Flowrider Lawsuit

[Biker19]

One can hope.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[constable145]

You're an amazing speed reader. It took me 2.8 seconds just to read your post. Do you know how I can get a copy of this waiver?

Does it really matter? It is a standard waiver.

 

We get it. You think the flowrider is an evil, nasty contraption that can injure someone.

 

So don't go on it. While you're not going on it, don't try to ruin it for those of us who do.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Ocean Boy]

How about asking prospective riders before getting on the ride are they sure that they want to take the risk of being seriously injured? How many prospective riders do you think would change their minds if they were clear that they could be seriously injured?

How about reading the waiver and its terms before blindly clicking on the "accept" button? How many years does one have to live before getting a sense of activities that could possibly have a risk of injury associated with them?

 

I rode my bike to the beach yesterday. There was not one notice anywhere that I might get killed on the bike. There was not one sign at the beach that that I could get injured by surf, bit by sea creatures, burnt by the sun, or drown in the ocean. Somehow I knew all of those risks, I think it is called common sense, and continued with the activities.

[swoopy2110]

How about asking prospective riders before getting on the ride are they sure that they want to take the risk of being seriously injured? How many prospective riders do you think would change their minds if they were clear that they could be seriously injured?

 

You have to sign the waiver before the let you near it. The waiver clearly states it may cause injury. If you choose not to read the watier, that is not their fault. There is also signs up around the ride saying similar.

 

If you still fail to read any of it and didn't realise you may get hurt, you're a moron.

[A&L_Ont]

How about reading the waiver and its terms before blindly clicking on the "accept" button? How many years does one have to live before getting a sense of activities that could possibly have a risk of injury associated with them?

 

I rode my bike to the beach yesterday. There was not one notice anywhere that I might get killed on the bike. There was not one sign at the beach that that I could get injured by surf, bit by sea creatures, burnt by the sun, or drown in the ocean. Somehow I knew all of those risks, I think it is called common sense, and continued with the activities.

 

Possibly the post of the day.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

Possibly the post of the day.

Yup...summed things up quite well.

[Newbie Cruiser 2010]

Lawsuits is why we can't have nice things, haha.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Now isn't that the truth!

[Newbie Cruiser 2010]

Not to the point that it's so hot that it can cause 3rd degree burns and death. Many get caught up on the notion that because she spilled it on her lap she and she alone was responsible for her injuries. Consider that someone could have attained 3rd degree burns in her mouth if she had merely sipped the coffee. What then- should she have waited 2 hours before sipping it to make sure that it was safe? If McDs had received multiple complaints that the coffee was too hot, the it should have remedied the problem before getting sued.

 

Up Next: waiver must be signed before McDonalds hands you your hot coffee.....

[Lordnlkon]

How about reading the waiver and its terms before blindly clicking on the "accept" button? How many years does one have to live before getting a sense of activities that could possibly have a risk of injury associated with them?

 

I rode my bike to the beach yesterday. There was not one notice anywhere that I might get killed on the bike. There was not one sign at the beach that that I could get injured by surf, bit by sea creatures, burnt by the sun, or drown in the ocean. Somehow I knew all of those risks, I think it is called common sense, and continued with the activities.

 

 

Very well said. Common sense unfortunately isn't all that common. Royal Caribbean gives plenty of notice about the dangers on the flowrider, even to the point they barely let us do anything on it anymore because they are wanting to mitigate any remote chance of injury. Sadly because of people like a few from this thread. A lot of us, have to have a very watered down experience. If you can't use yours eyes and your brain and make an informed decision for yourself, then I have zero sympathy.

[Blizzard54]

Laura won't let me ride, err try to ride, anymore. [emoji33]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

Wise woman

[John&LaLa]

Wise woman

Yes she is. I do like to watch others attempt it. [emoji12]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[Blizzard54]

Yes she is. I do like to watch others attempt it. [emoji12]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

Both Marilyn and I have ridden it....and survived.

[xpcdoojk]

Laura won't let me ride, err try to ride, anymore. [emoji33]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

 

Tell Laura a man has got to do what a man has got to do. I know, men never tell women anything today. Yes ma'am. No ma'am. Thank you ma'am.

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

It sounds as though we have one or two less riders because of this thread. Hopefully the lines will be shorter.

 

Please please let Andrew's dream be true.

 

JC<----- praying

[xpcdoojk]

How about reading the waiver and its terms before blindly clicking on the "accept" button? How many years does one have to live before getting a sense of activities that could possibly have a risk of injury associated with them?

 

I rode my bike to the beach yesterday. There was not one notice anywhere that I might get killed on the bike. There was not one sign at the beach that that I could get injured by surf, bit by sea creatures, burnt by the sun, or drown in the ocean. Somehow I knew all of those risks, I think it is called common sense, and continued with the activities.

 

I went out this morning to do a 20 mile ride. 13 miles in and 2 miles before the turn to home. It started to rain. I was riding up and down hills in a driving rain, I could have been hit by a car. I could have slipped off the road, should I sue, the people who built the road, the people who sold me the bike, the people who made the bike. Very inherently dangerous and they completely didn't care about me. I was out there all alone...

 

somehow I managed to get home and made my wife eggs and bacon for breakfast. It is a miracle I say. A true miracle. Darn, no chance to sue anyone. Well maybe tomorrow!

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

Very well said. Common sense unfortunately isn't all that common. Royal Caribbean gives plenty of notice about the dangers on the flowrider, even to the point they barely let us do anything on it anymore because they are wanting to mitigate any remote chance of injury. Sadly because of people like a few from this thread. A lot of us, have to have a very watered down experience. If you can't use yours eyes and your brain and make an informed decision for yourself, then I have zero sympathy.

 

OMG, you are so correct. Our last cruise on the Ovation, the kids trying to do rudimentary tricks just quit after being yelled at every time. It makes me very sad.

 

JC

[Paulxyz2004]

I went out this morning to do a 20 mile ride. 13 miles in and 2 miles before the turn to home. It started to rain. I was riding up and down hills in a driving rain, I could have been hit by a car. I could have slipped off the road, should I sue, the people who built the road, the people who sold me the bike, the people who made the bike. Very inherently dangerous and they completely didn't care about me. I was out there all alone...

 

somehow I managed to get home and made my wife eggs and bacon for breakfast. It is a miracle I say. A true miracle. Darn, no chance to sue anyone. Well maybe tomorrow!

 

JC

 

No chance to sue ??? Well maybe true, but certainly there is a chance to be sued for you. You made your wife eggs and bacon for breakfast. This can be considered unhealthy food and your wife could suffer health issues from consuming it and thus having a reason to sue you:p.

 

Getting to my office I have to use a set of stairs and they didn´t make me sign a waiver though it´s commonly known how you can injure or kill yourself with tripping on stairs.:rolleyes:

[CRUISEFAN0001]

Even Bart knows this is wrong...

Flowrider is probably not the only "danger" onboard either...

[mollyeilis]

I know this is ancient...

 

Yes I researched that story eons ago, unfortunately it changes nothing. The woman was irresponsible not McDonalds. I'm on their side. I guess you would want them to serve iced coffee to be sure no one else puts a scalding cup of coffee between their legs. Duh. We've all burned our mouths on hot drinks at some point haven't we? In fact I do it pretty often.:o If this had happened at home, who would she have sued? O yeah, the coffeemaker or the mircro wave seller...

 

 

 

When will people in this country take responsibility for their own mistakes??.....I guess never, as long as lawyers rule the courts. Geez, I wonder why the other million +++ people who got the same coffee managed to use their grey matter and not get burned at all, in fact actually put that hot coffee in their mouths and swallowed?? I'd rather believe that 700 people were not cautious but careless. Why do you think Starbucks provides sleeves for their coffee? But now, you have to put them on the cup yourself, because some Barista didn't put one on right and someone tripped and burned themselves.:rolleyes:

 

 

 

The moral of this story is what my Gram always taught us as kids:

 

You can believe fire will burn you, but when you get burned, you KNOW it will burn you! So....you better make sure it doesn't happen.

 

 

 

Yes, sometimes companies knowingly do the wrong things and must be held accountable, IMHO this wasn't one of them. And if anyone reads the waiver before they sign it, which I am convinced hardly ever happens, then enough said. You ride at your own peril.:cool:

 

 

1992. Coffee was in styrofoam. You couldn't tell the heat of it with your fingers. The coffee meant to be drunk caused 3rd degree burns. She had to have skin grafts. She was an elderly woman having skin grafts on her groin area because mcd kept their coffee ridiculously hot.

 

The lawsuit made it through all the checks and balances in the court system. She won because it was righteous. Jury awarded an amount which took into consideration the kart she had in it (gosh forbid she put cream and sugar in it). It was a high amount. We have NO idea how much she got because that was sealed.

 

I don't understand how anyone can think this wasn't righteous.

 

"Sorry grandma, I know the cup prevented you from knowing just how hot it was but I suppose you should have waited an hour before opening the cup. Or just drink it. Because surely coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns on your groin will be just fine going down your throat!"

 

 

Starbucks has sleeves partially because of this! And because styrofoam isn't used anymore.

 

I won't use the sleeves. If the paper cup of coffee is too hot for me to hold, it's too hot for me to drink yet. I won't be denied one if my "is this dangerous?" senses.

 

People like their coffee HOT! Easier to cool it down then warm it up after you leave the store... When I was Rest MGR 20-35 yrs ago all places I worked for kept coffee around 160-168 degrees. Always Hot...

 

 

Mcd kept it 180-190 back then. That's a lot hotter than yours.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

I don't understand how anyone can think this wasn't righteous.

Hot coffee is HOT. :eek:

 

We seem to live in a time where people have no accountable for their own actions, want to blame everyone else for their own mistakes, and shout out the word lawyer whenever things go amuck. "Excuse Syndrome".

 

Righteous - no way - even a panel of 12 Forest Gumps could figure that one out...but apparently they found a jury of people who need remedial common sense training 101.

[LMaxwell]

Hot coffee is HOT. :eek:

 

Righteous - no way - even a panel of 12 Forest Gumps could figure that one out...but apparently they found a jury of people who need remedial common sense training.

 

There is hot, and there is hotter than what would be commonly accepted as normal, such as the case mentioned. This is the bottom line, and simple to understand, point.

 

As for a lawsuit regarding the Flowrider; it is not about accepting reasonable risk and understanding of potential injury from falls. It is about whether the machine was being operated as intended for normal use, or was it being operated outside of normal parameters. If the machine was being operated as intended and designed, the plaintiff will not win. If it is determined that the machine was being operated in some other way, increased power, for instance, that one would not normally expect, then the plaintiff has a good chance of the case being found in their favor.

 

Sensational headlines often lead to lawsuits being derided as frivolous, but it takes further investigation into details to see if something was beyond normal parameters. That is information that will come out in court. Of course that does not stop people shaming the plaintiff and white knighting for the cruise line without relevant facts. If, indeed, the Flowrider was being operated outside normal parameters I'd think other cruise guests would want to know, as well as the company, so operators could be retrained, procedures reviewed, etc. to prevent this happening again. Is it more important to operate the attraction unsafely, or to operate it only when it can be done safely? In this case since the Flowrider isn't an extra charge attraction I see little to no point in knowingly operating it unsafely, so that introduces a question of inexperience or negligence.

 

I'm not going to shame an injured party until all the facts are out.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

There is hot, and there is hotter than what would be commonly accepted as normal, such as the case mentioned. This is the bottom line, and simple to understand, point.

Agree - it's a simple point - care should be taken in EITHER case.

 

Spilling either one...is not the coffee's fault, although there are some people who could likely justify it is in their own minds.

[Thetrail]

There is hot, and there is hotter than what would be commonly accepted as normal, such as the case mentioned. This is the bottom line, and simple to understand, point.

 

As for a lawsuit regarding the Flowrider; it is not about accepting reasonable risk and understanding of potential injury from falls. It is about whether the machine was being operated as intended for normal use, or was it being operated outside of normal parameters. If the machine was being operated as intended and designed, the plaintiff will not win. If it is determined that the machine was being operated in some other way, increased power, for instance, that one would not normally expect, then the plaintiff has a good chance of the case being found in their favor.

 

Sensational headlines often lead to lawsuits being derided as frivolous, but it takes further investigation into details to see if something was beyond normal parameters. That is information that will come out in court. Of course that does not stop people shaming the plaintiff and white knighting for the cruise line without relevant facts. If, indeed, the Flowrider was being operated outside normal parameters I'd think other cruise guests would want to know, as well as the company, so operators could be retrained, procedures reviewed, etc. to prevent this happening again. Is it more important to operate the attraction unsafely, or to operate it only when it can be done safely? In this case since the Flowrider isn't an extra charge attraction I see little to no point in knowingly operating it unsafely, so that introduces a question of inexperience or negligence.

 

I'm not going to shame an injured party until all the facts are out.

Again another bull---- post! The being operated outside of normal parameters argument is pure hogwash and speculation. The flowrider has the same water pressure each and every day that you happen to be using it. It is another frivolous lawsuit by another ignorant moron.:rolleyes:

[LMaxwell]

Agree - it's a simple point - care should be taken in EITHER case.

 

Spilling either one...is not the coffee's fault, although there are some people who could likely justify it is in their own minds.

 

No one blamed McDonalds for the spilling. That was clearly accidental on the plaintiffs part. But it is a reasonable expectation that if one does spill coffee the burns would not be so severe because the normal serving temperature is lower.

 

So yes, we can put some "blame" for the accidental spill on the plaintiff, but the actual damage caused was outside of normal expectations and that is because the vendor supplied a product hotter than normal. These are really two separate and mutual points. One does not negate the other. It's really fascinating that in a 25 year old case so many people miss the actual point and just kind of stick to the "stupid people sue because coffee is hot" line. Is it the dumbing down of society the people don't want to find or don't care about relevant details?

 

So back to the Flowrider in question; did injuries result from a normally operating machine, in which case plaintiff does not have much of a case, or was the machine being operated outside of normal design parameters, in which case plaintiff has a case. The machine operating as designed doesn't release a user from having to be careful, but a machine operating outside of normal design parameters has a higher potential to cause injury to a user no matter their skill or care level.

 

I am not a Flowrider operator and I don't know the inner workings of the machine, but let's say, just for discussion sake, the machine has 5 pumps and is designed to move water at 25 mph; if one pump was broken, does the manufacturer state to stop using the machine? Or is it accepted practice with the design of the machine to increase power of the 4 remaining pumps? If it is determined that 25 MPH is the optimal flow of water for "normal" use of the machine, what does increasing the flow to 30, 35, or 40 MPH do? Does the risk increase in a linear way? Does the operator have any requirement to disclose that the flow of water is above normal recommended limits? Does RCI's lawyers apply a different limit than the manufacturer would (more conservative?). These are the sort of questions that would be asked at trial to determine if something is accidental of negligent.

[LMaxwell]

Again another bull---- post! The being operated outside of normal parameters argument is pure hogwash and speculation. The flowrider has the same water pressure each and every day that you happen to be using it. It is another frivolous lawsuit by another ignorant moron.:rolleyes:

 

The question is was the machine operated at a different speed and pressure. No need for personal attacks. Why are you always so nasty to me?