Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[MaritimeR&R]

I am enraged that some journalists are still reporting (Chicago Tribune as of yesterday) that the child fell out of a window in a child's play area, which she did not. She fell from a window located next to a Bar which is in no way part of the children's play area. What ever happened to the ethical responsibility of a journalist to exercise due diligence in their reporting? 

Edited January 25, 2020 by MaritimeR&R

[xpcdoojk]

19 hours 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.

 

In the US there are different standards required for a conviction in criminal cases and civil cases.  First case was criminal and the requirement there is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Versus the second civil case which the stand is that the preponderance of the evidence implies.  Which is a lower standard.  IE your liberty at stake versus your money.  Historically in the US we value liberty higher than money.

 

jc<=== ain’t touching any other part of this discussion😂

[BND]

10 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

 

And this is why they now have lifeguards standing at the outdoor pool at 8 am when it's 45 degrees outside.

Oh, I know.  We've been cruising for 15 years and have seen the changes as they've happened.  We've also been on Freedom and when this story first came out, I knew the family was making up so much of their story.  

[BND]

6 hours ago, Hogbay said:

Is that a baby play area .?

No, it's the dive shop.  The "play area" the family has referred to is in the middle of the deck and it's the splash pad area.  Nowhere near any windows.

[ATC cruiser]

26 minutes ago, BND said:

No, it's the dive shop.  The "play area" the family has referred to is in the middle of the deck and it's the splash pad area.  Nowhere near any windows.

I think the question was asked in jest

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

9 hours ago, Hogbay said:

Is that a baby play area .?

Why would it make any difference if it was?

[BND]

14 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

Why would it make any difference if it was?

Because the family claimed it was.

[tonit964]

13 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

Why would it make any difference if it was?

The family keeps referring to it as a "children's play area" as to imply that it's not safe and it shouldn't have windows that can open. It's misleading to say the least.

[Jasukkie]

Not one penny to the family, and drop criminal charges unless there is evidence this was planned. Done.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

5 minutes ago, tonit964 said:

The family keeps referring to it as a "children's play area" as to imply that it's not safe and it shouldn't have windows that can open. It's misleading to say the least.

You said baby. Even though. The windows are not low enough for ANY child to fall out of in the first place. The bottom of the window openings are about the same height as all the railings on the ship. Place the blame on someone else. never take responsibility for there own actions. You have children. Watch them. 

[Hogbay]

25 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

Why would it make any difference if it was?

They are trying to establish that a window was left open in a child's play area in the mind of the jury and then pick the ones that have never been on a ship . 

 

 

 

[xcell]

This reminds me of the McD lawsuit over the the "hot" coffee.

 

Are now going to put signs everywhere?  Even on our Balconies?  Please keep back 2 feet for your own safety?

 

The only winners (if you really want to call them that) are the lawyers.

 

We must be missing something if the mother and father are still pushing forward on the lawsuit.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

2 minutes ago, xcell said:

This reminds me of the McD lawsuit over the the "hot" coffee.

 

Are now going to put signs everywhere?  Even on our Balconies?  Please keep back 2 feet for your own safety?

 

The only winners (if you really want to call them that) are the lawyers.

 

We must be missing something if the mother and father are still pushing forward on the lawsuit.

The Attorney! Probably will get nothing if they do not win.

[mjkacmom]

6 minutes ago, xcell said:

This reminds me of the McD lawsuit over the the "hot" coffee.

 

Are now going to put signs everywhere?  Even on our Balconies?  Please keep back 2 feet for your own safety?

 

The only winners (if you really want to call them that) are the lawyers.

 

We must be missing something if the mother and father are still pushing forward on the lawsuit.

Do a google search on that lawsuit, it’s very eye opening, the victim was robbed.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

12 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Do a google search on that lawsuit, it’s very eye opening, the victim was robbed.

The victim is deceased. 

[vidmanpk]

I'm a little late to this discussion so please forgive me if I go over items previously discussed.  I'm writing this because I'm sick and tired of the media allowing itself to be used to drag Royal Caribbean through the mud.  I work in legal support with lawyers though I am not a lawyer.  These are my observations and opinions based on years of both cruising and working with attorneys.

 

First off, I sailed Freedom of the Seas out of Puerto Rico exactly 7 weeks after the incident.  The first thing I did upon boarding was go to deck 11 to see where this incident took place.  I dragged my reluctant girlfriend along to see what she would opine.  Within two minutes of arriving she turned to me and stated that there is no way that this was an accident.  There are four things that become evident when you see the location.  1) The windows are tinted quite a bit.  The open window is easily identifiable simply by viewing.  Even if you're colorblind as the GF claims, you can easily tell the difference between the dark squares of glass and the open window.  2) There is a noticible breeze and sound coming through the window.  Actually, that's why the window is open, to keep the somewhat sheltered area from overheating and you can hear the sound of the city and dock below.  3) The guard rail is situated back from the window a significant distance (even the Wiegand family’s attorney, Michael Winkleman claims it's 18 inches), enough where a child of 18 months would fall between it and the window if the child was placed on the rail.  4} There is no sill or lip where you could sit or stand a child against the window.  If you're not sitting the child on the rail there is no place else to sit or stand the child.

 

While I was at the scene of the incident I leaned out the open window (I did not know the GF did this as the videos had not been released).  I'm 5'8" and could look down the side of the ship to the dock below.  As the father of four I came to the chilling conclusion that this incident was no accident.  

 

It's my opinion that Michael Winkleman and the Wigends are attempting to slander Royal Caribbean only to extort money through a nuisance lawsuit.  I support Royal Caribbean and hope they continue to fight this egregious assault on their reputation.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

14 minutes ago, vidmanpk said:

I'm a little late to this discussion so please forgive me if I go over items previously discussed.  I'm writing this because I'm sick and tired of the media allowing itself to be used to drag Royal Caribbean through the mud.  I work in legal support with lawyers though I am not a lawyer.  These are my observations and opinions based on years of both cruising and working with attorneys.

 

First off, I sailed Freedom of the Seas out of Puerto Rico exactly 7 weeks after the incident.  The first thing I did upon boarding was go to deck 11 to see where this incident took place.  I dragged my reluctant girlfriend along to see what she would opine.  Within two minutes of arriving she turned to me and stated that there is no way that this was an accident.  There are four things that become evident when you see the location.  1) The windows are tinted quite a bit.  The open window is easily identifiable simply by viewing.  Even if you're colorblind as the GF claims, you can easily tell the difference between the dark squares of glass and the open window.  2) There is a noticible breeze and sound coming through the window.  Actually, that's why the window is open, to keep the somewhat sheltered area from overheating and you can hear the sound of the city and dock below.  3) The guard rail is situated back from the window a significant distance (even the Wiegand family’s attorney, Michael Winkleman claims it's 18 inches), enough where a child of 18 months would fall between it and the window if the child was placed on the rail.  4} There is no sill or lip where you could sit or stand a child against the window.  If you're not sitting the child on the rail there is no place else to sit or stand the child.

 

While I was at the scene of the incident I leaned out the open window (I did not know the GF did this as the videos had not been released).  I'm 5'8" and could look down the side of the ship to the dock below.  As the father of four I came to the chilling conclusion that this incident was no accident.  

 

It's my opinion that Michael Winkleman and the Wigends are attempting to slander Royal Caribbean only to extort money through a nuisance lawsuit.  I support Royal Caribbean and hope they continue to fight this egregious assault on their reputation.

Excellent. Agree!

[mjkacmom]

17 minutes ago, vidmanpk said:

I'm a little late to this discussion so please forgive me if I go over items previously discussed.  I'm writing this because I'm sick and tired of the media allowing itself to be used to drag Royal Caribbean through the mud.  I work in legal support with lawyers though I am not a lawyer.  These are my observations and opinions based on years of both cruising and working with attorneys.

 

First off, I sailed Freedom of the Seas out of Puerto Rico exactly 7 weeks after the incident.  The first thing I did upon boarding was go to deck 11 to see where this incident took place.  I dragged my reluctant girlfriend along to see what she would opine.  Within two minutes of arriving she turned to me and stated that there is no way that this was an accident.  There are four things that become evident when you see the location.  1) The windows are tinted quite a bit.  The open window is easily identifiable simply by viewing.  Even if you're colorblind as the GF claims, you can easily tell the difference between the dark squares of glass and the open window.  2) There is a noticible breeze and sound coming through the window.  Actually, that's why the window is open, to keep the somewhat sheltered area from overheating and you can hear the sound of the city and dock below.  3) The guard rail is situated back from the window a significant distance (even the Wiegand family’s attorney, Michael Winkleman claims it's 18 inches), enough where a child of 18 months would fall between it and the window if the child was placed on the rail.  4} There is no sill or lip where you could sit or stand a child against the window.  If you're not sitting the child on the rail there is no place else to sit or stand the child.

 

While I was at the scene of the incident I leaned out the open window (I did not know the GF did this as the videos had not been released).  I'm 5'8" and could look down the side of the ship to the dock below.  As the father of four I came to the chilling conclusion that this incident was no accident.  

 

It's my opinion that Michael Winkleman and the Wigends are attempting to slander Royal Caribbean only to extort money through a nuisance lawsuit.  I support Royal Caribbean and hope they continue to fight this egregious assault on their reputation.

I don’t think anyone has said RCL is responsible on any of these threads, everyone is saying the grandfather is to blame. It seem the more posts there are, the angrier people seem to get. Let Royal handle it, I doubt they are as upset as folks here.

[mjkacmom]

22 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

The victim is deceased. 

That’s not the point (and not a surprise since it was almost 30 years ago and the victim was a senior citizen at the time). 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

43 minutes ago, xcell said:

This reminds me of the McD lawsuit over the the "hot" coffee.

 

36 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Do a google search on that lawsuit, it’s very eye opening, the victim was robbed.

I wonder if this will turn into the same thing.  The public perception of the McD's hot coffee case is really different than the facts of the case.  And I agree, once you read about the case, McD's was actually to blame.  But unless you go looking, the general opinion to this day, 28 years later, is that "of course coffee is hot".

 

So I wonder if in 28 years, people will still be saying "why was there an open window in a child's play area?". 

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

2 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

That’s not the point (and not a surprise since it was almost 30 years ago and the victim was a senior citizen at the time). 

We are talking about the little girl.

[grapau27]

25 minutes ago, vidmanpk said:

I'm a little late to this discussion so please forgive me if I go over items previously discussed.  I'm writing this because I'm sick and tired of the media allowing itself to be used to drag Royal Caribbean through the mud.  I work in legal support with lawyers though I am not a lawyer.  These are my observations and opinions based on years of both cruising and working with attorneys.

 

First off, I sailed Freedom of the Seas out of Puerto Rico exactly 7 weeks after the incident.  The first thing I did upon boarding was go to deck 11 to see where this incident took place.  I dragged my reluctant girlfriend along to see what she would opine.  Within two minutes of arriving she turned to me and stated that there is no way that this was an accident.  There are four things that become evident when you see the location.  1) The windows are tinted quite a bit.  The open window is easily identifiable simply by viewing.  Even if you're colorblind as the GF claims, you can easily tell the difference between the dark squares of glass and the open window.  2) There is a noticible breeze and sound coming through the window.  Actually, that's why the window is open, to keep the somewhat sheltered area from overheating and you can hear the sound of the city and dock below.  3) The guard rail is situated back from the window a significant distance (even the Wiegand family’s attorney, Michael Winkleman claims it's 18 inches), enough where a child of 18 months would fall between it and the window if the child was placed on the rail.  4} There is no sill or lip where you could sit or stand a child against the window.  If you're not sitting the child on the rail there is no place else to sit or stand the child.

 

While I was at the scene of the incident I leaned out the open window (I did not know the GF did this as the videos had not been released).  I'm 5'8" and could look down the side of the ship to the dock below.  As the father of four I came to the chilling conclusion that this incident was no accident.  

 

It's my opinion that Michael Winkleman and the Wigends are attempting to slander Royal Caribbean only to extort money through a nuisance lawsuit.  I support Royal Caribbean and hope they continue to fight this egregious assault on their reputation.

Good report.

Many of us especially after seeing the video are of the same opinion as your good self.

[mjkacmom]

7 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

We are talking about the little girl.

And the fact that it’s a frivolous lawsuit, and some compared it to the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, erroneously thinking that was a frivolous lawsuit, when it clearly wasn’t.

[xcell]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to compare to the MCD lawsuit to this kids tradegy but the fact (I could be wrong as well) after the lawsuit, MCD started to label a warning that the coffee was hot.... And if the lawsuit goes through are we now going to have warning labels on anything and everything? 

 

[Two Wheels Only]

1 hour ago, vidmanpk said:

While I was at the scene of the incident I leaned out the open window (I did not know the GF did this as the videos had not been released).  I'm 5'8" and could look down the side of the ship to the dock below. 

 

Anello is taller than you, is seen leaning through the window for several seconds, and still claims that he didn't know that the window was open before placing a child on the window sill, holding her with one hand, and leaving her there for over 30 seconds.