20million jury verdict...

[GettnHuge 2]

http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x2021666277/-20-6M-award-in-pool-slide-death

SALEM — A Salem Superior Court jury has ordered Toys "R" Us to pay more than $20 million to the family of a young mother who died five years ago after an inflatable pool slide sold by the national chain partially collapsed while she was using it during a pool party in Andover.

 

The Banzai Falls in-ground pool slide was never tested to determine whether it met federal safety standards for pool slides before or after it was imported from China by the retailer, a violation of federal law.

 

Robin Aleo was 29, married and the mother of an 18-month-old daughter. During a pool party at the Andover home of relatives on July 29, 2006, she climbed to the top of the 6-foot-high Banzai Falls slide, then started sliding down head-first.

 

Near the bottom, the slide suddenly bottomed out and Aleo struck her head on the edge of the pool, according to testimony. Her neck was broken, and she was left paralyzed and unable to breathe. She died the following day at a Boston hospital.

 

 

Lawyers for Toys "R" Us contended that the regulations did not apply to the Banzai slide because it was inflatable, and that they were not responsible for safety testing for compliance with regulations.

 

They also contended that Aleo had been injured when she attempted to dive off of the slide, and not while she slid down, which was contradicted by witnesses who testified.

 

While there is a small print warning not to use the slide head-first, federal safety standards required that the slide be tested for such a typical use.

 

Under those standards, all pool slides are also required to support a load of 350 pounds without "deformation" or giving way. The Banzai slide deforms under almost any weight at all, and the shifting of weight as a user slides down displaces the air at the bottom, making it unable to support any load, a plaintiff's expert witness concluded.

 

 

 

 

 

1. why is the retailer at fault in any case like this and not just the manufacturer?

 

 

I mean, does every dealership now have to crash test every car they sell?

 

 

2. She went down head first

 

3. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

4. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

5. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

6. Even though it says, do not go down head first, they say it should be tested and meet those standards anyway.

 

What? Scuse me, but if it met those 'standards' there wouldn't be a warning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SUXBNME 1,457]

Stupid on the manufacturers part. all they had to do was put some kind of warning on the label not to go down headfirst or something. Dumb

[nikki2200 4]

I don't get how a retailer could be held liable for a separately branded product theysell. When Tylenol was contaminated was it the fault of every supermarket and pharmacy in the country? Or Johnson and Johnson?

 

How could Toys R Us even label the product themselves? They don't make it. This is a horrible horrible precedent. Were they saying Toys R Us shouldn't have sold it without testing the product themselves to make sure it met safety standards??

[Me_2006 14]

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1. why is the retailer at fault in any case like this and not just the manufacturer?

 

 

I mean, does every dealership now have to crash test every car they sell?

 

 

2. She went down head first

 

3. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

4. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

5. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

6. Even though it says, do not go down head first, they say it should be tested and meet those standards anyway.

 

What? Scuse me, but if it met those 'standards' there wouldn't be a warning

 

Product liability law applies to every actor in the chain of distribution. So you can sue the manufacturer or you can sue the seller. If it was just the manufacturer's fault than the seller can turn around and sue the manufacturer to recover any damages the seller had to pay to the injured person.

 

As for your other question, the law is that you have to make a product safe for any foreseeable use. It is completely foreseeable that people will go down head first even if there is a warning not to. Think of how often you have misused a product. It happens all the time. If the manufacturer should have known that the product would be used in that way, they were obligated to make it safe.

 

I know the application of product liability law can lead to some seemingly absurd results in some cases (I don't think this is one of them), but the entire idea is to make products safer. And it works.

[shotsup 832]

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Yeah, it definitely wasn't the woman's fault that she was injured going down a children's inflatable slide head first.

[shovelheadt 68]

 

3. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

4. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

5. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

6. Even though it says, do not go down head first, they say it should be tested and meet those standards anyway.

 

What? Scuse me, but if it met those 'standards' there wouldn't be a warning

 

This means absolutely nothing. It's akin to those stupid ass signs you see on the back of dump trucks that say 'Stay Back 200 Feet..Not Responsible For Damage'. Simply throwing a sign on your truck does not give you the right to break the law by not securing your load properly. If it did, I'd throw a sign on my truck that said 'Warning..vehicle travels at high speeds'..then I'd roll 90mph all the time. Same with the slide. Tossing a manufacturer's warning on there doesn't give them the right to ignore Federal regulations.

[shovelheadt 68]

I don't get how a retailer could be held liable for a separately branded product theysell. When Tylenol was contaminated was it the fault of every supermarket and pharmacy in the country? Or Johnson and Johnson?

 

How could Toys R Us even label the product themselves? They don't make it. This is a horrible horrible precedent. Were they saying Toys R Us shouldn't have sold it without testing the product themselves to make sure it met safety standards??

 

Two things..

 

1. Bad comparison. How are supermarkets supposed to test drugs? Falls completely under a different organization. Packaging defects/broken seals...I agree with you.

2. They're saying Toys R Us isn't allowed to sell anything that hasn't been tested..period.

[GettnHuge 2]

This means absolutely nothing. It's akin to those stupid ass signs you see on the back of dump trucks that say 'Stay Back 200 Feet..Not Responsible For Damage'. Simply throwing a sign on your truck does not give you the right to break the law by not securing your load properly. If it did, I'd throw a sign on my truck that said 'Warning..vehicle travels at high speeds'..then I'd roll 90mph all the time. Same with the slide. Tossing a manufacturer's warning on there doesn't give them the right to ignore Federal regulations.

 

another bad comparison

They are trying to apply regulations for a hard fiberglass slide to one which is inflatable. They are completely different things, so why would you have

to test it for something it is not? This jury is full of your typical morons who hear a sad story and don't have the guts to blame who is at fault. Which is

an adult jumping on a kids toy and using it in a way it was not intended. As for Toys R Us, what are they supposed to do? Inflate one up in the parking

lot and do crash tests?

 

The next person who buys a Slip N Slide should set it up on the edge of a cliff. And hey, maybe the Slip N Slide box even says: Do not set near cliffs.

But then he can still sue for 50 million because Slip N Slide didn't actually test the product on the edge of a cliff, or in the middle of the street, or in philadelphia.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gzDC-2ZO8I

[nikki2200 4]

Two things..

 

1. Bad comparison. How are supermarkets supposed to test drugs? Falls completely under a different organization. Packaging defects/broken seals...I agree with you.

2. They're saying Toys R Us isn't allowed to sell anything that hasn't been tested..period.

 

So Toys r us is supposed to test all of their products to make sure they meet safety regulations? They are a retailer. Do retailers typically have test labs set up?

 

Maybe because this was made in China they can't go after the manufacturer?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

another bad comparison

They are trying to apply regulations for a hard fiberglass slide to one which is inflatable. They are completely different things, so why would you have

to test it for something it is not? This jury is full of your typical morons who hear a sad story and don't have the guts to blame who is at fault. Which is

an adult jumping on a kids toy and using it in a way it was not intended. As for Toys R Us, what are they supposed to do? Inflate one up in the parking

lot and do crash tests?

 

Defective products give rise to strict liability. In a typical negligence case the jury would've found that x% of the fault lied with the woman and her damages would have been reduced accordingly. But in strict liability cases there is no allocation of fault.

 

You built it, someone got injured by it, end of story.

 

Again, the point of all this is to ensure that manufacturers make, and stores sell, safe products. I don't see what your problem is with that.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Defective products give rise to strict liability. In a typical negligence case the jury would've found that x% of the fault lied with the woman and her damages would have been reduced accordingly. But in strict liability cases there is no allocation of fault.

 

You built it, someone got injured by it, end of story.

 

Again, the point of all this is to ensure that manufacturers make, and stores sell, safe products. I don't see what your problem is with that.

I don't think any disagrees with the idea of making things safer. I think people find it offensive that you can profit off of a darwinian act.

[shovelheadt 68]

So Toys r us is supposed to test all of their products to make sure they meet safety regulations? They are a retailer. Do retailers typically have test labs set up?

 

Maybe because this was made in China they can't go after the manufacturer?

 

You need to read the whole article.

 

Jurors were not told about the Missouri case but did learn that the company that Toys "R" Us uses in China to safety-test products before they are imported, Bureau Veritas, was never asked to test the pool slide for compliance with federal safety regulations.

[GettnHuge 2]

Defective products give rise to strict liability. In a typical negligence case the jury would've found that x% of the fault lied with the woman and her damages would have been reduced accordingly. But in strict liability cases there is no allocation of fault.

 

You built it, someone got injured by it, end of story.

 

Again, the point of all this is to ensure that manufacturers make, and stores sell, safe products. I don't see what your problem is with that.

 

The product was used in a way it was not intended and that product had a warning not to use it in that manner.

How hard is this?

[shovelheadt 68]

another bad comparison

They are trying to apply regulations for a hard fiberglass slide to one which is inflatable. They are completely different things, so why would you have

to test it for something it is not? This jury is full of your typical morons who hear a sad story and don't have the guts to blame who is at fault. Which is

an adult jumping on a kids toy and using it in a way it was not intended. As for Toys R Us, what are they supposed to do? Inflate one up in the parking

lot and do crash tests?

 

The next person who buys a Slip N Slide should set it up on the edge of a cliff. And hey, maybe the Slip N Slide box even says: Do not set near cliffs.

But then he can still sue for 50 million because Slip N Slide didn't actually test the product on the edge of a cliff, or in the middle of the street, or in philadelphia.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gzDC-2ZO8I

 

Now you're just being argumentative out of spite. What Toys R Us was supposed to do was have their contractor in China inspect the thing. And where did you get your info about a hard fiberglass slide?

[shovelheadt 68]

The product was used in a way it was not intended and that product had a warning not to use it in that manner.

How hard is this?

 

A warning label that was obviously added to protect their lack of an inspection.

[nikki2200 4]

The product was used in a way it was not intended and that product had a warning not to use it in that manner.

How hard is this?

 

Because you can do whatever the hell you want including sliding head first down a floatie into a concrete wall and it's not your fault. It's the person who sold you the floatie's fault. Because they should have made it concrete wall proof.

[nikki2200 4]

A warning label that was obviously added to protect their lack of an inspection.

 

Or maybe because sliding down any slide head first is a really bad idea and apparently people need to be told this.

[GettnHuge 2]

Now you're just being argumentative out of spite. What Toys R Us was supposed to do was have their contractor in China inspect the thing. And where did you get your info about a hard fiberglass slide?

 

but not for compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Commission pool slide regulation, a former Toys "R" Us executive acknowledged during testimony on Wednesday. Lawyers for Toys "R" Us contended that the regulations did not apply to the Banzai slide because it was inflatable, and that they were not responsible for safety testing for compliance with regulations.

 

Under those standards, all pool slides are also required to support a load of 350 pounds without "deformation" or giving way.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The plaintiffs were arguing that it was not tested for 'pool slide regulations'. Those regulations are meant for hard (fiberglass type) slides. It's completely

ridiculous to think something inflatable should not 'deform' in any way under weight. The whole point of being inflatable is so that it is soft and deforms

under a person's weight. Course this jury just lapped it up.

 

Maybe I should go buy a tricycle, stick rocket engines on it and try to jump over 20 semis. I'll sue for 20 million and claim that it was never tested with rockets and

it had no warning about attaching rockets to it.

[Gandalfs Fireworks 2]

So Toys r us is supposed to test all of their products to make sure they meet safety regulations? They are a retailer. Do retailers typically have test labs set up?

 

Maybe because this was made in China they can't go after the manufacturer?

 

 

Its because it was a store brand. Some other company produces it and TRU sells it under their store brand. In other words, the "generic" version. They should have tested it because it was their product.

[nikki2200 4]

Its because it was a store brand. Some other company produces it and TRU sells it under their store brand. In other words, the "generic" version. They should have tested it because it was their product.

 

If that's true then that makes sense, but the article did not say that.

 

I still don't condone people being able to sue companies because they blatantly misused a product and profit from it when they hurt themselves.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

1. why is the retailer at fault in any case like this and not just the manufacturer?

 

 

I mean, does every dealership now have to crash test every car they sell?

 

 

2. She went down head first

 

3. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

4. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

5. product warning says: do not go down head first

 

6. Even though it says, do not go down head first, they say it should be tested and meet those standards anyway.

 

What? Scuse me, but if it met those 'standards' there wouldn't be a warning

 

1. Answer: Everyone in the "chain of commerce" is liable to the consumer under a tort theory of strict liability. If it was the manufacturer ultimately at fault, the retailer will sue them for contribution to the judgment. The law has decided that it is an undue buden on the consumer to have to figure out which stop in the chain of commerce caused the defect.

 

If only the manufacturer was liable, every store would simply have tiny, undercapitalized companies in China that were the manufacturer, and consumers would be unable to recover at all.

 

2. They knew that would happen. Hell, the focking product was called "banzai" for fock's sake.

 

Bottom line: they were required to test for safety, this product clearly violated existing safety standards. Neglignece per se.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Because you can do whatever the hell you want including sliding head first down a floatie into a concrete wall and it's not your fault. It's the person who sold you the floatie's fault. Because they should have made it concrete wall proof.

 

They knew damn well this product would be used that way, and deliberatly did not safety test for it. They, rightly, got hammered.

[GettnHuge 2]

1. Answer: Everyone in the "chain of commerce" is liable to the consumer under a tort theory of strict liability. If it was the manufacturer ultimately at fault, the retailer will sue them for contribution to the judgment. The law has decided that it is an undue buden on the consumer to have to figure out which stop in the chain of commerce caused the defect.

 

If only the manufacturer was liable, every store would simply have tiny, undercapitalized companies in China that were the manufacturer, and consumers would be unable to recover at all.

 

2. They knew that would happen. Hell, the focking product was called "banzai" for fock's sake.

 

Bottom line: they were required to test for safety, this product clearly violated existing safety standards. Neglignece per se.

 

1. you failed to address that the case was demanding a safety test that is actually meant for other products

 

2. tort? liability? funky. how about duty to warn?

 

For other products, the impetus for the warning label comes from tort law. Tort law is civil law--the branch of law that allows people to sue individuals or companies for harm or damages. Under tort law, if a product is potentially dangerous, the manufacturer has a "duty to warn" and that duty imposes the requirement of a warning label.

 

On many other products, the requirement for a warning label stems from a duty to warn. Whenever a product carries with it a hazard or a risk, the manufacturers have a series of obligations imposed by tort law and by the American National Standards Institute. ANSI Z535 series, Safety Signs and Colors dictates the requirements for warning labels on products in the United States.

 

When the product is as safe as possible, given its intended use and design, any remaining hazards must be addressed by the use of a warning label.

 

• ANSI states that the warning must be "adequate." There are no specific guidelines on what constitutes an "adequate" warning. The courts have set forth general guidelines. In general, a panel should be placed on the product that contains language conveying the hazard, the potential consequences of the risk and steps or measures the user can take to avoid the potential hazard.
   
  Product warning labels do not need to specify self-explanatory or obvious hazards. For example, the result of encountering an electrocution hazard is electrocution.
   
  Many companies go beyond the ANSI requirements, dictating even obvious potential hazards on their warning labels to avoid potential civil liability. In other words, obvious hazards are spelled out so that a consumer can't sue the company for injury incurred from an obvious hazard associated with a product.

[nikki2200 4]

They knew damn well this product would be used that way, and deliberatly did not safety test for it. They, rightly, got hammered.

 

No one should be going down any slide head first let alone one into the edge of a pool. Because there is a chance you can break your neck.

 

What if a kid is riding on the handlebars of a bicycle, which the manufacturer knows all kids do, and falls off and dies. Can the bike company get sued because they didn't make it safe to ride on the handlebars?

 

I would assume that Toys 'R Us didn't think the regulations applied to them because it was an inflatable slide. And common sense should tell you that a large person going down an inflatable slide might displace some of the air and you will probably at a minimum crack your head open at the bottom if an adult goes down head first. I looked at a picture of the thing and it looks dangerous in general, as most pool slides are. And anyone who couldn't tell from looking at that thing that it was not meant for headfirst diving, doesn't have a lot of common sense. Regardless of what the label said.

 

I just think adults should take responsibility for their own decisions. No other country is able to sue like this. If this exact same thing happened in Europe, it just would have been a sad story. Does that mean we are any safer than Europeans are??? And you wanna know what? Sometimes shiit just happens. People fall down the stairs all the time and die. Should we sue the people who sell stairs because they didn't fall-proof them?

 

I get the legal mumbo jumbo about this and the ruling was probably right. What I'm questioning is the whole system.

[parrot 789]

If all it takes to indemnify yourself is a printed message, they would just print "Do Not Use!" and cover all their bases.

[drobeski 3,061]

So how much do you think I'm entitled too if is shove my Gillette razor blade up my ass ?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

If all it takes to indemnify yourself is a printed message, they would just print "Do Not Use!" and cover all their bases.

Listen, I hear what you are saying. But it still shouldn't warrant 20 mil for using a product incorrectly. When did common sense and personal responsibility go out of the equation? I see a blow up pool, I sure as hell am not going into it head 1st. What idiot would? Oh yeah, the one from this story. She darwin'd herself and now a company has to pay for it. Seems a bit extreme to me.

[Mookz 1,338]

So how much do you think I'm entitled too if is shove my Gillette razor blade up my ass ?

Thinking of turning pro?

[drobeski 3,061]

Thinking of turning pro?

Nahh I just want titansbucsandwhatevertherestofthefaggiestnameinthehistoryofthebored to envy me.

[GettnHuge 2]

http://diplo-best.com/314.php?k=aba639e163d89998796f849886b48d3e&ID=523451&q=BANZAI%20FALLS%20WATER%20SLIDE

 

There's the manual. It is quite clear, giving the same warnings over and over of how to use the product. Never dive/go down head first

is in there maybe 4 times and also printed on the product. This slide is slightly different than the one in this case, but the concept and

destructions are pretty much the same.

 

"To avoid the risk of serious injury or death, always slide with your feet first and never slide on your stomach or head first."

 

-Never dive head first

-Do not jump off from the slide

etc

 

"While every attempt is made to embody the highest degree of protection in all equipments, we cannot guarantee freedom from injury. The user assumes

all risk of injury due to use. All merchandise is sold on this condition, which no representative of the company can waiver or change."

 

-Only one child should slide down the slide at a time

-To avoid the risk of serious injury or death, always slide with your feet first and never slide on your knees, stomach, head or standing first.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

The product was used in a way it was not intended and that product had a warning not to use it in that manner.

How hard is this?

 

Like I said earlier, lots of products are misused every single day. Manufacturers have a responsibility to account for this and make their products safe for all foreseeable uses. Sometimes a warning can suffice but this was apparently not one of those instances.

[Riddlen 1]

it will get appealed and go away. jurys do not belong in the civil sytem

[JackARoot 2]

This means absolutely nothing. It's akin to those stupid ass signs you see on the back of dump trucks that say 'Stay Back 200 Feet..Not Responsible For Damage'. Simply throwing a sign on your truck does not give you the right to break the law by not securing your load properly. If it did, I'd throw a sign on my truck that said 'Warning..vehicle travels at high speeds'..then I'd roll 90mph all the time. Same with the slide. Tossing a manufacturer's warning on there doesn't give them the right to ignore Federal regulations.

 

 

It makes me think of a product my kids have ... Hulk Hands. Basically green boxing gloves with built-in sound effects.

 

The commercial shows the kids playing with them swinging away with haymakers, but in the instructions this disclaimer appears:

 

"Do not strike people or objects."

[GettnHuge 2]

Like I said earlier, lots of products are misused every single day. Manufacturers have a responsibility to account for this and make their products safe for all foreseeable uses. Sometimes a warning can suffice but this was apparently not one of those instances.

 

ok how do you make a knife safe? last I checked there aren't warning labels on the burners of a stove. Like I said with the Slip N Slide, what

if someone rolls it out across a street? How is it possible to make that safe? Nobody is going to sue a knife maker if they cut their finger and nobody should be

able to sue when they go headfirst on a child's toy despite multiple warnings not to.

[parrot 789]

Listen, I hear what you are saying. But it still shouldn't warrant 20 mil for using a product incorrectly. When did common sense and personal responsibility go out of the equation? I see a blow up pool, I sure as hell am not going into it head 1st. What idiot would? Oh yeah, the one from this story. She darwin'd herself and now a company has to pay for it. Seems a bit extreme to me.

 

According to the article, most of the damages were punitive, not compensatory. There are federal regulations with minimum standards specifically for pool slides, and this product was never tested against those standards, in violation of that law. That's why the judgment was so great. If they had tested and been found in compliance, and this person still got hurt, there may have been some judgment against them but it probably wouldn't have been near the dollar amount.

[parrot 789]

if someone rolls it out across a street? How is it possible to make that safe?

 

A reasonable person would not foreseeably roll it out across a street, a reasonable person might foreseeably go down it head first.

[GettnHuge 2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyIuesLjH4Q

 

Check out this moron almost breaking his neck. This slide isn't meant to be going into a pool at all. It's for 5yr olds to

splash into the slide's own pool and should not be on concrete.

 

This is the type of idiocy you are defending.

[Bert 1,128]

Like I said earlier, lots of products are misused every single day. Manufacturers have a responsibility to account for this and make their products safe for all foreseeable uses. Sometimes a warning can suffice but this was apparently not one of those instances.

 

This is how attorneys are destroying the entire country. We are forced to manage to the lowest common denominator because some two bit hack lawyer sues the hell out of people because they didn't account for the stupidity of their client.

 

 

Most politicians are lawyers…………makes it easy to understand why the country is in such bad shape.