Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:06 AM | Contributed by Jeff
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios Orlando after she was allegedly electrocuted at Volcano Bay. April Carlino filed the suit in November for the incident which she said occurred on June 2 of last year. She is seeking $15,000 in the suit, in addition to interest and legal costs.
Read more from International Business Times.
Universal has countered the claims made by Carlino in her lawsuit, claiming that she “was negligent in that she failed to use reasonable care for her own safety and such failure was the proximate cause of the subject incident.”
This is a reasonably insane response. How is one negligent in their own safety to avoid electrocution in a water park? Should one test water for electrical current before entering it?
I find the general response by Universal in this case to be consistently horrible. You can't establish trust with the public when you've been dodgy and evasive about the problem from the start. A lot of my PR friends in the biz have been scratching their heads since the start. The right response was, "Yeah, we found a problem, we're sorry, we fixed it."
How is one negligent in their own safety to avoid electrocution in a water park? Should one test water for electrical current before entering it?
The only thing I can logically think is that someone said, "Don't step over there, there's electricity or something shocking everyone," and then she stepped over there.
But then I read the OSHA report saying Universal wasn't aware of the incident, which is why they weren't fined.
So, yes, asinine response is the only answer.Last edited by yawetag, Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:23 AM
If she's still around to file a lawsuit, I think it's safe to say no electrocution occurred!Last edited by Lankster, Thursday, January 30, 2020 1:11 PM
I think you misunderstand the word "electrocute".
I could be wrong, but I don't think the definition requires death.
I've electrocuted myself on a few occasions, and I'm reasonably certain I'm not dead, so...
At one time, the term "electrocute" implied that the victim died. If you were merely injured, then it was just an electric shock. At some point, the term became more of a blanket description. I always adhere to the old school definition. And get off my lawn while you're at it.
Yeah, I looked it up when I replied, and was amazed that there apparently is no longer a consensus of what "electrocute" means. Many sites still go with the standard "death required" definition, while others are fine with death or merely a mild shock!
I suppose drowned just means you got a bit of water in your mouth now? :-)
I get the origin, but I'm a week shy of 47 and I've never thought it implied only death.
to kill or severely injure by electric shock
Maybe it harkens back to the days when “Old Sparky” was useful in our state penitentiaries, where one was sentenced to death by electrocution.
I'm about 6 years older, Vater.
8.3, others (dictionary.com, cambridge dictionary for example) still say it means death.
Where is William Safire when you need him? (I'm pretty sure he'd agree with me, as he died quite a while ago!)
I'm with you Lankster, I was taught that electrocution meant a death occurred. Otherwise it was a shock.
Then big liberal dictionary came along and changed the definition of the word...
Well, this thread took a shocking turn.
It now seems to be focused on current events.
I don't see what all the buzz is about.
I’m not sure the definition of the term is really worth getting amped up about anyway.
Maybe we should just pull the plug on this one.
Exactly. Watts the big deal?
Ohm My God. Will this never end?
You must be logged in to post