Family of Chloe Wiegand, who died falling from cruise ship, sues Royal Caribbean

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Absolutely ridiculous that lawsuit would even be entertained.  

 

https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1099576

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Home of frivolous lawsuits. An 18 month old is still at an age where they must be supervised at all times, especially when one is in a place they aren't familiar with and don't have infant/toddler proofed against accidents like this. This is clearly dumb people trying to blame shift their supervisory failures that resulted in a child's death upon the cruise ship company. I hope they lose and lose big, apparently negligent care in losing a child wasn't enough idiocy for them.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Absolutely ridiculous that lawsuit would even be entertained.  

 

https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1099576

 

 

    You seem to have some legal expertise in this area. As it pertains to an open window 20 stories up, does maritime safety law apply here or local code, and how do you think that factors into the case?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

57 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    You seem to have some legal expertise in this area. As it pertains to an open window 20 stories up, does maritime safety law apply here or local code, and how do you think that factors into the case?

Pointless question, when we all know King Triton makes the laws out in the sea.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Pointless question, when we all know King Triton makes the laws out in the sea.

 

   Actually valid question. Pointless answer as usual. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

regardless still a terrible tragedy for the family either way

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    You seem to have some legal expertise in this area. As it pertains to an open window 20 stories up, does maritime safety law apply here or local code, and how do you think that factors into the case?

Neither, but I have uncommon sense.

 

If I dropped my child 20 stories, I would be devastated, as I'm sure the family is.  I would not try to blame my clumsiness on an open window.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Neither, but I have uncommon sense.

 

If I dropped my child 20 stories, I would be devastated, as I'm sure the family is.  I would not try to blame my clumsiness on an open window.

 

  There actually is existing regulation that applies to window and egress safety above a certain number of floors. I have lived in apartments where they had a bar on the windows so that they could only open about 4 inches. Tenants sometimes complained, but they had to be there for liability reasons. It can be state law or sometimes a municipality. NYC is really strict with this, but they have had some high profile cases of kids falling out of windows.

 

 Anyway, I’m curious whose jurisdiction applies when it’s a ship in port. It’s possible the legal team actually looked into all this ahead of time.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  There actually is existing regulation that applies to window and egress safety above a certain number of floors. I have lived in apartments where they had a bar on the windows so that they could only open about 4 inches. Tenants sometimes complained, but they had to be there for liability reasons. It can be state law or sometimes a municipality. NYC is really strict with this, but they have had some high profile cases of kids falling out of windows.

 

 Anyway, I’m curious whose jurisdiction applies when it’s a ship in port. It’s possible the legal team actually looked into all this ahead of time.

I hope this link is current enough to pass muster with you.  (I know you prefer current events)

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-video-shows-moments-before-toddler-chloe-wiegand-falls/

 

The video doesn't actually show the girl falling (said video exists, but the family hasn't agreed to release it yet).  But there are shots that show the ship and the setting.  And it contains some details that I didn't read in the OP.

 

As for liability,  I'm sure it will rest completely with RC, and local residential rules won't apply since it's a ship.  That being said, there are literally thousands of spots on a ship where, if an adult lifted a small child over a railing (balconies in rooms, along the lower levels of the ship, etc.), where it wouldn't end well for said small child if the adult dropped the kid.

 

Horrible tragedy, but I sincerely hope the case doesn't go against the cruise line, unless some safety feature was bypassed or wasn't in place.  The negligent homicide charge sounds (sadly for grandpa) appropriate.   Poor guy...

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I hope this link is current enough to pass muster with you.  (I know you prefer current events)

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-video-shows-moments-before-toddler-chloe-wiegand-falls/

 

The video doesn't actually show the girl falling (said video exists, but the family hasn't agreed to release it yet).  But there are shots that show the ship and the setting.  And it contains some details that I didn't read in the OP.

 

As for liability,  I'm sure it will rest completely with RC, and local residential rules won't apply since it's a ship.  That being said, there are literally thousands of spots on a ship where, if an adult lifted a small child over a railing (balconies in rooms, along the lower levels of the ship, etc.), where it wouldn't end well for said small child if the adult dropped the kid.

 

Horrible tragedy, but I sincerely hope the case doesn't go against the cruise line, unless some safety feature was bypassed or wasn't in place.  The negligent homicide charge sounds (sadly for grandpa) appropriate.   Poor guy...

 

   I agree with that.

 

   There was an article last month stating the grandfather's color blindness may have been a factor in not recognizing that the windows were tinted and shut in most of the area, vs the area where it was just open. I think liability in the end will come down to if the average person would have been able to tell that the area was open (or could be opened), and did the grandfather's medical issue just inhibit his ability to determine that. In the end, negligent homicide may be the most appropriate charge, and the cruise line may have no liability. I still think they can pursue it legally if they wish, and determine who was liable though. 

 

  

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Regulatory laws in this fashion work like functional bottlenecks. When you buy, say, a motherboard, CPU, and RAM combo, you like the specs to be fairly similar. However, when experiencing extremely different specs, you realize that the machine works only as fast as the slowest component. Similarly, regulatory laws function according to the dumbest elements in the population. Which is unfortunate, because the more dumb outliers, and the increasing desire to cater to them, the less efficient, and more bottlenecked, the system becomes. Or, in moral terms, the more morally inept people become, instead of taking responsibility for their own actions, they can find some regulatory caveat to defer responsibility they had to ensure the safety of the baby they were watching. And with every societal reinforcement of this moral ineptitude, that bottleneck narrows, to the detriment of that society.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

43 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I agree with that.

 

   There was an article last month stating the grandfather's color blindness may have been a factor in not recognizing that the windows were tinted and shut in most of the area, vs the area where it was just open. I think liability in the end will come down to if the average person would have been able to tell that the area was open (or could be opened), and did the grandfather's medical issue just inhibit his ability to determine that. In the end, negligent homicide may be the most appropriate charge, and the cruise line may have no liability. I still think they can pursue it legally if they wish, and determine who was liable though. 

 

  

 

Would you, as the father of a child in a case like this, pursue a lawsuit against the cruise line, given what little we know here?  I don’t think I could.  I just can’t imagine how I would feel getting ahead financially in a case like this.  I know people will argue that the company has insurance, and deep pockets, and I should “get mines”... but I don’t think I would want to spend a dime of the money that came about as a result of my daughter’s death.  I might feel differently if I was undergoing the grief that this family obviously is, but I hope not.

 

Then again, I have walked away from more than 7 class action lawsuits in which I was involved, simply because I wasn’t hurt in any way.  Only stayed the course with one, and only because I actually was harmed by the actions of the company.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

34 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Would you, as the father of a child in a case like this, pursue a lawsuit against the cruise line, given what little we know here?  I don’t think I could.  I just can’t imagine how I would feel getting ahead financially in a case like this.  I know people will argue that the company has insurance, and deep pockets, and I should “get mines”... but I don’t think I would want to spend a dime of the money that came about as a result of my daughter’s death.  I might feel differently if I was undergoing the grief that this family obviously is, but I hope not.

 

Then again, I have walked away from more than 7 class action lawsuits in which I was involved, simply because I wasn’t hurt in any way.  Only stayed the course with one, and only because I actually was harmed by the actions of the company.

 

   What little we know says it all. I don't think I can really answer until I know more about the details and what they are trying to do.

 

   In general it's not something that I would pursue for money because that doesn't change anything. If I really thought there was negligence or safety at the root of  it and I wanted the cruise line to acknowledge that and make changes, I might want to pursue a lawsuit for that reason. Sometimes when tragedies like this occur, people are just trying to bring about the changes needed so it doesn't happen again to someone else.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   What little we know says it all. I don't think I can really answer until I know more about the details and what they are trying to do.

 

   In general it's not something that I would pursue for money because that doesn't change anything. If I really thought there was negligence or safety at the root of  it and I wanted the cruise line to acknowledge that and make changes, I might want to pursue a lawsuit for that reason. Sometimes when tragedies like this occur, people are just trying to bring about the changes needed so it doesn't happen again to someone else.

Your faith in your fellow man is commendable.

Personally, I have NEVER known a lawyer to go after a potentially fat paycheck like this in order to prevent further mishaps.  It’s all about them Benjamins...