Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

Who won the case?

The case I was on Couple A ran a red light, hit couple B.  We were the only witnesses for the traffic case the driver A got several violations.  Years later it came back up as a civil case.  I was on the stand as a witness for couple B when someone came in and spoke to the attorney for couple B.   The went to the judge, along with the other attorneys and after a minute they sat down, the case was dismissed.  I found out later the couple had sued another couple in a different state for the same supposed injury 5 years previously.

 

/end threadhijack

Share this post


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

The case I was on Couple A ran a red light, hit couple B.  We were the only witnesses for the traffic case the driver A got several violations.  Years later it came back up as a civil case.  I was on the stand as a witness for couple B when someone came in and spoke to the attorney for couple B.   The went to the judge, along with the other attorneys and after a minute they sat down, the case was dismissed.  I found out later the couple had sued another couple in a different state for the same supposed injury 5 years previously.

 

/end threadhijack

What a waste of tax payer's money .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any news updates on this in the last week such as the court dates for trial or lawsuit, where the lawsuit stands and so on.

 

As of lately I have been caught up with this Diamond Princess situation and have not been on the forums. I was supposed to be going on that ship fairly soon which has now been unfortunately cancelled due to that nasty virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

Has there been any news updates on this in the last week such as the court dates for trial or lawsuit, where the lawsuit stands and so on.

 

As of lately I have been caught up with this Diamond Princess situation and have not been on the forums. I was supposed to be going on that ship fairly soon which has now been unfortunately cancelled due to that nasty virus.


I don't see anything new.  This site shows the docket was updated yesterday and the last thing shows responses are due by the 26th.

Docket last updated: 02/21/2020 11:59 PM EST 
 

Wednesday, February 12, 2020
30   image.png.5a1ee376e087baf99a89af14c8c234fb.png motion Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Wed 02/12 5:21 PM 
Amended MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint,28 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.. Responses due by 2/26/2020 (Hamilton, Jerry)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/31355031/Wiegand_et_al_v_Royal_Caribbean_Cruises_Ltd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

Has there been any news updates on this in the last week such as the court dates for trial or lawsuit, where the lawsuit stands and so on.

 

From what I recall, step GF has a court date this coming week in Puerto Rico, where a trial date is to be set.  I think the date was set for February 24th, but I could be off a day.

Edited by nwcruiselover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8037989/Grandfather-dropped-toddler-death-Royal-Caribbean-ship-window-asks-bench-trial.html

 

Highlights:

  • Salvatore Anello asked for a bench trial in front of a judge on Monday in the prosecution of the death of his granddaughter Chloe Wiegand  
  • Anello will stand trial in April and faces three years behind bars if he is found guilty of negligent homicide 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is asking for a bench trial then his side knows a jury would probably look unfavorably upon the facts/actions and get caught up in the emotion of the situation.  A judge would supposedly look past the emotion and simply apply the law to the facts/evidence presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 10:10 AM, BillOh said:

That sounds logical, but in many places, guilt/innocence in a criminal case doesn't preclude a suit in civil court.  I was on a trial for a person hurt while running a red light. They sued the people they hit. 

Anyone remember the OJ Simpson trial.  After the criminal trial, the Goldmans' sued and won a very large settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JennyB1977 said:
  • Anello will stand trial in April and faces three years behind bars if he is found guilty of negligent homicide 

 

That would pretty much wrap things up in the lawsuit against RC if convicted.

Edited by fred30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Scurvy Pirate said:

If he is asking for a bench trial then his side knows a jury would probably look unfavorably upon the facts/actions and get caught up in the emotion of the situation.  A judge would supposedly look past the emotion and simply apply the law to the facts/evidence presented.

I would think he'd have a better chance with a jury... the emotional aspect is the only thing (and it's not much) going in his favor IMO.  I think just looking at the facts, it would be hard to get to "not guilty".

 

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

Anyone remember the OJ Simpson trial.  After the criminal trial, the Goldmans' sued and won a very large settlement.

Not the same.  

First, here were the two cases in the OJ trial:

Government vs OJ Simpson (not guilty verdict)

Goldman's vs OJ Simpson (found liable).

Notice OJ was the defendant in both cases.

 

Here are the two regarding RCI:

Government vs Anello (criminal)

Wiegand vs RCI (civil)

 

In my opinion, if Anello is found guilty (and I expect him to be), that greatly increases the odds against the Wiegands.  

 

Anello's trial is set for April 2 and expected to last four days (according to the dailymail article posted by @JennyB1977. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now they're saying the windows are waist height? 

I thought part of the reason of those reenactment photos was to prove that they were higher than waist height which meant he was unable to lean over and drop her... 🤷‍♀️

20200224_175807.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the civil trial and not the criminal one (of which I think he is guilty of negligence- and he knew better because he signed the cruise contract that said not to climb on or over the railings)-- as I understand it, RC is trying to get the case thrown out because the accusation is RC  didn't follow safety codes. It would seem the step-boyfriend/grandfather is the one who didn't follow safety codes. It would seem the minute RC shows the signed client contract...and videos of any other signage forbidding playing on the railing..it would all be done, put a fork in it.

 

It would be interesting to see if any of the family members have ever cruised before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SenatorsFan said:

And I see they're still calling him "elderly" and "silver-haired" SMH.

If you go to the Senator's game tonight, I'll call you elderly!   You can return the favor 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GarlicBread said:

So now they're saying the windows are waist height? 

I thought part of the reason of those reenactment photos was to prove that they were higher than waist height which meant he was unable to lean over and drop her... 🤷‍♀️

20200224_175807.jpg

I think they were trying to say the RAILING (not the window) was higher than waist height. The railing would prevent him from leaning over, not the window.

 

Share this post


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

If you go to the Senator's game tonight, I'll call you elderly!   You can return the favor 😉

 

What does that mean? Anyway,  it's an away game so I won't be there! 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I think they were trying to say the RAILING (not the window) was higher than waist height. The railing would prevent him from leaning over, not the window.

 


They're the same height.... within an inch of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GarlicBread said:

So now they're saying the windows are waist height? 

I thought part of the reason of those reenactment photos was to prove that they were higher than waist height which meant he was unable to lean over and drop her... 🤷‍♀️

20200224_175807.jpg


I'm confused.... "failing to install safety devices" -- what the heck is the SAFETY RAILING if it's not a safety device????

These people are just grasping at any possible straw they can conjure up in their imaginations, and they just make themselves look stupider and stupider.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am normally on the side of ANY contract. However, my cruise for January 2021 is the first in a long while that I booked direct with the cruise line AND have added my guy to the booking. He never had to read and/or sign the cruise contract. All he knows is what I've told him. Not sure how that would hold up in court. I also don't recall any warning or box to check stating I had asked my guests to read it....

 

Did a mock RCCL & Celebrity bookings - I stand corrected... 

CCT.PNG

CCT2.PNG

RCT.PNG

RCT2.PNG

Edited by JennyB1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, brillohead said:


I'm confused.... "failing to install safety devices" -- what the heck is the SAFETY RAILING if it's not a safety device????

These people are just grasping at any possible straw they can conjure up in their imaginations, and they just make themselves look stupider and stupider.  


The wall of glass is also a great safety feature.  Works great, until go get past the rail and to the windows edge. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A&L_Ont said:


The wall of glass is also a great safety feature.  Works great, until go get past the rail and to the windows edge. 

 

Be careful using that argument.  It works great unless there's an opening in the window.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

 I also don't recall any warning or box to check stating I had asked my guests to read it....

Every on-line cruise contract I have had to fill out (annually for 6-18 people) has a block to mark-off with each person's name, stating they would comply with all requirements of the contract. So it was on me to make sure they were aware of the rules-- boarding times, what can and can't be taken on board, safety precautions, etc.  So if I signed the contract, the responsibility was on me. Now, can they try to use this as a defense? Of course they will!

 

That said- I just checked the "cruise contract" posted on Carnival and it said the cruiser must follow all safety precautions, attend all safety lectures and drills... but didn't actually say "Don't climb up on railings or lift children out the window."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I would think he'd have a better chance with a jury... the emotional aspect is the only thing (and it's not much) going in his favor IMO.  I think just looking at the facts, it would be hard to get to "not guilty".

 

From what I've read, the general public in PR doesn't have much sympathy for Anello...especially after the La Comay video.

 

It will be easier to bring the judge onto the ship to see if lifting a child over a railing and extending the child past the railing is criminally negligent, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anello has opted for a bench trial. Also his attorney stated that they will not be using an expert to reconstruct the accident scene and they would not be calling upon a physician to discuss his color-blindness.   The prosecution stated they would call witnesses, but did not specify how many.

 

https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/tribunales/nota/elabuelastrodelaninaquecayodeuncrucerorechazaunjuicioporjurado-2548730/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Barnkitty said:

but didn't actually say "Don't climb up on railings or lift children out the window."

 

...but if you do, don't drop anyone to their death. 🙄

 

It's to the point that a blanket "don't be an idiot" clause is no longer enough. Someone has to specify that every potentially harmful, destructive, or fatal act is not allowed.

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
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance w/ Steve Dasseos of the TripInsuranceStore.com June 2020
      • 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...