The Museum of Ice Cream’s TikTok trendy “Sprinkle Pool” is seriously lacking in filling — so much so that one visitor was left maimed after he went for a sweet splash, he cl…
The Museum of Ice Cream’s TikTok trendy “Sprinkle Pool” is seriously lacking in filling — so much so that one visitor was left maimed after he went for a sweet splash, he claims in a new lawsuit.
The pool’s poor design and “inadequate and insufficient” level of rainbow-colored toppings left Jeremy Shorr, who visited the SoHo attraction with his daughter last March, with an ankle fracture so serious that it required surgery and internal hardware installed, according to court documents.
But the biggest issue might be how the museum presents the pool on social media, where multiple posts encourage visitors to “jump in” and “plunge,” claims the suit, filed Wednesday in Manhattan Supreme Court.
“We believe this sprinkle pool poses a risk of serious personal injury to members of the public, who are encouraged to jump and plunge into it, despite these actions having caused injuries to those who have fallen victim to this viral trend,” said Shorr’s attorney, Daniel Perrone.
...
And Shorr isn’t alone. Others shared their Museum of Ice Cream mishaps on social media, where injuries in the sprinkle pool seem to prosper.
...
Doctors told Shorr that alleged injuries from his March 31, 2023 sprinkle pool plunge will likely result in future surgeries, osteoarthritis and arthritis, according to the lawsuit.
Shorr suffered “severe and permanent personal injuries” when he jumped into the pool “in the manner advertised, encouraged, marketed and promoted” by the museum, the filing states.
Perrone opined that “discouraging that activity would eliminate a key attraction.”
Unless the museum is willing to “properly calculate and determine the amount and dimensions of the sprinkles required to render the Sprinkle Pool fit and safe for jumping and/or plunging,” the pool area should be festooned with ample and abundant warnings, he added.
This sounds an awful lot like a grown man decided to play on an attraction meant for kids... Do the ads imply that adults should be jumping into the sprinkle pool? The article seems purposely vague about it
This sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. It's the responsibility of the museum to clearly communicate how the attraction should be used. For example by signage if it should only be used below a certain weight or age. There are plenty of examples of this with attractions elsewhere, so it's not as if that's remotely surprising or an undue burden or anything.