Jeff Matthews Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 On to the next fight! The greatest guitarist of all-time! [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Jeff, what a cop out. Right when I had appointed myself dictator for life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 iPod 1 IRRESPONSIBLE users 0 kitchen knife 1 IRRESPONSIBLE users 0 Arthur 1 Jeff 0 [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff 1 Arthur 0 Irresponsible Consumers 1 From our Texas Supreme Court. The law is quite similar in all states. Happy reading! [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxsubwoofers Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I read the article real fast, and I didn't find anything about noise canceling headphones... I never knew that the ipod can go up to 116 dB. Thats insane, my cd player can only go up to 108 dB with the db meter right against the headphone. People now days..... sue of dumb things. Which makes it funny because I was watching an old dvd today in class that was made back in 2003. I don't know if anyone remembers this incident about suing Mc. Donalds how they made the 2 girls fat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codhead Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 "On to the next fight! The greatest guitarist of all-time!" You already rolled over on your pick... "They could definitely smoke out a lead better than Paige..." Better hope you never tangle with Judge Judy! [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff 1 Arthur 0 Irresponsible Consumers 1 From our Texas Supreme Court. The law is quite similar in all states. Happy reading! [] Well, I tried to attach a Word doc, and it was rejected. Too bad! [] You'd have loved this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff 1 Arthur 0 Irresponsible Consumers 1 From our Texas Supreme Court. The law is quite similar in all states. Happy reading! [] Well, I tried to attach a Word doc, and it was rejected. Too bad! [] You'd have loved this case. In your mind,in the cold real world you concinced who? Yourself [] Word doc 1 Jeff 0 you lost attempting to attach a document and you won! Quite a definition of winning you have here! [:$] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff 1 Arthur 0 Irresponsible Consumers 1 From our Texas Supreme Court. The law is quite similar in all states. Happy reading! [] Well, I tried to attach a Word doc, and it was rejected. Too bad! [] You'd have loved this case. In your mind,in the cold real world you concinced who? Yourself [] Word doc 1 Jeff 0 you lost attempting to attach a document and you won! Quite a definition of winning you have here! [:$] No, that was my predicate to your reading the doc I tried to attach. In the REAL world, I win. That's the law! It is an opinion in an actual case that explains the product liability law in a way you might understand and actually agree with - or at least learn to appreciate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Trying again.... Nope. [:@] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff 1 Word doc 0 (Where there's a will, there's a way!) [] Here's a link to the opinion. Read 'til your heart's content. That's the law, and I hope you gain some appreciation for it. Just knowing about that might come in real handy one day. http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980721/951159.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff, Wow finally about time you posted this document that is as long as the holy book and speaks of 16"tires on a BBQ,I will see tomorrow if I have time to read it all. And this does not promote IRRESPONSIBLE use of iPods by unsupervised young kids. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 READ the case! It is the "Holy Grail" of products liability law, and after you read it, you will see the the iPod case is not at all far-fetched. Basically, guy screws up and mounts 16" tire on 16.5" rim. Big warning with picture of tire exploding and throwing person, along with words DO NOT MOUNT ON 16.5" RIM OR YOU MAY DIE are on the tire. He goofs, and he is hurt real bad. It was shown that tire company knew of safer design that would prevent tire from exploding if mounted on 16.5" rim. Thus, it was held, when you can make it safe in the first place, a warning about danger is not good enough. (i.e. Safety First). Product liability law is designed to protect the dumb, as well as the smart - the inattentive, as well as the attentive, etc. And for good reason. Even if the guy screwed up, the tire company should have made the tire safe, as opposed to only warning him it could be dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Jeff, And this does not promote IRRESPONSIBLE use of iPods by unsupervised young kids. [] It's not meant to promote that. It's meant to make it safe - even for unsupervised, young kids. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 The verdict was a gift to Goofy.As the instructions/warning label clearly states it is dangerous. In this case Mr Goofy should get no compansation.You again want to show a point,point taken.But was it fair,no it was NOT. The label on detergent says TOXIC and I drink it anyway.Then win because the company could have made it even safer...safe to drink! You see Jeff almost ANYTHING you own,I won we all own could be made safer,in many cases alot safer.But most people will not sue when they know it ws thier own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 The verdict was a gift to Goofy.As the instructions/warning label clearly states it is dangerous. In this case Mr Goofy should get no compansation.You again want to show a point,point taken.But was it fair,no it was NOT. The label on detergent says TOXIC and I drink it anyway.Then win because the company could have made it even safer...safe to drink! You see Jeff almost ANYTHING you own,I won we all own could be made safer,in many cases alot safer.But most people will not sue when they know it ws thier own fault. Did you read the case? Your analogy is no good. Here's why: (1) Tire company knew people were trying to install these tires on 16.5" rims - that's why they warned against it. (2) Detergent company probably does not have too many instances, if any, where people drink detergent. (3) Even if detergent company knew of people drinking detergent, it is doubtful a drinkable detergent is attainable under our current technology where the drinkable detergent would clean as well as the hazardous stuff (technology/utility). (4) In the tire case, the technology to make it safe (idiot proof) was in place and actually being used by many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 To follow up more on your observations.... If technology was readily available to produce gasoline that was non-flammable and would still power our normal cars, and if that non-flammable gas would not cost any more than our flammable gas.............. you guessed it, it would be time for them to make the gas safer. If they refused, they might be called upon to answer in liability for not doing so. After that, they might decide the liability is not worth it and make the switch. Then, there'd be fewer gas explosions, and more idiots, inattentive people, etc. would be alive. This also protects non-idiots, by the way. There is always risk that a smart guy will get killed by a dumba$$ broke-dic$ smoking a cigarette near a gas container. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 The verdict was a gift to Goofy.As the instructions/warning label clearly states it is dangerous. In this case Mr Goofy should get no compansation.You again want to show a point,point taken.But was it fair,no it was NOT. The label on detergent says TOXIC and I drink it anyway.Then win because the company could have made it even safer...safe to drink! You see Jeff almost ANYTHING you own,I won we all own could be made safer,in many cases alot safer.But most people will not sue when they know it ws thier own fault. Did you read the case? Your analogy is no good. Here's why: (1) Tire company knew people were trying to install these tires on 16.5" rims - that's why they warned against it. (2) Detergent company probably does not have too many instances, if any, where people drink detergent. (3) Even if detergent company knew of people drinking detergent, it is doubtful a drinkable detergent is attainable under our current technology where the drinkable detergent would clean as well as the hazardous stuff (technology/utility). (4) In the tire case, the technology to make it safe (idiot proof) was in place and actually being used by many others. If this was clearly proven they were cutting corners,yes the plaintiff was awarded a just verdict. But your stretching tires over iPods is not a case of cutting corners but of pure IRRESPONSIBLE use and careless parents. I have nothing against the safest products possible.The safer the better. Who am I,a ghoul? What makes me ill is a man,an adult who sues Apple because he can damage his hearing when he decides to max the volume and listen to metallica for a prolonged time.This falls directly under I can walk across the four lane highway because I so decide and if anything hits me I am not responsible..THEY ARE. Mounting tires that had corners cut during design and testing to "IGNORE" a known issue is criminal. Not the same case at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Very good! We're getting close. Now, between the irresponsible parent and the kid, who gets hurt? The innocent kid. If the mfg. has the ability to protect the innocent kid from the idiot parent - all at no extra cost or real burden - then, we want the mfg. to make the safer product. That does not make the idiot parent a non-idiot. It does, however, promote safety for the sake of innocent victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codhead Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 That's an interesting document. The problem with these cases seems to be the weight given to technicalities over common sense. I think this is why folks look unfavorably upon many court decisions. Someone ignored warnings (complete with illustrations) and was injured. The case ends up being decided on engineering technicalities - which were only applicable had someone chosen to ignore said warnings and proper safety procedures. Once again, this looks llike another "deep pockets" case. The little guy is injured after doing something stupid. The employer (shallow pockets here) did not provide the proper safety equipment. But those greedy corporations. Ah, yes! There's the cash cow. Does anyone really think that if the facts of this case were laid out for 100 people to decide (no jury "instructions" - just the facts) that most rationally thinking people would say that the employee caused his own injuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.