I’ve seen this TV commercial a couple oftimes…it shows a group of young males skatenboarding, kite-surfing, and land-luging, all done at high speeds! (with the disclaimer underneath each scene-“Professional-DO NOT ATTEMPT”)-You know, just like those wacky car ads, where they show you that the latest shitbox can go 150 MPH-but DON’t YOU TRY THAT-only a PROFESSIONAL driver on a CLOSED COURSE can do that stuff!
Anyway, the scene of the kids skateboarding (to a snappy rap number) morphs to a fighter pilot , flying an F16 at Mach 2, while displaying underneath:
“THE AIRFORCE-WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU”
Anyway, supposedsome dopey teenager goes out and kills himself (trying to imitate what he’s seen in the ad)-could the US AIRFORCE be sued?
Interesting legal question…DEWYCHEATEM& HOWE-are you out there?
They’re using standard disclaimers, just like all of the car companies that demonstrate 100 MPH power slides on closed courses, so I don’t see how they could possibly be sued over it.
You can’t sue the military. Or any one in it.
Sure they’ll settle out of court like when those U.S. F-15s flying low enough to wipe out the cable to that ski-lift in Italy got some kind of compensation. I HOPE!
Interesting, you mention that incident in Cavalese. The sad thing is that it left the feeling with most europeans that the US cowboys can do just anything they want and are never liable.
At the same time you can sue in behalf of your blown up dog that you placed in a microwave oven.
The US legal system will always remain a mystery.
That was a Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler that hit the ski cable.
You actually can sue the military. Happens all the time.
Example: Air Force digs a new drainage ditch to carry stormwater away from the runways. Farmer sues the government because the flow of water previous to them digging, flowed into his fields and irrigated it. Now the Air Force has damaged his crops. Give me money!
Tripler
Not that I’ve had particular experience with that one. :rolleyes:
Not true Yola!
Under the the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), the U.S. government and its entities, which includes all its agents, can be sued “as if it [the U.S. gov’t] were a private person for the negligent acts and/or ommissions of its employees.” (28 USC Sect. 1336.)
Potential plaintiffs can include both U.S. and foreign citizens/entities who file suit in federal court under the FTCA, which provides “a limited waiver of sovereign immunity when its [U.S. government] employees are negligent under the scope of employment.”
The conditions for filing under FTCA are that such a lawsuit must be brought to federal court within a two-year statue of limitations from occurrence of the incident with fulfillment of an administrative prerequisite prior to filing suit, and adjudication within six months, or else the claim will be denied.
That being said, there are some notable exceptions to filing claim under FTCA, namely:
- "28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.
"However, it also provides an exception. The government is liable if a *law enforcement officer commits assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution.
The government is not liable if the claim against law enforcement officers is for libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract.
Congress has not waived the government’s sovereign immunity against all law enforcement acts or omissions. (Cite.)
- “Under the Feres Doctrine [of the FTCA], military personnel, the spouses and children of service persons, reservists or national guardsmen, who are killed or injured in accidents while ‘incident to service,’ cannot sue the government. Under the laws of many states, the decedent’s spouse has a personal cause of action for wrongful death.” (Cite: Military Personnel vs. U.S. Gov’t)
First of all, the incident you are referring to involved the flight of a U.S. Marine Corps. EA-6B Prowler – not F-15’s – whose severing of a gondola cable sent 20 skiers and tourists to their death at a resort in the Italian Alps (a.k.a. “The Dolomites”) near Cavalese on February 3, 1998.
[FYI, the two “backseaters,” or “EWOs” (Electronic Warfare Officers), were later cleared of all charges during the subsequent investigation, while the two “frontseaters,” Captain Richard Ashby (pilot) and Joseph Schweitzer (navigator), were tried – and later acquitted by court martial-- of all charges, including the charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide.]
Second, regarding compensation related to the “Prowler” incident, in 1998 the U.S. government paid $20 million dollars in restitution to the Italian government for property damage and settlement of all claims. However, this payment did not involve restitution or settlement of claims to surviving families.
According to this article, due to the overlap of NATO, any restitution payments made by the U.S. government to individual surviving families would require an Act of Congress, which would then take around 5-10 years for actual compensation to occur to the aggrieved individuals.
Without getting into the specifics of the Cavalese tragedy, I just want to point out that the U.S. inherited its legal notions of “sovereign immunity” from “old Europe.” 
You are of course right, Early Out. And I don’t know how other nations would handle a similar case. And, yes, other nations don’t have that amount of troops deployed in other nations, so they are less likely to have their personel do something foolish.
What I meant with mystrey was more aming at the infamous poodle in the microwave and has also more to do with the OP.
It seems that people increasingly are looking for someone to blame when in fact they are simply stupid themselves. And I get the feeling that the US legal system and the concept of product liability advances this. It’s never you who is an idiot, but Philipp Morris, McDonald, etc.
“Poodle in the microwave”?
T. Mehr, the American legal system will remain a mystery to you so long as you base your understanding on false urban legends rather than on actual events.
And FTR, the ad shows an F/A-22 Raptor, not an F-16.
** acsenray **
Shit, it’s an urban legend! Have to admit, I bought it.
But the OP seems to indicate, that all these Don’t try this at home lables are actually seriouse. The question is whether people really would try it at home, or if it’s just a way to make (a lot of) money by sueing a company.
I’m not a product liability lawyer, but there so far as I am concerned, it is logical to assume that when a company promotes its product by illustrating a particular use of that product, it is foreseeable from the company’s point of view that some number of users of that product will try to use it in that way. One of the bases for liability is foreseeability. In other words, if you know someone is going to do it (because you essentially told them they could) then it’s fair to hold you liable.
Generally, I am in favour of the concept of strict liability for products on principle. No matter what product we’re talking about, it is unavoidable that some number of people will be injured. The rest of us, then are accepting the benefits of the use of the product while allowing one or a few of us to bear the full brunt of the foreseeable drawbacks. It’s like saying that we can all have chocolate today for $1, except for T. Mehr, who has to pay $2.5 million and lose a leg. The strict liability system is a way for all of us to at least share in (at least) the financial drawbacks of the presence of that product in society.
Madison Ave, 101:
“Never forget the disclaimer, nerver forget the disclaimer, never forget the disclaimer…”
The Air Force commecial in question is not trying to sell skateboards or advocate skateboarding. Therefore, the issue here is not product liability per se.
However ascenray is absolutely right about “foreseeability” as a basis of determining an entity’s liability, specifically regarding actions – such as broadcasting and producing questionable material – where a clearly foreaseeable unreasonable risk of harm is determined to have existed. In order to win damages, a plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant foresaw the risk, but went ahead and behaved irresponsibly by carrying out such actions to the detriment of the public.
The problem is that a perfectly legitimate defense to such an argument is that the defendant’s freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which for the time being, is as rock solid a defense as you can get.
Let’s look at the original question raised in the OP, which is whether someone, such as an impressionable youngster, might be moved to re-enact dangerous stunts as a result of having seen them on this USAF commercial.
As the MTV show “Jackass” has proven, apparently airing a simple disclaimer before and after the broadcasting of such dangerous stunts appears to be sufficient in limiting the show’s liability. Nevertheless, accountability continues to be an issue, especially vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment.
Barring claims based on foreseeability or Constitutionality, another possible issue might also be misrepresentation. For example, the USAF misrepresented itself or misrepresented certain acts in its commercial through error of omission. The issue of omissions could probably be satisfactorily squashed through the use of a standard disclaimer, e.g., the disclaimer the “Jackass” show used:
“The following show features stunts performed by professionals and/or total idiots under very strict control and supervision. MTV and the producers insist that neither you or anyone else attempt to recreate or perform anything you have seen on this show.”
Another issue might be misrepresentation of fact, which is an issue commonly raised by consumer advocacy and watchdog groups especially with regards to allegations made in commercials, e.g., the KFC commercial alleging that fried chicken is a “health food.” Currently, the FTC in accordance with the “Truth in Advertising Act” is requiring KFC to provide proof regarding the validity of its claims.
Another problem with suing the U.S. Air Force over liability issues, specifically regarding injuries or accidents directly incurred from copycat re-enactments of its commercials, is that under the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), U.S. government agencies cannot be sued for misrepresentation, specifically, 28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that “the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.”
So as far as I can tell, while strict liability and all its traditional bases appear to be highly valid claims in establishing a case against “TV-made-me-do-it” type personal injury lawsuits, the flipside is that 1st Amendment rights still continue to be a valid defense in such cases.
acsenray Generally, I am in favour of the concept of strict liability for products on principle. That is, if the product is used as intended and something goes wrong.
Let’s say your car breaks don’t work on a brand new vehicle.
But it gets pretty absurd when you have to be told what you should not do with the product. Like the batman costume warning lable: Caution does not enable user to fly or
Warning: Product will be hot after heating.
(Some more of these here, I hope not all are urban legends.)
If I can sue McDonalds because the coffee is too hot or Marlborro because I got cancer from smoking, then something is wrong. It makes me want to shout: Grow up, use your brain and don’t blame others for your own stupidity.
Now I haven’t seen the advertisement the OP is refering to, but it sounds like driving your car over a cliff and then saying: “Hey, Colt Severs could do it, why didn’t it work for me?”
Mr. Mehr, you seem like a nice enough fellow, and relatively open minded. That’s what makes me so sad about your response.
American lawyers have failed. We have failed miserably. We are supposed to protect the rights of “the little guy” and we have failed. We didn’t lose it in the courtroom. We lost a P.R. war.
Please understand that the “McDonald’s case” has been used by the insurance industry to manipulate public opinion to the point where the American public cheerfully rallies for tort reform, completely oblivious that they are handing away their rights with both fists.
The real facts behind the McDonald’s case have been hashed out over and over again -
At trial, it was proven that McDonald’s held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to in order to boost the amount of coffee it could make with the same amount of beans. McDonald’s could make 20% more coffee at that temperature than at 135 to 140 degrees. This accounted for millions of dollars in savings spread across all of the stores nationwide. The plaintiff also demonstrated more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992, documenting McDonald’s knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. Yes, the old lady spilled coffee on herself, and she was held partially responsible for the injury. But McDonald’s decision was to place profits ahead of safety, and that is what turned a stain into disfiguring burns.
Similarly, people seem to think that they can go buy a pack of cigarrettes, light up a cigarette, and then sue big tobacco for millions of dollars. That’s not what happened. The first successful tobacco suits (they had been uniformly unsuccessful for years) centered upon plaintiffs who became addicted in the late 1950’s to the mid 1970’s. During that period of time, questions were first raised about the safety of cigarrettes. Also during that time, the big seven tobacco companies funded a joint enterprise called the “Tobacco Research Counsel” (TRC). At trial, it was demonstrated that the TRC was ACTIVELY BRIBING AND BUYING OFF SCIENTISTS INVESTIGATING SMOKING HAZARDS. There were millions of dollars paid and boxes of documents suppressed by the TRC. The tobacco companies were not just liable for producing a dangerous product, they were liable for actively suppressing the information necessary to make an informed decision about their products.
The thing to remember is that these verdicts were put in place by a jury of 8-12 citizens. Jurors are you, your neighbors, your family, your co-workers. They have sat and heard all of the evidence first hand, and rendered a decision upon the facts, not upon abbreviated media reports or upon press releases bought and paid for by the insurance industry, who has a profit motive in lying to you.
To me, every time I see mindless vitriol spewed at these verdicts, I get very sad. I get sad because I know that some of the same people who are complaining now will be in my office eventually, and they will react with shock and alarm and cries of injustice when I tell them that tort reform has taken their rights away.
Thanks, Houlihan for your most intersting post!
It’s allways kind of disturbing to have ones long held beliefs shattered.
Tell me about these cigarett cases. I learned that it was claimed, that tobacco companies were adding some stuff, that was supposed make the smoker addicted (more addicted than just by nicotine, that is). This would also make an interesting case, since they never said you did not get addicted, also it clearly seems to be an immoral thing to do.
This would move us to the next question: How come that the picture we get of the US legal system is so distorted then? Are really the big companies so smart in their PR - or is it just that we in Europe just love weired stories about the USA? (A USA falling from grace that is. Don’t we like to mock our former love more than someone we never cared about?
I think you’ve got a case OP. I see your angle, if enough jump on your bandwagon, those F-16s could run out of jet fuel.