Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BSocial said:


this link may change your mind.  Look at the photo of the man in blue shirt and shorts measuring the window,     GF could definitely leaned this far 
 

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/23/chloe-wiegand-family-attorneys-scene-proves-royal-caribbean-lying/4553751002/

 

One of the problems with that article is.....

 

"The video shows Anello lifting Chloe onto the railing. In an instant, she's gone."

 

...which is not true.

 

The video shows Anello lifting Chloe over the railing and Anello extending Chloe past the railing. It's not "an instant", either. The amount of time that Anello looks out of the window BEFORE picking up the child isn't "an instant". 

Share this post


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

In a criminal negligence case (here, negigent homicide), I believe the defense would be that GF, for example, had some mental condition that prevented him from perceiving any danger or exercising the judgment necessary to conform to the "reasonable man" standard of due care. How that might happen or the specifics would be sheer speculation.


Couldn’t/wouldn’t that also shoot a hole through their civil case?  Why would one leave their child with someone who can not differentiate danger from safety.

 

Perhaps RC should have built the ship in a safe manner this would not have happened would be their explanation.  Still if you knew you GF was a risk, why leave leave him in charge? 

Edited by A&L_Ont

Share this post


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


Couldn’t/wouldn’t that also shoot a hole through their civil case?  Why would one leave their child with someone who can not differentiate danger from safety.

 

Perhaps RC should have built the ship in a safe manner this would not have happened would be their explanation.  Still if you knew you GF was a risk, why leave leave him in charge? 

 

The Law is weird...I seem to recall OJ won the criminal case....but still lost in civil court....which never made any sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was poking around msn.com financials and found an article, posted yesterday that stated that Royal Caribbean was appealing a $3.4 million judgement awarded against them for a death occurring on one of their ships. It was a heart attack and there wasn't much more detail.

In a civil suit the proof doesn't have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", just it's more likely they did it than not. Three years ago I was on a jury for a medical malpractice trial. This was a civil suit, no criminal charges were filed. In our final instruction from the judge, she stated if you are at least 51% sure of guilt, that should be the verdict, and it was.

Share this post


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

 

The Law is weird...I seem to recall OJ won the criminal case....but still lost in civil court....which never made any sense to me.

 

Criminal and civil cases have different criteria for being found guilty.

Share this post


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

In our final instruction from the judge, she stated if you are at least 51% sure of guilt, that should be the verdict, and it was.

 

Does anyone honestly believe that RCCL is more responsible for Chloe's death than Anello is?

Share this post


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


this link may change your mind.  Look at the photo of the man in blue shirt and shorts measuring the window,     GF could definitely leaned this far 
 

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/23/chloe-wiegand-family-attorneys-scene-proves-royal-caribbean-lying/4553751002/

Especially if the front of his feet were resting on top of the bottom window frame section  and not on the floor against that section.

toddler02.png

Share this post


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

 

Criminal and civil cases have different criteria for being found guilty.

 

Yes I know.  Just weird....you would think being not guilty in a criminal case of capital murder would insulate you from a civil case of murder 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that the model/actor in the staged photos is the same height and build as Anello is just heresay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rusty nut said:

To say that the model/actor in the staged photos is the same height and build as Anello is just heresay.

 

He (the stage hand) "appears" to be much smaller to me. 

Share this post


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


Couldn’t/wouldn’t that also shoot a hole through their civil case?  Why would one leave their child with someone who can not differentiate danger from safety.....if you knew you GF was a risk, why leave leave him in charge? 

 

There could easily be no symptoms causing someone to be concerned. Sometimes impairments are subtle. Sometimes a medical condition can be a drug side effect. My grandfather was on a glaucoma medicine back in the 70's that had no apparent side effects (and he was not warned of any) until he suddently blacked out from low blood pressure and lost control of his car and crashed into a stone wall. (Long before the lay public researched drug effects on the internet!) Fortunately, no one was hurt, but it was across from a grade school. Think of the lawsuits that could have engendered. 

 

Many symptoms also manifest themselves simply as behavioral quirks. Looking for the keys that are in your pocket all along?--Alz, or just absent-mindedness? OJ on your cereal instead of milk?--did it when I was about 7, but if I did it now, might get swept to the doc. Irritability? Insomnia? Mumbling? Stumbling over something in plain sight? All possible simple explanations, but also possible symptoms of CTE, tumor, diabetes, or something else.

Edited by mayleeman

Share this post


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

To say that the model/actor in the staged photos is the same height and build as Anello is just heresay.

 

Anello is 5'11" according to Puerto Rico police.

 

The guy holding the doll....well....I don't think....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dodgestang said:

 

Yes I know.  Just weird....you would think being not guilty in a criminal case of capital murder would insulate you from a civil case of murder 😉

 

In some jurisdictions, a finding of "innocent" might do so. But a finding of "not guilty" just means it wasn't proven up to the "moral certainty" level. Everything below that is still subject to proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who was ever on a RCI ship will  know the windows are never so clean that you would think they are open.😁

Edited by FLACRUISER99

Share this post


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

Many symptoms also manifest themselves simply as behavioral quirks. Looking for the keys that are in your pocket all along?--Alz, or just absent-mindedness? OJ on your cereal instead of milk?--did it when I was about 7, but if I did it now, might get swept to the doc. Irritability? Insomnia? Mumbling? Stumbling over something in plain sight? All possible simple explanations, but also possible symptoms of CTE, tumor, diabetes, or something else.


I said the same earlier about my father and his unknown brain tumour. Once diagnosed many things seemed much clearer to us. 
 

Who knows, maybe even heat stroke could have lead to this unfortunate  chain of events. 

Share this post


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

 

Does anyone honestly believe that RCCL is more responsible for Chloe's death than Anello is?

How can you possibly make that determination? You don't have all the facts, and the "facts you think you know" seem to be biased and based on personal judgement. Let the courts examine all the "true, unbiased facts" and make a decision.

Or we can just send him to prison and throw away the key as he's been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably regret commenting - but wonder if this is plausible.......

 

 -- GF sets GD on railing.
 -- GD lurches toward open window

-- GF can't stop momentum  -- and out she goes -

 

Share this post


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

How can you possibly make that determination? You don't have all the facts, and the "facts you think you know" seem to be biased and based on personal judgement. Let the courts examine all the "true, unbiased facts" and make a decision.

Or we can just send him to prison and throw away the key as he's been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

 

Nobody is facing jail in the civil lawsuit. I can form an opinion  based on what I have seen, not personal judgement.

 

5 minutes ago, CruiseEnvy said:

I will probably regret commenting - but wonder if this is plausible.......

 

 -- GF sets GD on railing.
 -- GD lurches toward open window

-- GF can't stop momentum  -- and out she goes -

 

 

Chloe was extended past the wooden railing. Grandpa set his gut on the railing.

 

Have you seen the 2 angles of surveillance video?

Edited by Two Wheels Only

Share this post


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

 

Does anyone honestly believe that RCCL is more responsible for Chloe's death than Anello is?

One other comment, they don't have to prove RCCL is more responsible, just that they did have some culpability. If so, the judgement would reflect the how much.

Share this post


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

How can you possibly make that determination? You don't have all the facts, and the "facts you think you know" seem to be biased and based on personal judgement. Let the courts examine all the "true, unbiased facts" and make a decision.

Or we can just send him to prison and throw away the key as he's been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

 

This entire thread is based on the "facts you think you know". This is a simple discussion where people have different opinions. No need to be dramatic. No one is going to jail based on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chime in with my two cents. I've only seen the one side angle and the (to me) damaging photos from the family lawyer. From his photos you can clearly see the distance from the rail to the window. If you go back to the video, if the child was sat on the railing, it would seem we would have been able to see her. Following that line of thought, she had to be extended past the railing to be not show up on the camera.

 

I don't know what other camera angles caught, but there are cameras on the outside that can catch people jumping or throwing things overboard. So there has to be more footage, especially since it happened on the side facing the dock. I doubt anyone wants to see the innocent child's death, but surely they have the footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that stepGF placed the baby up on the railing, and assumed that he had a good grip, and also assumed she wouldn't lean forward? Obviously, the unfortunate happened, and in order for this family to cope they want to blame RC for having these windows, while never thinking about the fact that the majority would never do what the stepGF did (if ever..trying to be kind). 

 

I still believe he knew it was glass-less but perhaps the baby did not.  However, to make him sound less negligent he claimed he did not know.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KelSny1011 said:

Is it possible that stepGF placed the baby up on the railing, and assumed that he had a good grip, and also assumed she wouldn't lean forward?

 

It doesn't matter for the civil liability case.  GF violated the Passenger Code of Conduct that he agreed to (either personally or via proxy) when the cruise was booked.

 

Already posted multiple times, but here it is again:

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Host Clarea said:

 

The ship was and is safe for toddlers. 

 

The fact that literally millions of people have sailed Freedom, and her sister ships, and have managed to not drop children out of a window supports this. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...