20million jury verdict...

[DankNuggs 305]

Completely outragous verdict, toysrus has to appeal this...

 

1.) The slide has a self contained pool, it clearly isn't intended to be placed on the lip of a concrete pool.

 

2.) its for children

 

3.) Its the Manuf. responsibility for testing (but bc its made in china they can't go after them)

 

 

This is simply a 'Deep Pockets' case where they aimlessly place the blame at whomever has the most $$$ they can go after...

[nikki2200 4]

Completely outragous verdict, toysrus has to appeal this...

 

1.) The slide has a self contained pool, it clearly isn't intended to be placed on the lip of a concrete pool.

 

2.) its for children

 

3.) Its the Manuf. responsibility for testing (but bc its made in china they can't go after them)

 

 

This is simply a 'Deep Pockets' case where they aimlessly place the blame at whomever has the most $$$ they can go after...

 

Actually the manufacturer is a US company according to the article. The manufacturer and amazon.com who sold it to these people on behalf of toys r us both already settled on this same case out of court. God knows how much these people got. Toys r us apparently thought they had a solid case bevause they didn't settle as well.

 

Walmart also sold this same product. This item was not specific to Toys r us. It was sold by retailers all over the country.

[DankNuggs 305]

Actually the manufacturer is a US company according to the article. The manufacturer and amazon.com who sold it to these people on behalf of toys r us both already settled on this same case out of court. God knows how much these people got. Toys r us apparently thought they had a solid case bevause they didn't settle as well.

 

Walmart also sold this same product. This item was not specific to Toys r us. It was sold by retailers all over the country.

Really? Banzai is a US company? I'm shocked...

 

 

toyquest.com is the website... They are a chinese company with LA and London corp. offices... So a multinational co.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

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.

 

You can't make a knife that won't cut someone's finger if misused.

 

You can't make a burner that won't burn someone's hand if misused.

 

You CAN make a waterslide that won't collapse if a person goes down headfirst.

 

HTH.

[GettnHuge 2]

You can't make a knife that won't cut someone's finger if misused.

 

You can't make a burner that won't burn someone's hand if misused.

 

You CAN make a waterslide that won't collapse if a person goes down headfirst.

 

HTH.

 

waterslide? no. this is a child's inflatable slide. It's not meant to support some fatass adult. Just like some adult getting on a plastic

big wheel. It's gonna break and you're gonna hit the pavement.

 

If you cut your finger, you did something with the knife you shouldn't have done

If you burn your hand, you did something with the burner you shouldn't have done

If you go down headfirst on a kids toy, you did something that you shouldn't have done

[drobeski 3,061]

You can't make a knife that won't cut someone's finger if misused.

 

You can't make a burner that won't burn someone's hand if misused.

 

You CAN make a waterslide that won't collapse if a person goes down headfirst.

 

HTH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

waterslide? no. this is a child's inflatable slide. It's not meant to support some fatass adult. Just like some adult getting on a plastic

big wheel. It's gonna break and you're gonna hit the pavement.

 

If you cut your finger, you did something with the knife you shouldn't have done

If you burn your hand, you did something with the burner you shouldn't have done

If you go down headfirst on a kids toy, you did something that you shouldn't have done

 

Again, you aren't understanding the legal distinction here. It's not a question of whether the dead lady should or should not have done what she did. It's a question of whether the company could have reasonably foreseen that such a thing would happen and could have/should have designed their product in such a way as to avoid the injury that occurred.

 

You can rant about stupidity all you want, the fact is that we, as a country, want products that are safe to use. Everyone misuses products. One dumb but completely foreseeable misuse of a product should not result in death.

 

And if you don't like it, move to China. They don't have strict product liability laws. They also don't have premises liability law so if you get injured in a place of business that's your own problem.

[Bert 1,129]

Again, you aren't understanding the legal distinction here. It's not a question of whether the dead lady should or should not have done what she did. It's a question of whether the company could have reasonably foreseen that such a thing would happen and could have/should have designed their product in such a way as to avoid the injury that occurred.

 

You can rant about stupidity all you want, the fact is that we, as a country, want products that are safe to use. Everyone misuses products. One dumb but completely foreseeable misuse of a product should not result in death.

 

 

Unfortunately lawyers have b@stardized and abused the system so much for personal financial gain that the term “reasonable” has no meaning.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Unfortunately lawyers have b@stardized and abused the system so much for personal financial gain that the term “reasonable” has no meaning.

 

 

This.

 

This idiot could have inflated the slide with propane, been smoking a cigar while sliding down face first, and got blowed up and shot over the chain link fence into the alley, and ended up with krispy t!ts and pretzel legs, and Worms would still say "No No, Toys R Us should have foreseen this usage.

[nikki2200 4]

Table 3. Sources of aquatic product and activity injuries requiring hospitalization, United States, 2001

 

Swimming (activity, apparel, or equip) 76,408

Swimming pools, not specified 60,279

Built-in swimming pools 19,233

Diving or diving boards 11,196

Whirlpools, hot tubs or home spas 7,600

Water slides (public, backyard/home, or other) 6,226

Water tubing (activity, apparel, or equip) 4,340

Swimming pool equipment 4,040

Swimming pool chemicals 3,315

Above-ground swimming pools 1,882

 

If I calculated correctly, 194,000 people are hospitalized every year from injuries related to swimming pools, diving boards, WATER SLIDES, etc. That's why you tell kids to be careful when they are playing around the pool. That's why you tell kids not to do stupid things around the pool that can get themselves hurt.... like sliding head first down a water slide that is resting on the concrete edge of a pool.

 

Any time you mix concrete slabs and water, it is inherently dangerous. Which is why REASONABLE people know not to do such things.

[GettnHuge 2]

Table 3. Sources of aquatic product and activity injuries requiring hospitalization, United States, 2001

 

Swimming (activity, apparel, or equip) 76,408

Swimming pools, not specified 60,279

Built-in swimming pools 19,233

Diving or diving boards 11,196

Whirlpools, hot tubs or home spas 7,600

Water slides (public, backyard/home, or other) 6,226

Water tubing (activity, apparel, or equip) 4,340

Swimming pool equipment 4,040

Swimming pool chemicals 3,315

Above-ground swimming pools 1,882

 

If I calculated correctly, 194,000 people are hospitalized every year from injuries related to swimming pools, diving boards, WATER SLIDES, etc. That's why you tell kids to be careful when they are playing around the pool. That's why you tell kids not to do stupid things around the pool that can get themselves hurt.... like sliding head first down a water slide that is resting on the concrete edge of a pool.

 

Any time you mix concrete slabs and water, it is inherently dangerous. Which is why REASONABLE people know not to do such things.

 

This ball hasn't landed yet

[drobeski 3,061]

Wtf ...I have a razor waiting for my ass hole ...how much is it worth already ?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

This.

 

This idiot could have inflated the slide with propane, been smoking a cigar while sliding down face first, and got blowed up and shot over the chain link fence into the alley, and ended up with krispy t!ts and pretzel legs, and Worms would still say "No No, Toys R Us should have foreseen this usage.

 

No, I would not have said that. You are lying, again.

[Strike 6,034]

The bottom line in this case is we have certain safety regulations in this country. This item did not meet those regulations and was never tested for compliance. Regardless of any warnings the manufacturer might put on the item if it doesn't meet the safety regulations there is liability. And the way our court system is set up you can sue pretty much anyone in the chain that had anything to do with selling it. If any of those entities believes another entity has more fault they can cross sue each other as well. I suspect Toys 'R Us may do that. But that doesn't mean they can't, or shouldn't, be held liable.

[nikki2200 4]

This ball hasn't landed yet

 

Luckily there of thousands of upstanding citizens out there like this:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&noj=1&biw=1280&bih=701&q=swimming+pool+drowning+lawyers&oq=swimming+pool+drowning+lawyers&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4138l10652l0l11086l30l26l0l7l7l0l348l3175l0.3.5.4l12l0

 

Keeping us all safe.

[parrot 790]

The bottom line in this case is we have certain safety regulations in this country. This item did not meet those regulations and was never tested for compliance. Regardless of any warnings the manufacturer might put on the item if it doesn't meet the safety regulations there is liability. And the way our court system is set up you can sue pretty much anyone in the chain that had anything to do with selling it. If any of those entities believes another entity has more fault they can cross sue each other as well. I suspect Toys 'R Us may do that. But that doesn't mean they can't, or shouldn't, be held liable.

 

Clearly defined standards in place, which it was never tested against beforehand, and when tested it failed. That equals liability. It's really simple.

[Me_2006 14]

Why is it required to make something safe for misuse? I understand that these regulations and blah blah blah exist, but WTF is the point of making it okay to use something the wrong way? Why not just use it properly?

 

 

Or what about cigarettes? Are you allowed to sell things that knowingly give people cancer? They come with a warning label. Can someone sue a tobacco company if they get lung cancer?

[Strike 6,034]

Why is it required to make something safe for misuse? I understand that these regulations and blah blah blah exist, but WTF is the point of making it okay to use something the wrong way? Why not just use it properly?

 

 

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.

 

Federal safety standards REQUIRE it to be tested for such typical use?

[drobeski 3,061]

Federal safety standards REQUIRE it to be tested for such typical use?

Typical key word

[Strike 6,034]

Typical key word

 

Even if it just met the specified safety standard, that it be able to support 350 lb's without deforming, there wouldn't be a lawsuit (or a dead Mother) so the fact that she used it in a way they warned against is pretty irrelevant anyways. This slide didn't meet the most basic, specifically defined safety standard for this type of toy.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Why is it required to make something safe for misuse? I understand that these regulations and blah blah blah exist, but WTF is the point of making it okay to use something the wrong way? Why not just use it properly?

 

It's not "okay" to use something the wrong way, but the law recognizes that people will tend to use a product in any way that makes sense intuitively. If you buy something and it clearly seems like it could be used for X, then people are going to use it for X.

 

It doesn't matter what the warnings say because most people don't read that sh!t. Unless a warning is the ONLY way to make a product safe without ruining its utility, then it that case it might suffice.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's not "okay" to use something the wrong way, but the law recognizes that people will tend to use a product in any way that makes sense intuitively. If you buy something and it clearly seems like it could be used for X, then people are going to use it for X.

 

It doesn't matter what the warnings say because most people don't read that sh!t. Unless a warning is the ONLY way to make a product safe without ruining its utility, then it that case it might suffice.

 

 

I guess we could save a pantload of tax dollars by eliminating all tha agencies and useless gubmint wokers that come up with the requirements for all those warning labels. I mean, if something looks like it could be used for something and all the warning labels in the world saying "DONT USE THIS IN THAT FASHION YOU BLITHERING IDIOT" means absolutely nothing, then why have them?

[GettnHuge 2]

Even if it just met the specified safety standard, that it be able to support 350 lb's without deforming, there wouldn't be a lawsuit (or a dead Mother) so the fact that she used it in a way they warned against is pretty irrelevant anyways. This slide didn't meet the most basic, specifically defined safety standard for this type of toy.

 

Those standards are meant for hard fiberglass slides, not inflatable toys. This is like saying a BigWheel should meet the crash standards

of a car. It can't and never will and wouldn't be tested to meet such ridiculous standards anyway. They played that card and an idiot jury bought it.

If you want something inflated that won't deform under 350lbs of pressure, you might as well give your kid a truck tire to play with.

[Me_2006 14]

Federal safety standards REQUIRE it to be tested for such typical use?

 

But why? It's the governments job to make things okay to be used the wrong way?

[Strike 6,034]

But why? It's the governments job to make things okay to be used the wrong way?

 

The government wasn't involved in this. This was a civil suit. If the government thought they had done something criminal they'd be going after them criminally. But, if the government sets certain standards and it's proven that you didn't test against them, a jury may take that in to consideration. Apparently that happened in this case.

[Strike 6,034]

Those standards are meant for hard fiberglass slides, not inflatable toys. This is like saying a BigWheel should meet the crash standards

of a car. It can't and never will and wouldn't be tested to meet such ridiculous standards anyway. They played that card and an idiot jury bought it.

If you want something inflated that won't deform under 350lbs of pressure, you might as well give your kid a truck tire to play with.

 

Link? Because I'm pretty sure that if those standards weren't applicable here any decent attorney would get that evidence suppressed. And I'm pretty sure Toys 'R Us had decent attorneys.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

But why? It's the governments job to make things okay to be used the wrong way?

 

Do you carefully read (and remember) the instructions of every product you purchase?

[GettnHuge 2]

Link? Because I'm pretty sure that if those standards weren't applicable here any decent attorney would get that evidence suppressed. And I'm pretty sure Toys 'R Us had decent attorneys.

 

I guess you failed to read the story

[Me_2006 14]

Do you carefully read (and remember) the instructions of every product you purchase?

No, because I'm not a retard. Our blender probably says something about not putting your hand in it. I haven't read the instructions, but even if it wasn't in there, I wouldnt do it. It isn't the job of the company to make blades that wont cut my hand. That's an extreme example, and I hear your possible use argument, but that doesn't explain why it was determined that something has to be made safe for a use it wasn't intended for. I'm aware that it does exist, I'm not understanding the logic behind why. How does whoever makes these regulations justify requiring a product to be safe in inappropriate conditions.

 

I mean, it's logical to assume that someone would be using a hair dryer in the bathroom near a sink or water in general. Why is it not required that they be safe to drop in water?

[GettnHuge 2]

No, because I'm not a retard. Our blender probably says something about not putting your hand in it. I haven't read the instructions, but even if it wasn't in there, I wouldnt do it. It isn't the job of the company to make blades that wont cut my hand. That's an extreme example, and I hear your possible use argument, but that doesn't explain why it was determined that something has to be made safe for a use it wasn't intended for. I'm aware that it does exist, I'm not understanding the logic behind why. How does whoever makes these regulations justify requiring a product to be safe in inappropriate conditions.

 

I mean, it's logical to assume that someone would be using a hair dryer in the bathroom near a sink or water in general. Why is it not required that they be safe to drop in water?

 

If you made any more sense you'd be able to pay off the lawsuit. I don't think they understand the ridiculousness of thinking a child's toy should

be automatically

built for an adult to dive headfirst into.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1r7FbKSnVE&NR=1

[Strike 6,034]

I guess you failed to read the story

 

Actually I DID read the story. Maybe you didn't. Here's the pertinent quote:

 

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.

 

 

So, using your logic, she also tried to dive off the slide despite witnesses saying differently. Because, apparently, anything Toys R' Us' lawyers say is the truth.

 

BUT.....also according to the article,

 

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

 

So we seem to have a question as to what the truth is, or what the word "all" means. I was hoping you had another source that would suggest that the lawyers were actually correct. Given the juries' verdict it appears they weren't and the article was.

[nikki2200 4]

I can clearly see how it was everyone in the entire world's fault for this woman deciding to go head first down a pool slide into the side of a pool and killing herself. It was amazon.com's fault for providing an interwebs marketplace for retailers to sell their products online. It was Toys R Us's fault for selling a product that if used in a darwinian manner could result in death. It was the manufacturer's fault for not making the product safe to use when used in a way that was completely unsafe.

 

It was everyone in the entire world's fault except the person that made a decision to go down a slide meant for children head first into the side of a concrete wall.

 

I don't give a rat's ass about the legal mumbo jumbo and who you are allowed to sue and company's responsibility to make us safe and yada yada yada. The system is broken. Why are there 1000s of lawyers out there specializing in Pool Death Drowning cases? Do we really have that many defective pools out there?

 

I would bet a dollar that if you went down a fiberglass slide that met all the federal safety regulations head first there is a high probability you would get hurt.

 

I would also bet a dollar that regardless of what the "witnesses" testified in this case that the woman who went down head first went into the water face first and flipped over and nailed her head on the edge of the pool and broke her neck. I'd bet more than a dollar on that.

 

I don't give a shiit about the legal mumbo jumbo about liability law in the US. The entire system is broken and it is costing us hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year in oppressive insurance premiums and lawyers fees because the dumbasses that live in this country can't take responsibility for their own actions and their own safety. And those costs are all being passed onto the consumer.

 

God Bless America. The only place on earth you can behave like a focking drooling window licker and not have any legal consequences or responsibility according to the law. Because everyone else in the entire world has a bigger responsibility to protect you from harm than you do yourself.

[parrot 790]

This is like saying a BigWheel should meet the crash standards

of a car.

 

Yeah, it's exactly like that, if you're retarded.

[parrot 790]

I can clearly see how it was everyone in the entire world's fault for this woman deciding to go head first down a pool slide into the side of a pool and killing herself. It was amazon.com's fault for providing an interwebs marketplace for retailers to sell their products online. It was Toys R Us's fault for selling a product that if used in a darwinian manner could result in death. It was the manufacturer's fault for not making the product safe to use when used in a way that was completely unsafe.

 

It was everyone in the entire world's fault except the person that made a decision to go down a slide meant for children head first into the side of a concrete wall.

 

I don't give a rat's ass about the legal mumbo jumbo and who you are allowed to sue and company's responsibility to make us safe and yada yada yada. The system is broken. Why are there 1000s of lawyers out there specializing in Pool Death Drowning cases? Do we really have that many defective pools out there?

 

I would bet a dollar that if you went down a fiberglass slide that met all the federal safety regulations head first there is a high probability you would get hurt.

 

I would also bet a dollar that regardless of what the "witnesses" testified in this case that the woman who went down head first went into the water face first and flipped over and nailed her head on the edge of the pool and broke her neck. I'd bet more than a dollar on that.

 

I don't give a shiit about the legal mumbo jumbo about liability law in the US. The entire system is broken and it is costing us hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year in oppressive insurance premiums and lawyers fees because the dumbasses that live in this country can't take responsibility for their own actions and their own safety. And those costs are all being passed onto the consumer.

 

God Bless America. The only place on earth you can behave like a focking drooling window licker and not have any legal consequences or responsibility according to the law. Because everyone else in the entire world has a bigger responsibility to protect you from harm than you do yourself.

 

So what are you proposing here, that we should not have product safety standards, or that companies should just be free to ignore them when they please?

[nikki2200 4]

So what are you proposing here, that we should not have product safety standards, or that companies should just be free to ignore them when they please?

 

Yea. That's exactly what I am proposing. How about if you focking hurt yourself it's your own goddamm fault? Or if a product has a warning label on it and then you do what it says not to do, tough shiit. Or how about as a country we start understanding that accidents happen (especially if you decide to do something dumb) and people die and that doesn't mean the family is entitled to 10s of millions of dollars?

 

Please explain to me how an e-commerce company that hosts an interwebs marketplace is responsible for this woman breaking her neck and how that makes any focking sense at all.

 

Answer my question.... Why are there 1000s of attorneys all over the country that specialize in drowning and pool deaths? Is it because our country is filled with pools and swimming accessories that do not meet safety standards? Is that really why? I know... they're all trying to keep us safe, right?

[Bert 1,129]

Why are there 1000s of attorneys all over the country that specialize in drowning and pool deaths? Is it because our country is filled with pools and swimming accessories that do not meet safety standards? Is that really why? I know... they're all trying to keep us safe, right?

 

 

Lawyers have done more damage to this country than all of the evil CEO's added together and multipled by a 1,000.

 

Lawyers have made billions for themselves by removing all personal responsibility from individuals.

 

 

Lawyers are like nuclear warheads. Nobody likes them but they have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fock up everything.

[parrot 790]

Yea. That's exactly what I am proposing. How about if you focking hurt yourself it's your own goddamm fault? Or if a product has a warning label on it and then you do what it says not to do, tough shiit. Or how about as a country we start understanding that accidents happen (especially if you decide to do something dumb) and people die and that doesn't mean the family is entitled to 10s of millions of dollars?

 

Well it sure sounds like you are since you're so worked up about this case and apparently there were relevant standards in place and they ingnored those standards. Now maybe what this woman did was as stupid as you say, but that doesn't absolve the company from the fact that they FAILED TO TEST THE FOCKING PRODUCT.

 

I'm not going to defend lawyers, but I'm not going to defend companies that ignore our laws designed to protect people either.

[nikki2200 4]

Well it sure sounds like you are since you're so worked up about this case and apparently there were relevant standards in place and they ingnored those standards. Now maybe what this woman did was as stupid as you say, but that doesn't absolve the company from the fact that they FAILED TO TEST THE FOCKING PRODUCT.

 

I'm not going to defend lawyers, but I'm not going to defend companies that ignore our laws designed to protect people either.

 

Companies like amazon.com?

 

I'm sure they have a whole department dedicated to making sure all the stuff that other retailers sell on their website were properly tested in China. Because that makes perfect sense. Just like the retailers all have their special departments that make sure the manufacturer of the products they sell properly test them in China. Yeppers.

 

Like I said, with all the legal mumbo jumbo and crap, I'm not arguing with the ruling. I'm arguing that 1. a product defect is not why this woman got hurt, her own stupidity got her hurt and 2. if you are misusing a product, and you get hurt, tough shiit. Oh and 3. This entire system is broken and has been costing us for decades. Toys R Us, amazon.com, and the company that made the slide did not pay that woman's family tens of millions of dollars. We did.

[drobeski 3,061]

Well it sure sounds like you are since you're so worked up about this case and apparently there were relevant standards in place and they ingnored those standards. Now maybe what this woman did was as stupid as you say, but that doesn't absolve the company from the fact that they FAILED TO TEST THE FOCKING PRODUCT.

 

I'm not going to defend lawyers, but I'm not going to defend companies that ignore our laws designed to protect people either.

Do you have a link claiming that children's blow up slides should have to support 350 lbs ? Im calling bullshiot

[hoytdwow 202]

Also, as an FYI, hot coffee is hot. HTH