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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
647 said:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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
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”.
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.)
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!
From thread http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/003296.html concerning human footprints in pre-cambrian rock, we have:
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?
In response to my post stating:
Puffington says:
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?
Tomndebb:
Uh, is this some veiled reference to the fact that a peanut is not, strictly speaking, a nut but is actually (taxonomically) a bean?