Universal sued for $50,000 after ride malfunction leaves man with ‘mental anguish'
Casey Causey is suing Universal Orlando Resort for $50,000 after claiming he was stranded midair for over an hour on the Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey ride in July 2023.
Causey's lawsuit, filed on May 28, alleges the ride malfunctioned, leaving him tilted backward and to the right, causing him "mental anguish."
The lawsuit claims Universal was aware of similar past problems with the rollercoaster but failed to take adequate steps to fix it, motivated by financial gain from ticket sales.
Causey's lawyer asserts Universal failed to properly inspect the ride, train employees, or safely remove riders during power outages.
Causey claims the incident resulted in disability, disfigurement, scarring, mental anguish, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and a decreased ability to earn money.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
- Labcorp was the blockbuster Supreme Court case that wasn't
June 23 (Reuters) - When the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to take up medical testing company Laboratory Corporation of America's appeal of a class certification order, it was one of the buzziest cases of the term. The parties, along with amici in 19 friend-of-the-court briefs and the legal press – me included – cast it as a potentially monumental matter, one that could upend class action litigation by making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring cases. What we got instead was … nothing. A little over a month after oral argument, the high court on June 5 dismissed the case, opens new tab as improvidently granted, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the majority's one sentence order. In issuing the so-called dismiss as improvidently or DIG, the justices tacitly admitted that it was a mistake to grant certiorari in the first place, though presumably not because of the question presented. The question that remains unanswered is whether a class be certified if it contains uninjured members – an issue that the high court circled in two prior class certification decisions, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo in 2016 and TransUnion v. Ramirez in 2021, but left open. Why instead of a firecracker did Labcorp v Davis turn out to be a dud? The most likely answer is procedurally nuanced, involving a tangle of superseding district court orders. Still, how the case unspooled offers a window into when and why the justices DIG a case, a rare move where the court takes no action, instead leaving the appellate decision in place. Here, it meant a win for a class of blind plaintiffs suing Labcorp for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, allowing them to proceed with their suit in Los Angeles federal court. An unconventional move by Deepak Gupta, who represented the class action plaintiffs, could also provide a model for advocates looking to DIG a case – but more on that later. Labcorp did not respond to requests for comment, and the company's outside counsel, Jones Day partner Noel Francisco, declined to comment through a firm spokesperson. A bit of context: Legal scholars say that from 1955 to 2005, the justices disposed of an average of two to three cases per term via DIGs, a move that typically requires agreement from at least six justices. There was one such dismissal in 2023-2024 and a total of three this term. (The other two were both securities class actions, with Gupta also getting a DIG in litigation against chipmaker Nvidia. The other case involved Meta's Facebook.) The court often declines to offer an explanation for DIG-ing a case, leaving onlookers to speculate on what went awry, said Michael Solimine, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and co-author of the DIG study, opens new tab, via email. For example, after oral argument the justices might realize there was a jurisdictional issue, or they might identify another problem that made the case a poor vehicle to address the question at hand, Solimine said. 'Or it could simply be that there was no majority that could decide the case.' In Labcorp, according to Kavanaugh's dissent, the obstacle that kept the court from deciding the case was mootness – meaning, technically, that the class certification order that Labcorp appealed was no longer in effect and had been supplanted by subsequent district court orders. Kavanaugh, however, deemed the concern 'insubstantial' and wrote that he would have ruled in favor of the company on the merits. Originally filed in 2020, the suit against Labcorp was brought on behalf of visually impaired people who were unable to use check-in kiosks when arriving for blood draws or other medical tests. Labcorp argued that thousands of class members were uninterested in using the kiosks, preferring to check in with a person at the front desk. That meant they sustained no injury and lacked standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Labcorp said. U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin in May of 2022 certified a damages class. Labcorp had appealed the order, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in an 8-page, unpublished opinion, opens new tab had upheld Olguin's decision. But there was a wrinkle. While Labcorp's interlocutory appeal was pending, the district court modified the class certification order two times to tweak how the class was defined. That meant the order before the Supreme Court was inoperative, Gupta argued for the class action plaintiffs. With no live controversy, any decision by the high court would be nothing more than an advisory opinion, the Gupta Wessler co-founder said. This jurisdictional argument wasn't something the class action plaintiffs initially flagged in opposing, opens new tab Labcorp's cert petition (though they raised it in their respondent's brief, opens new tab when they suggested that the court DIG the case, as did seven law professors in an amicus brief, opens new tab). In an unusual step, Gupta, who was hired after cert was granted, filed a letter, opens new tab with the court on April 23, six days before oral argument and after briefing was complete, to reiterate the jurisdictional problems and again ask the court to DIG the case. Sending the letter felt like 'waving a red flag in front of a bull,' Gupta told me, drawing the focus on procedural questions rather than the merits. 'I wanted to make sure the court understood the problem here.' Writing in response, opens new tab, Francisco called the letter 'nothing more than an improper surreply,' and said the arguments were meritless. The justices' interest was piqued. During oral arguments in April, Justice Clarence Thomas asked why the court had jurisdiction to rule on a lower court's "inoperative" order. Later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, 'I still don't see how this is not an advisory opinion.' And Justice Elena Kagan remarked, 'We're staring at the wrong order.' Little wonder the court opted for a DIG.
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump, US Senate Republicans face test as 'Big Beautiful Bill' deadline looms
WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies in the Senate face a political free-for-all over passage of his sweeping tax-cut and spending legislation, which Republican congressional leaders hope to enact in coming days despite growing resistance from different party factions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Speaker Mike Johnson and administration officials are pressing Republican lawmakers to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act so Trump can sign it into law before the July 4 U.S. Independence Day holiday. But hardline Republicans have redoubled their push for additional spending cuts after an official forecast that the bill would add at least $2.8 trillion to the $36.2 trillion U.S. debt. Other lawmakers, looking to minimize the impact of cuts on social programs including Medicaid, have also voiced adamant opposition to the bill's language. Republicans control the Senate by a 53-47 majority and the House by 220-212. One Republican from each chamber has opposed the legislation from the beginning due to the debt. Thune aims to begin Senate action by the middle of this week and complete passage by the weekend, sending the bill back to the House for final approval. Trump is expected to turn up the heat on senators this week, according to Republican lawmakers who view him as "the closer." "Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before. Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done," Trump said in a social media post on Sunday. Lawmakers are still waiting for the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber's nonpartisan gatekeeper, to decide whether the legislation qualifies for the privileged status needed to circumvent Democrats and the 60-vote Senate filibuster and pass it with only 51 votes. "The Senate Republican bill is, simply put, bigger cuts, bigger betrayal," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said. "It makes even deeper cuts to healthcare. It destroys American clean energy. It raises costs on working and middle-class families. And it rewards those at the very top," he said. Some Republicans are pushing back on Thune's schedule in hopes of gaining more time to negotiate bigger savings. "There's no way. There's no way," Senator Ron Johnson, a leading fiscal hawk who wants to cut federal spending back to pre-COVID pandemic levels, said when asked if he could support the bill this week. The Wisconsin Republican said he is coordinating with fellow hardline Senators Mike Lee and Rick Scott, who want to glean additional savings from green tax credits and the Medicaid healthcare program for lower-income Americans, respectively. "If we had all the money in the world, why would you make a change? We don't. We're running $2 trillion deficits," Scott told reporters. The legislation has yet to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan referee who has said Republican efforts to restrict food assistance, curtail the ability of judges to block government policies, slash funding for financial watchdogs and reverse Biden vehicle policy, violate budgetary rules. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week the House version of the bill could lead to a $2.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the next decade. The deficit hike would reach a total of $3.4 trillion, if the cost of rising interest payments due to increased borrowing needs were included, according to the agency, which took into account the bill's potential impact on economic activity. The report contradicted Republican claims that tax cuts would lead to buoyant economic growth and pay for themselves by generating higher revenues from increased business activity. In a Senate floor speech last week, Thune cited a White House Council of Economic Advisers projection the legislation would increase federal revenue by $4.1 trillion, saying it would more than offset the CBO's deficit estimate. A revised Senate version of the legislation would reduce Medicaid provider taxes from 6% to 3.5% by 2031 in states that expanded the program to able-bodied recipients under the Affordable Care Act. That provision is opposed by several Senate Republicans who say it would undercut funding for rural hospitals. "They cannot defund rural hospitals," said Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who has positioned himself in the debate as a champion of Medicaid. But Republicans signaled the time for negotiations would soon come to an end and predicted that wavering members would ultimately support the legislation. "Some people are going to have to settle for a ham and egg sandwich without the ham. That's just the way it is," said Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.
Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: UAW investment blunder cost the union an estimated $80 million, documents show
DETROIT, June 23 (Reuters) - The United Auto Workers' leadership is mired in turmoil over allegations of an investment blunder that officials say cost the union about $80 million in potential gains from its financial portfolio, according to seven UAW officials and employees and union documents reviewed by Reuters. The investment funds were liquidated to pay striking workers in 2023 but weren't reinvested in accordance with the union's investment policy for more than a year, according to the documents and the UAW officials and staffers who spoke on condition of anonymity. The details of the investment dispute at the union, including the estimate of foregone gains, have not previously been reported. The loss is an estimate of what the union would have earned had the money been invested in the stock market and other assets in accordance with the union's policy during that time. The UAW represents nearly 400,000 members, including 150,000 workers at the Detroit Three automakers: General Motors, Ford, and Jeep-maker Stellantis. UAW investment policy calls for keeping about 30% of its money in stocks , 53% fixed income and 17% alternative investments, according to three union sources and the documents. The board voted to liquidate about $340 million in stock investments in August 2023 to pay strike costs, according to a union document reviewed by Reuters. The wording of the vote stipulated that the money be reinvested according to union policy after the strike ended and the labor contracts were ratified, though it didn't specify how quickly. But almost none of its portfolio was invested in stocks during the year after the strike began in September 2023, according to the records reviewed by Reuters. The news agency was unable to establish why the stock investment wasn't made. The issue of why the union did not reinvest the funds for more than a year is now being investigated by the federal monitor which was appointed as part of a 2020 settlement between the UAW and the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve a union corruption scandal, according to a statement from a majority of UAW board members. UAW President Shawn Fain and Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock did not respond to requests for comment on the failure to invest union dues . Mock's attorney, Michael Nicholson, declined to comment on why the union's money wasn't promptly reinvested in stocks or Mock's role, but told Reuters that responsibility for UAW's investments is shared by the union president, secretary-treasurer and its three vice presidents, citing a 1996 UAW resolution. 'We welcome the monitor's review regarding investments, because we believe that any accusations against Margaret Mock are unfounded,' he added. The financial setback is the latest challenge for the UAW. The union had been resurgent after the late-2023 strike, the union's first against all three major Detroit automakers at the same time, which culminated in record contract gains from GM, Ford and Stellantis. The union also successfully organized a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee in April 2024 after decades of failed union drives in the southern United States. Since then, though, the UAW's organizing momentum has stalled, including a failed unionization vote at an Alabama Mercedes-Benz plant in May 2024. The tensions over union investments emerged late last year as some board members started questioning why the union's return on its portfolio seemed paltry relative to broader stock-market gains, according to union documents and five people familiar with the matter. In August 2023, the UAW board voted to sell all of the equities in its strike fund, leaving the remainder invested in a mix of cash, bonds and alternative investments, according to the documents and people familiar with the matter. The following month, UAW workers walked out of the carmakers' factories for about six weeks and were paid $500 a week from the union's strike fund. Any money remaining after the contracts with the car companies were ratified in November was to be reinvested per the union's investment policy. But rather than reinvesting in stocks, the funds were placed in a mix of cash, fixed-income and alternative assets through September 2024 when the portfolio contained 5% in equities, the documents show. In late 2024, Fain asked in one meeting why the union was getting lower returns on its portfolio than he could in a cash bank account, according to four people present at the gathering. In February 2025, union staff conducted an analysis that showed the union might have earned $80 million more if its portfolio had been invested according to union policy, according to a document viewed by Reuters. The document did not detail their methodology, but union sources said it was based on a comparison of the union portfolio's actual results to what the returns would have been under its policy, which includes a 30% allocation in a fund that tracks the Russell 3000 index, the UAW's preferred equity investment, according to people familiar with the matter. That fund grew 33% from late November 2023, after the contracts were ratified, through January 2025, shortly after UAW officials raised their concerns. The union worked with the financial firm Segal Marco Advisors to manage its strike trust of about $1 billion, the people and documents said. Reuters couldn't establish how the firm advised the union to manage the liquidated funds. The firm didn't respond to requests for comment. Apart from the dispute over the UAW's investment decisions, broader tensions between Fain and Mock burst into public view Tuesday with the release of a report by the union's federal monitor that found Fain improperly stripped Mock of some of her duties in February 2024 because she wouldn't authorize expenditures related to strike preparation and organizing drives. The UAW declined to comment on either the report or the investment concerns, citing a federal monitor's rule prohibiting UAW public comments on active probes. The report did not address the failure to reinvest the funds after the strike. After its release, 11 of the UAW's 14 board members – including Fain – issued a statement saying Mock had failed to produce a budget or list of union members. The statement added: 'She is under investigation by the monitor for a significant compliance failure regarding our union's investments.' The federal monitor's office has told UAW board members that it now is investigating the post-strike failure to reinvest union funds, according to four of the people and union documents. The federal monitor declined to comment on whether it was investigating the union's investment management and Reuters could not independently confirm it.
