Case Dismissed: FlowRider injury claim

[jleq]

http://fortlauderdale.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/cruise-ship-passenger-case-for-injury-during-flowrider-simulated-surfing-attraction-dismissed.aspx?googleid=290000

[bigeagle12]

I am normally on the side of the court when they throw out these type of cases.

 

However, the fact that RCI modified the flowrider so [that the distance of the area from where a person falls to the back wall, had been shortened from the manufacturer’s specifications so that the activity could be used on the cruise ship] makes me wonder if maybe they shouldn't be held liable :confused:

[Icruzthere4Iam]

The judge feels it is "inherently dangerous" yet thousands upon thousands of people do the activity every year and only a very tiny fraction get hurt. Driving to the port to get on the ship is "inherently dangerous" (more dangerous than the flowrider actually). If I get in an accident can I sue the cruiseline? Sorry the lady got hurt but glad the ambulance chasers lost for now.

It's funny how the lawyer writing the article was complaining the judge read the law "to literally" and wanted him to broadly interpret it. Sucks when a judge looks at the actual words of a law and says nope you got no case hahaha. Good to know that if you sign a waiver saying you are about to something with risk involved that it means something. Take care all, Jim

[silentbob007]

So reading through that ... the crux of the argument was that since RCI had shortened the flowrider area beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer, the signed waiver would be invalid as the operator was negligently operating the device. Interesting.

[negc]

http://fortlauderdale.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/cruise-ship-passenger-case-for-injury-during-flowrider-simulated-surfing-attraction-dismissed.aspx?googleid=290000

Imagine that, a judge has the gall to throw out a lawsuit that would only have led to a flood of even more frivolous claims. Looks like the judge suffers from a case of common sense which is all too lacking nowadays. Not surprising that a lawyer would object to the judge's finding and reasoning.:rolleyes: Anyone watching the flowrider in action would recognize that there is an element of danger involved and the waiver requirement should alert them to that fact if their own eyes failed to register the risk.

[Raptor2010]

Some ambulance chasing attorney has a website and a blog about lawsuits against RCCL and the Flowrider and this was our comment to him:

 

"I concur that in some instances justice would be best served by allowing a jury decide who is at fault; however, I am curious about your comment ". . . there are particular design flaws in the FlowRiders on cruise ships which present an unreasonable danger to the public and are not known to the passengers." Since we spend the bulk of our time on the Flowrider when cruising, I am curious as to what these "design flaws" are? I have fallen several times and my husband did hurt his knee on the last cruise (I have had three knee surgeries caused from hip hop and jazz dancing and kick boxing classes) but both of us will be back on the Flowrider on our next cruise. Again, there are certain activities (e.g. jet skiing, snow skiing, snow boarding, water skiing) that hold an inherent risk and people are injured and/or killed every day while doing these activities but I still do not believe it calls for a court of law to determine who is at fault. Accidents happen, hence the name "accidents". Maybe I am too much of a Polly Anna and I just view the glass as half-full."

 

Along those lines, LIFE holds an inherent risk and not a one of us are going to make it out of here alive. I would rather live than worrying about how I might get hurt if I leave my house and do anything fun. :D

[Raptor2010]

Imagine that, a judge has the gall to throw out a lawsuit that would only have led to a flood of even more frivolous claims. Looks like the judge suffers from a case of common sense which is all too lacking nowadays. Not surprising that a lawyer would object to the judge's finding and reasoning.:rolleyes: Anyone watching the flowrider in action would recognize that there is an element of danger involved and the waiver requirement should alert them to that fact if their own eyes failed to register the risk.

 

Exactly :D

[The Grumpus]

I am normally on the side of the court when they throw out these type of cases.

 

However, the fact that RCI modified the flowrider so [that the distance of the area from where a person falls to the back wall, had been shortened from the manufacturer’s specifications so that the activity could be used on the cruise ship] makes me wonder if maybe they shouldn't be held liable :confused:

I guess it depends on how much it was modified. If it was shortened 3 millimeters I doubt it would make any difference. However much it was shortened though (if it really was... just because a plaintiff says so, doesn't make it so) the judge didn't seem to think it made a difference.

[Raptor2010]

I guess it depends on how much it was modified. If it was shortened 3 millimeters I doubt it would make any difference. However much it was shortened though (if it really was... just because a plaintiff says so, doesn't make it so) the judge didn't seem to think it made a difference.

 

Attorneys, pfffffffffffffttttttttt. Hi Fred :) I saw Sarah's pictures on FB and she looks absolutely radiant :p

[The Grumpus]

Attorneys, pfffffffffffffttttttttt. Hi Fred :) I saw Sarah's pictures on FB and she looks absolutely radiant :p

Hi Edna! Thank you so much... you've got mail!:)

[Scottee25]

So reading through that ... the crux of the argument was that since RCI had shortened the flowrider area beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer, the signed waiver would be invalid as the operator was negligently operating the device. Interesting.

 

Actually, after reading it, it appears that the attorney was trying to argue that the waiver was invalid under maritime law. However, most any lawyer will tell you that a waiver of liability doesn't protect a company if it is negligent. I am not saying that RCI is or was negligent in this matter. I am just saying that even if you do sign a waiver, it doesn't mean you have given up all your rights.

[Gairy Fodmother]

LIFE holds an inherent risk and not a one of us are going to make it out of here alive. I would rather live than worrying about how I might get hurt if I leave my house and do anything fun. :D

 

I blame God, he put me here so I think I should sue for the stress and worry of whether I'm going to make it out of here in one piece. Anyone have his email addy? I also need an address so we can serve papers.:cool:

 

Oh no why did I just go and Google that :(

[oakley2414]

either way I will be on the flowrider all next week on the allure.. I agree with others that life is a risk we take everyday... Live Fast Take Chances!!!!

[CP3o]

I'm not for big payouts but I wish RCCL did use the manager specs and allowed more room. I've seen many banged up hitting that wall and even though most not serious, a few more feet may save a bunch of bruises. Both of my kids got banged up on it and quit for awhile complaining about the injury and went back later. One only got 20 minutes of his hour lesson b/c he was crying and hurting so much. Accidents happen, my kids get pretty banged up in the sports they play too, it's just a shame they didn't allow more space if that's what the manufacturer recommended.

[Icruzthere4Iam]

Anybody who thinks the manufacturer of the Flowrider would allow RCCL to modify their product without doing extensive engineering studies of the effects of the change is stupid. No company, in this sue happy day and age, is going to let that happen. I guarantee that if the product was modified it was done with the consent of the company. This lawyer and his website are proof of why any company would protect itself. To many people looking for money for nothing.

[BillOh]

I am just saying that even if you do sign a waiver, it doesn't mean you have given up all your rights.

 

That would hold merit with other actions I've seen on land. What affect Maritime laws have is beyond me. I've seen the Flowrider and I will take a chance and any injury by me that's my luck. What I would hope the waiver wouldn't cover if actual operator negligence. On my one flowrider equipped cruise the operators were paying attention and if someone fell and couldn't get out of that area in the back, they are quick to kill the water flow. I would hope that if the operator gets distracted by a pretty face and doesn't hit the kill switch for an extended period of time I hope they would have some liability. I've wondered when they split the flowrider into two sections for the boogie boards if that wasn't making it more dangerous, but as far as I've seen that middle barrier hasn't caused any problems.

[The Flying Pirate]

Imagine that, a judge has the gall to throw out a lawsuit that would only have led to a flood of even more frivolous claims. Looks like the judge suffers from a case of common sense which is all too lacking nowadays. Not surprising that a lawyer would object to the judge's finding and reasoning.:rolleyes: Anyone watching the flowrider in action would recognize that there is an element of danger involved and the waiver requirement should alert them to that fact if their own eyes failed to register the risk.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself...

[CI66774]

Scottee25 - Uh - I'm a lawyer and I don't agree that "most any lawyer" would agree that a waiver is invalid if the company is negligent. Each state has different statutory and/or case law on this. Most states, in fact, agree that you CAN'T sue if you've signed a waiver - even if the entity is negligent (ordinary not gross negligence). A handful of states invalidate the waiver if the entity is negligent. It's really a case by case and state by state analysis.

[Canusa02]

I'm glad the courts ruled on the side of common sense.

The next thing you know some idiot will sue a fast food franchise for $3 million because their coffee is too hot.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

 

This is my son last week on Flowrider on FOS. During our cruise, a child broke his toe and an adult broke her leg, both on Flowrider. I still signed the waiver and let my son ride, even with broken toe boy standing next to us. As you can see by the line, many other parents made the same decision.:)

 

Having fun can be a bit risky at times, you take your chances or you miss out on lots of good stuff. My son was fine, no injuries.:)

 

If he had been injured, I certainly woulnd't try to sue, I'd add it to the list of his other silly teen boy injuries and move on.....

[QTMichele]

Scottee25 - Uh - I'm a lawyer and I don't agree that "most any lawyer" would agree that a waiver is invalid if the company is negligent. Each state has different statutory and/or case law on this. Most states, in fact, agree that you CAN'T sue if you've signed a waiver - even if the entity is negligent (ordinary not gross negligence). A handful of states invalidate the waiver if the entity is negligent. It's really a case by case and state by state analysis.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but sometimes I wish I was so I could muddle through the legalese. ;)

 

You mentioned that most states agree that you can't sue if you've signed a waiver... I must not live in one of them. A local non-profit organization that has an annual marathon is currently being sued by a man who was hit by a car (he was "fine" - minor injuries) during the race. He states it was the race director's fault and is now suing almost EVERYONE involved. Go figure.

[liberiben]

We practically live on the Flowrider on the ships, and I have been hurt several times but not by falling but by the board itself. Everything has risks, and I am willing to take them, too fun not too.

[lovesublime]

I'm glad the courts ruled on the side of common sense.

The next thing you know some idiot will sue a fast food franchise for $3 million because their coffee is too hot.

 

 

 

You obviously don't know or choose to ignore the facts of that hot coffee case. McDonald's had been warned and cited numerous times prior to that incident their coffee was dangerously hot. Not just hot, but boiling hot. Hot enough to to cause full thickness third degree burns. McDonald's was serving their coffee at temps of 180-190 degrees F. The plaintiff didn't receive anywhere near 3 million dollars.

[CI66774]

QTMichele - what I meant to say, it's Friday and I'm exhausted, was - anyone can sue - but the majority of states agree that you won't be successful if you signed a waiver - even in the presence of ordinary negligence.

[shmthaus]

Saw a woman walking into a store and was not paying attention and tripped on the curb. She fell and broke her ankle. Tried to sue the store for the curb being there...

 

No joke, real deal.

 

You can get hurt anywhere, anytime.

 

I go to arrest someone and they fight me and I break my hand, do I sue the department or the person I arrest? My job is inherently dangerous, yet I do it anyway.

 

You go swimming in the ocean and there are signs on the beach regarding rip tides. You go swimming anyway and get swept under and almost drown. Do you sue the lifeguard or the city/county in charge of the beach??? Swimming in the ocean is inherently dangerous.

 

Some people really need a reality check.:eek: