Royal Carribean has a video of grandfather leaning... - Page 8

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@GrailSeeker wrote:
I think the point they are trying to illustrate is that "this is what he would have had to do" to touch the glass with his head,not what he actually did.

Royal Caribbean says he had his entire upper body through the window, so knew the window was open.

The attorney is saying that he did not have his upper body outside the window and it would have been impossible for him to do that. They are adamant that he did not know the window was open.

If he did not know the window was open, he was unaware of the danger. If he was unaware of the danger, he cannot be accused of being negligent. Being aware of the danger is part of the definition of being negligent.

I thought we had already heard that the cruiseline specifically issued instructions in the package all guest get NOT to stand on rails. That would include standing a child on a rail. Even if the window had not been open, she still could have fallen and been significantly injured.

tsavorite · ‎03-09-2010

@Johnnyeager wrote:
The Wiegand's attorney, Michael Winkleman on Sunday criticized the "false narrative" being presented by Royal Caribbean. He conducted an inspection of the ship with photos of a "reenactment." He says that Anello leaned over the railing in the video presented, but did not lean out the window.

He wants access to all of the video that Royal Caribbean may have.

I'm not sure what to think, except that he should not have lifted the girl up.

Is this man in photos supposed to be the exact same height...leg length and upper body length as Anello?

In the video Anello is appearing to be down on his forearms...all you see is his rear end. Then he comes up some and leans down and lifts the baby completely out of view which means either on that railing or out farther at the open window which we can't see on that video.

GrailSeeker · ‎12-01-2012

@Isobel Archer wrote:
@GrailSeeker wrote:
I think the point they are trying to illustrate is that "this is what he would have had to do" to touch the glass with his head,not what he actually did.

Royal Caribbean says he had his entire upper body through the window, so knew the window was open.

The attorney is saying that he did not have his upper body outside the window and it would have been impossible for him to do that. They are adamant that he did not know the window was open.

If he did not know the window was open, he was unaware of the danger. If he was unaware of the danger, he cannot be accused of being negligent. Being aware of the danger is part of the definition of being negligent.

I thought we had already heard that the cruiseline specifically issued instructions in the package all guest get NOT to stand on rails. That would include standing a child on a rail. Even if the window had not been open, she still could have fallen and been significantly injured.

I agree that is entirely on him. It would seem that Royal Caribbean would say just that, if it were enough to dismiss the entire suit.

The issue at hand seems to be whether or not the window itself was a hidden danger, or out of compliance. I would think that both issues will have to be decided upon.

cherry · ‎03-09-2010

thank you @Cakers3 . I felt his stance was awkward but I couldn't quite put my finger on it

We know for a fact it was possible ,because he did it. If it wasn't Chloe would still be alive

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

Unless the lawyer(s) are working on contingency, they are making boku bucks on this-and I feel the family is going to walk away with nothing anyway.

I find those demonstrations prove nothing.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@Johnnyeager wrote:
The Wiegand's attorney, Michael Winkleman on Sunday criticized the "false narrative" being presented by Royal Caribbean. He conducted an inspection of the ship with photos of a "reenactment." He says that Anello leaned over the railing in the video presented, but did not lean out the window.

He wants access to all of the video that Royal Caribbean may have.

I'm not sure what to think, except that he should not have lifted the girl up.

@Johnnyeager Thanks for the pictures.

Now talk about deceptive pictures.

Anello would not have had to rise up 7" on tip toes to look over that railing and the video with Anello clearly shows him looking out over that railing. Not on tip toes, not leaning the way this man is leaning.

This man appears to not only be on tip toes but using the railing to hold himself as in balancing in order to look out over it.

There is also deception here in terms of the distance of the railing from the window-you can barely make out the white extension linking the railing to the window frame. The railing in this first picture blocks that view.

In the second picture, the man is holding the doll straight up; his arms are not extended; as such, by their own demonstration, Chloe was not held out to the window. Then how in the world did she fall out??

Even in that second picture, had he dropped Chloe from the position shown in this demonstration, she would have fallen not out the window but down between the railing and the window.

Since they are claiming the window was so far out Anello had to tip toe to look out, then Chloe would have dropped between, not out.

One picture tries to show the window too far out for Anello to know it was opened; the second picture, by looking at the bar extension linking rail to window, is not that far out.

I've seen this area, and these pictures, by my own experience, are a long shot for the defense-because they actually contradict each other.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Johnnyeager · ‎09-05-2014

Thanks for your insight @Cakers3

I'm starting to find the whole thing very confusing with all the differing arguments.

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@Johnnyeager Unless one has actually been there, it is difficult to picture what different angles show. I wasn't on that ship but on a sister ship where the set up is exactly the same.

I'm a short-stuff and even I didn't have to tip toe to look out. My arm could easily touch that window or the open space.

I just find these new demonstrations way off the mark and contradictory; and I look at them as actually hurting their case against RC, not helping.

One point about safety standards: I cannot address that but common sense, to me, says you don't lift a child where there is a space through which she could fall or at least get tangled. Forget the window.

She probably would not have dropped all the way down to the floor; she certainly would have been trapped, though, between window and railing.

I think the doll demonstration hurts more than helps.

Overall: window or straight drop down between railing and window-he took a risk without thinking through his actions.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh