Originally published at: Lawsuit against the Museum of Ice Cream is why we can't have nice things - Boing Boing
…
7 Likes
Via Gail Sherman…
7 Likes
I haven’t been to this current installation but I did go to a previous incarnation that did actually have a large-hot-tub sized pool of (smaller) plastic sprinkles that was deep enough to submerge your whole body in if you were so inclined. It was really one of the most hyped parts of the experience. So it’s not totally insane that a guest might think this was a similar thing.
As an aside it was kind of a pain to get all those sprinkles out of your clothes after exiting the pool, even with a shake-down station meant to clean them off. We were finding sprinkles in places we didn’t care to have them hours later. Probably the reason this new version looks to have oversized fake sprinkles instead of ones the size of real donut sprinkles.
7 Likes
So yeah, everyone is too litigious, and we can’t have nice things.
That said: there is a diving board. Were I to come across this thing, with no other cues, I would expect it to be more than an inch deep.
ETA: Think I need to take a break from the BBS for a while.
2 Likes
Not really. People pushing how “we can’t have nice things because people hurt by corporations should just suck it up and take responsibility” need to fucking go watch that documentary about the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, because that woman got 3rd degree burns (which the restaurant was cited for their coffee being TOO HOT MULTIPLE TIMES) and just wanted her medical bills cover.
We, as individuals, NEED to have a way to hold powerful entities accountable for their various forms of exploitation of us. Now, this MIGHT not be a case of that, but tort reform is basically a way for corporations to get away with whatever they want in service of enriching a few assholes. We need access to remedies to ensure that they won’t do that.
18 Likes
Yeah a cursory image search of this and other Museum of Ice Cream installations shows lots of people enthusiastically jumping into the various kinds of sprinkle pools. If they didn’t want people to do that they could have simply put up a sign that said “No Jumping or Diving” instead of just “No Diving.”
“What kind of dummy jumps into a pool of plastic sprinkles after being explicitly encouraged to do so by the people who set up pools of plastic sprinkles to jump in?” stinks of victim-blaming.
14 Likes
Wow.
I know the truth about the “hot coffee” suit. I can both agree with what you said, and believe that people are too litigious. The “Above the Law” and Popehat blogs are both interesting reads.
1 Like
Things like tort reform are very much being used to curtail our right to be safe from corporate malfeasance. 
Conservatives are trying to gut our rights in favor of corporations and “people are too litigious” has always been a talking point used to that end…
Yes, I’m familiar with both blogs, thanks, I am on the internet, after all… Doesn’t change my view that it’s a conservative talking point that should be taken with a grain of salt.
[ETA] Also, I got to wonder… what does “people are too litigious” even mean? Like, how much suing is the right amount of suing? How many people do you know who were involved in a lawsuit in their lives? And for what reason? Who gets to sue and when? Who gets to decide what is right to sue over and what isn’t? Seems to me, like a very vague statement about a very complex area of law… it’s gonna come down to a case by case basis, on what can stand as a lawsuit and what can’t… and who can sue and who shouldn’t? I mean, don’t we have regulations around that kind of thing? Aren’t frivolous lawsuits already thrown out?
9 Likes
Or maybe a pinch of sugar in this case.
2 Likes
5 Likes
This. I’d argue “people” aren’t too litigious; corporations are. They are constantly suing each other, so much so that when an individual sues a corporation, it can take years to resolve.
Of course, if the CFPB had more funding and authority, people could go the regulatory route instead of exercising the overtaxed justice system, but the same people who want tort reform also want to kill the CFPB, only moreso. I’m beginning tonsense a pattern…corporations really don’t want to accept any accountability!
10 Likes
Ive been to the Chicago one. Its all built to be very social media selfie friendly and theres a bar that is really built on 21+ drinks. We were semi bummed how little interesting or good or even local ice cream is available beyond its few, when functioning, “treat stations”
Had a good time still, but having built up to the “sprinkle pool” as its considered the grand tour finale, their big climax showpiece, seeing what it was like vs its marketing i immediately turned to my wife and said “oh, this is a lawsuit”
Like, lol, its a cool concept and visual but its SO obvious no one should actually ever get in it. Ours was like knee/thigh deep but of course to get pool illusion for all the hashtag selfies the tour guides practically command you, beg you to take, people would bury in, the guides verbal language was a clunky mix of encouraging getting in (gotta stay positive!) while kind of insinuating “…but the sprinkles are actually really hard/stiff with little give, so have fun, but its the opposite of a ballpit despite its enticing visual appearance!”
Usually there would be no real staffer in the room AT ALL, as this is where guides leave you, its right at the exit/gift shop, but after the last group stop at the bar/concession bit. So what happens is even if a staffer did say something, it was only ever sporadically, with mixed signals to 1-2 lone people, but we were left alone, you filter out, spend as much time as you want, new guides drop new groups off.
You would get new people in and with no reason not to theyd treat it like a ballpit to there profane laden reaction that it is not that. Guests would try to forewarn new guests.
Myself, even gingerly stepping in slowly, it is not a ballpit, there is no give, bad angles, the sprinkles shapes are horrible for human feet, its nearly impossible to move, stand flat, so its a twisted ankle nightmare all around.
The signs which are “sprinkled” (ha!) Among the kitschy decor are small, mild, mildly phrased and really dont do it justice. Ballpits tell you no head first diving right? You dont think much more of the signs than “oh like a ballpit” plus its too easy to walk in and get in unsafely without really being forced to ever SEE a sign.
Like, i hear you, but this was the most inevitable, i was not surprised at all lawsuit ever. Its more like a hardpacked sandbox. Cool idea, cheap as all get out execution.
…id recommend going though, what? I like dumb touristy quasi franchisee places. Im not saying go twice, but its a neat one off time killer. Dont get in the pool.
4 Likes
Is this yet another case of conservative projection, then? 
Because I’m fairly certain that when people say “people are too litigious” they generally mean that… people…
3 Likes
That’s what I’m saying in response to “people are too litigious.” People aren’t, corporations are.
5 Likes
I think you’re right there, yeah… I’m just noting that when people say that, they mean just people, not corporations. I think that while we all know the whole “corporations are people” mantra, most people don’t believe that.
4 Likes
Yeah. As someone with some experience in building interactive elements in public spaces it’s absolutely the designer’s responsibility to anticipate how people will reasonably be expected to interact with the place, and you can’t just add a sign saying “please don’t use this space in the way that it looks like it’s supposed to he used” and somehow absolve yourself of any responsibility. It would be one thing if this was meant to be a static art piece displayed behind a velvet rope, but this was meant to be played with! If you don’t want people on a diving board then don’t give them a diving board!
11 Likes
From the headline alone, I would have guessed the lawsuit would be brain freeze-related.
1 Like
i think one thing that would cut down on lawsuits – though like you say, what is “too many”? – is socialized healthcare. i don’t know about this particular case, but i imagine some significant percentage of people are trying to cover medical debt and loss of work. and then – to cover that debt and the lawyers – the judgment has to be quite steep
9 Likes
Soooo… they have diving boards, but visitors should know that they’re not actually safe to use? I think a lawsuit is warranted here.
And that still wouldn’t have been enough, because it looks like you could hurt yourself just stepping off the diving boards.
You have people like Elon Musk suing advertisers for not advertising with him. Well, that’s that’s the sort of thing that it should refer to, anyways. (Wouldn’t it be nice if every time that phrase was used, it was all about denouncing some corporate legal fuckery? Rather than individuals seeking legal remedies that seem unreasonable but only because of absurd healthcare costs and a lack of a reasonable social safety net in the country…)
4 Likes
I would actually say that neither are too litigious. What we are is under regulated. The lack of regulations (and I know conservatives would act shocked at this assertion, but fuck em) results in a situation where the only remedy often available to both people and other companies is litigation.
11 Likes
