Blitz to close Miami factory, sell assets

[zstyles]

So people are stupid, pour gas from a can onto a fire..get burned( what you mean that can happen?) company gets shut down and 117 people out of a Job in a city that well, needs these jobs...they should sue the gas station for providing them the gas that got them burned while they are at it..oh wait maybe they are....

Fuel-container manufacturer Blitz USA will close its Miami factory at the end of July and sell all of its assets after filing for bankruptcy in November.


The company, which has 117 employees and claims to make 75 percent of the portable gas cans sold in the country, says it has been saddled by high costs from litigation "characterized by individuals using gas to start or accelerate a fire," according to a release from the company.

"This is a sad day in the 46-year history of Blitz and for our 117 employees," said Blitz USA president and CEO Rocky Flick in a statement. "We appreciate the support of our employees and their families in our efforts to reorganize and develop a viable business plan. Unfortunately, we were not able to address the costs of the increased litigation associated with our fuel containment products."

The company and industry groups have been lobbying lawmakers to change laws to help protect fuel-container manufacturers, but company officials said it is now too late to save Blitz USA.

Among the lawsuits was a $4 million judgment against the company in Utah, which is currently on appeal.

The company has been in Ottawa County since 1966 and was once the only gas can manufacturer in the country, according to Blitz USA's website.

[Breadburner]

Static electricty...

[Gaspar]

No. . .they've been the victim of really stupid litigation.  About 4 years ago a neighbor of mine (a few streets down) burn't his 1,600 sf home to the ground, because his fireplace did not have gas, so he thought he would take his gas can from the garage and pour gas on the logs to light a nice fire in the living room.  He did so, and the resulting fireball caused a flash that ignited the Blitz gas container sitting about a foot away from the fireplace.  The house burned down, and he battled his insurance company for about a year.  During that time, he and his lawyer went after Blitz and won.  The house that sits on that lot is now about 2,500sf and he has two Caddys.

You too can do something stupid and make bank!

[Townsend]

You too can do something stupid and make bank!

A congressperson to lobbyist.

[Red Arrow]

I guess our gas cans will be made in China now.

Way to go stupid people.

[DolfanBob]

My neighbor is a sewer(My spelling) He had burnt down two houses before moving into my neighborhood. And after about six months of living on our street. Their metal barn caught fire and of course was totaled.
He owns two Harleys, several cars, new flat screens, upright washer and dryer sets etc, etc......
There's Gold in them thar flames.

[DTowner]

The worst part is even if Blitz prevailed in all the lawsuits brought against it, the cost of defense alone was probably enough to bankrupt the company. 

[cannon_fodder]

I saw this on the news a couple days back.  As always, I thought there had to be more to it because the lawsuit didn't make any sense.  Generally when that happens I find the news source took one side of a story and ran with it.  I still have my questions, but it kinda makes sense to me now. . .

There is a cottage industry just to sue Blitz.  All over the country.  There have been jury verdicts against them for millions of dollars in Mississippi, Texas, Utah., etc..  not just the liberal states one might expect.  I will trust the dozens of people on juries who heard the case and made a decision over some news story anyday (even if it is still strange to me). Basically Blitz refused to change their design.  

If an idiot pours gas on a fire the expected result is the idiot gets burn.  However, on a Blitz can the flame travels up the stream of gas, into the can, and causes an explosion.  The same result if you spill gas on an overheated muffler or a spark sets it off.  The result isn't (just) the idiot (or gas pourer) getting burned, it is everyone within a distance getting splashed with napalm.  This reulted in several deaths and many more severe burns (2 year old in Utah, Cheerleader in Texas).

Why?  A number of reasons:

1) The company conducted a study and learned that most of its users customers would, at some point, use the can in a manner which could lead to ignition of the gas stream.

2) The company learned that a flame suppresser (a screen over the mouth of the container) would let gas flow out and prevent flame from going into the container.  This is required on industrial gas cans and cans for use by the US Government.  It would cost as little as 5 cents per can.

3) The company actively lobbied and spoke at hearings against setting standards requiring the devices.

4) At one point the company ordered the devices but canceled the order, allegedly  due to cost concerns.

5) The company failed to implement child resistant caps, made the warnings on the can the same color as the can itself (I don't think this matters on pouring gas on fires...), and I guess some models didn't even have pressure relief openings on the back.

The basic argument is the same as the Ford Pinto:  The company knew there was a problem that would likely lead to some of their customers getting injured (yes, in many cases those who made dumb decisions) and chose not to remedy it, allegedly for cost reasons.  The facts made juries, even in conservative states, mad enough to pay millions of dollars.

Still Blitz didn't change the design and kept getting sued.  Their main customer is Walmart – who demands the most affordable products.  Done in by cheapness?  I still have wonder about those jury decisions, but juries in conservative states who saw the facts probably know better than I do.

I hope the assets are bought out and the plant gets reopened.  It seems like a few medications could make this company successful again.  But for now, if you want the cheapest gas cans you will have to buy the ones made in China I guess.

[zstyles]

I remember when idiots could just die...damn warning labels...now I have to suffer and try to figure out HTF to operate a gas can with a trigger, safety cap, pour stopper, unopenable lid....so they can live

[Gaspar]

I think it would be very helpful to the human race if we banned all warning labels for about a decade and cleaned up our gene pool naturally.

[Conan71]

Several thread-winners in this one.

[DolfanBob]

I can think of a lot of better ways to get rich without involving skin grafts.

[DTowner]

I saw this on the news a couple days back.  As always, I thought there had to be more to it because the lawsuit didn't make any sense.  Generally when that happens I find the news source took one side of a story and ran with it.  I still have my questions, but it kinda makes sense to me now. . .

There is a cottage industry just to sue Blitz.  All over the country.  There have been jury verdicts against them for millions of dollars in Mississippi, Texas, Utah., etc..  not just the liberal states one might expect.  I will trust the dozens of people on juries who heard the case and made a decision over some news story anyday (even if it is still strange to me). Basically Blitz refused to change their design.  

If an idiot pours gas on a fire the expected result is the idiot gets burn.  However, on a Blitz can the flame travels up the stream of gas, into the can, and causes an explosion.  The same result if you spill gas on an overheated muffler or a spark sets it off.  The result isn't (just) the idiot (or gas pourer) getting burned, it is everyone within a distance getting splashed with napalm.  This reulted in several deaths and many more severe burns (2 year old in Utah, Cheerleader in Texas).

Why?  A number of reasons:

1) The company conducted a study and learned that most of its users customers would, at some point, use the can in a manner which could lead to ignition of the gas stream.

2) The company learned that a flame suppresser (a screen over the mouth of the container) would let gas flow out and prevent flame from going into the container.  This is required on industrial gas cans and cans for use by the US Government.  It would cost as little as 5 cents per can.

3) The company actively lobbied and spoke at hearings against setting standards requiring the devices.

4) At one point the company ordered the devices but canceled the order, allegedly  due to cost concerns.

5) The company failed to implement child resistant caps, made the warnings on the can the same color as the can itself (I don't think this matters on pouring gas on fires...), and I guess some models didn't even have pressure relief openings on the back.

The basic argument is the same as the Ford Pinto:  The company knew there was a problem that would likely lead to some of their customers getting injured (yes, in many cases those who made dumb decisions) and chose not to remedy it, allegedly for cost reasons.  The facts made juries, even in conservative states, mad enough to pay millions of dollars.

Still Blitz didn't change the design and kept getting sued.  Their main customer is Walmart – who demands the most affordable products.  Done in by cheapness?  I still have wonder about those jury decisions, but juries in conservative states who saw the facts probably know better than I do.

I hope the assets are bought out and the plant gets reopened.  It seems like a few medications could make this company successful again.  But for now, if you want the cheapest gas cans you will have to buy the ones made in China I guess.

Don't confuse states being conservative politically with how parts of those same states treat personal injury cases.  South Texas has some of the most pro-plaintiff counties in the country.  Here in Oklahoma, Creek County is notoriously pro-plaintiff, yet Tulsa County is one of the most defendant friendly counties.

Second, this is very different from the Ford Pinto situation in that the danger with the Pinto occurred even if you were operating the car properly – someone had to hit you from behind, granted at something like 70 mph, to cause the gas tank to explode.  Here, in order for an injury to occur, it pretty much requires the operator to use the gas canister improperly.  I suspect all of these cases relied on the same expert witness testifying that a safer can could have been produced at very little costs, etc.  The point is, the safety device is unnecessary if the can is used properly.  As for the warning, should we even need to warn people that pouring gasoline on an open flame is dangerous?

Ultimately, these types of cases impact us all because they not only put companies like this out of business, but they raise the cost of everything we buy as any potential safety feature that might prevent those improperly operating the product from getting injured to become de facto required.

The real irony is none of the idiots who pour gasoline on an open flame will be any safer buying Chinese made gas cans, but they will have a lot harder time collecting their jackpot jury awards against those foreign manufactures.

[Red Arrow]

5) The company failed to implement child resistant caps, made the warnings on the can the same color as the can itself (I don't think this matters on pouring gas on fires...), and I guess some models didn't even have pressure relief openings on the back.

The ones we have are not vented.  I thought it was an EPA thing about gasoline fumes venting to the atmosphere.

[cannon_fodder]

Fwiw, the "jackpots" went to a cheerleader disfigured after someone else pour gas on a fire (for $.05 the company would have prevented this known hazard) and to the estate of a 2 year old killed in a similar situation.  It wasn't to the person pouring the gas so far as i know.  Also, a fire started from a spark or other source has the same consequence.  It didn't just effect the idiots and I'm not aware of any of them getting a judgment.

Cases like this absolutely effect us all.  Any manufacturer who knows their customers tend to be idiots should think about spending 0.001% more on their products to make them safe.  Like the Pinto it is a known hazard.  Not what the item isbintended for but something that WILL HAPPEN. cars are jot made to be crashed, but if some other idiot crashes into it it should not explode.

Gas cans are not meant to be poured on or near ignition sources, but if some idiot does everyone around should not be fried.

Again, the people who actually heard these cases repeatedly penalize Blitz.  Not once, repeatedly.  But without all the facts most people will call BS.

/and no, I have no sympathy for the idiots who pour gas on fires and have passed on that case against Blitz (never worked on any case against blitz)