"WARNING LABELS"

I read warning labels on some things, but I agree a good percentage are probably there to save the company's butt from those coming from the shallow end of the gene pool. I think the type to use a curling iron internally isn't the type to read warning labels in the first place.

 

Common sense isn't common!

 

Actually... I totally forgot about cases like that.

 

You know the answer to this one, I'm sure. Most of these labels are to absolve the manufacturer from liability, because some dumb ass didn't take time to think, or read the warnings already on the label. In other words, the labels aren't meant to keep the dumb asses safe, they are there to keep them from suing. It doesn't really work too well...

 

How would you know that?

 

People still sue, sometimes successfully regardless of the labels. McDonald's coffee was already labeled 'hot', for instance when that lady decided it was a good idea to hold it between her knees in a moving car to mix in her sweetener and cream.

In college we were told that the old saying was "You can make it fool proof, but not damned fool proof", but these days the saying is "You better make it damned fool proof". That was in the 80's/90's.

Some fun litigation stuff:

15 Frivolous Lawsuits That Prove Our Justice System Is Screwed Photo Gallery - 1. <em>Paul Ceglia v. Facebook</em> - Conspiracies on truTV.com
6 Famous 'Frivolous Lawsuit' Stories That Are Total B.S. | Cracked.com
Crazy lawsuits and laughable litigation, yep, dumb and silly lawsuits | Laws US and International sick, stupid and crazy laws
fun

 

Maybe sometimes they have legitimate cause to sue?

It sounds like you know absolutely nothing about the case, outside of the urban legend. Look at the Cracked.com link that you posted, and click the link back to page one.

And note the other five cases in that article. Just about every "frivolous lawsuit outrage" story (1) grossly misrepresents the facts, (2) involves a case that was laughed out of court and immediately dismissed, or (3) is completely bogus.

Ronald Reagan used to talk about a lawsuit where a burglar fell through a skylight and successfully sued the homeowner for millions of dollars. That's the kind of situation calculated to get people angry.

Yes, he was talking about a real case, but (1) it was a school, not a home, (2) the victim was not a burglar, but a student at that school, (3) he was retrieving athletic equipment stored on the roof, not burglarizing the school, (4) the skylight was disused, but instead of being covered over, had been painted black, so it looked like a normal part of the roof, (5) the student was totally paralyzed by the fall, in other words, he became a quadriplegic, and (6) the damage award was in thousands, not millions.

(The wrinkle that got this story urban legend status is the argument that, even though equipment had been stored there and he was sent to go get it, maybe the student had not been officially authorized to be on the roof. Well, then, if that's true, that might make him a trespasser into a part of the school where he didn't belong. So let's call him a burglar.)

As a general rule, when somebody wins substantial damages in a lawsuit, there is very good reason for it. Contrary to what urban legends seem to indicate, judges and juries are not idiots.

 

Yes, yes, I've read ALL about the case and heard her lawyers ad-nauseum. I still think the whole fault was hers.

The links were meant to be taken in the spirit of good fun ( I thought they were funny anyway ), no need to belabor and bore the frick out of people with your, no doubt, huge intellect and knowledge of case law...

Quite often juries are indeed idiots ( jury of peers, anyone? ) and the cases get thrown out at the next level.

By the way, the point, which was lost, was that putting warning labels on things quite often doesn't work for it's intended purpose, NOT that the legal system is bad. The right to sue is very important, even if stupid crap gets through...

 

Look, I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. No need to ridicule me about it. All I have is real-life experience with the actual justice system, not the imaginary one.

I have seen a whole lot of juries in my time (and been ON two of them), and I have never personally seen a jury do something idiotic with the information that is given them.

If anything, I am constantly impressed by the seriousness that jurors bring to their task. Cynicism about average Americans aside, it's a mistake to underestimate a jury.

There are tens of thousands of juries empaneled in the U.S. every year. Anecdotes about rare cases of idiotic decisions ought not be used to characterize all jurors.

I dispute this glib "quite often doesn't work" line. (My first response to you was "How would you know that?") Certainly fantastic urban legends do not disprove it.

How about statistics which show a steady decline in accidental deaths and injuries over the last 50 years?

 

Who has injured you so, that you feel the need to debate so fervently? This seems personal. And there is nothing fantastical about the various cases that ACTUALLY DO happen in courts. There is no legend at all. Sure they do not make up the preponderance of cases, and I never said that they did. But they do happen, and I would like to emphasize this, because (some) people do ignore warnings, and are stupid. They often don't take responsibility, and will sue someone else for their own idiocy. For you to deny that, is to deny reality. Also whether or not the cases come to fruition is also beside the point.

For you to somehow believe that this somehow reflects on all cases, or the cases that you have some experience with, makes me believe that you have a personal issue. I have never characterized all jurors, or all juries, either specifically, or anecdotally...

Take a deep breath, stand back from the screen, and say "It's okay, nobody is attacking me, or trying to insult anything I am about. I'm great. Hey, I need a drink. Maybe a scotch and soda. MMMMMM"

 

I guess I got angry because you were throwing out all these completely bullshit assertions and then flatly refusing to back down from them even a millimeter.

It pisses me off when people treat wild, outrageous stories, either invented or exaggerated in the telling and re-telling, as if they were valid generalizations about the way the world works.

I apologize for losing my shit over this.

 

I came here to edit out all but the last line of the previous post, but the editing period has expired.

Again, my apologies.

 

We need more labels!!!!

Portland pimp sues Nike for $100 million for lack of warning label after beating victim with Jordans | OregonLive.comWarning: This story is not meant to be reflective of society in general
--- merged: Jan 13, 2014 at 11:24 AM ---
This is too rich not to pass on. I guess lawyers need labels now:

Woman claims lawyers should have told her divorce would end her marriage - Home News - UK - The Independent

 

As I said in another thread: prison inmates have the leisure to file all kinds of crazy legal papers. Pretty much 100% of those cases are immediately dismissed.

One prisoner sued me in federal court for $100 trillion.

 

Long shot here, but was his name Odell Shannon Jr?

 

Nope.