20million jury verdict...

[GettnHuge 2]

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.

 

If it didn't comply with required safety standards, it wouldn't still be on the market. In case you didn't notice, these and many other such

products are still on sale and purchased every day. It was only a jury (and you) who bought that garbage.

 

I keep posting that video because it's exactly what happened. An adult barrels down a kid's toy headfirst and nearly kills himself. It's his

and her own faults because the act is idiotic.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wait, what? It's still being sold? I thought the all-knowing Daddy Gubmint would have saved us from this menace.

[parrot 790]

If it didn't comply with required safety standards, it wouldn't still be on the market. In case you didn't notice, these and many other such

products are still on sale and purchased every day. It was only a jury (and you) who bought that garbage.

 

 

It's still for sale? I ask because when I try to find where to buy this thing I get "Currently Unavailable This item is currently unavailable from the Manufacturer."

 

 

Oh, and then there is this;

 

According to the Tribune, "The product was tested for other product safety rules — and twice failed, once for containing lead in excess of federal limits — but not for compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Commission pool slide regulation, a former Toys "R" Us executive acknowledged during testimony."

[parrot 790]

Wait, what? It's still being sold? I thought the all-knowing Daddy Gubmint would have saved us from this menace.

 

Wow, four pages before you made this about Obama somehow. You're losing your touch old man.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wow, four pages before you made this about Obama somehow. You're losing your touch old man.

Who saus anything about Obama? I'm referring to the nanny-state govt mentality, Corky.

[parrot 790]

Who saus anything about Obama? I'm referring to the nanny-state govt mentality, Corky.

 

Whatever you say, Recliner Pilot.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Whatever you say, Recliner Pilot.

The nanny-state govt has been around for decades. Sorry if this is a shock to you.

[DankNuggs 305]

Liberalism believes that adults have the mental capacity of children.

 

Liberalism does NOT believe in personal responsibility

 

Liberalism attempts to establish the govt acting as the 'adult' or parental figure, the citizens as 'children' in need of coddling and direction

 

 

This is our new society. Making citizens dependant, making them unaccountable for their actions, trading 'do-overs' for reduced freedom.

 

These same people complain about wealth gaps shrinking... children don't accumulate wealth, they don't have the mental capacity to see living modestly today means living a little better tomorrow. So they charge up their credit cards til they are overflowing, then cry to the govt and set up tents in public parks...

[KSB2424 3,174]

This was a good thread.

 

Nikki killed it. Well done.

 

Nobody is sayin there shouldn't be product safety standards. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be liablitly if a product fails to meet those standards...... IF USED PROPERLY.

 

As mentioned this is very similar to the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit.

 

At a certain point common sense has to apply. If it doesn't then the law needs to be changed to make it where common sense applies.

 

Maybe as the law is written this was 'technically' the right verdict. What most are saying is that if that is the case, the law should be changed as it's ridiculous.

[parrot 790]

Nobody is sayin there shouldn't be product safety standards. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be liablitly if a product fails to meet those standards...... IF USED PROPERLY.

 

 

The thing you're missing is that it was never tested against those standards before hand, and once it was it failed. If it had been tested the way it should have been it wouldn't even have been on the market, so proper or improper use would not be an issue. The manufacturer's failure to test, and retailers failing to do their due diligence in regard to ensuring proper testing is the whole crux of the issue. What good are product safety standards if they are ignored?

[DankNuggs 305]

The thing you're missing is that it was never tested against those standards before hand, and once it was it failed. If it had been tested the way it should have been it wouldn't even have been on the market, so proper or improper use would not be an issue. The manufacturer's failure to test, and retailers failing to do their due diligence in regard to ensuring proper testing is the whole crux of the issue. What good are product safety standards if they are ignored?

I suggest purchasing ANY inflatable childrens toy, wrap it around yourself, then swan dive head first off the roof of your house....

[parrot 790]

I suggest purchasing ANY inflatable childrens toy, wrap it around yourself, then swan dive head first off the roof of your house....

 

You stay classy dude.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Do the regulations say inflatable kids slides have to hold 350 lbs?

[KSB2424 3,174]

The thing you're missing is that it was never tested against those standards before hand, and once it was it failed. If it had been tested the way it should have been it wouldn't even have been on the market, so proper or improper use would not be an issue. The manufacturer's failure to test, and retailers failing to do their due diligence in regard to ensuring proper testing is the whole crux of the issue. What good are product safety standards if they are ignored?

I guess we're having a disconnet on what the reasonable standards should be?

 

I was under the impression this item was made for kids (toys R us) and that it says to go down feet first or risk injury.

 

So when an adult goes head first, I mean,

[parrot 790]

Do the regulations say inflatable kids slides have to hold 350 lbs?

 

PART 1207—SAFETY STANDARD FOR SWIMMING POOL SLIDES

 

(28) Swimming pool slide means any device used to enter a swimming pool by sliding down an inclined plane.

(9) Strength of slide runways and supports —(i) Static loads. A properly assembled and installed slide runway shall be capable of supporting a static load of at least 350 pounds (1,557 newtons) applied normal to the runway over an area of no more than 20 square inches (129.03 square cm) at any point along its length or width.

(a) Certification shall be in accordance with section 14(a.)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)).

 

(b.) A certificate shall accompany the swimming pool slide (in the form of a permanent label on the shipping container(s) or in the form of a separate certificate) to all distributors and retailers to whom the material is delivered certifying that the slide conforms to this part 1207. The certificate or permanent label issued under this section shall be based upon either a test of each product or a reasonable testing program, shall state the name of the manufacturer or private labeler issuing the certificate, and shall include the date and place of manufacture.

[parrot 790]

I guess we're having a disconnet on what the reasonable standards should be?

 

I was under the impression this item was made for kids (toys R us) and that it says to go down feet first or risk injury.

 

 

If the standards are ignored it doesn't really matter whether they're reasonable or not does it?

 

ETA: I have to say I don't really get this argument about it being made for kids. Since it's made for kids and kids are well-known for ignoring instructions and/or warnings, it's okay to make it less safe? Talk about a disconnect.

[gocolts 300]

If the standards are ignored it doesn't really matter whether they're reasonable or not does it?

 

ETA: I have to say I don't really get this argument about it being made for kids. Since it's made for kids and kids are well-known for ignoring instructions and/or warnings, it's okay to make it less safe? Talk about a disconnect.

Nope. You are just being obtuse as usual. Nobody has said ANY of the sh1t you keep coming up in this thread in an effort to defend the monumentally stupid.

[Strike 6,034]

Nope. You are just being obtuse as usual. Nobody has said ANY of the sh1t you keep coming up in this thread in an effort to defend the monumentally stupid.

 

No one is defending the monumentally stupid. But we have standards for a reason. When I purchase something from a major store the LEAST I expect is that it will meet our minimum standards. In reality I expect that from any store but I do have higher standards from a store like Toys 'R Us. And the bottom line is that this accident never happens if the product met our national safety standards. The fact that the item was used in a way not recommended by the manufacturer is a red herring.

[nikki2200 4]

No one is defending the monumentally stupid. But we have standards for a reason. When I purchase something from a major store the LEAST I expect is that it will meet our minimum standards. In reality I expect that from any store but I do have higher standards from a store like Toys 'R Us. And the bottom line is that this accident never happens if the product met our national safety standards. The fact that the item was used in a way not recommended by the manufacturer is a red herring.

 

So you think the woman who went down the slide head first was well versed with the federal safety standards for all pool slides therefore chose to ignore all the warnings and just general common sense because she just assumed it was safe for her to do so? Of course she assumed it was OK for her to do so. Because it's not her responsibility not to put herself in harm's way. It's an e-commerce marketplace hoster's responsibility.

[gocolts 300]

No one is defending the monumentally stupid. But we have standards for a reason. When I purchase something from a major store the LEAST I expect is that it will meet our minimum standards. In reality I expect that from any store but I do have higher standards from a store like Toys 'R Us. And the bottom line is that this accident never happens if the product met our national safety standards. The fact that the item was used in a way not recommended by the manufacturer is a red herring.

Actually, the accident never happens if every rule for this child toy isn't broken by an imbecile adult.

[Strike 6,034]

Actually, the accident never happens if every rule for this child toy isn't broken by an imbecile adult.

 

I didn't know there were "rules". All I know is there was a warning label. Just so you know, warning labels don't absolve a manufacturer from liability, especially when they've chosen to ignore safety standards.

[Strike 6,034]

So you think the woman who went down the slide head first was well versed with the federal safety standards for all pool slides therefore chose to ignore all the warnings and just general common sense because she just assumed it was safe for her to do so? Of course she assumed it was OK for her to do so. Because it's not her responsibility not to put herself in harm's way. It's an e-commerce marketplace hoster's responsibility.

 

Making an issue of her going head first is really getting old. I doubt I know anyone who's gone down a pool slide who's never gone head first. Honestly can't say I wouldn't do it myself. If I saw that warning label I might think there's nothing wrong with it but the manufacturer is just being a nanny. I certainly wouldn't expect a slide to buckle when going down it, which is what the safety standards address.

[nikki2200 4]

I didn't know there were "rules". All I know is there was a warning label. Just so you know, warning labels don't absolve a manufacturer from liability, especially when they've chosen to ignore safety standards.

 

So what should amazon.com or even Toys R Us done differently to avoid this?

[GettnHuge 2]

It's still for sale? I ask because when I try to find where to buy this thing I get "Currently Unavailable This item is currently unavailable from the Manufacturer."

 

 

Oh, and then there is this;

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Banzai-3-Climb-Slide-Falls/dp/tags-on-product/B000VT8IQI

[IGotWorms 4,063]

No focking way Worms is a lawyer.

 

Why do you say that? 'Cuz I am.

 

I could prove it but not without letting you know WAY too much about me.

[Strike 6,034]

So what should amazon.com or even Toys R Us done differently to avoid this?

 

Verified that the slide met U.S. pool slide safety standards.

 

[Strike 6,034]

Why do you say that? 'Cuz I am.

 

I could prove it but not without letting you know WAY too much about me.

 

I suppose it's possible. Conrad Murray is a doctor so anything is possible.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I suppose it's possible. Conrad Murray is a doctor so anything is possible.

 

It's really not that hard to become a lawyer. There are something like 150 accredited law schools in the country. So any dumbass who's willing to go over 100K in debt can get into law school somewhere.

[nikki2200 4]

Verified that the slide met U.S. pool slide safety standards.

 

 

Are you aware of how the amazon.com marketplace works?

[Strike 6,034]

It's really not that hard to become a lawyer. There are something like 150 accredited law schools in the country. So any dumbass who's willing to go over 100K in debt can get into law school somewhere.

 

As I said, anything's possible.

[Strike 6,034]

Are you aware of how the amazon.com marketplace works?

 

No but I'm sure someone has to contract with the manufacturer/distributor to purchase things. Why don't you explain it to me sweetie.

[nikki2200 4]

No but I'm sure someone has to contract with the manufacturer/distributor to purchase things. Why don't you explain it to me sweetie.

 

Companies like Toys R Us use amazon.com's marketplace to sell their goods. Amazon takes a cut of every sale. Amazon.com is essentially an internet company that provides an online service for retailers to sell their goods. The entire process of posting a product on amazon.com's marketplace consists of a merchandiser from a partnering retail company uploading their product catalogs to the E-Commerce platform. There are predefined standards around search tags, images, product categorization, etc. and the pricing contracts already exist so 99% of the time a product will just post to the website without anyone from Amazon even touching it. I know this because I sat across the table from a guy who built the whole thing a few months ago when we were looking to purchase it for the retail company I was working for.

 

So now tell me what amazon.com should have done differently to prevent this woman's death? I guess since it's their responsibility to make sure that every person in the country doesn't kill themselves while using a product they happened to purchase from their E-Commerce platform, they should change their entire business model and have departments of people that are well versed in all federal product safety standards to review each product before it is approved to appear on their marketplace? That sounds like good business.

 

As for Toys R Us... I must admit that I am not very familiar with the toy market, and it may be a little stricter because the risk of getting sued is probably higher. However, the way retail companies do their merchandising is.... manufacturers approach the retailer with new products. The retailer then decides if they will sell the products, and depending on the contract sometimes this is automatic. The people that make the decisions are merchandisers. Their skill set is a mix of marketing and procurement and they make their decisions based on whether or not they think there will be a demand for the item and what kind of margin they can make on it. I am completely unaware of any retailer having a product safety department that is part of the decision-making process. Maybe that is because that is not relevant to the companies I've dealt with, or maybe it's because they don't exist.

 

This product was not specific to Toys R Us. Walmart sold it. It was available on E-Bay through multiple retailers. My intuition tells me that every retailer, including Walmart, does not have a business function to elaborately review product safety with experts in every area of the law and that the manufacturer provides this information certifying that it meets the appropriate standards. Because that seems like a lot of overhead to me and a particularly useless business function.

 

If you want to go after the manufacturer, which they did in this case and settled for an undisclosed amount, that is a little easier to swallow for me. I still do not support becoming a multi-millionaire for doing something dumb and blatantly ignoring the warnings on products. But this whole concept of going after anyone and everyone in the process of the sale is utter horse shiit. The costs to us all is a lot more than "a few extra dollars" on the price of goods we purchase. Because basically if you hurt yourself in any way even if it was your own fault, there is some caped crusader out there willing to take your case for free and find a sympathetic jury that hates evil corporations who try to kill their customers.

[Strike 6,034]

Companies like Toys R Us use amazon.com's marketplace to sell their goods. Amazon takes a cut of every sale. Amazon.com is essentially an internet company that provides an online service for retailers to sell their goods. The entire process of posting a product on amazon.com's marketplace consists of a merchandiser from a partnering retail company uploading their product catalogs to the E-Commerce platform. There are predefined standards around search tags, images, product categorization, etc. and the pricing contracts already exist so 99% of the time a product will just post to the website without anyone from Amazon even touching it. I know this because I sat across the table from a guy who built the whole thing a few months ago when we were looking to purchase it for the retail company I was working for.

 

So now tell me what amazon.com should have done differently to prevent this woman's death? I guess since it's their responsibility to make sure that every person in the country doesn't kill themselves while using a product they happened to purchase from their E-Commerce platform, they should change their entire business model and have departments of people that are well versed in all federal product safety standards to review each product before it is approved to appear on their marketplace? That sounds like good business.

 

As for Toys R Us... I must admit that I am not very familiar with the toy market, and it may be a little stricter because the risk of getting sued is probably higher. However, the way retail companies do their merchandising is.... manufacturers approach the retailer with new products. The retailer then decides if they will sell the products, and depending on the contract sometimes this is automatic. The people that make the decisions are merchandisers. Their skill set is a mix of marketing and procurement and they make their decisions based on whether or not they think there will be a demand for the item and what kind of margin they can make on it. I am completely unaware of any retailer having a product safety department that is part of the decision-making process. Maybe that is because that is not relevant to the companies I've dealt with, or maybe it's because they don't exist.

 

This product was not specific to Toys R Us. Walmart sold it. It was available on E-Bay through multiple retailers. My intuition tells me that every retailer, including Walmart, does not have a business function to elaborately review product safety with experts in every area of the law and that the manufacturer provides this information certifying that it meets the appropriate standards. Because that seems like a lot of overhead to me and a particularly useless business function.

 

If you want to go after the manufacturer, which they did in this case and settled for an undisclosed amount, that is a little easier to swallow for me. I still do not support becoming a multi-millionaire for doing something dumb and blatantly ignoring the warnings on products. But this whole concept of going after anyone and everyone in the process of the sale is utter horse shiit. The costs to us all is a lot more than "a few extra dollars" on the price of goods we purchase. Because basically if you hurt yourself in any way even if it was your own fault, there is some caped crusader out there willing to take your case for free and find a sympathetic jury that hates evil corporations who try to kill their customers.

 

You posted a lot of words for nothing. Amazon chose to settle. They probably had a stronger case than Toys R Us but they chose not to go to trial. That's on them and has no bearing on this discussion.

[nikki2200 4]

You posted a lot of words for nothing. Amazon chose to settle. They probably had a stronger case than Toys R Us but they chose not to go to trial. That's on them and has no bearing on this discussion.

 

I'm sure they chose to settle to avoid the publicity and they probably got off easier than Toys R Us did, although I'm sure it still cost them millions. That's what happens most of the time. The companies would rather just eat the cost and have their insurance pay for it instead of the whole thing going public and avoiding the risk of a huge settlement. Because there are a lot people out there like you, and like the jury, who will believe that Amazon sells unsafe products and doesn't follow the federal safety rules without understanding how the whole thing works.

 

And I believe this discussion was about the case in general. And amazon was a piece of this settlement. I still don't really see how Toys R Us could have done anything differently. I guess Walmart was lucky that this particular person didn't go to their website first. They probably could have gotten it cheaper there too.

[Strike 6,034]

I'm sure they chose to settle to avoid the publicity and they probably got off easier than Toys R Us did, although I'm sure it still cost them millions. That's what happens most of the time. The companies would rather just eat the cost and have their insurance pay for it instead of the whole thing going public and avoiding the risk of a huge settlement. Because there are a lot people out there like you, and like the jury, who will believe that Amazon sells unsafe products and doesn't follow the federal safety rules without understanding how the whole thing works.

 

And I believe this discussion was about the case in general. And amazon was a piece of this settlement. I still don't really see how Toys R Us could have done anything differently. I guess Walmart was lucky that this particular person didn't go to their website first. They probably could have gotten it cheaper there too.

 

Of course this discussion is about the case in general. But we really can't discuss Amazon's liability because they very well might have won had they gone to trial. They chose to settle. That pretty much takes them out of the discussion. And I don't know how you think Toys R Us couldn't have done anything differently. I already told you what they could have done differently.

[nikki2200 4]

Of course this discussion is about the case in general. But we really can't discuss Amazon's liability because they very well might have won had they gone to trial. They chose to settle. That pretty much takes them out of the discussion. And I don't know how you think Toys R Us couldn't have done anything differently. I already told you what they could have done differently.

 

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.

[GettnHuge 2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnDtnJq1D2w

 

This one is obviously Wal-Mart's fault

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-3JDj5jns0

 

Target caused this of course

[GettnHuge 2]

I think this guy has a lawsuit against Menards for the materials they provided. I don't see any warning labels on those 2x4s

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

[GettnHuge 2]

Nextag is going to get a letter from this man's attorney

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

[GettnHuge 2]

I think this fat kid has a great case against the US olympic gymnastics team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glX-UR1olYo