These are situations where we need the old contributory negligence doctrine. You pour gasoline into your wood stove, you are negligent, so don’t be coming into court looking for money.
I know that products liability is strict, so that contributory negligence doesn’t come into play, but is it really reasonable for warnings to be posted, devices to be installed to prevent something that is widely known to be irresponsible? Consumers pay more for ridiculously over engineered products with dumbass warnings tattooed around the device just so that idiots and their whore mongering plaintiff’s attorneys can get a pay day.
I know that the old ways were harsh, but they more accurately assigned the blame.
I tend to agree, but I look at the system as more of economic Darwinism for companies that make conscious decisions to exclude safety features as a means to further their profits. These rewards are not just based on the company getting sued. A jury is finding them negligent. I guess that’s a consequence of selling products in a country of stupid people. There are plenty of stupid people who can come along and judge you negligent for it.
If not for cases like these the quality and safety of products becomes a race to the bottom. If stupid people blowing themselves up forces manufacturers to make better products I’m OK with that because I feel the free market left on it’s own is doing a shitty job of that.
It should be a given that companies act in the interest of producing profits. But the concept of excluding safety features is absurd. If something actually is a safety feature then the government should require it. Otherwise it would be impossible to manufacture any product without the risk of being sued by someone who uses it an unsafe manner. The Blitz gas can at question here was not unsafe when being used in the manner for which it was intended.
But that would be ‘job killing regulation.’ I’d prefer more government regulation of private companies but we can’t seem to get to the standards most consider reasonable. Instead we have a population that can’t get the representation they want and seem to be taking out that frustration in the courts. I tend to feel that’s wrong headed and is a bad way to solve the problem but if it’s the only option left it’s the one we’re going to use.
Our course long term rather than regulating companies, passing laws more favorable to companies is more likely. See the progressive insurance thread.
I’m not talking about regulating private companies. I’m talking about regulated products. They can go ahead and ignore regulations and get sued if they want. Also, don’t fall for the idea that business doesn’t like regulations. They’re behind most of them.
Are you saying it should be decided by politicians?
The FDA and NHTSA are 2 large government agencies concerned mostly with regulating for safety. It really would be impossible to create an agency for every product conceivable.
You might not agree with these lawsuits, but they have had an impact. Future gas cans with have additional safety features. Our representative democracy didn’t fix the problem, tort lawsuits did.
Also, how are tort lawsuits presided over by politicans following laws established by politicians any different than having politicians decide on regulations.
New cans will have flame arrestor safety devices that prevent these gas can explosions. A company that doesn’t leaves itself open to lawsuits just like Blitz.
Cite please. Apparently there won’t be any new cans from Blitz. And there’s no requirement for them in other cans, just like there was no requirement before the lawsuit (I think, I don’t have time to go back through all the cites right now to see if something contradicts that).
And you didn’t address the second part of my response. Since you think politicians doing this one way is better than another, please explain why.
But as a consumer that knows not to pour gasoline in a wood stove, why can’t I buy a gas can for fifty cents less?
You might say that what’s 50 cents in the name of safety, but apply it times every other product that a jury rules could have been made more idiot-proof for fifty cents, then everything you purchase becomes over engineered, over priced, and more importantly filled with warning labels that nobody ever reads.
Do you read the booklet full of warnings telling you not to stick your hand in your lawnmower blade when it’s turning? Nobody does. So if there is a real warning, one for non-idiots, it’s lost in the myriad of stupid warnings that we are trained to ignore.
All so that Plaintiff’s lawyers and stupid people can make a buck. I don’t see the societal value of mandating flame arrest gasoline cans. I agree with Tripolar; If those are something society demands, let the legislature implement it, not 6 jurors.
Yes, tort reform. The kind that removes the arbitrary nature of awards, not the kind that restricts reasonable decisions. And this one wasn’t reasonable.
Can you give an example of a vendor that was sued for selling a product that it did not manufacture, and met appropriate regulatory requirements?
I’m not saying it hasn’t happened- but it certainly seems like a stretch to successfully sue Wal-Mart for selling gas cans (foreign or domestic) that complied with all FTC (and related) regulations.