Legal Definition for Stupidity

[Senegoid]

@Keeve

You sound pretty proud of your father’s advice. But I don’t see any difference, except for the smaller amount of fuel that will burn as the fire travels from the grill to your hand. If he taught you to let go of the little cup, and throw the cup into the grill, that would be a marked improvement. But what’s the difference between throwing from the cup and squirting from the can?

When you squirt from the can, the dangers are
(a) You have a stream of gas or kerosene or whatever from the can to the flame, and the flame could go up the stream.
(b) Then the entire can could blow up like a bomb.

When you pour a little into a cup and then toss that cup on the fire, neither of the above facts apply. No, he didn’t actually throw the whole cup. Just toss the fluid from the cup onto the fire.

[md2000]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course they could. It’s happened numerous times.

There are a number of things to take into account here. The first is distinguishing product liability suits from simple negligence. Manufacturers of defective products are strictly liable for injuries:

Product defects can be informational (insufficient warnings), manufacturing (the bits don’t fit together right or whatever), or design (the bits don’t work even when properly screwed together.)

In the Blitz gas can case, it was argued that the cans were defective because they failed to include a shutoff valve that would prevent backflow in case of ignition. The plaintiffs presented evidence of a valve design that would have cost very little to add to the designs. That’s one of the ways to prove that a product is defectively designed: putting forward evidence of an economically feasible alternative design that would have prevented the underlying injury.

So it sounds like the crux of the argument was that the can failed to “not explode” and the use by a child (or someone of diminished capacity? Is that the term?) had nothing to do with the failure.

A flame arrestor, if you google, is a simple fine wire mesh covering the base of the nozzle. A fine enough metal mesh will stop a flame from going through. As I said, none of my gas cans have it. I don’t think I’ve seen one with it. My gas cans have a more wide-spaced plastic grid, if anything.

However, if that’s the key to the argument, the manufacturers probably assessed the likelihood of winning a jurytrial and opted to settle. Whether a jury would fairly and impartially conclude that a gas can made the same as the majority of gas cans was unsafe - that’s the $160M question.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@md2000

So it sounds like the crux of the argument was that the can failed to “not explode” and the use by a child (or someone of diminished capacity? Is that the term?) had nothing to do with the failure.

Yes, that’s basically it. The diminished capacity issue isn’t really relevant. If there is a defect in the product, then the manufacturer is strictly liable. Generally, under strict liability comparative fault (reduction or refusal of damages because of the other party’s contributing error) doesn’t apply.

[lawbuff]

@RemoWilliams

My question is: Is there a legal definition for stupidity?

When one is not deemed to be a moron, idiot or imbecile, one’s AGE and MATURITY level are analyzed by professionals.