The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-07-2012, 08:43 AM
No Wikipedia Cites No Wikipedia Cites is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Shutting down of Blitz USA (Gasoline Can Manufacturer): Tort Hell or Justice?

A recent Wall Street Journal editoral told of Blitz USA, the manufacturer for most Gasoline/Petrol cans in the USA, shutting down due to losing court cases due to product liability law. Users were pouring gasoline on fires and dying in the resulting inflammation. Plaintiff's alleged failure to have sufficient warning and bad design.

The paper presented it as an example of tort hell, trial lawyers ruining a solid American company.

Does anyone know about this? I didn't see much impartial analysis on this case at all.

Is this tort hell or justice to burn victims?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-07-2012, 08:59 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Sounds like tort hell. Surprising that you can still buy a gas can, or ladder, or anything else that can be harmful if improperly used. This one like other similar cases was decided by a jury. If the government allows you sue someone who makes the rope you hang yourself with, there's no escape from a jury award based on sympathy. Apparently they had paid settlements in these nonsense suits for a while, but eventually they were targetted by lawyers and the cost of fighting these suits and the payouts were too much. Luckily I just purchased one of those Eagle metal cans highlighted in a recent pit thread. The Blitz cans probably sucked, but only to the extent that you should get your money back if you sued them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:21 AM
leahcim leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 1,881
Nowadays whenever I see one of these things, I think that it can't possibly be as stupid as the company's press release says it is.

And after a little googling: There was a lawsuit in Utah where someone was using gasoline as an accelerant and the can exploded and killed his kid. The jury concluded something like, "yes the guy was doing something dumb, but Blitz's own market research concluded that that dumb use case was something that was actually done a lot by their customers, and a small change to the design of the container could have prevented that from being a problem".
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:53 AM
voltaire voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Yeah, if someone is stupid enough to pour gas on a fire and the container catches on fire and starts a secondary fire, that's the dumb user's damn fault. But if your gas container is designed such that it is regularly exploding and maiming/killing people, then maybe you should have thought about designing a container that won't inflict so much damage on your customers, stupid as they might be.

Last edited by voltaire; 08-07-2012 at 09:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:05 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire View Post
Yeah, if someone is stupid enough to pour gas on a fire and the container catches on fire and starts a secondary fire, that's the dumb user's damn fault. But if your gas container is designed such that it is regularly exploding and maiming/killing people, then maybe you should have thought about designing a container that won't inflict so much damage on your customers, stupid as they might be.
What could possibly stop people from killing themself or others with a gas can unless it has no openings to pour gas in to start with? What can be done to stop people from falling off of ladders? What can stop people from injuring others with their cars?

You are asking a gas can manufacturer to prevent all possible injuries from improper use of a gas can, including using it in a manner that is warned against on the can. Not with a label that can come off either. The warning was provided with letters impressed into the can. This is a failure of government to provide a safety standard that would indemnify gas can manufactureres against lawsuits. And that is a result of the people who rail against both tort lawyers and government regulations. The anti-regulation crowd is actually fueling tort hell.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:08 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 9,740
I'm a little wary of the company's position because Blitz itself makes a big deal about the fact that there have been no other gas can manufacturers in the US since 1966. That makes it sound like this was an industry on the edge, long before tort liability became a major issue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:16 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
I'm a little wary of the company's position because Blitz itself makes a big deal about the fact that there have been no other gas can manufacturers in the US since 1966. That makes it sound like this was an industry on the edge, long before tort liability became a major issue.
What does that have to do with the question? Clearly they would still be in business if not for millions of dollars in settlements, awards, and legal costs.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:22 AM
LinusK LinusK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
What could possibly stop people from killing themself or others with a gas can unless it has no openings to pour gas in to start with?
.
A flame arrestor. "This simple modification, which typically costs no more than 50 cents to add, consists of a small metal device with holes fitted into the spout of a gas container. The arrestor functions by forcing the flame to travel through a channel that is too narrow to allow the flame to pass through. This would keep the remaining gasoline in the can from igniting and exploding."

http://www.fittszehl.com/practice-ar...xplosions.html
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:24 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
A flame arrestor. "This simple modification, which typically costs no more than 50 cents to add, consists of a small metal device with holes fitted into the spout of a gas container. The arrestor functions by forcing the flame to travel through a channel that is too narrow to allow the flame to pass through. This would keep the remaining gasoline in the can from igniting and exploding."

http://www.fittszehl.com/practice-ar...xplosions.html
Yeah, there's an unbiased source of information.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:27 AM
leahcim leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You are asking a gas can manufacturer to prevent all possible injuries from improper use of a gas can...
This is not the case. We (or rather society, through the legal process) is asking a gas can manufacturer to take action to try prevent some kinds of injuries caused by using the gas can in a way that it is typically used, even if that way of using the gas can is not proper. This is a far cry from "protect us from any way any dingbat could find to injure himself with any object".

I agree that it's not a cut-and-dry case, and it seems the jury did temper the award based on the fact that the person getting it was a dumb-ass, but it's not as obviously crazy as the press releases from the company (and the recreational outrage versions on the internet) make it seem.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:36 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 9,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
What does that have to do with the question? Clearly they would still be in business if not for millions of dollars in settlements, awards, and legal costs.
If it's not a profitable industry, then even small economic disruptions may have an outsize effect on it. If their business had been driven to the edge by cheap foreign competition and several years of a bad economy, and litigation was simply the last straw, it may not really be accurate to say that litigation put them out of business.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:40 AM
LinusK LinusK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Yeah, there's an unbiased source of information.
No. But I don't doubt that it would have prevented flames from entering the container.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:45 AM
I_Know_Nothing I_Know_Nothing is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chicagoland(West Burbs)
Posts: 760
Probably got started when someone saw "inflammable" written on the side of the can and thought they'd use it to put out a fire.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:51 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahcim View Post
This is not the case. We (or rather society, through the legal process) is asking a gas can manufacturer to take action to try prevent some kinds of injuries caused by using the gas can in a way that it is typically used, even if that way of using the gas can is not proper. This is a far cry from "protect us from any way any dingbat could find to injure himself with any object".
I don't find it any different in this case.
Quote:
I agree that it's not a cut-and-dry case, and it seems the jury did temper the award based on the fact that the person getting it was a dumb-ass, but it's not as obviously crazy as the press releases from the company (and the recreational outrage versions on the internet) make it seem.
I don't trust the company's press releases anymore than the trial lawyers claims. That does make this one hard to argue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
If it's not a profitable industry, then even small economic disruptions may have an outsize effect on it. If their business had been driven to the edge by cheap foreign competition and several years of a bad economy, and litigation was simply the last straw, it may not really be accurate to say that litigation put them out of business.
That doesn't justify the concept of massive awards to people who damage themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
No. But I don't doubt that it would have prevented flames from entering the container.
I do. Maybe it would work in some cases, but it would be a small step towards making gas cans safe. Some things are inherently dangerous, and a gas can is one that people should assume the risk for while using. It would be different if gas cans tended to explode while using them for their intended purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:02 AM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If the government allows you sue someone who makes the rope you hang yourself with, there's no escape from a jury award based on sympathy.
Really depends on what jurisdiction you're in. Clearly, you need to move to a different state, one that has an established rules of civil procedure, a robust adversarial system, and a solid but evolving body of tort law. Of particular importance would be motions for summary judgement and the like for things such as 'failure to state a cause of action'. Here's a helpful link you may want to take a look at (link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). I think you'll really enjoy Rules 11 and 56, though there are many in there you'll want to be sure exist in whatever jurisdiction you're moving to.

Be careful though, if you move to a state that doesn't allow easy access to filing suit and arbitrarily bars filing without hearings or pleadings--what you seem to be wishing for--then you're likely to get fucked harder than your intemperate analysis of the judicial system.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:12 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl View Post

Be careful though, if you move to a state that doesn't allow easy access to filing suit and arbitrarily bars filing without hearings or pleadings--what you seem to be wishing for--then you're likely to get fucked harder than your intemperate analysis of the judicial system.
Thanks for the cites. I don't really want to clamp down on torts procedurally. I think this is a case where the government has failed to provide a safety standard that could be used as defense against claims like this.

I also don't like taking the side of this company that probably made cheap, lousy, dangerous gas cans. So my argument is really about more responsible companies that make better products and still have to waste money on nonsensical claims. And at the same time I have to object to tort reforms that simply limit the plaintiffs ability to recover full damages when they are justified. All that is what makes it tort hell.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-09-2012, 02:05 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
I just don't understand why it's a bad thing that a company can get sued for something that is dangerous that could have prevented with low cost. People are going to do stupid things. Making them die from it isn't going to stop them. Paying $0.50 per can might.

Last edited by BigT; 08-09-2012 at 02:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-09-2012, 02:14 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 38,466
There should be a name for this type of outrage-maybe something with "McDonald's" and/or "Coffee" in it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-09-2012, 02:44 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There should be a name for this type of outrage-maybe something with "McDonald's" and/or "Coffee" in it.
I'd need to see some real facts to make that equivalence.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:08 PM
leahcim leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I'd need to see some real facts to make that equivalence.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say is the essential difference between the cases. Both had both a "victim" doing things that were none-too-bright (using gasoline as an accelerant/holding coffee between her legs) combined with a corporation doing things that make the none-too-bright thing more dangerous (making shitty gas cans without a standard safety feature/serving coffee at a temperature at which it's dangerous to let be in contact with your skin), and both got a jury verdict that was tempered by "it was x% the plaintiff's fault, so we're taking x% off the award", and if I might be so bold as to predict the future, both will be retold over and over again for decades with the plaintiff's stupidity hammed up, the defendant's contribution to the problem downplayed, and calls to fix the fucked-up tort system.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:11 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 38,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahcim View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to say is the essential difference between the cases. Both had both a "victim" doing things that were none-too-bright (using gasoline as an accelerant/holding coffee between her legs) combined with a corporation doing things that make the none-too-bright thing more dangerous (making shitty gas cans without a standard safety feature/serving coffee at a temperature at which it's dangerous to let be in contact with your skin), and both got a jury verdict that was tempered by "it was x% the plaintiff's fault, so we're taking x% off the award", and if I might be so bold as to predict the future, both will be retold over and over again for decades with the plaintiff's stupidity hammed up, the defendant's contribution to the problem downplayed, and calls to fix the fucked-up tort system.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:14 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahcim View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to say is the essential difference between the cases. Both had both a "victim" doing things that were none-too-bright (using gasoline as an accelerant/holding coffee between her legs) combined with a corporation doing things that make the none-too-bright thing more dangerous (making shitty gas cans without a standard safety feature/serving coffee at a temperature at which it's dangerous to let be in contact with your skin), and both got a jury verdict that was tempered by "it was x% the plaintiff's fault, so we're taking x% off the award", and if I might be so bold as to predict the future, both will be retold over and over again for decades with the plaintiff's stupidity hammed up, the defendant's contribution to the problem downplayed, and calls to fix the fucked-up tort system.
McDonalds was in violation of public health regulations. They were serving the coffee too hot, and they were also serving it in cups that were not rated for that high of a temperature. One of the problems in the Blitz case (according to them) is that some US regulatory agency refused to establish any code for gas cans. Until I have more facts about the Blitz case, and from sources other than Blitz and pro-business political associations, or plaintiffs attorneys ambulance chasing web sites, I wouldn't make a call on that.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:19 PM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I just don't understand why it's a bad thing that a company can get sued for something that is dangerous that could have prevented with low cost. People are going to do stupid things. Making them die from it isn't going to stop them. Paying $0.50 per can might.
Now take that to it's logical end. You are now left with no manufacture of anything (well, except maybe bubble gum) What exactly is a low cost in this regard or the next?

50,000,000 gas cans (Does $.50/can still look "low" to you?)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:32 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Another cite stating the ways Blitz screwed up:
Quote:
According to former and 17-year Blitz employee, William Bailey, Blitz could have made their gas cans safer but made a conscious decision not to do so. Bailey was a Production Supervisor, Warehouse Manager, Quality Tech, and a Plant Manager for Blitz. As such, he knew the company inside and out. Bailey, in an open comment to The Wall Street Journal posted the following important facts that were overlooked by the WSJ in their original article. He stated as follows:
  • As an employee of Blitz I was instructed to destroy documents and e-mails. I wrote a letter to ROCKY FLICK the CEO of Blitz expressing my concerns about destruction of documents.
  • [snip]
  • I knew that Blitz was breaking the law by destroying evidence and I pretty much called Flick on the carpet for this. Once I was terminated, I immediately called Diane Brenaman to help the victims who were using Blitz USA's faulty gas can containers.
  • Blitz USA has never used a true FMEA for these gas can designs so that all dangers would be addressed.
  • [snip]
  • Blitz USA could have spent roughly $250,000 for tooling to implement a flame arrestor on their gas cans but chose to spend millions defending their position.
  • Blitz USA had a metal fabrication shop that could have produced these 3 cent arrestors at minimal expense.
  • Blitz USA could have recalled all their spouts and sent out new ones with flame arrestors. This would have been more cost effective than spending money on defense attorneys.
  • Blitz had used of unapproved resin for 20+ years, distorted warning labels on the cans water spots, had excess regrind used beyond UL spec., sold gas cans under minimum weight, wall thickness, sold gas cans to California with falsified date wheels ($90,000 fine paid to CARB), had 5 defective spout designs in the last 20 years and none had flame arrestors, and had a 1 million can re-call in California for not meeting CARB requirements.
And, according to my cite, the fact Blitz is shutting down will apparently affect the amount of compensation the victims receive, not to mention foreclosing on any further lawsuits relating to these faulty containers. The people who owned Blitz are certainly cutting their losses.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:06 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Another cite stating the ways Blitz screwed up:And, according to my cite, the fact Blitz is shutting down will apparently affect the amount of compensation the victims receive, not to mention foreclosing on any further lawsuits relating to these faulty containers. The people who owned Blitz are certainly cutting their losses.
If these things are true (as opposed to being the rantings of disgruntled employee now employed by plaintiffs attorneys), then I would agree that the lawsuits and their outcome was valid.

Quote:
As an employee of Blitz I was instructed to destroy documents and e-mails. I wrote a letter to ROCKY FLICK the CEO of Blitz expressing my concerns about destruction of documents.
Blitz had used of unapproved resin for 20+ years, distorted warning labels on the cans water spots, had excess regrind used beyond UL spec., sold gas cans under minimum weight, wall thickness, sold gas cans to California with falsified date wheels ($90,000 fine paid to CARB), had 5 defective spout designs in the last 20 years and none had flame arrestors, and had a 1 million can re-call in California for not meeting CARB requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:07 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Thank you.
His post was of no value to your argument.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:13 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,637
The irony is, if no manufacturers of gas cans remain, more people will die in accidents when they carry gas in even more dangerous containers, like 2 liter soda bottles, or glass cider jugs.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:19 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
The irony is, if no manufacturers of gas cans remain, more people will die in accidents when they carry gas in even more dangerous containers, like 2 liter soda bottles, or glass cider jugs.
I think we'll have plenty of imported gas cans and no means of recovering damages as a result.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:23 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 38,466
Has anyone actually checked to see how hard it would be to find a gas can if this company dropped off the face of the earth?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 4,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I think we'll have plenty of imported gas cans and no means of recovering damages as a result.
If they're defective, there can be a lawsuit
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:31 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If these things are true (as opposed to being the rantings of disgruntled employee now employed by plaintiffs attorneys), then I would agree that the lawsuits and their outcome was valid.
I suppose the upshot is, Blitz lost the court case, and lost badly enough the owners felt it was no longer worthwhile to continue the operation and potentially risk future lawsuits. That seems pretty damn probative right there when it comes to evaluating how bad Blitz's operations likely were.

And if you're imputing untruthfulness based on likely bias, the WSJ isn't known for looking on the bad side of American free enterprise. I'm not accusing it of running a hatchet job, but every story comes from a perspective, especially if it's an editorial.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:10 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
If they're defective, there can be a lawsuit
Sure. Against a US importer with no assets, or in another country where you may have no chance of prevailing no matter how much evidence you have, or you prevail and are awarded the value of the gas can after spending a million dollars in legal fees.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:22 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
I suppose the upshot is, Blitz lost the court case, and lost badly enough the owners felt it was no longer worthwhile to continue the operation and potentially risk future lawsuits. That seems pretty damn probative right there when it comes to evaluating how bad Blitz's operations likely were.
That's not a good argument for your case. If there was a defect in the cans that could have been corrected then Blitz would continue doing business with that correction. I think they are shutting down because there is no way for a company to protect themself from these type of lawsuits. However, the previous information you provided, if true, would make this similar to the MacDonalds case where regulations were not followed, and then this particular lawsuit was won on the facts. Though had I been on the jury I would have argued that the plaintiff was at least 99% responsible for the damages. However, I would consider destruction of evidence to play into punitive damages if that could be done under the law. Unlike the MacDonalds case where a reasonable person would not assume they could be horribly disfigured from a cup of coffee, in this case a reasonable person would expect that pouring gasoline onto an open flame would result in a deadly and disfiguring fire. If you don't know the difference between coffee and gasoline I suggest you not use either.

And if you're imputing untruthfulness based on likely bias, the WSJ isn't known for looking on the bad side of American free enterprise. I'm not accusing it of running a hatchet job, but every story comes from a perspective, especially if it's an editorial.[/QUOTE]

The sources I've seen so far are biased, on both sides of this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:43 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If these things are true (as opposed to being the rantings of disgruntled employee now employed by plaintiffs attorneys), then I would agree that the lawsuits and their outcome was valid.
He can't be "employed by plaintiffs' attorneys". He's a fact witness, not an expert. I suppose the plaintiffs' attorneys might have paid him to talk to the WSJ, but I can't imagine why.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-09-2012, 06:01 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Can anyone find the stupid freaking gas can thread where Blitz proved incapable of making a spill proof gas can that didn't spill gas everywhere?

I could certainly see people suffering serious injury after using one of those cans. Use a spill proof can, get coated with gas, get expolded, blame the gas can.


I'm getting kinda tired of people trying to use the McDonalds case as an example of tort hell. When you actually look at the facts the women receiving compensation equal to one day of coffee sales is rather reasonable.


My experience with Blitz gas cans have been them doing everything they possibly could to cut cost, even though they had no real competition. Maybe they should have focused more on quality.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-09-2012, 06:06 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
IIRC, Blitz was incapable of making a non-spilly can that complied with recently updated federal regulations. They apparently didn't have a problem making them before 2010.

Stella Liebeck didn't even get one day of McDonald's coffee revenues; the award was reduced on remittatur to $640,000 including punitive damages.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-09-2012, 06:06 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Sure. Against a US importer with no assets, or in another country where you may have no chance of prevailing no matter how much evidence you have, or you prevail and are awarded the value of the gas can after spending a million dollars in legal fees.
If they are selling gas cans in the US they have assets in the US.

If their gas cans are unsafe the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to catch on quickly and prevent them from being imported or sold.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-09-2012, 06:43 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
If their gas cans are unsafe the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to catch on quickly and prevent them from being imported or sold.
They didn't stop Blitz.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-09-2012, 07:57 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
If they are selling gas cans in the US they have assets in the US.
that's simply not true. A merchant places an order for them and they get shipped from a holding company in Chindia. Zero assets.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-09-2012, 08:04 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahcim View Post
This is not the case. We (or rather society, through the legal process) is asking a gas can manufacturer to take action to try prevent some kinds of injuries caused by using the gas can in a way that it is typically used, even if that way of using the gas can is not proper.
Using that logic then 100% of all products fail.

In this case, the product was used in a manner that even a retarded monkey would know to be dangerous. People take stupid risks all the time and should be held responsible for it and not the product.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-09-2012, 08:22 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
If their gas cans are unsafe the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to catch on quickly and prevent them from being imported or sold.
There was nothing unsafe about the product. They met industry set standards of safety for impact and temperature conditions. Without specific safety standards set by the government they were open to every lawsuit brought forward. This was a small company that produced a limited line of products.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-09-2012, 08:29 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
that's simply not true. A merchant places an order for them and they get shipped from a holding company in Chindia. Zero assets.
You know that merchants are liable for unsafe products, not just manufacturers, right?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-09-2012, 08:40 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
You know that merchants are liable for unsafe products, not just manufacturers, right?
What does that have to do with the discussion?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:06 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
What does that have to do with the discussion?
That should be obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:10 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
That should be obvious.
no, it's not obvious at all. We're talking about a manufacturer being shut down in the US over lawsuits and the inability to shut one down overseas because of a lack of assets which is what I responded to.

Last edited by Magiver; 08-09-2012 at 09:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:15 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
It's not the inability to shut them down that is being discussed. It's the inability to recover damages from them if their shitty products cause a fire or something. Merchants won't sell products that get them sued.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:24 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
It's not the inability to shut them down that is being discussed. It's the inability to recover damages from them if their shitty products cause a fire or something. Merchants won't sell products that get them sued.
You responded to a statement I made regarding the lack of assets in the US for overseas companies. You're response involved merchants in the US which had nothing to do with what I said. You're flat full of shit and are now trying to invent a new argument.

But I'll bite with your new argument because it doesn't change the original post which asks if this is tort hell. It doesn't matter if the manufacturer gets chased out or the merchant. The result is the same since there is no way of avoiding lawsuits driven by people who created the dangerous situation in the first place. No product can be made idiot proof but manufacturers and merchants are held accountable nonetheless. I'm now buying products direct from overseas companies that have ZERO assets in the United States. ZERO.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:38 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Don't blame me if you didn't understand the conversation, dude. Anyway, if you buy products direct from a judgment proof manufacturer, that's your fault.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:51 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Don't blame me if you didn't understand the conversation, dude.
I understand it perfectly. duuuude

the ops post:

The paper presented it as an example of tort hell, trial lawyers ruining a solid American company.

Does anyone know about this? I didn't see much impartial analysis on this case at all.

Is this tort hell or justice to burn victims?


I responded to a statement made further down that overseas companies must have assets in this country. that statement is false. Your response had nothing to do with what I responded to..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Anyway, if you buy products direct from a judgment proof manufacturer, that's your fault.
You literally can't be bothered with reading and addressing the thread. It's about lawsuits destroying a company in light of consumers misusing the product.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-09-2012, 09:56 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
*sigh* That comment was in response to this one:
Quote:
Sure. Against a US importer with no assets, or in another country where you may have no chance of prevailing no matter how much evidence you have, or you prevail and are awarded the value of the gas can after spending a million dollars in legal fees.
Now, would you like to try again?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.