Jump to content

Wiegand Lawsuit Dismissed


Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, as with all things involving these kinds of suits and our legal system, it ain't over yet.

Quote

Winkelman told the Daily Mail that the Wiegand family planned to appeal the court's decision.

"The family is surprised and deeply saddened by the court's ruling. This is a matter that should be decided by a jury, and we are confident and hopeful the appellate court will agree," Winkleman said.

"We will be filing the appeal shortly and we will continue to fight and raise awareness about the dangers of unintentional toddler window falls," he added. "This case was always about Chloe and shining a light on her brief but beautiful life."

I'm also not thrilled with this particular line in the article (emphasis added):

Quote

Wiegand was in the care of her grandfather when she fell to her death through an open window in a children’s play area on a cruise ship docked in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in July 2019.

For frick's sake, Today, that area is not a children's play area!! That's just the spin the ambulance-chasing scumbag lawyer has used. The Solarium is no more a children's play area than the Schooner Bar or Boleros is. Do just two minutes of homework so you can give a truthful statement. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a sad incident. What is even sadder is the grandfather pleaded guilty to homicide and was charged for it. That being said the spotlight needs to be on the grandfather and his actions and not the cruise line that he was on when he acted out those actions. It’s sad that they are trying to place blame on the cruise line. Good job to the court system. I pray for peace and comfort for that family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge was correct in tossing the case.  Anyone who saw the video, and I assume the judge did, could observe that he leaned his upper body out the window looking at something.  Then picked that sweet baby up and held her out the window so she could see, and he tragically lost his grip on her.  That video is proof that he knew the window was open.  It was an accident caused by his poor choices and one he will have to live with for the rest of his life.    My heart goes out to this family.

But pursuing legal action against RCI for his reckless actions, and trying to cast blame for a window open on a pool deck, one that is not a danger to children?  That is, at best, an attempt to avoid accepting the horrendous truth of what happened, and at worst, greed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about this at the time but didn't know the extra details  I see here now. Just cringe inducing all around. Grandpa just lost his grip on her and his mind made a milli second mistake. I can see the hockey game memory might have been stuck in his brain.  His sentence was more just administrative, I expect no judge would want to pile on to the life sentence he has now.  But ....billion $ corporation?, lawyers working on a contingency fee basis?... they  will probably invest more to get a settlement offer. Usually at the point where RC's insurers have had enough of the costs to them they will make this go away. I don't think I'd want to live much more if I was grandpa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
24 minutes ago, CruiseGus said:

The appeals court is just saying that a jury should decide if RCI should have foreseen this possibility.  They aren't saying that RCI should have.  Just that this is a question for a jury.  Now we'll see if the jurors have any common sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Xaa said:

The appeals court is just saying that a jury should decide if RCI should have foreseen this possibility.  They aren't saying that RCI should have.  Just that this is a question for a jury.  Now we'll see if the jurors have any common sense.  

If Royal could have foreseen this as a possibility?  The appeals court has gone bonkers have they seen cruise ships now days?  In addition to windows that open on the pool deck all of RCI's cruise ships have balconies that parents or grandparents could hold their children over.  No parent/grandparent would ever hold their child over a balcony railing, so why did the grandfather think it was okay to hold a child out a window on the 11th floor?  This should not have to go to a jury the appeals court should have done their job and shut this down.  I still feel sorry for the parents after all no parent should have to bury their child especially a child as young as this one who should still be alive, however they need to place the blame where it belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of the grandfather.  I hope the jury sees through this and puts this issue to bed once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember Royal has the deep pockets here and these civil claims take many years to get to trial.

I sincerely hope Royal Caribbean drags this out past the customary 7 years or so to get to the trial date, costing the Wiegand family lots of money in the meantime. Lots of money they can't afford.

I also hope they call Salvatore Anello to the stand. Just in case he is still on speaking terms with the Wiegand family, let's make everyone painfully aware what an idiot he is. I'd like this public humiliation to go on for 2 or 3 days straight. 

That surveillance footage the Puerto Rican news station published is awfully damning to Mr Anello and he did plead guilty in the criminal case. A lot of things happen over the course of seven or eight years, but I'm certain RCI will still be around; I'm doubtful the Wiegand family checking account will be able to afford to keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JasonOasis said:

If Royal could have foreseen this as a possibility?  The appeals court has gone bonkers have they seen cruise ships now days?  In addition to windows that open on the pool deck all of RCI's cruise ships have balconies that parents or grandparents could hold their children over.  No parent/grandparent would ever hold their child over a balcony railing, so why did the grandfather think it was okay to hold a child out a window on the 11th floor?  This should not have to go to a jury the appeals court should have done their job and shut this down.  I still feel sorry for the parents after all no parent should have to bury their child especially a child as young as this one who should still be alive, however they need to place the blame where it belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of the grandfather.  I hope the jury sees through this and puts this issue to bed once and for all.

You're preaching to the choir.  My opinion on if they should have foreseen it is in line with yours.

Playing devils advocate though, you and I say " No parent/grandparent would ever hold their child over a balcony railing".  That's apparently in question given that at least one did hold their grandchild out through an 11th floor window.  I have no idea if through discovery they find that this is more common than we think.  Never under estimate the stupidity of man.

I have faith in the jury system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bobroo said:

I sincerely hope Royal Caribbean drags this out past the customary 7 years or so to get to the trial date, costing the Wiegand family lots of money in the meantime. Lots of money they can't afford.

If only that were the way.  The case is almost certainly taken on contingency.  The family likely only has to pay expenses if there is no settlement.  They aren't paying anything now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion asking if Royal should have forseen this is asking if they have thought about every single dumb thing a human could possibly do and if they have a responsibility to create prevention for that....and I think the answer is no. At some point it becomes a risk to even allow people on a cruise ship. I mean...there's a place for someone to do dumb things literally EVERYWHERE. I can literally think of 20 right now.

The area he was in had chest-high windows that are angled to prevent easy falling and also prevent a wind tunnel dragging people overboard. They did their part and created a safe viewing area. The fact that he turned it unsafe is not and should never be considered Royal's fault.

And the fact that the family and these judges won't let this rest upsets me because it's prolonging the pain of everyone involved (not that I think the pain will ever truly go away for the family...but ....it could at least have the chance to fade)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Matt said:

FWIW:

 

Screenshot (25).png

Saw them holding children IN FRONT OF open windows, not OUTSIDE OF the open windows. The safety officer needs to be clear in emphasizing that point.

Do we know people hold their kids up for a better view? Absolutely.

Do we anticipate that people will dangle their children OUT of the window? No, because we expect at least a modicum of common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Matt said:

Screenshot (25).png

We don't know the context of this statement from the safety officer.  There's a big difference between "holding children in front of the open windows" (meaning standing behind the railing and lifting the child high enough to see out while the child is also behind the railing) and "holding children in front of the open windows" (meaning standing or leaning past the railing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koopman testimony struck me in that he wasn't working with Royal at the time, not like he was a an officer on board that day (how the heck did lawyers find him in particular). 

Reading a cruise law site I see this "Royal Caribbean had tried to counter this aspect of the Wiegand’s case by arguing that Officer Koopman is a disgruntled ex-employee who shares an attorney with the Wiegands, so his testimony should be discredited." Looking at his linked in page he went from a CSO on the ships to a few some smaller jobs, does look like he didn't leave Royal voluntarily, which supports Royal's statement.

 

In the end there has to be some concept of common sense, which this grandfather didn't appear to have 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
On 7/14/2023 at 8:46 AM, tjcruisers said:

Koopman testimony struck me in that he wasn't working with Royal at the time, not like he was a an officer on board that day (how the heck did lawyers find him in particular). 

Reading a cruise law site I see this "Royal Caribbean had tried to counter this aspect of the Wiegand’s case by arguing that Officer Koopman is a disgruntled ex-employee who shares an attorney with the Wiegands, so his testimony should be discredited." Looking at his linked in page he went from a CSO on the ships to a few some smaller jobs, does look like he didn't leave Royal voluntarily, which supports Royal's statement.

 

In the end there has to be some concept of common sense, which this grandfather didn't appear to have 

Will never happen in my lifetime, but the frivolous lawsuits could be ended with one simple change; loser pays the other side's legal fees. Not the current system where the absolved party has to go through a bunch of legal caca raca for a judge's ruling ordering payment. The trial attorneys will fight to the death to keep things status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I don't believe there has been anything new on that lawsuit since last summer.

Ah, yes I see that now, when I found another article about the appeal being sent back, and it was in Summer, not in November which I thought when I watched the video (that is fairly new, uploaded a few days ago). 
So that seems to be the last news, as you say. I just found the reasons for it being returned to court so surprising, so who knows. Sorry for resurrecting an old thread 🙂

 

Link to comment
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...