 |
Now in its eleventh year the winners of the Wacky Warning Label Contest have been announced. It is conducted by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, M-LAW to show the length manufacturers go to to avoid ridiculous lawsuits.
Because of ridiculous lawsuits the contest is to show what the effects are of lawsuits on warning labels.
According to the Yahoo News contest organizer Bob Dorigo Jones states the labels reflect how broken down America's civil justice system is.
As Associated Press reports: "Predatory lawyers know they can file ridiculous lawsuits against innocent product makers and blackmail them into cash settlements -- even in cases in which a user has ignored common sense," said Dorigo Jones. "The real issue is not the obvious warning labels, but the billions of dollars in litigation costs passed on to consumers -- a kind of a "lawsuit tax" we all pay. That is why M-LAW urges judges and policy makers to support civil justice reform."
M-LAW picked the finalists and the winners were chosen by the listeners of the Dick Purtan show on Detroit Michigan radio station, WOMC-FM.
The grand prize of $500 was won by Kevin Soave of Farmington Hills Michigan. The label he turned in on the pictured tractor was "Danger:Avoid Death.
He also won the book written by M-LAW president Bob Dorigo Jones "Remove Chiled Before Folding, The 101 Stupidest, Silliest and Wackiest Warning Labels Ever,"
The second prize of $250 was won by Carrianne, Jacob and Robby Turin of Greensburg, Pa. Their label was found on an iron-on T-shirt transfer that warns: "Do not iron while wearing shirt."
The $100 third place winner was Richard Goodnow of Lancaster, Mass. his label was on a baby stroller that has a small storage pouch with the warning "Do not put child in bag."
Cyndi LaMonde of Traverse City Michigan received an honorable mention for the label that she submitted. It was on a letter opener with the warning:"Caution: Safety goggles recommended."
A second honorable mention was given to Ann Marie Young of Fillmore, N.Y. She found a label on a vanishing fabric marker that warned: "The Vanishing Fabric Marker should not be used as a writing instrument for signing checks or any legal documents."
To see the photos of the winning labels click here.
-
Great story! I don't believe Bob Dorigo Jones' point about the lawsuits however. Tort law has been the consumer's friend and the people who complain the most about it are the industries that get hit with the most suits because they deserve them.
I did a little digging and Bob Doringo Jones is a Republican speech writer who has worked for William Lucas (who ran for governor) and Representative Paul Hillegonds of Michigan, who has strong ties to the same industries that pay to spread stories about lawsuits in order to discredit them.
Why am I not surprised?
-
Thank-you Lensman. Interesting what you also found out. :-)
There needs to be a balance between protecting the consumer and ridiculous lawsuits where just a little common sense is needed though.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Thank-you Lensman. Interesting what you also found out. :-)
There needs to be a balance between protecting the consumer and ridiculous lawsuits where just a little common sense is needed though.
The last people in the world I would trust to tell me what is and what is not "common sense" are the people who work for industries. They get paid to spin things for the benefit of business.
Contrary to the well (and expensively) publicized "horror stories" most juries make good decisions based on the evidence--that is why the businesses don't like them.
But don't take my word for it. Find one of the famous ones and do a bit of research--from both sides. I think you will find that there is usually a good reason why the jury made the award that they made and a good reason why business spends so much money trying to convince people that the decisions were "frivolous."
Bad decisions do happen but that is why we have an appeals process. We have as much reason for trusting businesses when they tell us we should change the tort laws as we do when burglars tell us we don't need to lock our doors.
I was a commercial photographer for years and worked with hundreds of companies and most of them I would not trust to give me the correct time of day if they could figure out how to make a profit from lying. -
I had a good laugh while reading this well written story, thanks.
-
The lawsuits are getting ridiculous, and most of the companies claim false patents and file a lawsuit from Texas. It seems they have plenty of rights there to sue companies compared to other states.
-
Warning: This article may induce uncontrollable laughter and or enjoyment.
-
lmao, nice warning labels. Talk about "cover your behind" though, it's rather ridiculous.
-
permafrog and PTBartman thank-you and some do make you laugh.
cgull some of the lawsuits are ridiculous.
I do see the point of what Lensman wrote. At least now if something is a lie or dangerous we now have recourse but like anything else it is abused.
-
@ Ringwraith
lmao, nice warning labels. Talk about "cover your behind" though, it's rather ridiculous.
Companies do need to do that. My hair blower has five warnings on it.
One of them says do not use while bathing. Excellent warning but hopefully anyone would know better than to use an electrical appliance while in the bathtub or shower.
Another warning says; If dryer falls into water, unplug immediately, do not reach into water. -
@ Chris V. (cgull)
The lawsuits are getting ridiculous, and most of the companies claim false patents and file a lawsuit from Texas. It seems they have plenty of rights there to sue companies compared to other states.
Have you got any examples to back up such a statement? I haven't been able to find any of this "ridiculousness" that I often hear spoken of and would like to see some examples. -
Good article, Picasso! LOL!
I like the one you wrote in your comment the best though:
If dryer falls into water, unplug immediately, do not reach into water.
Can there be that many foolish people out there?
Don't answer that! LOLOL! -
@ lensman67
Have you got any examples to back up such a statement? I haven't been able to find any of this "ridiculousness" that I often hear spoken of and would like to see some examples.
I know this wasn't addressed to me but the only ridiculous
lawsuit off the top of my head that I "heard" about was the lady that sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee on her leg and was burned.
Hmm wonder if I can sue someone when the cup says to be careful contents are hot and it isn't hot. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Hmm wonder if I can sue someone when the cup says to be careful contents are hot and it isn't hot.
I'm sure than anything can be tried once, Picasso! I'm sure the judges have laughed worse cases right out of the courtroom! -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Good article, Picasso! LOL!
I like the one you wrote in your comment the best though:
Can there be that many foolish people out there?
Don't answer that! LOLOL!
Thanks Sky.
There must be reasons that the warnings are listed. Though the companies might have their lawyers sit and think of all possibilities there are to be sued.
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
I'm sure than anything can be tried once, Picasso! I'm sure the judges have laughed worse cases right out of the courtroom!
I suppose if you have the money to sue you can sue over just about anything. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I know this wasn't addressed to me but the only ridiculous
lawsuit off the top of my head that I "heard" about was the lady that sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee on her leg and was burned.
Hmm wonder if I can sue someone when the cup says to be careful contents are hot and it isn't hot.
I am SO glad you chose that one! ;o)
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of “gross negligence” for selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively manufactured.” McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.
Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.
Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 °F or 100 °C). Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[10]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.
The trial lasted from August 8–17, 1994, and the twelve-person jury reached their verdict before Judge Robert H. Scott on August 18.
Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.
The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
So what have we learned? Well the coffee was obviously too hot for safety an the company knew it. There had been many other burning cases but the company thought that they could "get away" with not taking care of the problem.
This is the number one reason for not capping damages. If a company can figure out how much it will cost them not to fix a problem then the bean counters will decide it is not worth it. The possibility of high penalties helps keep their attention on their job of protecting the public.
We also see that the process did not, as the tort reformers would like us to believe, allow the higher penalty stand. This is a good indication that the system is working and should not be messed with.
The woman had tried to be reasonable but the company thought it could laugh her off and so offered an insulting amount for an accident that was clearly their fault. -
Thank you Lensman.
I can see the point of the lawsuit and what was proven.
But somehow I cannot see someone putting a hot cup of liquid between their knees and trying to remove the lid.
Those lids fit tight and are hard to get off.
What was heard I am sure was to make it appear to be a frivolous lawsuit.
Since there had already been people burned and nothing was done then they did need to be sued.
Terrible what she had to go through.
Thank you for sharing this. ;o)
-
In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.
Excuse me, but what part of "keep from heat and flame" didn't these two get? $8 million?! Give me a break.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Thank you Lensman.
I can see the point of the lawsuit and what was proven.
But somehow I cannot see someone putting a hot cup of liquid between their knees and trying to remove the lid.
Those lids fit tight and are hard to get off.
What was heard I am sure was to make it appear to be a frivolous lawsuit.
Since there had already been people burned and nothing was done then they did need to be sued.
Terrible what she had to go through.
Thank you for sharing this. ;o)
You are right it was a dangerous move and the court found her 20% guilty but the coffee was dangerously hot and did not need to be.
I know you are not a coffee drinker but if coffee is brew too hot is messes up its flavor. There was no good reason for it to be that hot except that the company did not want to bother fixing the problem.
Even people who did not spill the coffee on themselves had to wait for it to cool down so that they could drink it without scalding their throat so what was the point of making it too hot in the first place? -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.
Excuse me, but what part of "keep from heat and flame" didn't these two get? $8 million?! Give me a break.
I think the fact that you have to go back to 1988 ought to tell us something. I have tried to research this case and all I have been able to come up with are Conservative or anti-consumer web sites.
Like the coffee case I will bet you that once we know the real facts of the case it will not turn out as frivolous as the tort reformers would like us to believe. -
@ lensman67
You are right it was a dangerous move and the court found her 20% guilty but the coffee was dangerously hot and did not need to be.
I know you are not a coffee drinker but if coffee is brew too hot is messes up its flavor. There was no good reason for it to be that hot except that the company did not want to bother fixing the problem.
Even people who did not spill the coffee on themselves had to wait for it to cool down so that they could drink it without scalding their throat so what was the point of making it too hot in the first place?
There reason was that when someone bought the coffee they would be traveling and would want it hot for awhile.
Something that I did not know is if the coffee is too hot that it messes up the taste. That is something that they would or should have known.
So it does appear to be that they were negligent in not having the temperature lowered on the coffee.
Still it is in most people's minds that it was a frivolous lawsuit and that she should have known better, which she should have. ;-)
I don't believe that I had heard how severe the injuries were either. -
I have just looked at two pages worth of links on this story and I notice one thing. Every single solitary one of them is a Right Wing site! The second thing I noticed is that not one single one of these anti-consumer sites gives the actual case name or docket number. That is highly suspicious.
I think I smell an urban legend!
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
There reason was that when someone bought the coffee they would be traveling and would want it hot for awhile.
Something that I did not know is if the coffee is too hot that it messes up the taste. That is something that they would or should have known.
So it does appear to be that they were negligent in not having the temperature lowered on the coffee.
Still it is in most people's minds that it was a frivolous lawsuit and that she should have known better, which she should have. ;-)
I don't believe that I had heard how severe the injuries were either.
The other thing that the anti-consumer advocates don't mention is how she had tried to be reasonable and how bad the company treated her.
Had they made even a little effort to make amends they would have saved them a whole lot of money in legal fees if nothing else.
I drink coffee and I can not imagine wanting the coffee too hot to drink when I order it so that somewhere down the road it will finally be drinkable.
I can't drink it above 140 degrees so whenever it gets to that temperature it is still going to cool at the same rate from then on. If I am on the road and buy coffee I want it now, not after I have crossed two state lines! ;o)
Maybe the customers should order coffee and a cup of ice on the side to make it drinkable. Oh wait! That wouldn't work, it is too dangerous to take the lid off so the ice is of no use. -
@ lensman67
I have just looked at two pages worth of links on this story and I notice one thing. Every single solitary one of them is a Right Wing site! The second thing I noticed is that not one single one of these anti-consumer sites gives the actual case name or docket number. That is highly suspicious.
I think I smell an urban legend!
If this is what you mean.
This is an actual contest that is held and the winners were chosen by the listeners on Dick Purtan's radio show here where I live. So I do know that that is true.
Also M-LAW is a group here in MIchigan. -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
Excuse me, but what part of "keep from heat and flame" didn't these two get? $8 million?! Give me a break.
If this is all that happened they should not have gotten that kind of a settlement if any.
There are too many people that even I know that never read the warning labels.
They are there for a reason. -
No - I think he was referring the my post about the carpet layers.
I do believe that there are alot of unscrupulous attorney's out there that will file a lawsuit, any lawsuit, especially against a major corporation, banking on the odds that it will be easier for the corporation to settle out of court than go through the drawn out time and expense of actually taking the case before a jury.
These lawsuits just drive up the cost of goods and services, as corporations, doctors, and service people have to purchase more and more insurance in an effort to try to protect themselves.
When I started in real estate 27 years ago, a purchase agreement was 3 pages long - now, thanks to many frivolous lawsuits (one comes to mind where a client sued an agent in my office because the house she bought had spiders in the basement!) - well, those purchase agreements are now in excess of 18 pages - the majority being disclosures, waivers, warnings and directions on how to seek legal council.
Too many people think it is just easy money to sue - and too many attorneys are too busy looking for just those people to represent.
I think that common sense should come into play, but unfortunately, if you don't have a warning label and someone gets hurt, even if it is glaringly apparent that common sense would have told them not to hold the wrong end of the chainsaw - well, hello lawsuit!
-
@ lensman67
I drink coffee and I can not imagine wanting the coffee too hot to drink when I order it so that somewhere down the road it will finally be drinkable.
I can't drink it above 140 degrees so whenever it gets to that temperature it is still going to cool at the same rate from then on. If I am on the road and buy coffee I want it now, not after I have crossed two state lines! ;o)
Maybe the customers should order coffee and a cup of ice on the side to make it drinkable. Oh wait! That wouldn't work, it is too dangerous to take the lid off so the ice is of no use.
True when I get tea, which I do like very hot, I want to start drinking it when I get it. What temperature I can drink it at I don't know. Most people except one of my sisters do not want tea as hot as I drink it.
I have found that if the lid is to be removed the cup should be placed in the cup holder and not be held while removing it. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
If this is all that happened they should not have gotten that kind of a settlement if any.
There are too many people that even I know that never read the warning labels.
They are there for a reason.
Well I finally found the actual case and just as I thought there is more to the story than the anti-consumers would have us believe. There was no "heat and flame" mentioned in the case. As far as I can tell the fumes ignited on their own.
There was no warning on the can that this could happen. Since these were experienced carpet layers who had used other products in the past that did give off explosive fumes there was no way that they could have known that this product would.
After the old carpet had been removed, Mr. Roach began spreading
the M280 on the basement floor while Mr. Falkner was outside cutting pieces of the new carpet to install. Mr. Falkner brought a piece of carpet to the basement and set it on the floor. Both Appellees described that they then heard a “click” followed by a “whoosh” or a “boom” as the vapors from the M280 ignited, and the
force of the blast hurled Mr. Roach across the room. The floor where Mr. Roach applied the M280 had erupted into flames, and the basement quickly filled with smoke. As Appellees got up and began making their way toward the steps to exit the basement, a second blast again knocked them both off their feet. The flames from the second blast traveled up the basement stairwell, blew out a kitchen
window, and set a neighbor’s tree ablaze. The second blast also knocked Mrs.Biondo, who was in a dining room on the first floor, through two rooms and out the front door of her home onto a sidewalk.
In his struggle to escape the basement after the second blast, Mr.Roach tripped over a roll of carpet on the floor and fell down into the burning glue. Mr. Falkner, seeing that Mr. Roach was lying face down in the glue and was no longer moving, pulled his shirt over his face and ran to where he thought Mr. Roach was. Mr. Falkner finally found Mr. Roach, and dragged him up the stairs and out of the basement. Both men then ran outside, where a neighbor helped
extinguish their burning bodies with water from a garden hose.
Once again we see that the "easy stories" are almost as easy as we are led to believe.
I think the fact that two famous cases cited by the anti-consumer crowd turnout, on close examination, to be not as simple as they tried to make us think ought to tell us just how far we can trust their word. -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
No - I think he was referring the my post about the carpet layers.
I do believe that there are alot of unscrupulous attorney's out there that will file a lawsuit, any lawsuit, especially against a major corporation, banking on the odds that it will be easier for the corporation to settle out of court than go through the drawn out time and expense of actually taking the case before a jury.
These lawsuits just drive up the cost of goods and services, as corporations, doctors, and service people have to purchase more and more insurance in an effort to try to protect themselves.
When I started in real estate 27 years ago, a purchase agreement was 3 pages long - now, thanks to many frivolous lawsuits (one comes to mind where a client sued an agent in my office because the house she bought had spiders in the basement!) - well, those purchase agreements are now in excess of 18 pages - the majority being disclosures, waivers, warnings and directions on how to seek legal council.
Too many people think it is just easy money to sue - and too many attorneys are too busy looking for just those people to represent.
I think that common sense should come into play, but unfortunately, if you don't have a warning label and someone gets hurt, even if it is glaringly apparent that common sense would have told them not to hold the wrong end of the chainsaw - well, hello lawsuit!
Both cases that we have had cited so far have turned out not to have been so frivolous after all. We all love to hate the big bad evil lawyer but I find that companies tend to be far more dishonest and unscrupulous.
The guy who thinks he can make "easy money" from a frivolous lawsuit makes for good movies but I don't see nearly as many of them in real life. -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
No - I think he was referring the my post about the carpet layers.
That makes more sense.
People that use any product should read all the warning labels before using a product. If they don't it should be their responsibility.
In real estate I really can see the sense of the disclosure forms. Too many homes were sold with major problems that the buyer did not know about.
But more and more papers have to be written to protect a company. -
Lensman stated :There was no warning on the can that this could happen. Since these were experienced carpet layers who had used other products in the past that did give off explosive fumes there was no way that they could have known that this product would.
Mr. Eudy testified that the “Do Not Use Indoors, Because Of
Flammability” warning was in approximately six or seven -point type.
flammability adequately advised users of the potential that they could be burned as a result of using M280. The fact that Appellees were burned in an explosion asdefined by Mr. Kennedy, Para-Chem has asserted, does not constitute a breach of its duty to warn. Para-Chem has also maintained that Appellees would not have applied M280 in Mrs. Biondo’s basement if they had read the label’s instruction not to use the adhesive indoors, and their failure to read the supplied warnings cannot be attributed to Para-Chem as a breach of its duty to warn.
Excuse me, but the label DID contain the warning of "Flammable" and also warned that the product was "Not to be used indoors" -
So, again, what part of those words did these two not understand? They were INDOORS, which the label warned against, and they did not have adequate ventilation which caused the fumes to ignite - thus the FLAMMABLE portion of the warning. -
I read the whole decision of the court and of the appellate court that upheld the lower court's decision and I see that the company was at fault and deserved the fine that they got.
I have seen the business practices of major Corporations, and the things they would not like the public to know about, up close and personal in my years as a commercial photographer.
I have seen a company try to bulldoze toxic chemicals into a pond that feed the aquifer that supplied water to residential neighborhoods.
I have been on the back lots of companies and seen the leaking drums of toxic waste and listened to executives discussing just how far they could push things before lawsuits made it unprofitable.
Sorry but I will take lawyers over unscrupulous corporations any day. -
Mr. Roach, moreover, testified that he read the front panel of the M280 can, including the statements “All Weather Outdoor Adhesive,” “Extremely Flammable,” “Danger: Vapor Harmful And Can Cause Flash Flash Fires,” and
“Flammable Mixture.” Mr. Roach stated that he thought the M280 “All Weather Outdoor Adhesive” was appropriate because he and Mr. Falkner were installing indoor/outdoor carpet in Mrs. Biondo’s basement. Mr. Roach testified that he understood the warnings on the label to mean that the M280 would ignite if exposed to an open flame. He stated, however, that he did not derive from the warnings any appreciation for the risk that vapors from the M280 might travel to distant ignition sources and ignite and/or explode.
Sounds like "Frick and Frack For Hire" if you ask me! These two dopes read all of the warnings, and then tried to play the Stupid Card when they got burned!
-
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
Lensman statedMr. Eudy testified that the “Do Not Use Indoors, Because Of
Flammability” warning was in approximately six or seven -point type.
flammability adequately advised users of the potential that they could be burned as a result of using M280. The fact that Appellees were burned in an explosion asdefined by Mr. Kennedy, Para-Chem has asserted, does not constitute a breach of its duty to warn. Para-Chem has also maintained that Appellees would not have applied M280 in Mrs. Biondo’s basement if they had read the label’s instruction not to use the adhesive indoors, and their failure to read the supplied warnings cannot be attributed to Para-Chem as a breach of its duty to warn.
Excuse me, but the label DID contain the warning of "Flammable" and also warned that the product was "Not to be used indoors" -
So, again, what part of those words did these two not understand? They were INDOORS, which the label warned against, and they did not have adequate ventilation which caused the fumes to ignite - thus the FLAMMABLE portion of the warning.
Six or seven point type!! Do you realize just how small that is? Print something in six point type from your computer and take a look.
Sorry. I just tried to print in six point type and found out that Word does not even go that small! The smallest they have is eight point type which I can't read without a magnifying glass!
So they did not use a magnifying glass to read the label. The fact that two different courts found against the company tells me that it was the company that screwed up. -
@ lensman67
I read the whole decision of the court and of the appellate court that upheld the lower court's decision and I see that the company was at fault and deserved the fine that they got.
I have seen the business practices of major Corporations, and the things they would not like the public to know about, up close and personal in my years as a commercial photographer.
I have seen a company try to bulldoze toxic chemicals into a pond that feed the aquifer that supplied water to residential neighborhoods.
I have been on the back lots of companies and seen the leaking drums of toxic waste and listened to executives discussing just how far they could push things before lawsuits made it unprofitable.
Sorry but I will take lawyers over unscrupulous corporations any day.
So essentially you are admitting that the comments you made in #27 and #28 were WRONG?
Sure glad I read through the link you posted myself, as the information you attempted to represent as "factual" was quite far from such wasn't it? -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
So essentially you are admitting that the comments you made in #27 and #28 were WRONG?
Sure glad I read through the link you posted myself, as the information you attempted to represent as "factual" was quite far from such wasn't it?
Excuse me but what are you talking about? I am linking to the text of the actual case, what are you using? So you think a six point warning label is just fine? Did you read how many times they messed around changing the label and trying to downplay the tendency of their product to explode?
The fact that we are down to arguing details of an almost twenty year old case tells me that we are not up to our necks in "silly" lawsuits. The fact that the applet court upheld the decision of the lower court also tells me that this is not frivolous. -
Just because the appellate court upheld the original decision doesn't necessarily validate it.
So some really good lawyers argued some various points of law and got the judge to rule in their favor.
I still think these supposed professional carpet layers, had they had even one brain to share between the two of them, would have instinctively known the dangers after reading the label warnings - which they admitted they did - and would have used caution.
Even I know that you don't use flammable materials in enclosed areas such as basements without having adequate ventilation.
Some lawyers out there are living large off of the money they ripped off from the chemical company that manufactured this product, which was unfortunately sold to a couple of morons!
-
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
So essentially you are admitting that the comments you made in #27 and #28 were WRONG?
Sure glad I read through the link you posted myself, as the information you attempted to represent as "factual" was quite far from such wasn't it?
I just went back and read 27 and 28 and I stand by both of them. This was not a frivolous case and the fact that two different courts found for the plaintiff tells me that the company was at fault. SIX point type for God's sake! Are they insane?
BOTH of the cases that the anti-consumer crowd haul out turn out to be different from what they said, not nearly as "slam dunk" as they would have us believe and, in the final analysis, decided correctly. -
@ lensman67
Excuse me but what are you talking about? I am linking to the text of the actual case, what are you using? So you think a six point warning label is just fine? Did you read how many times they messed around changing the label and trying to downplay the tendency of their product to explode?
The fact that we are down to arguing details of an almost twenty year old case tells me that we are not up to our necks in "silly" lawsuits. The fact that the applet court upheld the decision of the lower court also tells me that this is not frivolous.
You stated in #27 the following: There was no "heat and flame" mentioned in the case. As far as I can tell the fumes ignited on their own.
There was no warning on the can that this could happen. Since these were experienced carpet layers who had used other products in the past that did give off explosive fumes there was no way that they could have known that this product would.
The warning label on the container read the following:
the front panel of the M280 can, including the statements “All Weather Outdoor Adhesive,” “Extremely Flammable,” “ Danger: Vapor Harmful And Can Cause Flash Flash Fires,” and “Flammable Mixture.”
So, your statement was FALSE. -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
Just because the appellate court upheld the original decision doesn't necessarily validate it.
So some really good lawyers argued some various points of law and got the judge to rule in their favor.
I still think these supposed professional carpet layers, had they had even one brain to share between the two of them, would have instinctively known the dangers after reading the label warnings - which they admitted they did - and would have used caution.
Even I know that you don't use flammable materials in enclosed areas such as basements without having adequate ventilation.
Some lawyers out there are living large off of the money they ripped off from the chemical company that manufactured this product, which was unfortunately sold to a couple of morons!
"Instinct" is not a legal defense. You still have not said anything about the "six point type" warning label. A company that would even consider such a label deserves to be fined for stupidity alone!
How did they know that the stuff was flammable? Maybe they forgot their microscope to read the label with. You work in real estate and have more experience with these things.
Turns out that the carpet layers had not been well trained as I thought, which is one of the reasons that the appellate court found against the company. They should have known that untrained people would use their product.
How much would it have cost the company to put a "flammable" label in twenty or thirty point type? Not a penny more than six
point. The difference is that a warning that big might have scared off some customers and we wouldn't want that--would we? -
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
The warning label on the container read the following:
the front panel of the M280 can, including the statements “All Weather Outdoor Adhesive,” “Extremely Flammable,” “Danger: Vapor Harmful And Can Cause Flash Flash Fires,” and “Flammable Mixture.”
So, your statement was FALSE.
My mistake. Does that make you feel better? The wonderful label was in microscopic type so it may as well not have been there at all.
We can go round and round on this twenty year case all night but you will not convince me that the two courts were bamboozled by slick lawyers that the poor company could not afford and I doubt I can convince you that the company was negligent.
The point is that this is not the "slam dunk" that the anti-consumer forces would have us believe and the fact that it is twenty years old and still being trotted out tells me even more about the state of tort law in this country than anything else.
There are tens of thousands of lawsuits every year in all fifty states and the best they can come up with is a twenty year old one?
Give me a break!
Show me twenty cases, out of the tens of thousands,in the last five years and you might have a point. Heck show me ten. But to drag out a twenty year old case that I believe was rightly decided is not making a very good case for "tort reform." -
So what you're saying essentially is that "failure to read the fine print" is grounds for a lawsuit?
I guess all warnings should be printed on fold out style placards that can be read from an approximate distance of say 2 feet? Would that be a solution?
Obviously we see this from totally different perspectives. That will not change, no matter how many more comments you post to the contrary.
Sorry.
-
@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
So what you're saying essentially is that "failure to read the fine print" is grounds for a lawsuit?
I guess all warnings should be printed on fold out style placards that can be read from an approximate distance of say 2 feet? Would that be a solution?
Obviously we see this from totally different perspectives. That will not change, no matter how many more comments you post to the contrary.
Sorry.
You are right we do come form different perspectives. I don't trust corporations to look after the consumer's best interests and I certainly don't trust them when they drag out twenty year old cases in order to change the laws of today to help pad their bottom line.
Apparently you do.
Frankly the fact that you can support a warning label in six point type with a straight face tells me that you would look for any excuse to let the company off the hook. If it were up to me printing a warning label that small would be grounds for a jail sentence for the CEO of the company. -
It seems to me that there is abuse of the laws on both sides.
There are lawyers that want to sue for any stupid reason that they can think up.
If I or someone that I care about was to be hurt by the negligence of a company I would want to be able to sue.
There are plenty of those who do not even bother to read the warning labels so I don't believe they should be able to sue.
I do believe that warnings should be printed so that they are easy to read. As people get older their eyesight is not as good as it was in younger days. Then there are those who don't have real good eyesight regardless of their age.
If there is extreme danger in a product it should be in attention grabbing print so there isn't any question that it can't be seen.
This case being discussed I am not sure if the product being looked at was from twenty years ago. If so I don't believe that products were as well labeled as they are now.
Apparently with the laws the way they are now the companies know that they better cover all their bases.
-
I wanted to mention that when I first saw this I thought it was a fun article. Since the winners were chosen in the Detroit area it sounded even more fun.
Then when I saw that the first prize winner lives in the same city that I do there was even more interest for me in the story.
No I don't know him. ;-)
I never even looked into what it meant in terms of lawsuits. It was written just for fun.
Lensman and GotTheScoop I do thank you both for giving it a different prespective and more of a thought provoking article.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
It seems to me that there is abuse of the laws on both sides.
There are lawyers that want to sue for any stupid reason that they can think up.
If I or someone that I care about was to be hurt by the negligence of a company I would want to be able to sue.
There are plenty of those who do not even bother to read the warning labels so I don't believe they should be able to sue.
I do believe that warnings should be printed so that they are easy to read. As people get older their eyesight is not as good as it was in younger days. Then there are those who don't have real good eyesight regardless of their age.
If there is extreme danger in a product it should be in attention grabbing print so there isn't any question that it can't be seen.
This case being discussed I am not sure if the product being looked at was from twenty years ago. If so I don't believe that products were as well labeled as they are now.
Apparently with the laws the way they are now the companies know that they better cover all their bases.
Follow the link to the case and see how many times the company played around with the label--none of them honest.
Six point is smaller than most people can read without a magnifying glass even young people with good eyes. To warn someone that the product could blow up part of the house and set people on fire (which is what happened) in type so small that it is barely noticeable shows that the company was trying to hide something. That in and of itself should be criminal.
People could have died and some people will still make excuses for the company and blame the victims. One may say that people should go over a can of glue with a magnifying glass and maybe that is true but people who design deceptive or sneaky labels like that should be held criminally liable as well.
The fact that fair questions can be asked about two of the anti-consumer's prize cases shows that widespread frivolous lawsuits are a myth. I will bet that every one that an anti-consumer can bring up will be found, on close examination, to have merit. The anti-consumers live by half truths and bogus reasoning. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I wanted to mention that when I first saw this I thought it was a fun article. Since the winners were chosen in the Detroit area it sounded even more fun.
Then when I saw that the first prize winner lives in the same city that I do there was even more interest for me in the story.
No I don't know him. ;-)
I never even looked into what it meant in terms of lawsuits. It was written just for fun.
Lensman and GotTheScoop I do thank you both for giving it a different prespective and more of a thought provoking article.
Sorry the grump old hippie had to mess up a fun story. ;o) -
@ lensman67
Sorry the grump old hippie had to mess up a fun story. ;o)
Hey the grumpy old hippie is always welcome. ;o)
He brings a different perspective to many stories which I welcome. -
@ lensman67
Follow the link to the case and see how many times the company played around with the label--none of them honest.
Six point is smaller than most people can read without a magnifying glass even young people with good eyes. To warn someone that the product could blow up part of the house and set people on fire (which is what happened) in type so small that it is barely noticeable shows that the company was trying to hide something. That in and of itself should be criminal.
People could have died and some people will still make excuses for the company and blame the victims. One may say that people should go over a can of glue with a magnifying glass and maybe that is true but people who design deceptive or sneaky labels like that should be held criminally liable as well.
The fact that fair questions can be asked about two of the anti-consumer's prize cases shows that widespread frivolous lawsuits are a myth. I will bet that every one that an anti-consumer can bring up will be found, on close examination, to have merit. The anti-consumers live by half truths and bogus reasoning.
I went to the link and was shocked that they said it wasn't their duty to warn about the dangers!!!!
Unbelievable.
It is criminal that the company was so irresponsible that they felt they weren't responsible to warn.
The company knew that the vapors from
hexane and naphtha, which combined accounted for almost thirty-five percent of
M280, could explosively ignite. Ms. West testified that Para-Chem was provided provided
with and was required to read the material safety data sheets (“MSDS”) for hexane
and naphtha in connection with its use of those chemicals to produce M280. The
MSDS for hexane warned: “This liquid is volatile and gives off invisible vapors. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I went to the link and was shocked that they said it wasn't their duty to warn about the dangers!!!!
Unbelievable.
It is criminal that the company was so irresponsible that they felt they weren't responsible to warn.
The company knew that the vapors from
hexane and naphtha, which combined accounted for almost thirty-five percent of
M280, could explosively ignite. Ms. West testified that Para-Chem was provided provided
with and was required to read the material safety data sheets (“MSDS”) for hexane
and naphtha in connection with its use of those chemicals to produce M280. The
MSDS for hexane warned: “This liquid is volatile and gives off invisible vapors.
"Simple" cases that people like to drag out to "prove" that the system is broken turn out on close examination to be not so simple after all.
Tort "reform" is a trick by the greedy to avoid their responsibility and not have to pay for their mistakes.
Has anyone tried printing out something in 6 point type? I think that one look at a warning label that small and then a look at what happened in this case when the workers overlooked it ought to tell us whose fault the explosion was. -
@ lensman67
"Simple" cases that people like to drag out to "prove" that the system is broken turn out on close examination to be not so simple after all.
Tort "reform" is a trick by the greedy to avoid their responsibility and not have to pay for their mistakes.
Has anyone tried printing out something in 6 point type? I think that one look at a warning label that small and then a look at what happened in this case when the workers overlooked it ought to tell us whose fault the explosion was.
Since this happened twenty years ago I am sure that warnings
are written in much larger type. All warnings that I now see are boxed in and the print is readable and many have the warning written in red or in dark blue.
What really happened is not fully disclosed just the part about the settlement and that it is/was a frivolous lawsuit. Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Wacky Warning labels contest winners
Email
Print
Share
