The lawsuit against Royal Caribbean/toddler death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 8-10 years ago, a similar accident occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo. If I remember correct;y, a mother was balancing her young boy on a fence that overlooked some kind of wild dog exhibit. Mom drops the young boy and he is mauled by the dogs. She sues the zoo and WINS! She said the fence should have been higher.

I think these cases go yo court because the at fault adult can't live with their error. They want to blame someone.

Ridiculous. You can't idiot proof the world. And idiots shouldn't get money for their idiotic actions.

She won because the zoo was aware that there was a problem with the netting that the kid bounced off of before landing in the pen: She shouldn't have placed her kid on the fence but everyone felt bad for her too... so she won.

Technically, they didn't go to trial. The zoo settled with the parents. Amount is unknown. The idiot mother put the child up on a FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE! Apparently the zoo was aware other people had done that although none had fallen into the exhibit until this boy.

This is why the lawyer for the Wiegands chased them down on day #1 --- payout.

[Anonymous]

I’m dismayed at this family. One would think they would mourn their child privately instead of staging a money-grubbing spectacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 8-10 years ago, a similar accident occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo. If I remember correct;y, a mother was balancing her young boy on a fence that overlooked some kind of wild dog exhibit. Mom drops the young boy and he is mauled by the dogs. She sues the zoo and WINS! She said the fence should have been higher.

I think these cases go yo court because the at fault adult can't live with their error. They want to blame someone.

Ridiculous. You can't idiot proof the world. And idiots shouldn't get money for their idiotic actions.

She won because the zoo was aware that there was a problem with the netting that the kid bounced off of before landing in the pen: She shouldn't have placed her kid on the fence but everyone felt bad for her too... so she won.

Technically, they didn't go to trial. The zoo settled with the parents. Amount is unknown. The idiot mother put the child up on a FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE! Apparently the zoo was aware other people had done that although none had fallen into the exhibit until this boy.

This is why the lawyer for the Wiegands chased them down on day #1 --- payout.

So here's the thing. Companies/corporations win law suits when they can show that they took precautions but did not realize just how stupid people would be in bypassing and ignoring all of the safety measures. The court gives credence to not believing how stupid the public can be. However, if there is any evidence that the company had reason to understand that their precautions were insufficient, that ignorance goes out the window.

In the case of the Pittsburgh zoo, the zoo had put fence, but there was a gap on the side where there was only a few pieces of wood like a railing. There was space there. Prior to the death, there was a report that another parent had been seen dangling a child through the opening and over the railing to see better. This was noted in their safety committee meeting notes 6 years prior to the death. Here, the case was made in the court filings that the zoo had been aware of the safety issue and had not adjusted or fixed the safety problem. Prior to the revelation of the safety committee minutes, the zoo had been fighting vociferously in court, blaming the mother for the negligent behavior of lifting her child over the 4 ft railing. After the safety committee meeting minutes came to light, they settled with the family in a closed settlement.

In this case, there have not been cases of people holding children up to windows on a cruise ship and endangering their lives. All reports to date of issues with the windows are cases of adults or young adults who have deliberately and intentionally climbed out of windows themselves. It is likely that RCI will win this case. But they need to make changes or the next time anything happens to a child that is held up to a window, they'll likely be liable. And this doesn't affect just RCI, but will affect the entire cruise industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Grandpa has seen the video.

Why would he need to? He was there and knows what the video must show. I think he’s encouraging the parents to not look. He’s the mom’s stepfather so he’s probably terrified of losing the entire family.

I think that maybe he needs a reality check. The way he describes it - I picked her up and she fell out because I did not realize that the window was open does not seem to jibe with what the video shows. It wasn't a split second error of judgement, he actually held Chloe at that open window for awhile before she tumbled out of it.

Exactly. According to those that have seen the video, Grandpa was looking out the window for a few seconds and then picked up Chloe and balanced her on the ledge. So he knew that window was open. Grandpa must have a crappy criminal attorney for letting him continue to speak about his made up story of how it happened. The video contradicts what he said.

[Anonymous]

I have watched the video. There is no question that he stuck his head out the window before he even had the child in arms.

Just awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have watched the video. There is no question that he stuck his head out the window before he even had the child in arms.

Just awful.

Where did you see the video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have watched the video. There is no question that he stuck his head out the window before he even had the child in arms.

Just awful.

How? It’s not been made public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have watched the video. There is no question that he stuck his head out the window before he even had the child in arms.

Just awful.

Troll

[Anonymous]

That grandpa has got to be the oldest-looking 51 year old I've ever seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That grandpa has got to be the oldest-looking 51 year old I've ever seen.

No. If you want to compare look at Tinder. You probably pass people on the street the same age but assume they are in their 60s or 70s. Most people don’t age well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That grandpa has got to be the oldest-looking 51 year old I've ever seen.

No. If you want to compare look at Tinder. You probably pass people on the street the same age but assume they are in their 60s or 70s. Most people don’t age well.

I don’t know. My neighbors are 53 and have a 14 yo only child. They look barely older than my husband and I in our late 30’s. They look nothing like this Grandpa. And it’s not like my neighbors are doing anything special (no gym, or Botox or whatever.) Wife does color her hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 8-10 years ago, a similar accident occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo. If I remember correct;y, a mother was balancing her young boy on a fence that overlooked some kind of wild dog exhibit. Mom drops the young boy and he is mauled by the dogs. She sues the zoo and WINS! She said the fence should have been higher.

I think these cases go yo court because the at fault adult can't live with their error. They want to blame someone.

Ridiculous. You can't idiot proof the world. And idiots shouldn't get money for their idiotic actions.

She won because the zoo was aware that there was a problem with the netting that the kid bounced off of before landing in the pen: She shouldn't have placed her kid on the fence but everyone felt bad for her too... so she won.

Technically, they didn't go to trial. The zoo settled with the parents. Amount is unknown. The idiot mother put the child up on a FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE! Apparently the zoo was aware other people had done that although none had fallen into the exhibit until this boy.

This is why the lawyer for the Wiegands chased them down on day #1 --- payout.

So here's the thing. Companies/corporations win law suits when they can show that they took precautions but did not realize just how stupid people would be in bypassing and ignoring all of the safety measures. The court gives credence to not believing how stupid the public can be. However, if there is any evidence that the company had reason to understand that their precautions were insufficient, that ignorance goes out the window.

In the case of the Pittsburgh zoo, the zoo had put fence, but there was a gap on the side where there was only a few pieces of wood like a railing. There was space there. Prior to the death, there was a report that another parent had been seen dangling a child through the opening and over the railing to see better. This was noted in their safety committee meeting notes 6 years prior to the death. Here, the case was made in the court filings that the zoo had been aware of the safety issue and had not adjusted or fixed the safety problem. Prior to the revelation of the safety committee minutes, the zoo had been fighting vociferously in court, blaming the mother for the negligent behavior of lifting her child over the 4 ft railing. After the safety committee meeting minutes came to light, they settled with the family in a closed settlement.

In this case, there have not been cases of people holding children up to windows on a cruise ship and endangering their lives. All reports to date of issues with the windows are cases of adults or young adults who have deliberately and intentionally climbed out of windows themselves. It is likely that RCI will win this case. But they need to make changes or the next time anything happens to a child that is held up to a window, they'll likely be liable. And this doesn't affect just RCI, but will affect the entire cruise industry.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article179242701.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2019/10/10/carnival-valor-passenger-fell-cruise-ship-serious-injuries/3928329002/

Plenty of cases related to low railings and not drunken behavior. The lawyer has a good chance of getting a settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 8-10 years ago, a similar accident occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo. If I remember correct;y, a mother was balancing her young boy on a fence that overlooked some kind of wild dog exhibit. Mom drops the young boy and he is mauled by the dogs. She sues the zoo and WINS! She said the fence should have been higher.

I think these cases go yo court because the at fault adult can't live with their error. They want to blame someone.

Ridiculous. You can't idiot proof the world. And idiots shouldn't get money for their idiotic actions.

She won because the zoo was aware that there was a problem with the netting that the kid bounced off of before landing in the pen: She shouldn't have placed her kid on the fence but everyone felt bad for her too... so she won.

Technically, they didn't go to trial. The zoo settled with the parents. Amount is unknown. The idiot mother put the child up on a FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE! Apparently the zoo was aware other people had done that although none had fallen into the exhibit until this boy.

This is why the lawyer for the Wiegands chased them down on day #1 --- payout.

So here's the thing. Companies/corporations win law suits when they can show that they took precautions but did not realize just how stupid people would be in bypassing and ignoring all of the safety measures. The court gives credence to not believing how stupid the public can be. However, if there is any evidence that the company had reason to understand that their precautions were insufficient, that ignorance goes out the window.

In the case of the Pittsburgh zoo, the zoo had put fence, but there was a gap on the side where there was only a few pieces of wood like a railing. There was space there. Prior to the death, there was a report that another parent had been seen dangling a child through the opening and over the railing to see better. This was noted in their safety committee meeting notes 6 years prior to the death. Here, the case was made in the court filings that the zoo had been aware of the safety issue and had not adjusted or fixed the safety problem. Prior to the revelation of the safety committee minutes, the zoo had been fighting vociferously in court, blaming the mother for the negligent behavior of lifting her child over the 4 ft railing. After the safety committee meeting minutes came to light, they settled with the family in a closed settlement.

In this case, there have not been cases of people holding children up to windows on a cruise ship and endangering their lives. All reports to date of issues with the windows are cases of adults or young adults who have deliberately and intentionally climbed out of windows themselves. It is likely that RCI will win this case. But they need to make changes or the next time anything happens to a child that is held up to a window, they'll likely be liable. And this doesn't affect just RCI, but will affect the entire cruise industry.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article179242701.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2019/10/10/carnival-valor-passenger-fell-cruise-ship-serious-injuries/3928329002/

Plenty of cases related to low railings and not drunken behavior. The lawyer has a good chance of getting a settlement.

The railing wasn't low. I hope RC doesn't settle for these disgusting greedy pigs. But they probably will. Glad I don't know this family in real life, they disgust me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 8-10 years ago, a similar accident occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo. If I remember correct;y, a mother was balancing her young boy on a fence that overlooked some kind of wild dog exhibit. Mom drops the young boy and he is mauled by the dogs. She sues the zoo and WINS! She said the fence should have been higher.

I think these cases go yo court because the at fault adult can't live with their error. They want to blame someone.

Ridiculous. You can't idiot proof the world. And idiots shouldn't get money for their idiotic actions.

She won because the zoo was aware that there was a problem with the netting that the kid bounced off of before landing in the pen: She shouldn't have placed her kid on the fence but everyone felt bad for her too... so she won.

Technically, they didn't go to trial. The zoo settled with the parents. Amount is unknown. The idiot mother put the child up on a FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE! Apparently the zoo was aware other people had done that although none had fallen into the exhibit until this boy.

This is why the lawyer for the Wiegands chased them down on day #1 --- payout.

So here's the thing. Companies/corporations win law suits when they can show that they took precautions but did not realize just how stupid people would be in bypassing and ignoring all of the safety measures. The court gives credence to not believing how stupid the public can be. However, if there is any evidence that the company had reason to understand that their precautions were insufficient, that ignorance goes out the window.

In the case of the Pittsburgh zoo, the zoo had put fence, but there was a gap on the side where there was only a few pieces of wood like a railing. There was space there. Prior to the death, there was a report that another parent had been seen dangling a child through the opening and over the railing to see better. This was noted in their safety committee meeting notes 6 years prior to the death. Here, the case was made in the court filings that the zoo had been aware of the safety issue and had not adjusted or fixed the safety problem. Prior to the revelation of the safety committee minutes, the zoo had been fighting vociferously in court, blaming the mother for the negligent behavior of lifting her child over the 4 ft railing. After the safety committee meeting minutes came to light, they settled with the family in a closed settlement.

In this case, there have not been cases of people holding children up to windows on a cruise ship and endangering their lives. All reports to date of issues with the windows are cases of adults or young adults who have deliberately and intentionally climbed out of windows themselves. It is likely that RCI will win this case. But they need to make changes or the next time anything happens to a child that is held up to a window, they'll likely be liable. And this doesn't affect just RCI, but will affect the entire cruise industry.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article179242701.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2019/10/10/carnival-valor-passenger-fell-cruise-ship-serious-injuries/3928329002/

Plenty of cases related to low railings and not drunken behavior. The lawyer has a good chance of getting a settlement.

Perhaps. But they likely could have settled without suing for the same amount.

[Anonymous]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-sam-anello-offered-plea-deal-in-death-of-granddaughter-chloe-wiegand/

I wonder if there is any space on the planet that does not qualify as a "children's entertainment area" in this family's minds.