Universal Sued Over Death After Riding Reign of Kong

Ultranel

Member
Jun 13, 2015
543
Celebration, FL
I'm sorry but It's the 1st one on the list and I don't have to read to know what it means. The graphic it's obvious... it does not mean "Your heart will sing for you to dance" it's more like "something about heart, and awkward posture.... OMG I'm going to die!" and please don't tell me they are Puertorican because English is their second language and it is obligatory from 1st grade to College.... so no excuses!


PS: I guess the 3rd one would be "if you are a female and have swallowed a basketball, you can't ride" lol
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: tankart150

OLSinFLA

Veteran Member
May 26, 2012
1,405
That "world" is only the USA.
The rest of the world thinks someone putting a dog in a microwave to dry it is an idiot, the same for hot coffee from Mc Donalds and the whole "act of God" thing. I laughed my butt off when we bought a home in Orlando and read all the disclaimers.

Point is, did Universal does its best to make clear what the ride was in a reasonable way. The official language of the US is (a sort of) English. As a visitor I know that so it's up to me to get information. The same if someone from the US comes to The Netherlands (although 99% talks and understands English).
There is no braille in front of the ride on the sign, but a blind person knows he/she should get info in another way and Universal also provides that. Then there are maps in a load of common languages, there is online information, customer service and team members who all are ready, willing and educated by Universal to assist a guest and get them the information they need.
So on the question "did Universal do enough" I would say yes.
It's terrible what happened, no one wants that, and I think it's unfortunate and unrelated. I think they went for a low amount to get it settled out of court and I thing an American bread lawyer put the family up to this to earn easy money over this tragedy.
The McDonald's lawsuit was not a frivolous lawsuit. They were sued for neigigence because they were aware the coffee was so hot it was undrinkable, and could cause permanent damage. Complaints had been lodged. The women ended up with severe burns (her flesh was literally melted). Since McD was aware of both the unsafe conditions of what they were serving, had been aware of the danger and chose to ignore it, and was actively making the situation dangerous on purpose they lost the lawsuit to willful negligence. There are many websites explaining why this lawsuit was won, and why it was important.
 

natespf

--Classified--
Premium Member
Apr 1, 2013
1,647
We may need to spin this off into another thread if McDonald's hot coffee keeps coming up...

McDonald's admitted they knew hot coffee is inherently dangerous, as in all hot coffee can cause serious injury if handled improperly. Every major chain that serves it has had reports of burns and has been sued over it. This case was an anomaly as it was a longer exposure time than others. But the temperature was within regulation and this has not changed, it's still legal to serve coffee just as hot today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tielo

tielo

Veteran Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,840
The Netherlands
The whole coffee reaction thing makes my point. It's kind of funny how some don't seem to get that. Saying a claim that coffee is served too hot is insane. Coffee, thee and food are served hot all over the world. Driving and drinking coffee in a car not so much (car death in the US is extremely high compared to any other first world country) but that is beside the point. Literally no where in the world a judge would take this claim series. It is also one example of a few I made who are not reacted on but are as silly as the coffee one.
But I get it. Americans think it's normal to sue over coffee, a drink made with boiled water and than served. So the seller should first blow it a bit colder so the idiot customer won't get burned. Great.
The point I failed to make is that I don't think the family of the unfortunates man made the claim but a US lawyer did. Sorry if I ridiculed your claiming culture, and don't forget the use sunscreen because you can't sue the sun if you get sunburn, or can you? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HPFred and natespf

natespf

--Classified--
Premium Member
Apr 1, 2013
1,647
That is the whole point of the sign in English that everyone just walks past and doesn't even read. Every ride points out that they are not responsible for pre-existing conditions just to avoid frivolous lawsuits. Of course if the ride malfunctions and someone is injured or dies it would be the park's (or possibly manufacturer's) fault. But they're often basically forced to settle in cases like this too because of the factor that juries can be swayed by emotions.

Also I should point out though the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself was not driving (she was in passenger seat) before someone chimes in to say it as if that somehow changes the fact it was undisputed that she caused the spill (she put the cup between her legs and pulled the lid off).
 
  • Like
Reactions: truejonas
Nov 30, 2015
117
It is also one example of a few I made who are not reacted on but are as silly as the coffee one.
But I get it. Americans think it's normal to sue over coffee, a drink made with boiled water and than served. So the seller should first blow it a bit colder so the idiot customer won't get burned. Great.
The point I failed to make is that I don't think the family of the unfortunates man made the claim but a US lawyer did. Sorry if I ridiculed your claiming culture, and don't forget the use sunscreen because you can't sue the sun if you get sunburn, or can you? ;)
I know this is getting off topic, but I just want to chime in and say do some research on the McDonald's hot coffee case - it's not as frivolous as you think.

 

natespf

--Classified--
Premium Member
Apr 1, 2013
1,647
I know this is getting off topic, but I just want to chime in and say do some research on the McDonald's hot coffee case - it's not as frivolous as you think.

Adam's sources don't actually say what he claims, he's a comedian not an actual journalist ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tielo

OLSinFLA

Veteran Member
May 26, 2012
1,405
We may need to spin this off into another thread if McDonald's hot coffee keeps coming up...

McDonald's admitted they knew hot coffee is inherently dangerous, as in all hot coffee can cause serious injury if handled improperly. Every major chain that serves it has had reports of burns and has been sued over it. This case was an anomaly as it was a longer exposure time than others. But the temperature was within regulation and this has not changed, it's still legal to serve coffee just as hot today.
Incorrect
What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit - Vox
 

OLSinFLA

Veteran Member
May 26, 2012
1,405
The article you linked doesn't say anything against what I pointed out. And it is based on Adam's biased and misleading comedy segment. But it does go to show my point earlier of how easily juries can be swayed.
1) The article stated McDonald's changed the temperature coffee was served at 2)Pointed out that McDonald's was aware of the danger and ignored it (hence why it was willful negligence) 3) The coffee could not be drunk at the temperature it was served which was a core part of the argument. There are many, many many articles about this case long before Adam even ran his segment. I'm done now.
 

natespf

--Classified--
Premium Member
Apr 1, 2013
1,647
1) The article stated McDonald's changed the temperature coffee was served at 2)Pointed out that McDonald's was aware of the danger and ignored it (hence why it was willful negligence) 3) The coffee could not be drunk at the temperature it was served which was a core part of the argument. There are many, many many articles about this case long before Adam even ran his segment. I'm done now.
Well I am glad you're done, but just because Adam, Vox, or anyone else says something does not make it true.

1) It is still legal to serve coffee just as hot today. Vox does not cite a source other than Adam. Adam cites sources for just 3 of his claims, that are actually opinion pieces and don't actually say what he claims anyway. The source cited for this claim literally says the opposite.

2) Again McDonald's is aware that hot coffee is inherently dangerous, as in everyone who serves hot coffee serves a product that can cause serious injury if handled improperly. The big change that happened is the fast food industry voluntarily started putting "caution: hot" labeling on products people already knew were hot. Which is why it's being related to "we are not responsible for pre-existing conditions" signs on rides..

3) Again, that is not illegal. The serving temperatures are based on market research and consumer demand. Many other vendors of hot coffee also serve it too hot to immediately consume. Traditionally people enjoy the experience of slowly starting to sip on the beverage as it cools.

McDonald’s has taken some remedial measures in the aftermath of the Liebeck lawsuit. Many McDonald’s drive-thrus now have a sign warning, “Coffee, tea and hot chocolate are VERY HOT!” Also, the lids of McDonald’s hot beverage cups are now embossed with the words “HOT! HOT! HOT!” It is debatable whether the coffee at McDonald’s is served any cooler than the coffee that injured Liebeck. Some sources indicate that McDonald’s current policy is to serve coffee between 175-195 degrees Fahrenheit.62 The industry standard still calls for near boiling temperatures for the best-tasting coffee.63 Hence, the current reaction to coffee lawsuits is to do a better job of warning, but maintain the temperature for better tasting java.
 

OLSinFLA

Veteran Member
May 26, 2012
1,405
Well I am glad you're done, but just because Adam, Vox, or anyone else says something does not make it true.

1) It is still legal to serve coffee just as hot today. Vox does not cite a source other than Adam. Adam cites sources for just 3 of his claims, that are actually opinion pieces and don't actually say what he claims anyway. The source cited for this claim literally says the opposite.

2) Again McDonald's is aware that hot coffee is inherently dangerous, as in everyone who serves hot coffee serves a product that can cause serious injury if handled improperly. The big change that happened is the fast food industry voluntarily started putting "caution: hot" labeling on products people already knew were hot. Which is why it's being related to "we are not responsible for pre-existing conditions" signs on rides..

3) Again, that is not illegal. The serving temperatures are based on market research and consumer demand. Many other vendors of hot coffee also serve it too hot to immediately consume. Traditionally people enjoy the experience of slowly starting to sip on the beverage as it cools.
You obviously are incapable of searching the internet.
 

natespf

--Classified--
Premium Member
Apr 1, 2013
1,647
This does illustrate the point though. Once you can get someone to make an emotional decision they'll ignore the facts and bend over backwards to justify the opinion. That's why Universal may just settle this case so they don't get into a situation like that. I did read on the internet that Kong is a rollercoaster so it must be true. Like I said earlier the overwhelming public reaction is "duh, it's too intense" and "how would he know that". It's cognitive dissonance as these are mutually exclusive thoughts being used in the same sentence.
 

UniversalRBLX

Veteran Member
Nov 3, 2015
2,733
Cabana Bae
Does Kong have a video in the queue? I don't remember there being one? Every other main/thrill ride in the resort shows a video in the queue of the ride.