20million jury verdict...

[Strike 4,009]

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

 

The original article says so.

 

[parrot 789]

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.

 

It's funny how you just focus on the costs of all this legal mumbo jumbo crap, but none of the benefits. It's always a balancing act between safety, cost-effectiveness, and the fact that nothing is idiot-proof to a properly motivated idiot, but these laws have resulted in much safer products in all areas of our life. I mean I'm sure some Chinese manufacturer would love to sell lawnmowers without shrouds on them in this country too, but we have laws preventing that, and the fact that you happen to sell the product online doesn't make you immune from those applicable product liability laws and/or doing your due diligence in regards to them. Nor should it. And yes, those laws are partially to protect us from our own inattentiveness and/or stupidity. Myself, I'm okay with paying a few more dollars for a lawnmower that's way less likely to cut off my foot, or a pool slide that's way less likely to break someone's neck, even if they behave relatively stupidly.

 

Does it occur to you guys that part of these standards are in place because there's a strong likelihood that children won't use the toys exactly as intended?

[Me_2006 14]

I'd still like an answer about cigarettes, as well as my hair dryer analogy. What's the difference?

[parrot 789]

I'd still like an answer about cigarettes, as well as my hair dryer analogy. What's the difference?

 

Cigarettes will kill you if used exactly as intended. As long as people are aware of the risks then they should have every right to do what they want, IMO. And it's not as if the gov't hasn't done things to try mitigate the risks that cigarettes pose.

 

Hair dryers are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a GFCI that will trip if the dryer is dropped in water. This is one of those pesky safety features we now take for granted that probably came about as a result of one of these outrageous lawsuits.

[Me_2006 14]

Cigarettes will kill you if used exactly as intended. As long as people are aware of the risks then they should have every right to do what they want, IMO. And it's not as if the gov't hasn't done things to try mitigate the risks that cigarettes pose.

 

Hair dryers are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a GFCI that will trip if the dryer is dropped in water. This is one of those pesky safety features we now take for granted that probably came about as a result of one of these outrageous lawsuits.

 

I didn't know that about hair dryers, because I've never dropped one in water or read the instructions. Thanks.

 

 

As for the cigarettes, I agree with you completely that people should have every right to do whatever they want as long as they know the risks. That's similar to my stance on the slides, etc. As long as there's a warning telling you going down head first is dangerous and not to do it, it isn't anyone's responsibility but your own NOT to go down head first. If you choose to do so, you can't then get millions of dollars for making a bad decision.

[parrot 789]

I didn't know that about hair dryers, because I've never dropped one in water or read the instructions. Thanks.

 

 

As for the cigarettes, I agree with you completely that people should have every right to do whatever they want as long as they know the risks. That's similar to my stance on the slides, etc. As long as there's a warning telling you going down head first is dangerous and not to do it, it isn't anyone's responsibility but your own NOT to go down head first. If you choose to do so, you can't then get millions of dollars for making a bad decision.

 

I would probably agree with you, IF the product had been in compliance with relevant standards. You can't legislate away stupidity, but you can try to limit its impact.

 

Back to your hair dryer analogy, do you think the GFCI requirement is a good thing, or would a simple warning not to use a hair dryer around water be sufficient? In my mind, when simple and relatively inexpensive design changes can substantially mitigate or eliminate a particular danger they should be encouraged and even sometimes mandated. And if a company knows a particular risk exists and they could mitigate that risk at little cost to themselves but they fail to do so, there should be financial repercussions. Businesses are motivated by dollars.

[nikki2200 4]

Omg. I just can't.

[parrot 789]

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

 

Who said it was just for children? Adults don't use pools these days?

[parrot 789]

If anyone is curious, this is what the slide in question looks like. Yeah, it's totally unthinkable that she didn't recognize she could easily be killed going down the thing head first. Just give her the Darwin award now.

[GettnHuge 1]

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

 

Fine then, this is like saying an inflatable kids car, should meet crash test standards. hows that

[parrot 789]

Fine then, this is like saying an inflatable kids car, should meet crash test standards. hows that

 

Not much better. This slide is six feet high and fourteen feet long. That is plenty high and long enough to pose a substantial risk of injury. It's functionally no different than a similar sized fiberglass slide. Saying that it shouldn't have to comply with standards simply because it's inflatable is pretty dumb, and sounds a lot like something those weaselly lawyers we all hate would try to pull.

[GettnHuge 1]

Not much better. This slide is six feet high and fourteen feet long. That is plenty high and long enough to pose a substantial risk of injury. Saying that it shouldn't have to comply with standards simply because it's inflatable is pretty dumb, and sounds a lot like something those weaselly lawyers we all hate would try to pull.

 

Those 'standards' are for this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXHSA-ocH8

 

not for this

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

 

 

these are the morons you are sticking up for

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Who said it was just for children?

The link YOU brought a few posts ago.

[Strike 4,009]

Those 'standards' are for this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXHSA-ocH8

 

not for this

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

 

 

these are the morons you are sticking up for

 

Says who?

[parrot 789]

The link YOU brought a few posts ago.

 

It says it's just for children? Where?

[parrot 789]

Those 'standards' are for this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAXHSA-ocH8

 

not for this

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

 

 

these are the morons you are sticking up for

That's a guy on the inflatable, not a woman. It's a different design of slide. Also, I missed the part where the woman flipped out of the slide. But yeah, otherwise it's exactly the same.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It says it's just for children? Where?

It says it's fun for all the kids in the neighborhood. Doesn't mention fun for adults.

 

Oops!

[GettnHuge 1]

It says it's just for children? Where?

 

In the manual.

Next?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's a guy on the inflatable, not a woman. It's a different design of slide.

 

 

You keep touting the regulation saying it must hold 350 lbs. Does it say it must hold a 350 lb woman, but not a 350 lb man?

 

So this "design" of inflatable slide is exempt? Why is that?

[Me_2006 14]

I would probably agree with you, IF the product had been in compliance with relevant standards. You can't legislate away stupidity, but you can try to limit its impact.

 

Back to your hair dryer analogy, do you think the GFCI requirement is a good thing, or would a simple warning not to use a hair dryer around water be sufficient? In my mind, when simple and relatively inexpensive design changes can substantially mitigate or eliminate a particular danger they should be encouraged and even sometimes mandated. And if a company knows a particular risk exists and they could mitigate that risk at little cost to themselves but they fail to do so, there should be financial repercussions. Businesses are motivated by dollars.

 

I'm not against it because an accident can cause the harm. Standing over a sink or near a bathtub, it's possible to just drop it when you're sleepy or in a hurry or something. It's a necessary use in a necessary environment. Protection from that makes sense, but I would be okay if it wasn't required.

 

Making an inflatable slide okay for use by adults, head first, into a concrete pool just pushes that "WTF is wrong with you?" boundary too far for me.

[IGotWorms 3,342]

Like I said: if you guys want unsafe products, move to China. They don't test anything there and if you get inured by something that's clearly defective, well, that's your own damn problem. Sounds to me like a lot of you would love it there.

 

Maybe Voltaire can even give you a place to crash for a while.

[IGotWorms 3,342]

Hair dryers are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a GFCI that will trip if the dryer is dropped in water. This is one of those pesky safety features we now take for granted that probably came about as a result of one of these outrageous lawsuits.

 

Yup. And there are a ton of example of this. Heck, if it wasn't for people suing Ford over their Pinto you'd still have gas tanks that exploded upon impact.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_controversy

[nikki2200 4]

Ya know it's amazing how every other country in the entire world manages to survive. You'd think they'd have people dropping dead left and right without all these Batman-like superheroes disguising themselves as lawyers protecting their citizens from evil corporations who want to kill their customers. Cuz everyone knows that's good for business.

 

[Strike 4,009]

Ya know it's amazing how every other country in the entire world manages to survive. You'd think they'd have people dropping dead left and right without all these Batman-like superheroes disguising themselves as lawyers protecting their citizens from evil corporations who want to kill their customers. Cuz everyone knows that's good for business.

 

 

You're right. I can't believe other countries don't have lawyers!!!!

[IGotWorms 3,342]

Ya know it's amazing how every other country in the entire world manages to survive. You'd think they'd have people dropping dead left and right without all these Batman-like superheroes disguising themselves as lawyers protecting their citizens from evil corporations who want to kill their customers. Cuz everyone knows that's good for business.

 

 

Pretty much every Western nation has stringent product liability laws of some sort. In some countries it is not private parties that sue the manufacturers, but rather the government itself. Of course we could never have that here because a robust consumer protection agency would be Socialistic in nature.

[Bert 1,096]

Like I said: if you guys want unsafe products, move to China. They don't test anything there and if you get inured by something that's clearly defective, well, that's your own damn problem. Sounds to me like a lot of you would love it there.

 

Maybe Voltaire can even give you a place to crash for a while.

 

 

We want safe products but we are tired of lawyers rewarding stupidity at our expense. As a lawyer you are most likely unable to tell the difference.

[Strike 4,009]

We want safe products but we are tired of lawyers rewarding stupidity at our expense. As a lawyer you are most likely unable to tell the difference.

 

No focking way Worms is a lawyer.

[Bert 1,096]

No focking way Worms is a lawyer.

Maybe he is a law student.

[parrot 789]

It says it's fun for all the kids in the neighborhood. Doesn't mention fun for adults.

 

Oops!

 

Doesn't say it's "just" for kids either, oops.

[nikki2200 4]

No focking way Worms is a lawyer.

 

He is.

[Strike 4,009]

He is.

 

how the fock would you know? Did you look at his diploma while taking it in the a$$ from him?

[parrot 789]

You keep touting the regulation saying it must hold 350 lbs. Does it say it must hold a 350 lb woman, but not a 350 lb man?

 

So this "design" of inflatable slide is exempt? Why is that?

 

He said "these are the morons" I'm sticking up for. I've defended one person and it's a woman. So, as per usual, Ghn is babbling. He is unable to effectively argue the actual case in question so he's trying to lump her in with this idiot. HTH.

 

I don't know that any of these designs of slide is exempt, I don't know where you got that. I was pointing out this as another difference between the clip he has posted multiple times - as though it's somehow relevant - and the actual lawsuit case. It's not a subtle point, I think you can grasp it.

[parrot 789]

I'm not against it because an accident can cause the harm. Standing over a sink or near a bathtub, it's possible to just drop it when you're sleepy or in a hurry or something. It's a necessary use in a necessary environment. Protection from that makes sense, but I would be okay if it wasn't required.

 

Making an inflatable slide okay for use by adults, head first, into a concrete pool just pushes that "WTF is wrong with you?" boundary too far for me.

 

There is no reason it's necessary to use a hair dryer in the immediate vicinity of water. It can be used with any outlet in your house. It is however pretty typical and foreseeable that it will be used around water, so this requirement was put in, after many deaths. I would think the parts and installation only add cents to the cost of each product. That's a pretty reasonable restriction to me.

[parrot 789]

Ya know it's amazing how every other country in the entire world manages to survive. You'd think they'd have people dropping dead left and right without all these Batman-like superheroes disguising themselves as lawyers protecting their citizens from evil corporations who want to kill their customers. Cuz everyone knows that's good for business.

 

 

I wonder if they have laws protecting strawmen.

[Mike Honcho 4,052]

I wonder if they have laws protecting strawmen.

 

 

[nikki2200 4]

how the fock would you know? Did you look at his diploma while taking it in the a$$ from him?

 

Well I guess he could be lying but he says he is.

[Bert 1,096]

I wonder if they have laws protecting strawmen.

Sure they do lawyers don't care about anything but their fees.

[Strike 4,009]

Well I guess he could be lying but he says he is.

 

And you say you're a chick.

 

[Me_2006 14]

There is no reason it's necessary to use a hair dryer in the immediate vicinity of water. It can be used with any outlet in your house. It is however pretty typical and foreseeable that it will be used around water, so this requirement was put in, after many deaths. I would think the parts and installation only add cents to the cost of each product. That's a pretty reasonable restriction to me.

 

I hear you, I guess we just disagree on the 'reasonable use' semantics of it. To me (2006), people use hair dryers in the bathroom, in front of a mirror, above the sink. That is the common location of it's usage. There are people who use it in their room or wherever, but I would think the bathroom is the majority. However, because you CAN use it elsewhere, and the product isn't changed or doesn't suffer, I don't see the need for a safety feature that involves water protection. The company should be free to include that if they feel it is financially beneficial, but requiring it steps beyond the boundary I feel is appropriate.

 

Just like here, there is absolutely no requirement to slide head first. There is a warning NOT to slide head first. It doesn't detract from the product not to slide head first, so there should be no mandate to make it safe for such improper use. I realize that these standards are in place, and it's hard to argue against safety without sounding idiotic, I'm just discussing the principle I feel should guide the process.

 

I don't think anyone looks at situations like this where someone is rewarded for stupidity and feels like the law and regulations are being used for their true intention. That's where the divide comes from. Making the slide so that it wont randomly topple over or collapse or something under proper usage makes sense and should be required, but to make laws asking a company to design something to be used improperly is just a ridiculous concept.

[parrot 789]

I hear you, I guess we just disagree on the 'reasonable use' semantics of it. To me (2006), people use hair dryers in the bathroom, in front of a mirror, above the sink. That is the common location of it's usage. There are people who use it in their room or wherever, but I would think the bathroom is the majority. However, because you CAN use it elsewhere, and the product isn't changed or doesn't suffer, I don't see the need for a safety feature that involves water protection. The company should be free to include that if they feel it is financially beneficial, but requiring it steps beyond the boundary I feel is appropriate.

 

Just like here, there is absolutely no requirement to slide head first. There is a warning NOT to slide head first. It doesn't detract from the product not to slide head first, so there should be no mandate to make it safe for such improper use. I realize that these standards are in place, and it's hard to argue against safety without sounding idiotic, I'm just discussing the principle I feel should guide the process.

 

I don't think anyone looks at situations like this where someone is rewarded for stupidity and feels like the law and regulations are being used for their true intention. That's where the divide comes from. Making the slide so that it wont randomly topple over or collapse or something under proper usage makes sense and should be required, but to make laws asking a company to design something to be used improperly is just a ridiculous concept.

 

Whether it was safe for head-first use or not is not really the issue. The fact that it won't support the mandated weight-load without deforming is the issue. No one is saying that it should be made safe for any and all uses, but compliance with the relevant standards would make it much safer in a lot of these instances.