Has Idiot-Proofing Gone Too Far?

On MSNBC, you can have the home page display your local weather. El Paso gets a lot of sun.

MSNBC displays this as:
Sunny (clear at night). Do they really get calls from puzzled readers who don't understand why the sun isn't out at 2 A.M. when the weather calls for sunshine? Sheesh!

What other examples of someone belaboring the obvious are out there?



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[SterlingNorth]

Well, i'd be more curious as to why they don't have the system time sensitive (like the Weather Channel for instance?)

At night, they don't show the sun

------------------
It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.
---Mark Twain

[Markxxx]

Yes it has gone to far, and no people are still idiots.

When I used to work up by the airport, at least once a week, most times more, someone would ask me which stop to get off the "el" to go to the airport.

I would say "It's the one that says O'Hare and has the little plane next to it." Then I would point to the map and tell them it is the last stop. Then they would sit back look puzzled and still worry about missing it.

[dasmoocher]

Wait 'till the fun 'n games' begin with "Daylight Savings Hours". Farmers complaining that they've lost a whole hour of daylight. There's LOT'S of internet stories about them complaining that there isn'nt enough daylight hours because of Daylight Savings Hours for them [farmers] do their normal "chores" or that their live stock wakes an hour early. All I can say is that I did teen-age pennance on a working farm and the time of day [as a clock would measure] had NOTHING to do with if your chores were done. Also, no matter what time it was [on a farmer's clock]; the animals on the farm had their own schedule [relative to daylight or whatever else] and you would just have to deal with it.l

[wireless]

Hey, GMTA - I was thinking about this last night and meant to post about it today, but then forgot (so who's the idiot here?).

Anyway, what provoked the thought is this: there's a stop sign at an intersection. It's a "clear" intersection, i.e. you can see it as you approach for a reasonable distance, there's no real folliage to get in the way. Basically I'm saying that it's not hard to see this stop sign. But just in case you might miss it, there's one of those "stop sign ahead" signs about 50 yards/meters *before* the stop sign. (BTW, the speed limit in this area is about 30mph).

And just in case you might miss *that*, they've put these little red flags on sticks sticking out from the top of the "stop sign ahead" sign. So these wave in the breeze so you don't miss the "stop sign ahead" sign. Did I mention that it's a 4 way stop in a residential neighborhood, so even if you do miss (somehow!) stopping at the stop sign, it's not like you'd be driving into some highway traffic or something. You'ld probably just go right through, no problem.

How dumb do they think we are? How much protection from ourselves do we need?

And is this contributing to the "dumbing down" of our society?

I wonder sometimes if many people get so used to others (the state) looking out for ("protecting") them, that they basically turn their brain off because they no longer need to think for themselves. (And then when
they need to think, they can't remember how.)

I guess you could say my answer to you question is "Yes."

[Mazey]

Oh, I don't know. I rather like that warning tag on my hair dryer that tells me NOT to use while in water. I can't tell you how much time that little tag saved me from trying to dry my hair while standing under the shower head.

BTW, 647, bless you for confirming what I always suspected...that Daylight Savings Time has nothing to do with the farmers. I will now stop sneering at them when I 'fall back' this weekend.

------------------
What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?

[NanoByte]

And besides, idiot-proofing is unfair to the rights of us intelligence-impaired in expressing ourselves under the First Amendment.

Just say 'Stop'.

[WallyM7]

You'd think they would stop printing instructions on Shampoo bottles.

I think most of us have the hang of it now.

------------------
This space for rent.

[Byzantine]

I don't know Wally... I'm STILL in the shower; lather, rinse, repeat. I guess I can stop when the bottle is empty!



------------------
Best!
Byz

[Satan]

Well, it's been said by people far wiser than I:

Make something idiot-proof, and the world will build a better idiot!

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Sam Stone]

Uh, to be fair, wouldn't "Sunny (clear at night)" simply indicate that it will be sunny during the day with no cloud cover at night? For some people it's important to know whether there will be nighttime cloud cover.

It's certainly possible for it to be sunny in the day, cloudy at night, then sunny again the next day.

[funneefarmer]

Spring Forward
Fall Back
F***ing Government blaming us for daylight savings time again.

[NeedAHobby]

Idiots: Two Sides of a Coin

On the one hand, it seems kind of stupid in our area that they put up signs above new stop signs that say "New!" with a starburst background. However, people do fall into patterns and need big arrows pointing out the things that are different. If we had to deal explicitly with every situation as if it were new, we would never get anything done--sort of the dark side to the capacity to learn.

On the other hand, if there is a fence near a cliff in a park and someone circumvents the safety features of the fence and falls off anyway, they'll probably (call me Mr. Cynical) sue and win. However, the fence has made the cliff less dangerous by a large factor, but by creating something designed to protect people from danger, you're forced to protecting them perfectly.

The world is a dangerous place. I think we should sue God for negligence because you can pick up a rock and drop it on your foot. Things should be safer. :)

------------------
Hey, aren't you supposed to be at work?

[C K Dexter Haven]

On the stop sign thing: they do that in our area when a new stop sign is put up. They put a little red flag on it, and a sign in advance saying "STOP SIGN AHEAD"... and for the first few weeks, a sign that says "NEW! STOP SIGN AHEAD."

IMHO, this isn't idiot-proofing, this is sensible. If you've driven the same route for ten years, you tend to go on auto-pilot, and people would cruise right through a new sign. Especially with people talking on their cellphones or drinking coffee while they're driving, but don't get me started.

However, that aside, I find some of these warning labels ridiculous. You buy a hammer and it has a little tag on it, "Can cause pain if dropped on foot." "Please note: coffee is hot." Sheeeeesh.

[Kid_Gilligan]

I have never been a farmer, but it only requires a LITTLE bit of common sense to figure out why they wouldn't like daylight savings time.

It is because their lives have to continue as normal and the rest of the world goes onto a different schedule.

They still have to slop the hogs and milk the cows at the same time, but all of a sudden the bank starts closing an hour early, and TV shows are on at a different time.

[RealityChuck]

It's lawyers, not idiots, who drive idiot-proofing (not that the two groups are mutually exclusive). All the various redundant warnings are due to fear of lawsuits. If someone used a hair dryer in the shower, and died of electrocution, his family would sue the manufacturer for not warning the victim of the danger. It's cheaper to put on the warning than to defend the lawsuit.

[Timothy Campbell]

I agree with RealityChuck that the idiot-proofing is largely driven by lawyers. And even then, it's still not enough, as in the famous case of the woman who sued McDonald's for burning herself with coffee. (I've heard some apologists try to defend that ruling, but I'm still unconvinced.)

I'm expecting that one day a hospital will bring a new mother her baby and then hand her a pamphlet: "Care and Handling of Your New Baby"....

Congratulations on giving life. Your new baby can give you years of joy if properly maintained. Please note that babies require oxygen; never store your baby in a sealed container. When washing your baby, always use tepid water with a mild soap solution; do not use harsh abrasives. Feed your baby approved food (see Appendix A). Batteries not included. Lifespans may vary.

[Chef Troy]

I say that all idiot-proofing efforts should be herewith abandoned. We are failing to take advantage of a natural process for improving the breed by protecting idiots from their own idiocy.

------------------
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

[torq]

If anyone still believes that McDonald's didn't get off EXTREMELY lightly in that case, then the McDonald's propaganda machine is to be congratulated for a job well done; if that of the Third Reich had been equally competent, we'd be speaking German right now.

It's not terribly hard to find analyses of the case on the web; I posted a link to one the last time it was mentioned here.

[Dead Flowers]

Personally, I think the above-mentioned "new baby pamphlet" is a brilliant idea. Many of the morons who somehow manage in the face of overwhelming idiocy to fuck and conceive a child would benefit greatly from remedial instruction in caring for a new life. I say this only to protect the children from the ignorance of their new parents. The mind balks at the tragedies we see march through the doors of our emergency department every day, visited upon children by ignorant parents. This is not to mention what people do to themselves (a whole other topic in and of itself).

Maybe I'm cynical and bitter (okay, not maybe), but it's hard to underestimate the idiocy of the general population. Many of the posters to this board are professional people, well educated with educated friends and peer groups. That's all well and good, but it leaves you at risk of losing touch with the lowest common denominator that makes up most of the world. Most of the rest of the world would benefit from some remedial instruction (assuming that they have brains enough to use the instruction).
The more idiotic and simplistic instructions, the better. Just think, if you make something simple enough for the average person to understand, then fully half of the population won't get it.
Scary, huh?

[Dead Flowers]

Nah.

I've reconsidered. Chef Troy's right. Darwin Rules. Let 'em weed themselves out.

[BoBettie]

Speaking of idiot proofing things, my husband stayed in a jaccuzi suite on our honeymoon. I had never used a jaccuzi tub before (the kind you put your own bubble bath in). I turned it on and put about 2 capfulls of bubble making stuff in. In my own (idiot) defense, we have "hard" water at home and you need a LOT of soap to take a decent bubble bath. Well, as I"m sure you can guess, about 5 minutes later there is soap EVERYWHERE but in the tub and I'm laughing my ass off. Moral? They will put warnings on hair dryers, and instructions on paper towel dispensers, but they figure you'll know not to put more then 2cc of bubbles in the tub.
::shrug::

------------------
A friend is someone who likes you even though you're as ugly as a hat full of assholes.
Zettecity (http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/zettecity/index.html)

[Mr Thin Skin]

Chef Troy! Have you been away?

A new stop sign was installed recently at the corner of Marsh and Northwest Highway in Dallas (I'm sorry, but saying "A new stop sign was installed in Dallas recently" sounded stupid). No fanfare, no warning signs nothing. It's even a slightly faded sign. Guess what? No one noticed it. My nearly blind wife saw it one day, so I must be the only person who stops at it.

I did get a oven installed, and the warning include "do not store gasoline or other flammable materials in the oven." My hammer had a decal that warns that a face shield (ANSI Z.89?) must be worn as well as ear protection and gloves.

[wireless]

Zette:

Speaking of idiot proofing things, my husband stayed in a jaccuzi suite on our honeymoon.

And where did you stay?

[wireless]

OOPS!

Forgot to add the :) so you'd know I'm just lightly ribbing.

Sorry!

[{:-Df]

Dead Flowers:
I say this only to protect the children from the ignorance of their new parents.
Give up. It can't be done.

...it leaves you at risk of losing touch with the lowest common denominator that makes up most of the world.
Risk? What risk? That's WHY we come here! It's a benefit.

[KCB615]

In the instruction manual for a chainsaw I got to play with about two months ago, there was a warning not to stand on branches you are cutting.

On my lawnmower (a walk-behind), there is a warning not to carry it to trim hedges.

Neither of these two things would be there unless some moron sawed off the branch he was standing on or tried to trim hedges with his lawnmower. If you are stupid enough to do either of those things, you deserve whats coming.

Then again, stupid people keep me in business, so what am I complaining about....

------------------
Jeremy....

I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire engine - Kurt Vonnegut

[Jorge]

On the stop sign thing: they do that in our area when a new stop sign is put up. They put a little red flag on it, and a sign in advance saying "STOP SIGN AHEAD"... and
for the first few weeks, a sign that says "NEW! STOP SIGN AHEAD."

IMHO, this isn't idiot-proofing, this is sensible.

It is sensible. (BTW, y'all fergot about the new sign at nighttime, since it was mentioned in the first coupla posts...)

------------------
O le mea a tamaali'i fa'asala, a o le mea a tufanua fa'alumaina.

[NicePete]

First, and foremost. The OP's example made me think of an old George Carlin routine where he was "Al Sleet, the Hippy Dippy Weatherman". It went something like:
Tonight's forecast....Dark. Followed by periods of light in the morning.

Next, defending my profession against the ubiquitous lawyer bashing.

1. Anecodal evidence on absurd lawsuits over-emphasizes their prevalence. We think there's lots of them because that's all we hear about. However, they are the exception rather than the rule.

2. Ok, some unjustified lawsuits are brought and occasionally there are absurd results. According to you, this is all because of the lawyers. The greedy plaintiff, the judge, the jury, the defendant, its insurance company or its attornies had nothing to do with it. Just those damn lawyers. Sure, whatever.

3. The lawsuit process if the most effective way (perhaps the only way) our society can require who produce products or otherwise provide services to make them safe. Sometimes the process works, and works well. Remember the Ford Pinto? Would you feel better if your home and office was filled with asbestos? Does your car have an airbag?

I cringe like everyone else when I hear about claims supported by pseudo-science or otherwise not supported by valid evidence. But there are plenty of cases that perfectly valid. These suits represent the only opportunity for people with minimal resources (i.e. consumers) to hold people with extensive resources (i.e. large corporations) accountable.

4. Yes, we try to idiot proof the world. And, Yes, we end up with some stupid warning labels and the like. Do you know the saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."? Product producers have learned that it is far cheaper to provide a safe product and include some asinine warning than it is to pay damages. Sometimes they go to far in an overabundance of caution.

But we as a society, through our jury system, have decided on the level of safety features it is reasonable for a jury to provide. Is the bar set too high? I don't think so. (Although I have my pet peeves like everybody else. I hate that I can't get a burger cooked medium rare at half the restaurants I go to.) The price we pay for our added safety is stupid warning labels and the occasional unfair damage award. I think it's worth it.

But, hey, it's the lawyers fault. That's not just a little simplistic, is it?

------------------
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.

[KSO]

PLEASE NOTE: I am just the messenger--it's not my fault the jury awarded the McDonald's woman money, nor do I have an opinion as to whether or not the jury should have found in her favor.

Having stated that disclaimer, my understanding is that she received third degree burns to her genitals through her clothing and required skin grafts. She was in the hospital for some period of time because of the burns. I guess the jury found that a product hot enough to cause third degree burns through clothing isn't really fit for human consumption and can fairly be classified as "dangerous". Additionally, the corporation had received hundreds of complaints regarding the temp. of the coffee they were serving so they had notice of a potential problem. Also, they were selling this product from a drive through window. Is it foreseeable that someone in their car will take the lid off the coffee cup to add sugar or cream or whatever? The jury thought so. The punitive damages awarded by the jury equalled two days of profit from coffee sales for McDonalds. The judge reduced the punitives to three times her actual economic damages, but I don't recall what that number was.

I'm not saying the McDonald's woman wasn't an idiot, but I also sympathize with anyone who ends up needing skin grafts on their crotch.

[Jodi]

My personal favorite for anticipating the idiocy of others: My building has glass doors at the entrance and vandals came through on night and smashed the heck out of one (of a set of two of them). They did such a nice job of bending the frame and smashing the glass (though they didn't manage to get in) that the entire door had to be removed and boarded over with plywood while a new door was ordered. Plywood, nailed on, nothing looking anything like a handle . . . but sporting a sign advising us all to Use Other Door.

[Chef Troy]

Chef Troy! Have you been away?

A new stop sign was installed recently at the corner of Marsh and Northwest Highway in Dallas...

No, I've just been too full of ennui to do much posting lately.

sure you've got your streets right? I could have sworn there was a traffic light at that intersection. (I live in Dallas too.)

I actually think calling people's attention to new stop signs or traffic lights is a good idea. I object to warnings like the one on the tube of contraceptive jelly that says, "not to be taken by mouth." Like some idiot was enjoying it on toast and then couldn't understand why she got pregnant.

------------------
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

[Diceman]

IIRC, and this has all the hallmarks of an UL, someone did do just that (for some other reason, but did enter a suit against God). The judge did a beautiful sidestep. He ruled that (a) his court did not have jurisdiction over God, and (b) even if jurisdiction could be established, he had no way to enforce his decrees as against God.

The way I heard it was that the judge said that the plaintiff couldn't prove that God lived within his jurisdiction

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[TubaDiva]

Well, it's been said by people far wiser than I:

Make something idiot-proof, and the world will build a better idiot!

I'm still waiting!

your humble TubaDiva

[Cartooniverse]

Dear WIRELESS- Sorry, but DEX is right, and you are wrong. Want proof? A few weeks ago, a woman named Suzanne Stanway died in Newburgh, NY. She was an older lady- mid 50's and excellent driver. Adult kids, husband was a minister.
She blew a stop sign, and was T-boned by a car. She died the second the car hit her, her brain stem was severed from her spinal cord. In all likelihood, she never even saw it, and had no clue.
She was a very careful driver. The sign was down because of the severe flooding from Hurricane Floyd. Maybe if she had noticed a "Stop Ahead" sign, she might have slowed. You think this is some cooked-up Urban Legend, just to say you are wrong? Check the Internet for the Times Herald-Record of Orange County, NY. Her lengthy and sad obit is there, to be found.
It has nothing to do with dumbing, and everything to do with public safety. Before you go attacking someone for that kind of caution, try dragging what is left of a car accident victim from their car, at the side of the road. I've done it, and will again ( EMS Volunteer ).
Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this one.
Cartooniverse.

" If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel ".

[Cartooniverse]

Dear WIRELESS- Sorry, but DEX is right, and you are wrong. Want proof? A few weeks ago, a woman named Suzanne Stanway died in Newburgh, NY. She was an older lady- mid 50's and excellent driver. Adult kids, husband was a minister.
She blew a stop sign, and was T-boned by a car. She died the second the car hit her, her brain stem was severed from her spinal cord. In all likelihood, she never even saw it, and had no clue.
She was a very careful driver. The sign was down because of the severe flooding from Hurricane Floyd. Maybe if she had noticed a "Stop Ahead" sign, she might have slowed. You think this is some cooked-up Urban Legend, just to say you are wrong? Check the Internet for the Times Herald-Record of Orange County, NY. Her lengthy and sad obit is there, to be found.
It has nothing to do with dumbing, and everything to do with public safety. Before you go attacking someone for that kind of caution, try dragging what is left of a car accident victim from their car, at the side of the road. I've done it, and will again ( EMS Volunteer ).
Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this one.
Cartooniverse.

" If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel ".

[Cartooniverse]

OYE. Nothing like reading a furious posting....twice. My apologies, I have NO clue how it got duplicated.

Cartooniverse

[putrid]

So what you're saying is that every stopsign should be repeated just in case one of them is knocked down? What if both are? Should we erect three signs for each one in case the other two are knocked down? Are you seriously suggesting that the 99% of all stops in this country which are not marked by double signs are unsafe? Or just in flood-zones?

[BoBettie]

Wireless jested:
Speaking of idiot proofing things, my husband stayed in a jaccuzi suite on our honeymoon.
And where did you stay?

Man, I can't put anything past you guys! I slept outside the door to our suite, wishing I could come in, having been banished after the jaccuzi incident :)

------------------
A friend is someone who likes you even though you're as ugly as a hat full of assholes.
Zettecity (http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/zettecity/index.html)

[The Ryan]

I agree with Frankd6 about blaming laywers being simplistic. If the government passes a law saying that laywers can bring a suit under certain situations, and a laywer does so, why blame the laywers? It's the government, the judges, and juries that actually have the power to lay judgement against people. The laywers just say why their client should get money; they don't actually force anyone to give money. Of course, of the three groups mentioned above that do force people to pay out judgements, two are composed mostly of laywers.
The most astonishingly obvious warning I have heard is the advice to take off your clothes before ironing them. Yes, that's right. You read correctly. Do not iron your clothes while wearing them. What was really amazing is that the woman giving this advice claimed to be speaking from personal experience. I'm not sure whether or not she was kidding. I really hope she was.

[Polycarp]

I think we should sue God for negligence because you can pick up a rock and drop it on your foot.

IIRC, and this has all the hallmarks of an UL, someone did do just that (for some other reason, but did enter a suit against God). The judge did a beautiful sidestep. He ruled that (a) his court did not have jurisdiction over God, and (b) even if jurisdiction could be established, he had no way to enforce his decrees as against God.

[Diver]

A while back I bought a ladder. When I got home with it, I spent about 10 minutes reading it.
Lots of warning labels on that sucker.
Then when I used it, I slipped on a slick warning label stuck on a rung and damn near broke my leg.
I think I will sue the manufacturer for not applying a warning label warning me about the warning labels.

[dasmoocher]

Kid-Gilligan-I was referring to Internet stories that made the point that some farmers believed that there would somehow be an extra hour of darkness because of DST (I could find the links, but are they UL? Or are the farmers that make these statements idiots?).

Frankd6-I agree with your points. Bullshit lawsuits seem no different than the "shady mechanic"; it's just a scam on a different level.

What I want to know is this: whatever happened to "let the buyer beware"? If I willingly buy a cup of scalding hot coffee (and coffee is too hot, right?; otherwise McDs would be sued for selling cold coffee-"this isn't what I wanted"). It's my own damn fault for spilling it. I'm not talking about fraud here; I bought a hot cup of coffee willingly. Why is McDs responsible for me being an idiot if I burn myself with it? I knowingly bought this potentially harmful product. Do we really need a warning label to be told coffee is served hot?

How is this different than, say, burning myself through idiocy on the hot-water heater I have in my basement. I purchased both [the coffee too] willingly and they both give me a benefit; but through idiocy, I've been harmed. What's next-suing Ford because people die in car crashes? Apologizes to anyone who has lost someone in an auto accident-in my life, I have lost close ones also(senseless,usaully)-but driving an automobile in a reckless manner may cause death. Isn't the driver at fault? Do we sue the manufacturer?

[dasmoocher]

To clarify my statements about driver fault-I'm not talking about defective brakes et al. I don't have stats, but a lot of accidents are caused by driver error, which I think most people would agree with. I guess what I was trying to get at was: Would "Ford" be responsible for a drunk driver? So why is McDs responsible for the idiot that spills their coffee?

[techchick68]

A few years ago I purchased the "Hardini." A piece of metal covered with a foam to make french twists. I kid you not, the packaging said "for external use only"

Okay, I am wondering if some woman thought that this might be a low tech substitute to a vibrator? Or possibly an anorexic thought this would be a better alternative to sticking her finger down her throat. I hate to think of the other possiblities, but was that warning really neccessary?

[NicePete]

647 said:
So why is McDs responsible for the idiot that spills their coffee?

As I recall, the reason Micky Dee's was held liable was because they served their coffee about 30 degrees hotter than it needed to be. I'm not sure about the exact temperatures, but coffee is normally kept at, say, 150F and McD required its restaurants to serve theirs at 180F. They had received numerous complaints and warnings about this policy, but took no action to change it.

Now, I agree that product producers can't be required to insure against anyone having an accident with their products. However, when it is reasonable for a producer to expect that a product will be involved in a certain type of accident, isn't it fair to hold them responsible if they do not correct an unnecessarily unsafe condition of which they are aware? Isn't it reasonable for McD's to expect people to occasionally spill their coffee? And if so, isn't it fair to hold McD's responsible if the coffee they provide is much hotter than normal, and therefore more dangerous if spilled? McD's was creating an additional risk of harm for its customers. It was aware of this, yet did nothing to correct the situation. Shouldn't we hold them responsible?

Let's take your Ford example, for instance. What if Ford built Mustangs with a decorative 6 inch spike mounted on the middle of the steering wheel. Drivers are being impaled and killed in minor fender-benders. Lots of folks write or call Ford to tell them the the decorative spike is dangerous. But Ford ignores them and continues to put the spike on the Mustangs, year after year. Wouldn't you agree that Ford should be responsible for the damages its failure to provide a safe product has caused?

Again, I think many of these seemingly anomalous judgments, like the McD's coffee millions, just seem that way because we don't have all the facts.

------------------
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.

[dasmoocher]

Mmmm…"additional risk". That sounds like a topic of a lecture taught in one of those law schools I never attended. I guess I also missed the one covering "assumed risk".

I'll admit I don't have all the facts.

Frankd6-I follow your logic, but what I was trying to get at was "LET THE BUYER BEWARE". If McDs serves its coffee at 180F instead of 150F and people have complained-so what; couldn't I buy my coffee from BurgerKing? I'm not forced to buy McD's coffee and if I didn't know it was 30F too hot, shouldn't I assume that it going to burn anyway if I spill it? Maybe burn more than BurgerKing's? But, don't I assume that I'm dealing with something that can injure me? If you don't want to get burned by the coffee you just bought-don't buy the coffee.

If I buy the Ford with the spike in the middle of the steering wheel, shouldn't I realize that I have a greater chance of being impaled? Who's forcing me to buy that model? Buy another model if you don't want to take that chance. If you buy any car and drive it, aren't you increasing your risk of being involved in an auto accident?

Ahhh, but what if I don't realize the risk I assume.

This is what you're talking about (at least I think) and gets to the point of the OP. But what determines the level of idiocy-proof? Most people would look at the car with the spike in the steering wheel and say "Not a good idea". I'm assuming more risk by driving this car. Now, there's going to be somebody from the shallow end of the gene pool who doesn't see the extra risk. He drives the car and gets impaled. Why should Ford have to be financially responsible to him (if he lives) or his family because he was an idiot? Ford didn't make him buy that model.

What's the level of idiocy?

I'm not saying corporations or people should be allowed to do whatever they what. I don't want the local nuclear power plant dumping their waste in my backyard just because it's cheaper for them.

But, how stupid do you have to be, before a judge throws out a lawsuit?

I remember a news piece about the fact that Satanists sued to be able to use a prison chapel for their services. Once they had their service, the Christians claimed it was desecrated. The answer? Spend $100,000s to build a new prison chapel.

You're right-it's the outrageous cases that make the media. Are they a sign of what's going on, though?

Sorry to rant, but shit like the coffee and the chapel just seem ludicrous to me. Wouldn't millions be saved by common sense?

[AuraSeer]

I dunno about you, but when I buy coffee, I expect to be able to drink it. If the "McDonald's woman" had drunk that coffee, she'd have gotten those severe burns inside her mouth instead of in her lap. Do you think that would be any less reason for a lawsuit?

------------------
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.

[Kat]

Except that people do drink the coffee right away. Many many people get their coffee "for here", and they use the same coffee for "for here", "to go" and drive-thru orders.

------------------
Your Official Cat Goddess since 10/20/99.

[Minxsmom]

Boy, am I glad this topic is here. I
just got a catalogue today and there is
an ad for baking dishes. They are
diplayed very nicely with a pie in the
pie plate and a casserole of some sort in
the other dish. Do you know that they
had the nerve to put the disclaimer "food
not included" in the ad. Would ANYONE
with even one live brain cell think the
food was included? I mean that's taking
it a bit far, don't you think?

As far as the McD's lady, IMHO, coffee is
hot - even coffee not 30 degrees hotter
than most will cause burns (being very
clumsy, I speak from experience :) ). So
let's do the math.... Hot Liquid + Not
very sturdy standard styrofoam cup +
squished between thighs = very good
chance of getting burned if you squeeze
just a bit too tight. Her fault. I know
that many don't agree with me; and I do
feel very sorry for her - being burned in
such a sensitive area is a terrible
thing. But, I am very big on personal
responsibility. I mean, come on, if you
do something boneheaded - you deserve
what you get.

------------------
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above as apparently my cat has learned to type.

[Hello Again]

coming in on the McD's side of the arguement -- didn't they make the coffee that hot cause *most people don't drink it right away*. They put the cup in their CUP HOLDERS, -- not squeezing an eminently destructible container in their crotch -- add milk, or sugar, stir, put it back in the cup holder, etc.

I don't get the "hundred of complaints"... don't they serve million of people worldwide? does 100 complaints out of 2,000,000 served (just a guess) make it an issue? aren't 99% of customers perfectly satisfied with the product?

[PUNdit]

I bought a ceiling fan duster with a telescoping handle since our fans are so high up. There is a warning lable that says, "Turn fan off before dusting."

As to the McDonalds case, there is a web site that explains it, but my connections are goofy tonite. It seems the McD's in question was serving coffee that was 30 degrees hotter than what McD's specs called for. That restaurant had numerous complaints about how hot their coffee was. Coffee that is between 140 and 160 degrees will cause scalding (first degree burns like a mild sunburn) but not 2nd and 3rd degree burns like the lady in question suffered.



------------------

Anyway, what provoked the thought is this: there's a stop sign at an intersection. It's a "clear" intersection, i.e. you can see it as you approach for a reasonable distance, there's no real folliage to get in the way. Basically I'm saying that it's not hard to seethis stop sign. But just in case you might miss it, there's one of those "stop sign ahead" signs about 50 yards/meters *before* the stop sign. (BTW, the speed limit in this area is about 30mph).

That warning sign could save someone's life if there was a heavy fog.

If you can't see a stop sign until you're 10 feet away from it, you don't have much time to react.

[pldennison]

coming in on the McD's side of the arguement -- didn't they make the coffee that hot cause *most people don't drink it right away*. They put the cup in their CUP HOLDERS, -- not squeezing an eminently destructible container in their crotch -- add milk, or sugar, stir, put it back in the cup holder, etc.

>sigh< Repeat after me:

She wasn't the driver of the car.
The car was not moving at all.
She was not holding it in her crotch.
The trial jury assigned some of the blame to the woman.

She wasn't the driver of the car.
The car was not moving at all.
She was not holding it in her crotch.
The trial jury assigned some of the blame to the woman.

She wasn't the driver of the car.
The car was not moving at all.
She was not holding it in her crotch.
The trial jury assigned some of the blame to the woman.

She wasn't driving the car.
The car was not moving at all.
She was not holding it in her crotch.
The trial jury assigned some of the blame to the woman.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[longjohn]

Just thought you might appreciate the most redundant warning spotted on this side of the pond, presumably following the publicity given recently to the extremely violent and sometimes fatal reaction some unfortunate individuals have had to nuts. On packets of salted peanuts from a sainsbury's supermarket "warning; product may contain nuts".

[tomndebb]

When did they start putting nuts in peanuts packages? (I know that there are peanuts in "mixed nuts" packages, but I had never heard of nuts being put in with peanuts.)

[Minxsmom]

PUNdit - you should leave the fan on anyway. That might make a great ride. You could sell tickets! Who needs Great Adventure - we have PUNdit's living room! :)

[{:-Df]

From thread http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/003296.html concerning human footprints in pre-cambrian rock, we have:
Pantellerite: First, if you haven't been by the creationist "museum" in Glen Rose lately, they've...constructed a "hyperbolic chamber" to prove their theory (cough!crackpot babbling) that in the antediluvian era, the atmospheric pressure was much higher and richer in oxygen and water vapor. They claim that under these conditions, all living things can live to be hundreds of years old... This fits in with the dinosaurs, they claim, because lizards grow larger for as long as they live (they say--I only have primary knowledge of geology, not biology); thus, old lizards = large lizards = dinosaurs... So, the wackos in Glen Rose are raising lizards in their so-called "hyperboloic chamber" trying to grow dinosaurs...

Seraphim: The plan, my friend explains to me, is to stock it full of lifeforms and tweak the atmostphere inside to approximate (in their mind) the conditions of early earth. They're gonna pressurize it to 2 atmospheres and tweak the oxygen level to 50%. Also in works is a giant electromagnet that'll run through the center of the tank that'll bathe the organisms in energy. Supposedly, the life they'll grow inside will grow to giant porportions and have longer lifespans.

You'd be amazed at the lengths some creationists are going to get this project to completion. According to my friend, they've had offers from women to give birth and raise their children inside the tank!
So, just in general or assuming that we CAN protect children from the idiocy of their parents, what would be the warning labels on that tank?

[wireless]

In response to my post stating:
Anyway, what provoked the thought is this: there's a stop sign at an intersection. It's a "clear" intersection, i.e. you can see it as you approach for a reasonable distance, there's no real foliage to get in the way. Basically I'm saying that it's not hard to see this stop sign. But just in case you might miss it, there's one of those "stop sign ahead" signs about 50 yards/meters *before* the stop sign. (BTW, the speed limit in this area is about 30mph).

Puffington says:
That warning sign could save someone's life if there was a heavy fog.
If you can't see a stop sign until you're 10 feet away from it, you don't have much time to react.

Puff-
I just can’t buy your argument. Seems to me that if the fog’s so heavy that you can’t see more than 10 feet, you shouldn’t be driving, or should be driving VERRRRYYY SLLOOOOOWWWWLLLLYY so that 10 feet *IS* enough time to react. Isn’t it a basic rule (of common sense if not law) that you should drive in a manner where you can react to events? The stop sign’s probably the least of one’s worries in this situation. What about buildings, other cars, pedestrians? Can’t stop in time to see them? They should all have warning signs?

[Timothy Campbell]

Tomndebb:

When did they start putting nuts in peanuts packages? (I know that there are peanuts in "mixed nuts" packages, but I had never heard of nuts being put in with peanuts.)

Uh, is this some veiled reference to the fact that a peanut is not, strictly speaking, a nut but is actually (taxonomically) a bean?

[Chef Troy]

(ahem) it's a legume, not a bean. Not the same thing. However, you are correct in saying that a peanut is not a nut.

------------------
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

[Mr Thin Skin]

Chef Troy Saidth:

sure you've got your streets right? I could have sworn there was a traffic light at that intersection. (I live in Dallas too.)


Yes I live just down Marsh (Betty Jane Lane- road behind Albertsons). You are right that there's a stoplight, but Marsh (actually Lemmon there) passes over Northwest Highway. The access ramp to the northbound Marsh Lane (right by the Target, and the now-gone Comic book store) has a stop sign installed.



------------------
Dogs love cheese

[Cory]

I got a package of christmas lights once which read "for outdoor use only". Where else would you use them, they're christmas lights.

[Cory]

My father recently purchased a chainsaw and the warning label read "do not attempt to stop with hands." I was begining to wonder if anbody had acually tried it.

Technical Note On Restaurant Coffee Makers:
My father used to be an employee of the Bunn Company, a leading manufacturer of coffee makers for the restaurant trade. These differ markedly from the home coffee makers in many ways, including materials (copper & stainless steel guts vs. plastic innards at home)& production capacity (cafeteria models could make hundreds of cups in mere minutes).

The large scale cafeteria/fast food coffee makers have a STERILIZING FUNCTION. This makes it easier to clean these models by forcing VERY HOT WATER & STEAM through the system to clean it. The damn things look like steam engines or huge boilers (well, I guess they are). Improper use of the sterilizing function can produce severe burns & is very dangerous.

This may explain plenty, even if it is not mentioned in the court papers or news sites.

personal note: In the early 70's, we were the first family around to own a coffee maker, rather than use a percolator. It was a small restaurant model, resembling current coffee makers. But it had copper guts, & was decorated with copper plating on the outside. All metal, you know. It made Mom the envy of the neighborhood, & our kitchen became the local cafe; with all the neighbors dropping by all the time for a cup & a chat. We were sure popular.
Good coffee, too.

------------------
Is an appreciation of beauty a function of the human soul?

[Bubba_blue]

Cory wrote:

I got a package of christmas lights once which read "for outdoor use only". Where else would you use them, they're christmas lights.

Well, if you were an apartment dweller without a balcony, you might want to hang them inside around the window. But I suspect a lot of people would put them on the tree. After all, not too many people these days have outdoor lights, but most people still put up a tree.

[Shalmaneser]

Regarding: "IIRC, and this has all the hallmarks of an UL, someone did do just that (for some other reason, but did enter a suit against God). The judge did a beautiful sidestep. He ruled that (a) his court did not have jurisdiction over God, and (b) even if jurisdiction could be established, he had no way to enforce his decrees as against God."

It is possible that occurred, but I *can* say with certainty that that reasoning was used to dismiss a lawsuit a farmer brought against Satan for ruining his crops. This appeared in our Civil Procedure casebook in law school. If I recall correctly, it was in Pennsylvania in the early 1800's.

[MarkSerlin]

In my opinion, most of this stuff started because of lawyers and greedy people. Someone discovered how easy it is to sue a store or product maker and get money from them for their own idiocy. Juries of peers, often sympathize with the person, seeing the manufacturer as a cold, mega-company with plenty of money, and award lots of bucks.

Lawyers, finding this a great source of income with little work, started encouraging people to sue. Years ago, lawyers would decline frivolous suites because they were stupid, but new laws and twists of logic mean that the lawyer will get paid whether he wins or not and that the major company CAN be found liable for the consumer stupidity.

Look at the Mc Donald's coffee case. Then there was the enormously fat lady who sued a theater for not having extra large seats that she could sit in. There was a wheelchair bound handicapped guy who also sued a theater for not having a handicapped sitting area and not allowing him to sit in his own chair in the aisle.

Examples: Pinneke v. Preisser, 623 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff successfully sued the state for refusing to pay for his sex change operation.

A surfer recently sued another surfer for "taking his wave." The case was ultimately dismissed because they were unable to put a price on "pain and suffering" endured by watching someone ride the wave that was "intended for you."

A bank discovered that millions of dollars deposited in an account were in fact embezzled funds. The bank transferred the funds back to the lawful owner and got sued! The embezzler's alleged accomplice filed a lawsuit against the bank for returning the money, and asked for $20 million in damages. The bank won in court, but only after spending over $20,000 in legal fees.

To protect themselves, manufacturers have had to act like people who buy their products have the mental level of 3 year olds because given ANY chance, a lawyer somewhere will bring an idiot client into court to sue for his or her own actions. Even if the case is thrown out of court, the lawyer gets paid and the company has to put out cash for legal fees.

Face it, some people just lack common sense. These are the type who would toss a stick of dynamight into a fire because there was no printed warning on it NOT to throw it in a fire.

I figure they are kind of like the girl, who seriously asked me once if Oriental girls snatches were REALLY horizontal instead of vertical like White woman's are. She's an adult also. It is for people like her that the little packs of peanuts on airlines have written across them : OPEN PACKET. REMOVE NUTS. EAT NUTS.


------------------
Mark
"Think of it as Evolution in action."

[pldennison]

Do you have cites for any of these cases aside from Pinneke v. Preisser, Mark? No? Huh. Let's see:

Look at the Mc Donald's coffee case.

Since it's been rehashed now in many threads, please tell us everything you know about the (cue scary music) McDonald's Coffee Case. I bet you have almost every fact wrong, but we'll see.

Then there was the enormously fat lady who sued a theater for not having extra large seats that she could sit in.

Cite, please?

There was a wheelchair bound handicapped guy who also sued a theater for not having a handicapped sitting area and not allowing him to sit in his own chair in the aisle.

This sounds like a pretty clear ADA violation to me. Nearly every theater I've been in has an area for wheelchair-bound patrons.

Examples: Pinneke v. Preisser, 623 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff successfully sued the state for refusing to pay for his sex change operation.

Yes, Pinneke successfully argued that sex reassignment surgery was a medical necessity (and let's not even get into the enormous amount of casework on transgender issues), and the court agreed, stating that 1) Iowa's denial [of medical benefits for SRS] constituted an arbitrary denial of benefits based solely on diagnosis, type of illness or condition, and (2) Iowa's policy of denying Medicaid benefits for sex reassignment surgery was not consistent with the objectives of the Medicaid statute. There are a whole slew of cases at all levels affirming that SRS is medically necessary and not merely cosmetic, and that denial of benefits for it is arbitrary and discriminatory, although there are certainly cases deciding the other way as well.



------------------
"Come on, Phonics Monkey--drum!"

[KSO]

And how about some cites for the "new laws" that allow lawyers to get paid whether they win or lose. I've never heard of a personal injury case being taken on an hourly basis, only based on a contingency fee. The client may have to pay the costs of litigation but the lawyer won't get his fee per se unless the case settles or he wins at trial.

[Keeves]

This morning I reached for my box of Wheaties, and at the top of the box, by the flaps you use to open it, there was a general notice to allergy sufferers that they should read the ingredients list.

D'oh!

[Keeves]

Jodih wroteYou can charge an hourly rate ..., or you can charge a contingency fee, .... The former is the way everyone else in the entire world who offers a service gets paid;Such is the popular belief, but I can think of a bunch of exceptions: A builder will not be paid if the building is structurally unsound, for example. But an even better example is a repairman of almost any type, such as a car mechanic or computer technician -- If my device is broken, and he is unable to fix it, I do not pay his hourly fee, although the travel expense for the housecall might apply.

But even exceptions have exceptions, as physicians are repairmen who do get paid whether they fix the problem or not.

[Cartooniverse]

Puffington? thank you :)

Cartooniverse

"If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel :

[SoxFan59]

The McDonald's coffee case (in New Mexico, I recall) is often trotted out as an example of justice run amok.

A few things that are not mentioned:

* Some folks here have already discussed some of the obvious problems McDonalds had in defending themselves. Yes, the plaintiff wasn't very bright for putting the cup between her legs, but she did suffer third degree burns. Selling coffee that is hot enough to cause those kind of burns is wilful and wanton conduct, and the jury agreed. McDonalds had received hundreds of complaints. Despite notions that a few hundred complaints involving the millions of cups of coffee served, realize that you can bet that for every actualized complaint, there are probably at least 1000 other incidents left unreported.

* If you've read anything about the course of the trial, you will see that McDonald's dug its own grave. They took the tack that the plaintiff was an idiot for putting the coffee between her legs. She was an elderly woman, who was well educated and appeared very believable and sympathetic on the stand. McDonalds also chided her for wearing clothes that absorbed the coffee, which amplified the burn damages. So she should have chosen a less absorbant pair of pants? Finally, they told the jury that they should take her age into account, because older people don't heal as well (or arguments in that vein). There were folks on the jury who were over 40 who objected to that reasoning. McDonalds completely misread the attitudes of the jury.

* the huge verdict was a result of a simple argument made by plaintiff's counsel. He urged the jury to award punitive damages equal to one dollar for every cup of coffee McDonalds sells every day, over a period of time (was it 30 days? I don't specifically recall). The jury picked up on that, and did a simple computation that resulted in teh obscenely large award. But it had a relationship to reality and was really a drop in the bucket as far as McDonald's coffee revenue was concerned. The jury also factored into this equation the plaintiff's comparative negligence for driving with hot coffee between her legs. Thus, the punitive damage award had some offset in it as it was awarded.

* The verdict was reduced on appeal. Substantially reduced! I don't remember by how much, but I recall it was by millions of dollars.

I actually see the McDonalds case as an example where justice was served; on balance, McDonalds should be responsible to serve coffee that is not so hot as to severely burn people who absent mindedly try and consume it while driving - - something most of you who drink coffee have at least tried to do sometime. And if most of us have tried to do it, its not a totally unreasonable thing to do, which is the basic standard for negligent behavior.

------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[Jodi]

MARK -- A lawyer in private practice can earn a fee one of two ways: You can charge an hourly rate (plus expenses) for the time you spend, regardless of the out-come of the case, or you can charge a contingency fee, allowing you to recover a percentage (up to one-third, in my state) of the amount of money, if any, eventually awarded or recovered. The former is the way everyone else in the entire world who offers a service gets paid; the latter is more of a crap shoot because the lawyer makes nothing if he or she loses, but the pay-off may be handsome if he or she wins. Most people with personal injury cases cannot afford the expenses incurred in taking such a case to trial, so the lawyer will agree to take the case on contingency and front the costs. So if the lawyer really wants to ensure that he or she will be paid regardless of whether he or she wins or loses, then he or she will choose to be paid by the hour. Under a contingency fee arrangement, the risk is all on the lawyer -- no recovery, no fee, as they say in the ads. Of course, the third way to earn a living is to become a government lawyer and be paid peanuts and cheesy-poofs.

If someone wanted to erect a wooden replica of the Eiffel Tower on their roof, they could find a carpenter to shrug and do the work. If someone wanted to install their faucets upside down so turning the handle made the water spray to the ceiling, they could find a plumber to shrug and do the work. Is the idiocy of the client attributable to the plumber or the carpenter? If not, why is the idiocy of the legal customer always attributed to the greed of a lawyer. As a lawyer, I have an obligation to honestly evaluate a case and advise my client of the chances of making a recovery. If a lawyer frankly tells a client his case is ten pounds of fertilizer in a five pound bag, but the client still wants to pursue it, then the lawyer may choose to do so if he or she wants. I wouldn't want to, but then I'm not out trying to make a living in private practice.

[MarkSerlin]

Here's a few frivilous cases:

GORDON v. SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 469 F.Supp. 1026 (D. N.J. 1978).
(Man sues New Jersey's Secretary of State for the right to be President of the United States instead of Jimmy Carter-

COLLINS v. HENMAN, 676 F.Supp. 175 (S.D.Ill. 1987).
(Prisoner is not Raymond Collins, but the Prophet Muhammad who was convicted under the wrong name by Christians and was mistakenly sent to jail for 175 years by the "Masonic Regime" that now holds him hostage)

SIERRA CLUB v. MORTON, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) [ Douglas, J., dissenting, at 741.]
(United States Supreme Court Justice argues that valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, and air, should be legal persons so they can sue in federal court to protect themselves)

-

------------------
Mark
"Think of it as Evolution in action."

[KSO]

MARK--what is your point? In Collins, the issue was whether the prisoner had standing to bring a habeas corpus action in federal court. His claim that he was Muhammed was irrelevant to the question, because, as the court correctly noted, his religious beliefs in no way alter his legal rights. The petition was frivolous because he hadn't yet exhausted his state remedies, not because he thought he was Muhammed. The court noted that "it is not the place of a federal court to decide which is the true faith or who is a true prophet." Duh.

With regard to the Sierra Club case, I suppose your characterization is correct. However, I think you missed the bigger point that Justice Douglas was attempting to make, which was that, obviously, a river, lake, stream, tree, etc. cannot sue to prevent harm to itself. Therefore, he advocated for a rule that would allow people to commence environmental litigation on behalf of such objects, the same way litigation can be commenced on behalf of inanimate objects such as corporations or ships. I disagree that advocating such a position is "frivolous."

Finally, the Gordon complaint was dismissed on the court's own initiative as frivolous.

So, again, what is your point? I certainly agree that plenty of "frivolous" lawsuits are filed but those that are truly frivolous get weeded out. As for the rest, the law does consider the person's idiocy when deciding whether they should be compensated and if so, what they're entitled to. In fact, many states bar plaintiffs from receiving anything if the fact-finder determines that the plaintiff was more than 50% responsible for his or her injuries.

[Polycarp]

I've always liked the "reasonable man" doctrine for circumstances like this. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, it goes something like this: if a layman equipped with a modicum of common sense and knowledge of how the world works were to do what the plaintiff attempted to do, would he or she have suffered the injury that the plaintiff complains of? If despite the attached warning and blade guard, I manage to hold my fingers in the path of my circular saw and amputate them, I have not exercised the caution that a reasonable man might. On the other hand, if the company sells a circular saw by mail order with no warning label and no blade guard, and a ten-year-old orders it (with no proof of age required), uses it, and amputates his fingers, that kid (through his parents and their lawyer) has definitely got a case.

[Jodi]

KEEVES -- The difference, of course, is that a lawyer is generally hired for his or her services -- for trying to win -- not for a guaranteed result. You hire a repairman to fix your sink; he doesn't fix it, you don't pay him -- that's the deal you make. But if fixing the sink was by no means a sure thing, and was largely based on factors beyond the repairman's control, I think you would soon find repairmen charging for trying to fix the sink and, if that's the arrangement, you pay them either way. Lawyers provide a service; they do not guarantee results -- which is why it behooves you to hire a good attorney, to maximize the chances of obtaining the result you want. I am paid to try to win cases, not to win them on every occasion.



------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justina