him, there is an admission of contributory negligence.  Could this reduce the plaintiff's compensation if the family actions increased the likelihood of the incident occurring?

 

My guess is that this will settle before going to trial.  

That's why we have lawyers, it will be a very close question and one that a jury would have to decide. Of course the plaintiff's attorney will be down playing his role and the defense attorneys will be emphasizing it, but at the end of the day "duty of care" is the question that needs to be answered.

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

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.

I completely agree that in a maritime liability case like this it all comes down to "duty of care".  However, if it is shown that all applicable laws of the flag state, and all requirements of the classification society with regards to safety and construction, and all industry (and I mean the maritime industry, not US building codes) best practices were met, then it becomes extremely hard to show that the "duty of care" was not there.  It may come down to requiring a specific instruction to not dangle small children out open windows to meet the definition.

[A&L_Ont]

6 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

That's why we have lawyers, it will be a very close question and one that a jury would have to decide. Of course the plaintiff's attorney will be down playing his role and the defense attorneys will be emphasizing it, but at the end of the day "duty of care" is the question that needs to be answered.

Their argument is that the ship wasn’t built to land standards, where windows have screens for safety. Ships were never built to land standards of construction, but it was their point from the beginning that they are designed to be unsafe.

 

The Chief talked about this a fair amount when this was more active last spring when the case was filed. 
 

Edit to add: The Chief just responded before me in the post above. 😁⬆️

Edited February 10, 2021 by A&L_Ont

[ace2542]

20 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

"Wanton disregard" is the term you are probably referring to, but I have seen hundreds of similar cases with similar results in my lifetime. Let's say someone gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk and runs over a two year old. That could be perceived as depraved indifference by most people. Here in my state here is the penalty:

If you are involved in an accident while driving under the influence, you may face the following penalties for causing personal injury or death: Prison sentence of up to five years and a fine between $1,000 and $5,000 for the serious injury of another person.

 

It is possible that the facts of such a case might lead to a more serious manslaughter or murder charge, but there would have to be evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to support such charges. Getting behind the wheel drunk does not rise to the level of wanton disregard all by itself. Again, a thorough investigation was conducted that did not develop enough evidence for a higher charge (and that likely included viewing the video footage that we've all seen). 

The two british tourists were killed by a garbage truck driver near new york's penn station. He LIED about having epilepsy to get his driving licence and was done for "depraved indifference" second degree murder and was convicted and got I think 20 to life. Maybe he refused a deal?

 

Has a drunk driver who killed ever been convicted of murder in America with "depraved indifference" or similar law?

Edited February 10, 2021 by ace2542

[livingonthebeach]

23 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

That's why we have lawyers, it will be a very close question and one that a jury would have to decide. Of course the plaintiff's attorney will be down playing his role and the defense attorneys will be emphasizing it, but at the end of the day "duty of care" is the question that needs to be answered.

 

I can see how an unattended child could conceivably climb unto a chair or lounge chair and stand on the window ledge and eventually fall out an open window.  Maybe there should have been a warning sign?  But since in this case the child could not have fallen 150 feet down without the aid of the family member, there is definitely some type of comparative or contributory negligence.

 

Where do you draw the line?  Should there be signs on all the open decks and balconies stating not to stand on safety rails and ledges?  Should balconies now be enclosed to prevent falls? Should there be signs warning people not to throw things off the ship when in port as it could fall on and injure a passerby?  Should there be warning signs for every stupid thing a passenger is capable of doing?  

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

The two british tourists were killed by a garbage truck driver near new york's penn station. He LIED about having epilepsy to get his driving licence and was done for "depraved indifference" second degree murder and was convicted and got I think 20 to life. Maybe he refused a deal?

 

Has a drunk driver who killed ever been convicted of murder in America with "depraved indifference" or similar law?

As Sparks stated, that is the law in his state.  The laws, legal definitions, and punishments vary state to state.

[sparks1093]

31 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I completely agree that in a maritime liability case like this it all comes down to "duty of care".  However, if it is shown that all applicable laws of the flag state, and all requirements of the classification society with regards to safety and construction, and all industry (and I mean the maritime industry, not US building codes) best practices were met, then it becomes extremely hard to show that the "duty of care" was not there.  It may come down to requiring a specific instruction to not dangle small children out open windows to meet the definition.

I personally feel that if Royal had a duty that they met it, but unfortunately in court logic and reason don't always prevail.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

Where do you draw the line?

Typically, in a civil case, it is the jury's task to decide what a "reasonably prudent" individual would do or know.