Jump to content
MattCasey

Freedom of the Seas Fatality?

Recommended Posts

Quote from the mother in an ABC news article:

"I do not want the legacy of our little girl to be the history of court cases," she said.
"She was an actual person who lived and spread happiness wherever she went.
To know Chloe was to love her immediately."

 

Well, Mom ... you're suing Royal ... so yes, "the legacy of your little girl will be the history of court cases".  For a prosecutor, she doesn't seem to be able to make statements congruent with her values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, twangster said:

 It does somewhat shoehorn them into a position.  He can't settle now unless the settlement involves eliminating the windows. 

Those windows seem to be getting all the blame.  As I have asked before, what will Royal now do with those windows on those pool decks?

Share this post


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

Those windows seem to be getting all the blame.  As I have asked before, what will Royal now do with those windows on those pool decks?

Could be as little as put signs on them that say in 3" letters "Windows can open DO NOT lean out of them" 

You know just like your power lawn mower that now has a sticker that tells "Danger keep hands and feet away from blades at all times"  

We as a society are responsible to protect people from themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the story a few weeks ago of the woman standing on the balcony railing taking a selfie?

A few days ago I'm eating breakfast in the Windjammer on Oasis.  Over by the Flowrider I see a couple doing a photo shoot with the woman sitting on the railing.  They took several shots over several minutes.  After looking them over she got back up on the railing and took some more.  It's at least 15' down to the deck below.

 1036724482_StupidPeople.jpg.5613078dd433d531bb99c7e14f46fc64.jpg

Stupid people do stupid things.  Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes it ends tragically.  

The hand railing is never meant to be a sitting area.

Grandpa did something stupid and a little girl paid for it with her life.  The window didn't kill the child, the grandfather did and he knows it.  It's that simple.

Share this post


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

CNN reports:  Michael Winkleman, the family's attorney, said at a news conference the "singular goal" of the lawsuit is to raise awareness about the risk of falling from windows and "prevent this from ever happening to another child again."

They are suing RCL to raise awareness to who?  If you ask me it's to the passengers.  So instead I say they should be suing passengers who put themselves and others in danger!!!

My wife and I raised three kids.  All were of legal age when this tragedy happened. 
 

Throughout their youth, We managed to keep all of them from falling out of windows despite never having been made aware of the risk by a frivolous lawsuit. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to NBC nightly news last night. They said Royal might be at fault due to some requirement that they're supposed to install windows that can only open 4 inches for ventilation instead of whole way. Any truth to this or is it BS and they just reported what the lawyer said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jzx1103 said:

So according to NBC nightly news last night. They said Royal might be at fault due to some requirement that they're supposed to install windows that can only open 4 inches for ventilation instead of whole way. Any truth to this or is it BS and they just reported what the lawyer said?

This is rather pointless on a cruise ship since you can go one deck up from there and have balconies with railings that open 4 million inches up... ha ha 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

You know what else just occurred to me? I would be very interested in what the parents were doing the day this happened. If the grandfather had that terrible of vision and judgment to not see an open window, why was he the only one watching the baby? Maybe we ought to look into Mom and Dad as well and see if they were negligent in any way. The only thing I’ve ever read (and I don’t even remember where I read it) is that they “went to get something” but I am starting to think they were in a hurry to start drinking.

Excellent point, if the grandfather was colorblind to the point where he couldn't tell if a window was open or closed he was not capable of supervising a child, basically, the parents left an 18 month old child unsupervised!  I'm sure this is not the first time, how many other times did they leave their child without proper supervision?  If we really are looking to uncover the truth and raise peoples awareness, I think we need to uncover all the facts.  I'm sure RC's internal/external counsel is already investigating all pertinent facts and most likely has their own investigators looking into things such as this but it doesn't hurt to post questions here because I guarantee you the company has boards like this monitored on a regular basis.  If you think it may help, post it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jzx1103 said:

They said Royal might be at fault due to some requirement that they're supposed to install windows that can only open 4 inches for ventilation instead of whole way.

I believe the attorney is floating this idea comparing this ship to the newest built by NCL and Carnival.  Showing pics of their pool decks.  I get they are trying to make a point, but I am not stupid.  They even admit these ships were just launched, and it is in select areas.  They are not showing pics of a ship that was built 15 yrs ago.  If I was a RCL attorney I would take pics of all of their ships that have been refurbed @ the same time that Freedom did their last refurb.  Do they have windows that only open 4 inches, or glass to floor windows.  Let's compare apples to apples before you place blame on RCL.

As far as the color vision deficiency goes, I don't bite off on it.  My husband and now son flew/flies for the military.  Color vision deficiency is huge.  It is not a vision issue like being farsighted, where you can't see close.  It is, as has been stated by twangster, they can't usually see certain colors, green and red are the big ones.  They still see shades.  I would go with being farsighted as a defense faster than color blindness.

Caveat, my brother is an Albino.  He has vision issues.  He is 57, probably about the same age as the grandfather.  Here is the thing.  Just like the grandfather, this has been with him for his entire life.  He takes precautions in everything he does with the grandbabies, and my grandbabies.   Common sense would take over, and this is where I do get angry at the family.  Common sense means ===handrail and the windows are showing a different tint.  Windows are not true green on the ship, typically they are more a blue/green/gray,  and so he should have been able to see that this one is lighter than the one to the left and right....hmm...common sense....wonder why?  Let me check b4 I lift up this wiggly worm 18 mon old why this is occurring.

The thing I am curious about is they have stated that they are electing to have a jury trial.  Why?  If you believe so intensely that RCL is at fault why not just a judge?  

All of this being stated, I believe RCL is going to wait to hand them a settlement offer until his negligence case is resolved in PR.  I also believe that both sides will settle out of court with an NDA.  They will get millions.  The attorney will get 1/3 of the settlement.  Their family will never heal.  As others have stated only the attorneys win here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PG Cruiser said:

Screenshot of Royal's Guest Conduct Policy:

image.thumb.png.4f6654d3fc092cf02114006a0d4205cd.png

So in Royal's Guest Conduct Policy that the parent and grandfather all (electronically) signed and agreed to prior to boarding the ship, it clearly states the railings are "protective barriers".  How many protective barriers/measures is the cruise line required to have in place?  Should they assume the first protective measure (the railing) will be ignored like it was by the grandfather when he lifted the child up over it, and have a second, third, fourth... protective measure such as safety stickers or windows with limits on how far they can open?  Also, one could argue that the railing already was the second protective measure as the window tinting was the first protective measure. 

As for understanding Royal's Guest Conduct Policy and the implied warnings, the mother is a attorney/prosecutor, she clearly understood and knew what she was agreeing to and she is the one who left the child with someone who, WE now know, was not capable and should not have been placed in the position of supervising the child.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pima1988 said:

All of this being stated, I believe RCL is going to wait to hand them a settlement offer until his negligence case is resolved in PR.  I also believe that both sides will settle out of court with an NDA.  They will get millions.  The attorney will get 1/3 of the settlement.  Their family will never heal.  As others have stated only the attorneys win here.

 

If this family gets any $$$ from Royal it's gonna be open season for ridiculous lawsuits in the future. And the rest of us will pay for it as Royal or any other cruiseline will have no choice but to calculate this risk into their future price increases as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jzx1103 said:

If this family gets any $$$ from Royal it's gonna be open season for ridiculous lawsuits in the future. And the rest of us will pay for it as Royal or any other cruiseline will have no choice but to calculate this risk into their future price increases as well.

This lawyer has stated that at any given moment he has over 100 cases in motion with Royal alone.  I wouldn't be surprised if he or his firm has cases going against other lines as well.  

Who pays?  We all do. Increased fares and/or service cuts to cover the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, twangster said:

This lawyer has stated that at any given moment he has over 100 cases in motion with Royal alone.  I wouldn't be surprised if he or his firm has cases going against other lines as well.  

Who pays?  We all do. Increased fares and/or service cuts to cover the cost.

Wonder what the percentage of those is in legitimate lawsuits? 

Come on. If Royal or any line was this negligent, it would be in the news constantly and cruises wouldn’t be popular  because no one would travel with a company who didn’t care for its guests’ safety. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jjohnb said:

So in Royal's Guest Conduct Policy that the parent and grandfather all (electronically) signed and agreed to prior to boarding the ship, it clearly states the railings are "protective barriers".  How many protective barriers/measures is the cruise line required to have in place?  Should they assume the first protective measure (the railing) will be ignored like it was by the grandfather when he lifted the child up over it, and have a second, third, fourth... protective measure such as safety stickers or windows with limits on how far they can open?  Also, one could argue that the railing already was the second protective measure as the window tinting was the first protective measure. 

As for understanding Royal's Guest Conduct Policy and the implied warnings, the mother is a attorney/prosecutor, she clearly understood and knew what she was agreeing to and she is the one who left the child with someone who, WE now know, was not capable and should not have been placed in the position of supervising the child.     

I wonder if there are ANY adults with good judgment in that family to be honest. The only thing they should be raising awareness of is “how not to parent on a cruise.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who found whom?  Did the family contact this lawyer (a day after the incident) because of his experience with suing cruise companies or did this lawyer contact the family to use as pawns in his crusade against cruise ships?

https://www.lipcon.com/maritime-attorneys/michael-winkleman/

Share this post


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

Who found whom?  Did the family contact this lawyer (a day after the incident) because of his experience with suing cruise companies or did this lawyer contact the family to use as pawns in his crusade against cruise ships?

Yeah, good point.  If we are guessing here I would personally guess the latter.  Anyone know for sure?

Share this post


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

Who found whom?  Did the family contact this lawyer (a day after the incident) because of his experience with suing cruise companies or did this lawyer contact the family to use as pawns in his crusade against cruise ships?

https://www.lipcon.com/maritime-attorneys/michael-winkleman/

It's not clear.  

The attorney was involved so quickly.  He was issuing statements very soon after the news broke.  On one hand it was reported they were so distraught they couldn't speak to local authorities and they had to be sedated.  On the other hand they were contracting with the attorney in Florida during the same time frame.  

How would an attorney in Florida track down the family and get through to them in their distraught, sedated state?  Were they taking phone calls from strange phone numbers that could be news reporters?  I know I wouldn't be taking phone calls or going through voice mail.

Given her legal background I suspect she lawyered up immediately and had someone in her office back home or the legal circles she runs in track down the Florida attorney.  This is speculation but as it played out, that attorney was instantly engaged and making statements very soon after the incident.  

Share this post


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

It's not clear.  

The attorney was involved so quickly.  He was issuing statements very soon after the news broke.  On one hand it was reported they were so distraught they couldn't speak to local authorities and they had to be sedated.  On the other hand they were contracting with the attorney in Florida during the same time frame.  

How would an attorney in Florida track down the family and get through to them in their distraught, sedated state?  Were they taking phone calls from strange phone numbers that could be news reporters?  I know I wouldn't be taking phone calls or going through voice mail.

Given her legal background I suspect she lawyered up immediately and had someone in her office back home or the legal circles she runs in track down the Florida attorney.  This is speculation but as it played out, that attorney was instantly engaged and making statements very soon after the incident.  

Yup!  The very next day, he was already talking about "the open window in the kid's play area".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always about the money. Especially when people say "It's not about the money!"

I don't think RCCL should be held liable in this case. If for some reason, judgement goes against RCCL and they are ordered to pay the family damages, how about the family making a statement by donating their portion of the settlement to charity? That would make a truly show, it's not about the money!

No amount of money can change what happened. Just ask @tiny blondeif she had millions in the bank if she would feel any different about her loss.

Thoughts and prayers go out to all that need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WoodsCommaElle said:

You know what else just occurred to me? I would be very interested in what the parents were doing the day this happened. If the grandfather had that terrible of vision and judgment to not see an open window, why was he the only one watching the baby? Maybe we ought to look into Mom and Dad as well and see if they were negligent in any way. The only thing I’ve ever read (and I don’t even remember where I read it) is that they “went to get something” but I am starting to think they were in a hurry to start drinking.

??? There is no indication that the parents were off drinking. Not sure where that came from???  Maybe they went to get more diapers, or a glass of water or bottle, or to the washroom.  It's a perfectly normal thing to leave your child with a grandparent.  Of course ok, if they could go back in time, they would not have stepped away, but they can't and did nothing wrong.  It's unfortunate that the grandfather made one stupid misjudgenent, which took only a second to turn tragic. 

Line others, I hope royal doesn't settle , but I do wish the family peace somehow and able to cope.

Share this post


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

??? There is no indication that the parents were off drinking. Not sure where that came from???  Maybe they went to get more diapers, or a glass of water or bottle, or to the washroom.  It's a perfectly normal thing to leave your child with a grandparent.  Of course ok, if they could go back in time, they would not have stepped away, but they can't and did nothing wrong.  It's unfortunate that the grandfather made one stupid misjudgenent, which took only a second to turn tragic. 

Line others, I hope royal doesn't settle , but I do wish the family peace somehow and able to cope.

It’s just speculation. But I do feel that the parents should be partially responsible for leaving their child with someone who apparently has such poor vision and/or judgment that they can’t distinguish an open window from a closed one. Not saying the parents should be charged but it does show poor responsibility on their end if this is the case. 

Share this post


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

It’s just speculation. But I do feel that the parents should be partially responsible for leaving their child with someone who apparently has such poor vision and/or judgment that they can’t distinguish an open window from a closed one. Not saying the parents should be charged but it does show poor responsibility on their end if this is the case. 

Yeah ok.  I get your overall point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many lies Baby Chloe family can perpetuate to get millions from Royal? Although the Wiegand family never claimed that grandpa had any medical condition that would impair his ability to provide care for the toddler, the grandpa in the recent CBS interview claimed he is color blind. He never mention his color blindness until his indictment. Had he be color blind, it should be in his medical records preceding the accident, drivers license and perhaps as an impairment in his IT job. At this point, it is hard to accept his claim of a sudden color blindness as he over and over testifies that he felt breeze and was compelled to try to touch a glass! He knew that something was wrong but still put the girl on the very narrow ledge. She had no chance to keep her balance and he admits to tripping, losing grip or letting one hand to go of her to seek for the window pane. Enough lies and we need justice for Chloe. Her grandpa was reckless and negligent - was he drunk, overdosed on opiates or else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...