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.
You know that merchants are liable for unsafe products, not just manufacturers, right?
What does that have to do with the discussion?
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.
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.
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.
I understand it perfectly. duuuude :rolleyes:
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..
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.
sigh That comment was in response to this one:
Now, would you like to try again?
That is not what you responded to in post 42.
Your response to my post said nothing. The foreign manufacturers intentionally keep their assets out of this country, and the merchants are often marginal businesses that will be bankrupted by a lawsuit of this kind. Even if you prevailed in such a case you’d find yourself at the end of a list of creditors and receive little or nothing. You aren’t even arguing a point relevant to this thread.
And your response incorrectly implied that there would be no way for a plaintiff to recover. RNATB correctly pointed out that the merchant is also a potential defendant, with assets in this country from which a successful plaintiff could recover.
His point is directly relevant to an issue raised in this thread.
Well, when China catches someone putting anti-freeze in toothpaste they execute them. So, you know…
If he could defend his point with some facts I’d agree. But otherwise it’s a sidetrack.
I implied nothing. I responded to the idea that an overseas manufacturer had to have assets in the United States. that is completely false.
That has nothing to do with Blitz or other manufacturers which is the subject of this thread. The point of the thread is the effect the lawsuits have on manufacturing.
no, it’s not even remotely relevant to the idea that consumer lawsuits involving the misuse of a product have the potential to destroy a company.
yes, but there was nothing wrong with the product in this case. If someone misuses anti-freeze by brushing their teeth with it then the best they can hope for in China is a Darwin award.
Cite? Name one case.
This one!!! The guy poured gasoline into a wood stove (or whatever). He’s an idiot, he was damaged as a result of his own stupidiity. I don’t know how you could even prove that a defect in the can resulted in his damages unless you count a hole in the can that lets you put gasoline in to start with, and then pour it out on an open fire as a defect. If Blitz was violating regulations and tampering with evidence they deserve to be punished, but I don’t see why this guy should collect anything. Did you know if you hoist a refrigerator up in the air and drop it on your head you could get hurt? And they don’t even have warning labels for that!
They made a product that they knew was being used dangerously. They knew a simple modification of their product could prevent these injuries. We don’t know all the other facts, but there is enough to show them at least somewhat culpable for the injuries.
I also dispute your assertion that anyone who pours gas on a fire is a stupid person that deserves to burn.