The summary: Two carpet installers, Gregory Roach and Gordon Faulkner were scarred for life by an explosion in a house in which they were installing a carpet in an Ohio home four years ago.
They used an adhesive by Para-Chem which was labelled on front “All Weather Outdoor Adhesive.” The product also had a side label which read “Do not use indoors because of flammability.”
In a bizzare trial (see the article for the details), the jury found for the two men, and awarded them $5 million and $3 million respectively. This despite the fact that Roach admitted during the trial that he had read the warning label.
Three of the jurors were swayed to back the defendants when the jury received instructions that Para-Chem was responsible for damage unless “all hidden hazards of the adhesive were revealed in its labeling.” The upshot is that simply warning that flammable is not enough, but Para-Chem also had to say that it was explosive as well.
This could easily be a rant (“The product said ‘Don’t use indoors’, they read it and used it indoors anyway”) but I want to open up a debate instead.
To what extent should companies be required to warn consumers. Is simply putting “Do not use product indoors” acceptable? Should companies be required to list ALL the potential dangers of misuse of their product. (“WARNING: Do not use iron on clothing while wearing them. This can result in severe burns, shock, scarring and loss of blood. In addition, it can result in severe ridicule from neighbors, family and friends, as well as every perfect stranger who reads about your stupid stunt in the newspaper.”) If a company produces a poision (bleach, for example) and puts “WARNING: Not for internal use. Do not drink! May result in severe illness.” on the label in big letters, are they then responsible if the person dies, simply because the word “death” was not on the label?
In other words, to what extent should a company be required to warn consumers about the misuse of their products. Should they be required to list every potential consequence of the misuse, or is the warning not to misuse sufficient and anything extra the company puts on the label (such as potential consequences) is strictly voluntary?
I agree with sailor. It said, cleary, not to use indoors and that it was flammable, yet they promptly used it indoors instead. And I don’t think “explosive” was neccesary, because anything that is flammable can become explosive if contained in a small area. I think that warning labels are needed, but only to a small extent. A bottle of bleach should say merely “warning, dangerous chemical. Avoid contact with eyes and skin, do not take internally.” I don’t think that the companies need to explain why it is dangerous, I mean, use some common sense, people! It’s bleach! Is it in the drinks section of the supermarket? No! Then don’t drink it! Did the adhesive say to use indoors? No! Then don’t! Christ, we live in a society where people don’t have to take responsibility for the actions, and it sickens me. We should remove warning labels off of EVERY item and not allow people to sue over such matters as this. It will weed out the people that shouldn’t be breeding. Natural seleciton has failed, it’s time for artificial selection.
Nit: Small amounts of bleach are okay to consume - they put the label on there so no one goes overboard. But bleach, in the right quantities, makes a very good bacteria killing agent for contaminated water.
Warning labels should be printed slightly larger. I realize the manufacturer has much info and a small space. They could package it so you have the “pull out / unfold” stickey. I was reading the label of a product for plumbing problems. I could not read it even with my glasses on. I vote for slightly larger print.
I think this sounds like a bad case, but in general I don’t have a problem with requiring lots of warnings, even silly ones. What is the cost? I can’t see one at all – OK, maybe 3 cents a year to pay for that extra thimbleful of ink to print the extra words on the label. But there’s absolutely no cost at all to the consumer, is there? OTOH, the benefit can be tremendous. Yes, I admit, anyone who tries to iron clothes while wearing them is an idiot. Is this a crime for which he deserves to die? Don’t think so, and it’s just so damn easy to prevent.
It’s not the cost of the extra ink; it’s the cost of holding the company responsible (which gets passed down to everyone who buys it’s products) even when the person disregards the printed warning.
True, you don’t “deserve to die” for ironing clothes while on yourself. But that doesn’t mean that the iron manufacturer is responsible either…
I’m curious as to whether the warning label included a phone number to get an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet). I would think having that on the label would be sufficient enough warning since all those “hidden hazards” would be on the sheet and available to all consumers. Not that these two nimrods would have bothered calling and asking for them.