Flowrider Lawsuit

[OSUZorba]

The only time I've really been hurt on the Flowrider was from falling on my shoulder the first time I ever tried standup. (No massive damage, my shoulder was just tender for a few months.)

 

On my last cruise, the first night no one was at the wave for boogie boarding. I rode probably 45 times in a couple of hours. By the end, I was feeling pretty beat up from the mat at the top where the water drains. I think I hit the wall a few times, but the mat hurts a lot more if you hit it wrong. Overall, with all those wipe outs, one right after another, I had no damage that lasted more than that night. I don't see the aft wall being inherently dangerous.

 

Of course, in an interactive activity there is always a risk, and you can hit that wall a hundred times and be fine, then on the 101 time hit it just a little wrong and break something.

[Domino D]

Again, lawyers without knowledge of the actual physical stuff.... The wall is not where injuries occur. They occur on the wave, more often than anywhere else. Usually when the board hits the person falling.

 

You are speaking of knowledge, when the problem is apathy. Lawyers do not care about anything but liability. This all that I am conveying. Who will be considered to blame legally? I get that you really enjoy the flowrider, and are a passionate defender, but you keep explaining causation, and I have only discussed liability. It would be like me telling you I hate pickles, and you respond with pickles are green and usually just cucumbers soaked in spices. I don't work for the cruise line, I'm not the judge, I won't be on the jury, so I don't have to decide who ultimately is to blame. By the way, it wouldn't matter if I did have an opinion, I can't effect the outcome.

 

If they make the landing area at the top the size of a football field nobody will hit the wall, they might walk into it and get hurt, but the wall is not the real issue. Which is why I don't think their modification is the issue. Places that concern me on the wave are the top of the wave where it is not a trampoline any more, but a padded piece of structure. The top of the wave beyond the wave where it is a deck with holes for the water to return to the pumps is hard when you fall there you are going to feel it.

 

In my opinion (normally IMO or IMHO) the waves on the modified Explorer class ships are no more dangerous than the other waves. In fact on the Navigator the deck above the wave is padded better than the Oasis.

 

You keep explaining this to me as if I am saying that the modifications made it more dangerous. I promise you, I am not thinking that Royal did anything wrong. Mainly because I am not an engineer. I am only trying to explain the much bigger legal issue with modifying the ride. You are ignoring the HUGE problem of the legal responsibility of being declared the manufacturer. I know this probably doesn't make sense, but it is much worse for Royal to ruled as a manufacturer, then to simply be told you are liable for a single incident. If Royal is legally declared the manufacturer, but wins this case for all the reasons you state, they are worse off then if they lose this case without that finding. With the manufacturer ruling they will have to worry about class action suits, where everyone injured could be lumped into one single case. This is the mistake the McDonalds lawyers made and why that is relevant. The woman offered to settle for 20K. They could have paid her that tiny amount, slapped her with a non disclosure agreement, and 99% of the people on earth wouldn't even know it ever happened. For some crazy reason, they decided, lets go to court, and found out the hard way. Whether you think it is unfair for the people to blame Royal, they should pay them off, NDA them, and move on.

 

To your point a lot of people ride without getting hurt, all the more reason to settle and not risk greater legal exposure. I do find it telling that Flowrider Inc. is not involved as either a co-defendant, or offering testimony that they approved the changes from an engineering standpoint. This would go a long way in court. It feels like they may have thrown RC under the bus, but that is not anything I've actually read, just a gut thing.

 

The biggest mistake you can make when sued is to think you are right. Right is decided by others, you need to figure out if you can win.

 

I appreciate your apology. Losing your swim trunks comes down to knots. Learn them they are your friend.

I actually always surf with my board shorts tied to my rash guard I have had zero wardrobe failures after something approaching a thousand rides.

 

You are welcome for the apology, it was not what I meant to say . The wardrobe issue happened to my son when he was like 12 or 13. He learned that lesson on his own. He has done them since, and not repeated that mistake. Talk about instructions someone should give you before you ride, they may want to include that little hint.

 

My issue is with people who want to shut this down, because someone out of several thousands got hurt and hired a lawyer. It is inherently dangerous. If you don't want to get hurt, and you don't want to experience anything beyond a merry go round, please don't ride the flowrider. Actually when I was five I fell off a merry go round....

 

I wouldn't worry to much about them being shut down. Anything is possible but I assure you, that is a long ways off. There will be appeals and filings, most likely the suits will be settled out of court, very quietly. We were once sued by a 40 something man who got drunk at the hotel, dove into our 3ft pool, and ended up paralyzed. He went to 3 different bars, because we kept shutting him off. He used his key to open the pool door which stayed locked at all times. He was accompanied by 5 friends who cheered him on. He ignored signage every 3 ft around the pool. We lost. The tipping point was a newspaper ad saying "Come enjoy our restaurants, bars, and pools". Good news is, hotels still have pools and bars, including that one. Most likely, you will see more signage, a change in the waiver, possibly showing the safety video while you are in line, and more regulations. You will for sure see somewhere, something like "If you have used other FlowRiders not on Royal Caribbean ships, please be advised that our flow riders have been modified to be XX feet by XX feet." It will likely be a lot wordier but I'm tired. Shutting them down, or even redoing them is not likely.

 

The key to a merry go round, at 5 especially, is to hold on. I have ridden merry go rounds 1000 times and never fell off.

 

 

O, I forgot, it is not about you doing things it is about you stealing money. Sorry, back to your regular scheduled program.

 

JC

 

I doubt anyone got on the Flowrider with the intent of suing. There are much easier ways. They may have been pursued by a lawyer looking for cases, but that is someone doing their job. It is indeed about money, but that holds true for both sides. Do not kid yourself that everything RC does, including modifying the ride, isn't some how related to money. Trust me, this is not even close to stealing. Assuming the individuals were hurt, these are quite legitimate compared to some suits. You haven't been sued until you have been sued because the exterior color of your building is causing emotional stress on an entire homeowners association. We settled that one. Painted the building beige. Had we gone to court and gotten the wrong judge or jury, they probably end up with punitive damages. Have a great night. Enjoyed reading your posts.

[xpcdoojk]

I can't say I disagree with any of your points regarding the legal aspects. I am not a lawyer, I am an economist and a businessman. Our company has settled cases when the facts were on our sides for exactly the reasons you stated. I get it. We all get that for the most part.

 

The part where you are wrong is about the stealing certain legal firms exist for exactly this purpose. There is an industry of lawyers who go after cruise ships. There is an industry of lawyers who go after trucking firms.

 

Of course, some of them are righting wrongs, but most of them are just looking for a way to steal a buck in a settlement.

 

The flowrider is dangerous. I suppose someday someone will fall and hit their head and they will have an underlying disposition that makes hitting their head more dangerous than for most folks, and someone will die. Something that happens everyday in other "normal" activities. You can not legislate or sue the world into a "safe" place. The cost to the rest of the world in trying to make things absolutely safe in all cases for everyone is another Utopian idea. Nobody has unlimited boat loads of money. Everything ever built has been built with compromises in both design and execution. Lawyers exploit this and do-gooders fail to understand.

 

Yes I am sure it is possible that RCI with Waveloch's help they might have had the size of the wave modified. Again there is no perfect size for a flowrider. Yes, I assume if they did they did it for money. They did it to make their ships more attractive to those of us who like the flowrider. Yes they could have modified the ship in ways other than the way they did to make it fit without modifying it at more expense. Of course, we don't even know what the modifications are exactly or if they exist. There has been a lot of people guessing what they modified. I got involved because a lot of the speculators where speculating things that I don't believe to be true. Like the pumps are operated differently at different times.

 

JC

[mil76]

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect Royal is named as the manufacturer not due to the size of the Flowrider but due to the size of the wallet.

[cruiselvr04]

I just don't get it at all. You chose to get on knowing you could possibly get hurt, then when you get hurt you sue? Wow I really do feel like I'm getting old or that I was raised on a far away planet and dropped off here...lol. Let me put this steaming hot coffee in my lap and drive. Let me get on this wave thingy and if I get hurt well. What happened to personal responsibility? Or well does ANYONE remember when common sense was Common?! The system is so tyed up with stupid law suits. Not saying the person didn't get hurt. But He had to have known there was a chance. Oh well my rant is over

 

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Forums mobile app

 

Agree. You cannot watch people on the flow rider and not realize there is some risk.

 

My daughter (29) broke her tail bone on the thing. It hurt for months but of course she didn't sue as she knew there was risk.

 

I can't see RCL getting rid of them. They are busy everyday all day from what I've seen. Maybe they should have settled quietly out of court.....

[Domino D]

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect Royal is named as the manufacturer not due to the size of the Flowrider but due to the size of the wallet.

 

While I get your concept. No, it does not work that way. They would simply have sued both, if they had a case, no need to choose. The kind of lawyers most of you are imagining, would sue Royal, Flowrider, the company that makes the boogie board, the swimsuit manufacturer (overly slippery material), spectators (for not trying to catch the people), etc. No one has enough money, that you do not name everyone you can get away with in a frivolous action. They named Royal because that's where they had a case, and unfortunately the waiver became the biggest problem, instead of the best protection. It made Royal think were okay here, and led to the cases continuing.

[xpcdoojk]

While I get your concept. No, it does not work that way. They would simply have sued both, if they had a case, no need to choose. The kind of lawyers most of you are imagining, would sue Royal, Flowrider, the company that makes the boogie board, the swimsuit manufacturer (overly slippery material), spectators (for not trying to catch the people), etc. No one has enough money, that you do not name everyone you can get away with in a frivolous action. They named Royal because that's where they had a case, and unfortunately the waiver became the biggest problem, instead of the best protection. It made Royal think were okay here, and led to the cases continuing.

 

You actually know that is why they sued RCI?

 

I am guessing that RCI is the only company that they can make a lot of money if they win. To Sue Waveloch a company that might cost to buy it less than the cheapest ship in RCI's fleet. Is not likely to make them nearly as much as suing RCI.

 

JC

[Domino D]

You actually know that is why they sued RCI?

 

I am guessing that RCI is the only company that they can make a lot of money if they win. To Sue Waveloch a company that might cost to buy it less than the cheapest ship in RCI's fleet. Is not likely to make them nearly as much as suing RCI.

 

JC

 

Very Fair question. In every case I have seen, someone got hurt on the Flowrider and felt that, at least in part, it was Royal Caribbean's fault. That is why they are being sued. In each case, RC lawyers showed up and said "Your honor we do no dispute the injury, but the plaintiff signed a waiver indicating that they accepted all the risks, and agreed to not hold us responsible." This is the first thing that would have to be overcome in order to sue Royal. In one case, a woman was told by the attendant, something to the effect of "You are really doing great, try standing up". She was on a boogie board or body board (JC I'm sure you know what they mean, the one you lay and kneel on). This suggestion was directly in conflict with company policy and safety videos. Evidently there is a different board you stand on. In this instance, the person said "I got hurt because I followed instructions". Why on earth RC didn't settle this, is beyond me. They let it go to court, and this is where the waiver was declared illegal because it violated US Law, regarding a passenger ship operator being able to require a passenger to waive liability, even if the operator or their employee is at fault.

 

In this same law suit, the waiver was also challenged on the basis of RC having modified the ride, and therefore being the manufacturer. This opened the door for the law suit mentioned here. From what I have seen, this person fell and got hurt, without anything being RC's fault. The fact that RC was declared the manufacturer in a previous case, made the waiver invalid in this case as well. Had that not happened, the waiver probably would have held up in this case.

 

So it isn't that the modification is why they are being sued, or means they will even be found at fault. It simply invalidated the waiver, and allowed the law suit to continue.

 

It appears, had they settled the first suit, where they admitted the persons injuries were a direct result of their employees actions, the finding of manufacturer status would not yet exist. Instead they gambled that the waiver would insulate them, and lost.

 

I'm not saying that people don't think RC has more money, I don't know. I am saying, it is not an either or situation, they would sue both. I can't think of any reason they would have to pick one or the other. You are twice as likely to get something, especially since you could pit them against each other. The reason the first claim had two totally different arguments that the waiver was invalid, is because that is what you do. You raise as many arguments as you can, to increase your chances of winning on one. In this case they won on both. If the plaintiff's lawyers had any claim at all against the company that provides the ride, trust me they would take a shot. The size of the company, is not important to them. Do they think they can win?

 

I get that saying whether or not RC is to blame isn't the point, seems like complete nonsense, but long before you worry about if they are to blame, you have to get past the waiver. You all are entitled to an opinion on how much risk the user assumes. The RC risk assessment people don't have that luxury. They should have kept the challenge of the waiver out of court for as long as possible. The first case had enough question in it, that they should have known they "could" lose. That should have been the point where they settled.

[xpcdoojk]

Thanks for what actually seems like a very cogent legal arguement. I am not sure any other lawyer has ever made as cogent an argument in this forum. That is actually a compliment from me. NO SARCASM.

 

I still feel that they have decided to make RCI the manufacturer when they clearly are not is all about who can pay. I still think that suing on the basis of the modified flowrider is likely to not win any logical case, because the injuries happen during the fall, not smacking into the wall at the back. But hey... get it to a typical jury and have your client tell of horrible pain and suffering you might get the jury to agree that they need boat loads of money. Regardless that the actual injury happened during a fall and not due to the modification. Falling is inherently dangerous. Always has been always will be. Anyone looking at the flowrider for about 30 seconds would realize that falling is not only likely but happens almost every time someone does stand-up. I, also, can not imagine that any RCI staff told someone to stand-up on a boogie board. It seems like they are being sued based on a person not understanding that they didn't mean to do stand-up on a boogie board. Which is why they need as ignorant a jury as possible. Unfortunately, that is very possible.:evilsmile:

 

JC

[Domino D]

Thanks for what actually seems like a very cogent legal arguement. I am not sure any other lawyer has ever made as cogent an argument in this forum. That is actually a compliment from me. NO SARCASM.

 

I still feel that they have decided to make RCI the manufacturer when they clearly are not...

 

Which is why they need as ignorant a jury as possible. Unfortunately, that is very possible.:evilsmile:

 

JC

 

Thanks for the kind words, and hey you read it all, a lot of people wouldn't do that. I did enjoy talking it through with you. Logical and legal are not always the same. It is shocking sometimes. I can't imagine another way, that RC would be thought of as the manufacturer, accept in terms of product liability. Assessing risk is really not even purely about knowing laws. It is understanding a game.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Forums mobile app

[Ocean Boy]

Very Fair question. In every case I have seen, someone got hurt on the Flowrider and felt that, at least in part, it was Royal Caribbean's fault......./quote]

Very interesting post, thanks. (I cut it just to save space.)

[SRF]

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 was at about 180 for their coffee.

 

And they paid a number of medical claims for others having been burned by their coffee. And then brushed off this woman.

 

Hmm, serve your coffee hotter than standard. Admit guilt through paying claims. Have a record of complaints about the temp.

 

Yes, the woman was not totally without fault, but McDs was not fault free either.

[traveler279]

The case that started this thread was mediated and closed July 7, 2017.

 

I'm not seeing any public information regarding the settlement.

 

By the way, the flowrider case for which there is a link twice in this thread is an earlier case, 2011, involving Heather Morris. I'm not seeing any record of resolution for that case.

[ONECRUISER]

McD was at about 180 for their coffee.

 

And they paid a number of medical claims for others having been burned by their coffee. And then brushed off this woman.

 

Hmm, serve your coffee hotter than standard. Admit guilt through paying claims. Have a record of complaints about the temp.

 

Yes, the woman was not totally without fault, but McDs was not fault free either.

I actually knew that. 7 months ago when this thread began was responding to quotes that anything higher then 140 is too hot. Managed BK in 1980-90's and that was temp Corp had us served at back then. What I've read recently is: McDonalds still is as hot as when this accident happened 25 yrs ago, admitted no fault, award was reduced to few hundred thousand dollars. Settlement covered the LAWYER, medical costs and some left for her to have home nursing her last few yrs. Burger King(now) and Starbucks are currently served even hotter then McDonalds...

[A&L_Ont]

The case that started this thread was mediated and closed July 7, 2017.

 

I'm not seeing any public information regarding the settlement.

 

By the way, the flowrider case for which there is a link twice in this thread is an earlier case, 2011, involving Heather Morris. I'm not seeing any record of resolution for that case.

 

Thanks for the info regarding the two cases. Rather interesting.

[xpcdoojk]

The case that started this thread was mediated and closed July 7, 2017.

 

I'm not seeing any public information regarding the settlement.

 

By the way, the flowrider case for which there is a link twice in this thread is an earlier case, 2011, involving Heather Morris. I'm not seeing any record of resolution for that case.

 

Generally, the basic rules of a settlement are everything is closed and hidden. I was once on a jury with a good bleeding heart liberal judge whose brother was governor, and when we sat in the jury box for about 10 days, the judge told us we were no longer needed as the parties had settled. Basically he said, that it was a good settlement.

 

It was a case of a horrible cancer, and possible malpractice. Ugh... glad they settled.

 

JC

[Sail Mama]

. It seems like they are being sued based on a person not understanding that they didn't mean to do stand-up on a boogie board. Which is why they need as ignorant a jury as possible. Unfortunately, that is very possible.:evilsmile:JC

 

Which is why the waiver should not be enforced and a jury left to decide.

[xpcdoojk]

Which is why the waiver should not be enforced and a jury left to decide.

 

Ok, it is great to hear the washing machine is still working.:eek:

 

Give it a rest.

 

JC

[Ocean Boy]

Apparently In America you can sue because your an idiot without common sense. Life contains risks that are apparent and many times you are warned. If you fail you should pay the other sides costs and that will dissuade you from suing because your an idiot.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

And in America you can be an idiot without common sense and still win, too.