So I guess, then, it’s cool in the pool?
Just because any mention of stupid labels makes me HAVE to mention this one:
on a box of beef-flavoured ramen noodles:
“Please avoid sunlight, moisture, cereals and dried fishies”
And no, I didn’t make it up. It’s on the boxtop taped to the wall next to my desk.
Check this site out for a more humorous take on warning labels.
Manhattan wants answers. mumble grumble Mod
I have no idea whether labels for the majority of products are regulated by any entity before the products are sold. Some products, such as pharmaceuticals, do have labels and warnings that are approved before the product is first sold.
The people putting out these warning labels are hoping that they are appropriately fulfilling their duty to warn. As a general proposition, a warning must
[ul]be reasonably expected to catch the attention of a reasonably prudent person, in the circumstances that the product was used,
be comprehensible to the average user, and
convey a fair indictation of the nature and extent of the danger.[/ul]
Determining whether labels comply with the above is fact specific and varies depending on the nature of the product. For example, warnings on inherently dangerous products like knives and dynamite will differ from warnings for ordinarily less dangerous products like portable radios.
My guess is that a blanket warning would not easily fulfill a duty to warn. Just warning me not to get near a product doesn’t help me comprehend the nature or extent of the danger.
I don’t think that any label content can prevent someone from filing a lawsuit, but it can increase the likelihood that the manufacturer will prevail in the lawsuit. For example, the FDA regulates warnings on prescription drugs. Warnings are created based on studies of the particular drug in question and on other drugs in the same class. But, just because the FDA approves a label with a warning doesn’t mean that no one can sue the drug manufacturer complaining that the warning is not adequate.