20million jury verdict...

[GettnHuge 2]

I don't know who sold them that pole, but it's lawsuit time, baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5XrHVEvjmo

[IGotWorms 4,057]

And I already explained to you how the merchandising process works. Toys R Us does not actually test the items it sells, but it demands that the manufacturers certify that it meets federal regulations and their own standards that they probably have in addition to federal regulations. And if the manufacturer says it's A-OK, as is required by their contract, I don't know how Toys R Us would know any differently. Every single retailer does not have their own personal testing facilities. And I doubt they have the ability to check on every single manufacturer and every single item they sell to make sure they aren't lying.

 

And thinking about this more, in the toy industry, I'm sure they have a product safety department that decides if products are safe to sell. But they are most likely going off a check sheet and basing it on the manufacturer guaranteeing they did what they were supposed to do.

 

It doesn't matter whether Toys R Us should have personally tested the product. When a product is defective, every entity in the distribution chain is liable. That means the manufacturer AND the seller.

 

Now maybe it can be unfair that the seller is liable for a product they didn't even build. But what is the alternative? If the seller could not be held liable, then you could only go after the manufacturer.

 

Well what if the manufacturer is a foreign corporation that cannot be hailed into court?

 

Or what if the manufacturer is insolvent?

 

The law makes a value judgment that a person injured by a defective product must be compensated. This is to protect the individual person AND promote overall product safety. So in choosing between leaving an injured consumer out to dry and subjecting the seller to potentially unfair liability, we side with the injured consumer.

 

Does that make sense?

 

And don't forget--the seller can always go after the manufacturer for contribution or indemnification (i.e., the manufacturer has to reimburse the seller for some or all of the damages the seller paid out to the consumer).

[GettnHuge 2]

I smell CRASS ACTION SUIT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c9kaJksn9Q

[Strike 5,243]

And I already explained to you how the merchandising process works. Toys R Us does not actually test the items it sells, but it demands that the manufacturers certify that it meets federal regulations and their own standards that they probably have in addition to federal regulations. And if the manufacturer says it's A-OK, as is required by their contract, I don't know how Toys R Us would know any differently. Every single retailer does not have their own personal testing facilities. And I doubt they have the ability to check on every single manufacturer and every single item they sell to make sure they aren't lying.

 

And thinking about this more, in the toy industry, I'm sure they have a product safety department that decides if products are safe to sell. But they are most likely going off a check sheet and basing it on the manufacturer guaranteeing they did what they were supposed to do.

 

I haven't read anything where Toys R Us has anything from the manufacturer certifying that it was tested in accordance with our federal pool slide guidelines. It sounds like you're making stuff up again. Can you provide a link where someone from Toys R Us even makes a statement to the media saying that?

[nikki2200 4]

It doesn't matter whether Toys R Us should have personally tested the product. When a product is defective, every entity in the distribution chain is liable. That means the manufacturer AND the seller.

 

Now maybe it can be unfair that the seller is liable for a product they didn't even build. But what is the alternative? If the seller could not be held liable, then you could only go after the manufacturer.

 

Well what if the manufacturer is a foreign corporation that cannot be hailed into court?

 

Or what if the manufacturer is insolvent?

 

The law makes a value judgment that a person injured by a defective product must be compensated. This is to protect the individual person AND promote overall product safety. So in choosing between leaving an injured consumer out to dry and subjecting the seller to potentially unfair liability, we side with the injured consumer.

 

Does that make sense?

 

And don't forget--the seller can always go after the manufacturer for contribution or indemnification (i.e., the manufacturer has to reimburse the seller for some or all of the damages the seller paid out to the consumer).

 

Oh I completely understand it. That doesn't mean it makes sense. My feeble mind cannot process how Toys R Us should have to pay $20 million, $20 MILLION, to the family of someone who was blatantly misusing a product they didn't even make. I guess I am just not of the belief that everyone MUST be compensated if they are injured. Unfortunately the majority of the country does not feel this way.

 

The alternative is how about if you are going to do something dumb, it's your fault; not anyone else's. It's not like this woman was following directions (which by the way I'm sure it said not for use for anyone over 100 pounds or something similar and we know it said not to slide down head first) and happily sliding down in the proper way on a slide clearly designed for adults and she died. That is not what happened.

 

There were roughly 200,000 injuries related to pools and pool accessories this year. That's a shiit load of defective pool products.

 

Activities surrounding swimming and diving and sliding are inherently dangerous. And I would even guess that a lot of those injuries were due to people ignoring signs and labels like "Don't run by the pool" or "Don't slide down head first" or "No diving". I would also guess a significant percentage of those injuries resulted in lawsuits based on the number of lawyers out there that actually focus only in this area. Because it is perfectly reasonable to assume people would run, slide, and dive any way they felt like and apparently people don't have to read warnings.

 

But we have our Robin Hood lawyers out there ensuring that the innocent and weak are protected. So we can all sleep well at night. Or we can just do something dumb and not follow the rules and hurt ourselves and wake up tomorrow morning with a few million dollars in our pockets.

[GettnHuge 2]

It doesn't matter whether Toys R Us should have personally tested the product. When a product is defective, every entity in the distribution chain is liable. That means the manufacturer AND the seller.

 

Now maybe it can be unfair that the seller is liable for a product they didn't even build. But what is the alternative? If the seller could not be held liable, then you could only go after the manufacturer.

 

Well what if the manufacturer is a foreign corporation that cannot be hailed into court?

 

Or what if the manufacturer is insolvent?

 

The law makes a value judgment that a person injured by a defective product must be compensated. This is to protect the individual person AND promote overall product safety. So in choosing between leaving an injured consumer out to dry and subjecting the seller to potentially unfair liability, we side with the injured consumer.

 

Does that make sense?

 

And don't forget--the seller can always go after the manufacturer for contribution or indemnification (i.e., the manufacturer has to reimburse the seller for some or all of the damages the seller paid out to the consumer).

 

Uh huh. Simple question

 

If it is indeed true that these kiddie slides, inflatable, etc don't meet federal regulations, and therefore would be illegal to sell or install...

then why are they so commonly available for purchase?

 

Either the fed has no idea that inflatable or kiddie slides exist

Or a gullible bleeding heart jury bought a bs argument

[GettnHuge 2]

 

Activities surrounding swimming and diving and sliding are inherently dangerous. And I would even guess that a lot of those injuries were due to people ignoring signs and labels like "Don't run by the pool" or "Don't slide down head first" or "No diving". I would also guess a significant percentage of those injuries resulted in lawsuits based on the number of lawyers out there that actually focus only in this area. Because it is perfectly reasonable to assume people would run, slide, and dive any way they felt like and apparently people don't have to read warnings.

 

 

Didn't you get the memo? Stores and manufacturers now have to make products or activities surrounding their products safe even when all warnings are ignored.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

But we have our Robin Hood lawyers out there ensuring that the innocent and weak are protected. So we can all sleep well at night. Or we can just do something dumb and not follow the rules and hurt ourselves and wake up tomorrow morning with a few million dollars in our pockets.

 

This woman is dead, so given the choice I think she would have preferred a product that met standard safety requirements.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Uh huh. Simple question

 

If it is indeed true that these kiddie slides, inflatable, etc don't meet federal regulations, and therefore would be illegal to sell or install...

then why are they so commonly available for purchase?

 

Either the fed has no idea that inflatable or kiddie slides exist

Or a gullible bleeding heart jury bought a bs argument

 

How do you think these regulations are enforced?

 

Do you envision a team of federal inspectors combing through various retail stores and independently testing each and every individual product to ensure that regulations are satisfied?

 

No, the way it works is that the feds put these regulations out there, and then if someone is injured or killed and you didn't follow the regulations, you are automatically focked in court. Game over.

 

Manufacturers and retailers know this. So manufacturers have an incentive to follow the regulations or else they will be subjected to limitless liability for their products. And retailers have an incentive to sell products only made by reputable manufacturers or they could be subject to limitless liability.

 

In this case, it looks like both the manufacturer and the retailer failed. I really don't see what the issue is.

[nikki2200 4]

I haven't read anything where Toys R Us has anything from the manufacturer certifying that it was tested in accordance with our federal pool slide guidelines. It sounds like you're making stuff up again. Can you provide a link where someone from Toys R Us even makes a statement to the media saying that?

 

Me "making stuff up" is understanding how businesses operate. Retailers get a guarantee from the manufacturer that the product is safe according to federal safety regulations. That was my entire point. That they don't have entire departments staffed with lawyers with expertise in every intricate detail of the law, nor do they have the means to enforce it. That is up to the manufacturer. Which manufacturers do have to research the regulations before they bring a product to market. And in court, Toys R Us testified that the product was not tested for the 350 pound regulation. Because it wasn't. That doesn't mean that was something they would typically know about or have the ability to enforce.

 

Apparently Walmart didn't know either. Or God knows how many other retailers that sold this thing.

[nikki2200 4]

This woman is dead, so given the choice I think she would have preferred a product that met standard safety requirements.

 

So you think she died because the product was faulty? Not because she was playing on a kid's toy in a way it was not meant to be used and broke her neck? I guess that's where we differ.

[Strike 5,243]

Me "making stuff up" is understanding how businesses operate. Retailers get a guarantee from the manufacturer that the product is safe according to federal safety regulations. That was my entire point. That they don't have entire departments staffed with lawyers with expertise in every intricate detail of the law, nor do they have the means to enforce it. That is up to the manufacturer. Which manufacturers do have to research the regulations before they bring a product to market. And in court, Toys R Us testified that the product was not tested for the 350 pound regulation. Because it wasn't. That doesn't mean that was something they would typically know about or have the ability to enforce.

 

Apparently Walmart didn't know either. Or God knows how many other retailers that sold this thing.

 

You could have simply said you were making stuff up again.

[Strike 5,243]

So you think she died because the product was faulty? Not because she was playing on a kid's toy in a way it was not meant to be used and broke her neck? I guess that's where we differ.

 

Clearly she died because the product was faulty. It was supposed to not buckle under 350 pounds and it buckled. Had it not buckled she would be alive today. Do you dispute that?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

So you think she died because the product was faulty? Not because she was playing on a kid's toy in a way it was not meant to be used and broke her neck? I guess that's where we differ.

 

You are treating this like it's a black and white issue, but it's not.

 

Should the woman have made a better decision? Certainly. I think just about everyone would agree with that.

 

But should one momentary lapse in judgment lead to her death? When that death was totally preventable by a product that met basic safety requirements? I think the only acceptable answer to that question is "no".

[nikki2200 4]

This is too serious for night posting on a Friday night. I've exhausted my brain cells. Will respond tomorrow. There are other threads that would better suit my mood right now.

[Strike 5,243]

This is too serious for night posting on a Friday night. I've exhausted my brain cells. Will respond tomorrow. There are other threads that would better suit my mood right now.

 

And don't forget Sux is waiting patiently........

[nikki2200 4]

And don't forget Sux is waiting patiently........

 

[Mike Honcho 5,129]

Uh huh. Simple question

 

If it is indeed true that these kiddie slides, inflatable, etc don't meet federal regulations, and therefore would be illegal to sell or install...

then why are they so commonly available for purchase?

 

Either the fed has no idea that inflatable or kiddie slides exist

Or a gullible bleeding heart jury bought a bs argument

 

 

 

Everytime you try to add to the debate in this thread it's like getting attacked by a bear that's learned how to rape...you think no way could it possibly get any worse and then OMG!!!!!

[GettnHuge 2]

How do you think these regulations are enforced?

 

Do you envision a team of federal inspectors combing through various retail stores and independently testing each and every individual product to ensure that regulations are satisfied?

 

No, the way it works is that the feds put these regulations out there, and then if someone is injured or killed and you didn't follow the regulations, you are automatically focked in court. Game over.

 

Manufacturers and retailers know this. So manufacturers have an incentive to follow the regulations or else they will be subjected to limitless liability for their products. And retailers have an incentive to sell products only made by reputable manufacturers or they could be subject to limitless liability.

 

In this case, it looks like both the manufacturer and the retailer failed. I really don't see what the issue is.

 

So what you're saying is that those regulations are only there for lawsuits? That's one of the biggest loads of BS I think Ive ever seen on this bored. If you bothered to read the 'regulations' that you

seem to brag up, you'd see the very first thing they address is that these requirements are mandatory for the manufacturer. Seriously, this is one of the worst flailing attempts ever posted.

 

( B Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of swimming pool slides, as these products are defined in §1207.3(a)(28) shall not manufacture or import slides that do not comply with the requirements

 

Yet they are still allowed to manufacture all of those inflatable pools and slides. amazing. These guys are better than drug smugglers

Next?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This thread is a classic illustration of the differing mindsets of Conservatives vs Liberals.

 

"I fukked up doing something stoopid"

 

Liberals: How can I blame someone else, and how much money can I make off my stupidity.

 

Conservatives: Fukk, that was dumb. I better not do that again.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

So what you're saying is that those regulations are only there for lawsuits? That's one of the biggest loads of BS I think Ive ever seen on this bored. If you bothered to read the 'regulations' that you

seem to brag up, you'd see the very first thing they address is that these requirements are mandatory for the manufacturer. Seriously, this is one of the worst flailing attempts ever posted.

 

( B Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of swimming pool slides, as these products are defined in §1207.3(a)(28) shall not manufacture or import slides that do not comply with the requirements

 

Yet they are still allowed to manufacture all of those inflatable pools and slides. amazing. These guys are better than drug smugglers

Next?

 

Dude, you really have no concept of how the world works, do you?

 

Let me help explain this to you by pointing you to the term negligence per se.

 

Negligence per se is the legal doctrine whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation).

 

So if you violate a statute or regulation, and someone gets hurt as a result, you are automatically presumed liable. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, but I'm dumbing it down for the sake of explanation.)

 

So the feds (or a state) passes these statutes or regulations, knowing that they could never *really* enforce them directly, but that they will have an indirect means of enforcement because anyone who doesn't follow the statute or regulation is completely focked if anything bad happens.

 

If you don't want to lose your shirt in a lawsuit, you had better follow the regulations.

 

Does that make sense now?

[GettnHuge 2]

Dude, you really have no concept of how the world works, do you?

 

Let me help explain this to you by pointing you to the term negligence per se.

 

Negligence per se is the legal doctrine whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation).

 

So if you violate a statute or regulation, and someone gets hurt as a result, you are automatically presumed liable. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, but I'm dumbing it down for the sake of explanation.)

 

So the feds (or a state) passes these statutes or regulations, knowing that they could never *really* enforce them directly, but that they will have an indirect means of enforcement because anyone who doesn't follow the statute or regulation is completely focked if anything bad happens.

 

If you don't want to lose your shirt in a lawsuit, you had better follow the regulations.

 

Does that make sense now?

 

Seriously? this is the path you're going to throw your darts at now?

You can't have it both ways.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Seriously? this is the path you're going to throw your darts at now?

You can't have it both ways.

 

What two ways am I trying to have it? Look, just admit that you are in over your head and we can quit going in circles like this.

[GettnHuge 2]

What two ways am I trying to have it? Look, just admit that you are in over your head and we can quit going in circles like this.

 

Well, ahem ahem ahem, let me address those regulations that you people have been touting the last few days... if you bothered to read on, you

would have noticed that pool slides are required to have certification of their testing. If not, guess what, you can't put them on the market. Can't wait

to see how you spin this one.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Well, ahem ahem ahem, let me address those regulations that you people have been touting the last few days... if you bothered to read on, you

would have noticed that pool slides are required to have certification of their testing. If not, guess what, you can't put them on the market. Can't wait

to see how you spin this one.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. If Toys R Us put them on the market without certification, then obviously they are liable x100.

[Mike Honcho 5,129]

Everytime you try to add to the debate in this thread it's like getting attacked by a bear that's learned how to rape...you think no way could it possibly get any worse and then OMG!!!!!

 

 

What two ways am I trying to have it? Look, just admit that you are in over your head and we can quit going in circles like this.

 

I tried to warn you....

[GettnHuge 2]

I'm not sure what your point is. If Toys R Us put them on the market without certification, then obviously they are liable x100.

 

The point is, these are inflatable kids toys and not full on adult bigboy slides. The regulations do not apply to them. If they did, then the gubbamint would have

put a stop to this years ago. But they didn't, because they are inflatable toys. If this company wanted to sell a real true fiberglass slide and did not have the required

testing certification, it wouldn't even make it this far. Hell, the regulations even address that by demanding the certification be right on the outside of the shipped

package/pallet/etc. So far the only people who have come to this conclusion is some slimy lawyers and a dumb jury.

 

It did mention another case of a guy who was paralyzed doing the same stupid thing. I don't care if he strapped rockets to his back for added speed down the slide

into concrete. A jury will side with him, just like this, because they feel sorry for him. It doesn't make it right.

 

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_SPM243545740P?sid=IDx20101019x00001b&srccode=cii_18492716&cpncode=22-177501968-2

[Strike 5,243]

The point is, these are inflatable kids toys and not full on adult bigboy slides. The regulations do not apply to them. If they did, then the gubbamint would have

put a stop to this years ago. But they didn't, because they are inflatable toys. If this company wanted to sell a real true fiberglass slide and did not have the required

testing certification, it wouldn't even make it this far. Hell, the regulations even address that by demanding the certification be right on the outside of the shipped

package/pallet/etc. So far the only people who have come to this conclusion is some slimy lawyers and a dumb jury.

 

It did mention another case of a guy who was paralyzed doing the same stupid thing. I don't care if he strapped rockets to his back for added speed down the slide

into concrete. A jury will side with him, just like this, because they feel sorry for him. It doesn't make it right.

 

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_SPM243545740P?sid=IDx20101019x00001b&srccode=cii_18492716&cpncode=22-177501968-2

 

You keep saying that same sh*t. Show some proof where there's a distinction between hard slides and inflatables. As far as I can tell the regs apply to ALL slides. If that wasn't the case the defense could have easily gotten that stipulation made during the trial. So, I'll ask AGAIN. Show proof that inflatable slides don't have to meet the same regs as non- inflatables. Essentially what you're arguing is that there are ZERO requirements for inflatable slides. This trial seems to suggest differently.

[nikki2200 4]

You keep saying that same sh*t. Show some proof where there's a distinction between hard slides and inflatables. As far as I can tell the regs apply to ALL slides. If that wasn't the case the defense could have easily gotten that stipulation made during the trial. So, I'll ask AGAIN. Show proof that inflatable slides don't have to meet the same regs as non- inflatables. Essentially what you're arguing is that there are ZERO requirements for inflatable slides. This trial seems to suggest differently.

 

I think the point he is trying to make is that there are still inflatable slides that are meant to use on the side of a pool on the market that you can purchase right now that are not designed to hold 350 pounds worth of weight.

[Strike 5,243]

I think the point he is trying to make is that there are still inflatable slides that are meant to use on the side of a pool on the market that you can purchase right now that are not designed to hold 350 pounds worth of weight.

 

Again, I ask you for proof. You seem to like to talk from the hip without substantiation. So, proof?

[nikki2200 4]

Again, I ask you for proof. You seem to like to talk from the hip without substantiation. So, proof?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Banzai-3-Climb-Slide-Falls/dp/B000VT8IQI/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=165793011&s=toys-and-games

 

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81503qLlNwL._AA1000_.jpg

 

Product Description

The Banzai 3-in-1 Climb 'N Slide is an absolute blast for the kids! Features an 80"L inflatable slide, foot holes for easy climbing, a water-spraying rail that easily attaches to any hose, heavy duty PVC construction and a water-filled base for extra stability. Holds up to 200 lbs.

 

There are actually a lot of them. And none of them say they hold up to 350 pounds worth of weight. The one in this case is not sold anymore, but there are a ton out there if you just want to go on amazon and look.

[Strike 5,243]

http://www.amazon.com/Banzai-3-Climb-Slide-Falls/dp/B000VT8IQI/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=165793011&s=toys-and-games

 

 

 

There are actually a lot of them. And none of them say they hold up to 350 pounds worth of weight. The one in this case is not sold anymore, but there are a ton out there if you just want to go on amazon and look.

 

Uh, they don't have to say they hold up to 350 pounds. Federal regulations REQUIRE IT. There's nothing wrong with selling an inflatable slide. It's only a problem if it doesn't meet federal regulations. That link is worthless unless you can provide proof it doesn't meet federal regulations.

[nikki2200 4]

Uh, they don't have to say they hold up to 350 pounds. Federal regulations REQUIRE IT. There's nothing wrong with selling an inflatable slide. It's only a problem if it doesn't meet federal regulations. That link is worthless unless you can provide proof it doesn't meet federal regulations.

 

Why didn't they say 350 pounds then? Why did they specifically stop at 200? I saw another one that said 170 pounds. It's the same company selling inflatable pool slides. It's kind of weird that the Consumer Protection Agency would continue to let this manufacturer sell them if the design was blatantly in violation of federal regulations.

[Strike 5,243]

Why didn't they say 350 pounds then? Why did they specifically stop at 200? I saw another one that said 170 pounds. It's the same company selling inflatable pool slides. It's kind of weird that the Consumer Protection Agency would continue to let this manufacturer sell them if the design was blatantly in violation of federal regulations.

 

Who knows? Maybe it holds up to 350 but they said 200 to give themselves a margin of error. You act as if you're this marketing genius who understands how everything works. You do understand that marketing speak isn't legally binding, don't you?

[GettnHuge 2]

Show proof that inflatable slides don't have to meet the same regs as non- inflatables. Essentially what you're arguing is that there are ZERO requirements for inflatable slides. This trial seems to suggest differently.

 

The proof is simply that you can buy them. Because for any slide which wasn't certified, you can't.

http://www.wayfair.com/show_detail.php?sku=AVI1014&piid%5B%5D=

Oooh look a 170lb weight limit. What blatant law breakage right there.

 

 

Consumer Reports:

 

If it hadn't been real, the sight of an 11-year-old boy flying 40 feet into the air clinging to an inflatable slide might have seemed like a whimsical scene from the movie "Up." And after a few terrifying moments, it did have a happy ending; the Ohio boy landed safely thanks to some quick-thinking bystanders. The unintended balloon flight highlights the dangers of inflatable amusements, which are subject to relatively few safety rules and regulations. Popular at kids' backyard birthday parties, local carnivals and other attractions, the inflatables come in all shapes and sizes with names like moonwalker and bounce house. They're big and bouncy and irresistible to kids.

 

It's up to the states or local municipalities to regulate inflatables. Few have. One of the first states to get tough on inflatables was New Jersey, which requires inspections and mandates that inflatables meet wind-anchorage and combustibility requirements. ASTM International, a voluntary-standards development organization, has developed a standard for inflatables. While ASTM standards don't carry the weight of law, they may be referenced in laws or contracts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strike 5,243]

The proof is simply that you can buy them. Because for any slide which wasn't certified, you can't.

http://www.wayfair.com/show_detail.php?sku=AVI1014&piid%5B%5D=

Oooh look a 170lb weight limit. What blatant law breakage right there.

 

 

Consumer Reports:

 

If it hadn't been real, the sight of an 11-year-old boy flying 40 feet into the air clinging to an inflatable slide might have seemed like a whimsical scene from the movie "Up." And after a few terrifying moments, it did have a happy ending; the Ohio boy landed safely thanks to some quick-thinking bystanders. The unintended balloon flight highlights the dangers of inflatable amusements, which are subject to relatively few safety rules and regulations. Popular at kids' backyard birthday parties, local carnivals and other attractions, the inflatables come in all shapes and sizes with names like moonwalker and bounce house. They're big and bouncy and irresistible to kids.

 

It's up to the states or local municipalities to regulate inflatables. Few have. One of the first states to get tough on inflatables was New Jersey, which requires inspections and mandates that inflatables meet wind-anchorage and combustibility requirements. ASTM International, a voluntary-standards development organization, has developed a standard for inflatables. While ASTM standards don't carry the weight of law, they may be referenced in laws or contracts.

 

Tell all that to the jury.

 

See, in this country, court decisions trump crap assertions and/or links. Did Toys R Us lose their case or not?

[nikki2200 4]

The proof is simply that you can buy them. Because for any slide which wasn't certified, you can't.

http://www.wayfair.com/show_detail.php?sku=AVI1014&piid%5B%5D=

Oooh look a 170lb weight limit. What blatant law breakage right there.

 

 

Consumer Reports:

 

If it hadn't been real, the sight of an 11-year-old boy flying 40 feet into the air clinging to an inflatable slide might have seemed like a whimsical scene from the movie "Up." And after a few terrifying moments, it did have a happy ending; the Ohio boy landed safely thanks to some quick-thinking bystanders. The unintended balloon flight highlights the dangers of inflatable amusements, which are subject to relatively few safety rules and regulations. Popular at kids' backyard birthday parties, local carnivals and other attractions, the inflatables come in all shapes and sizes with names like moonwalker and bounce house. They're big and bouncy and irresistible to kids.

 

It's up to the states or local municipalities to regulate inflatables. Few have. One of the first states to get tough on inflatables was New Jersey, which requires inspections and mandates that inflatables meet wind-anchorage and combustibility requirements. ASTM International, a voluntary-standards development organization, has developed a standard for inflatables. While ASTM standards don't carry the weight of law, they may be referenced in laws or contracts.

 

You just posted that inflatables "are subject to relatively few safety rules and regulations". Now I'm lost.

[nikki2200 4]

You just posted that inflatables "are subject to relatively few safety rules and regulations". Now I'm lost.

 

Oops LOL. I thought Strike posted that.

[Strike 5,243]

Oops LOL. I thought Strike posted that.

 

Have another drink.

[GettnHuge 2]

Tell all that to the jury.

 

See, in this country, court decisions trump crap assertions and/or links. Did Toys R Us lose their case or not?

 

Tell us how innocent OJ was while you're at it.