In this interesting sj order from Judge Seitz, a Miami attorney fractured her leg on a cruise ship "amenity" known as a "FlowRider," which doesn't seem all that safe:
In her deposition, Magazine described the FlowRider Waiver as inadequate partially because “they don't tell you how many people have been injured on this thing.” (Magazine Dep. 90:2 – 13; see also Response at 8 ¶ 29.) Magazine now emphasizes that “at least one person died using the FlowRider and some 147 more were severely injured using it in the short time between the maiden voyages of the Allure of the Seas and Oasis of the Seas and Plaintiff’s accident” whereas “[n]o guest has ever died using any other onboard activities.” (Response at 27 – 28.)So their primary defense is that the device is blatantly dangerous and anyone should know this?
This argument fails because it does not point to the existence of a non-open and-obvious risk that could have proximately caused Magazine’s injury. It demonstrates that the FlowRider posed a risk of serious bodily injury or death and that RCL knew of this risk.7 However, RCL is not contesting these points; in fact, RCL’s primary argument is that RCL adequately warned Magazine of the risk of serious bodily injury or death.
(I'm going back into my hermetically-sealed room.)