I’m not saying that you’re supporting the use of the word “wedgie” to describe this woman’s injuries. But if that’s the reason for the inclusion then it should have been in quotes. Regardless:
@jlw, fix the headline.
1 Like
Cartoon wedgies are the worst.
There is a twisted, lawyerly type of logic at work in these cases: if the company gives in to the demands of every lawsuit, they will set a legal precedent that leaves them much more likely to be forced to pay for subsequent ones. Hence the desire to deny, deny, deny, gambling that the money saved over time will be more than the money they would have paid out.
Heck, their entire raison d’être is to use lawyers, accountants, and actuaries to play out such scenarios to decide when and how much to pay out and when to dig in their heels, so I don’t doubt it results in a net savings (unfortunately). Even if this strategy results in a few high-profile, money-losing cases, the net result over time and many cases is more money saved by the company, which means more money lost by the public who sue them and lose (or get less).
1 Like
massive wedgie
Much like the old McDonald’s coffee case, this was NOT just a “wedgie” but a very damaging, potentially life threatening injury. I fucking hate how our media infantilizes and trivializes everything to provide corporate wankers an out.
9 Likes
The McDonalds Coffee case is not was trivial either. That Lady got severe burns from coffee, that you are supposed to put in your mouth. No reason for that.
2 Likes
Disney minimizing this by calling something that pushes your guts through your abdominal wall a “wedgie”. It is like saying JFK got a “wet willie”.
3 Likes
As noted a couple of times upthread, it isn’t Disney (or the plaintiffs) who are minimizing the injuries by using that term. It’s journalists and bloggers.
Edit:
Ok, the plaintiffs apparently do use that term in their lawsuit, per this quote from the article:
So to the extent that the term is minimizing the injuries, the lawers who wrote up the complaint hold responsibility for that.
2 Likes
At first this had the look of someone looking for a quick money grab from disney. but then you find out what a horrible injury this woman suffered and how potentially dangerous that ride is and it’s a whole different story. nobody should have to expect that may happen going on an amusement park ride. and i agree with previous commenters that the severity of the incident is pretty underplayed in the headline and story. i am familiar with wedgies (i have 4 brothers – it was common) but this a lot more than that.
2 Likes
Is there more text to that? A “But the injuries caused go beyond what we normally associate with a ‘wedgie’.”
Even an atomic wedgie doesn’t cause internal injuries.
And as we have pointed out, use of it in a headline conjures up a mild inconvenience and possible embarrassment, vs the traumatic injury actually suffered. It will skew opinions of people who never read past the headline. And even places like CNN are skimping on the details, which were described more in the link I made. I get it, it’s conjures up some pretty horrific imagery when you describe it further, but maybe it should.
4 Likes
There is more at risk than 50k. They spent a lot of money on that crazy slide and they wouldn’t want to shut it down.
Steep waterslides can be dangerous. If guests aren’t instructed to wear swim shorts and cross their legs, they open themselves up (literally) to water pressures that can cause ruptures and extrusions of the intestinal tract. From the description of the case, it doesn’t sound like they provided those warnings or restrictions.
What’s really bothersome is that the headline framing across most media makes this sound like the “McDonald’s Hot Coffee” incident all over again. I’m not the first to make this observation, of course. It’s just disappointing to see the same sort of misleading headline (not just a wedgie!) here on BoingBoing.
4 Likes
All the more reason for them to immediately settle with a sealed settlement (which is the Disney norm). Meanwhile, I cannot find when the slide opened. I mean, the park opened in 1989 but I’m certain that the Humunga Kowabunga came much later. Even so, it has been in operation for over three years without major issue. I think that this gets paid off quickly, then the slide undergoes some signage or ride changes.
2 Likes
… posting a sign that says “it’s your own fault if you need surgery after riding our ride” may not actually discharge the owners’ responsibilities anyway 
7 Likes
Yeah. Even a cursory reading of the injury is a hell of a lot more than a wedgie.
2 Likes
Yep
I went on one when I was 15.
Side note: a friend who is a nurse once mentioned that nurses generally avoid giving injections into the buttocks of boys aged between 14 and 19. That demographic has a unique feature: if the needle goes into a relaxed butt muscle that then clenches, the needle can easily snap.
When I went on this slide, I saw the diagram to cross the legs, decided it looked awkward and unbalanced. Unbalanced on such a steep drop seemed dangerous, so I ignored the advice. Stupid, but I was 15, so 
My shorts dragged hard, and my testicles hurt a lot for a little while.
I didn’t injure any intestines, and I attribute that to dumb luck and my 15-year-old long-distance-running arse clenching like a vice.
2 Likes
“Wedgie” is an understatement being thrown around by the media to downplay how serious her injuries are (see: McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit) and “The lawsuit also maintains that her husband also merits compensation due to the wife’s inability to service him.” is not what the CNN article embed says at all.
I’m a bit put off by jlw’s summary. “Loss of consortium” can mean intimate relations but also a lot more. Simplifying it to “servicing him” is both misogynistic and misandrist (in assuming that’s all he cares about)… so overall very misanthropic.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
