Are they that greedy?

[unknown]

The moody's that is.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=8db0fa14-1d78-43a1-930e-a0a0638f22e3

I'm freaking glad this case was overturned, but there never should have been one to begin with. Must be sad to try to profit off your sons death[xx(]

[sgrizzle]

I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.

A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.

[unknown]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.

A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.

If toro doesn't have a warning label... you might have a better case than the moody's, but I think they suggest wearing goggles[]

[sgrizzle]

I know there is a warning that lawn mowers should only be used on the ground.

Every time you read a warning, you know that at least one person has done that.

[RecycleMichael]

On a blanket from Taiwan:
Not to be used as protection from a tornado.

Warning on fireplace log:
Caution -- Risk of Fire.

A warning on a pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists:
Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.

Warning on an electric router made for carpenters:
This product not intended for use as a dental drill.

On a bottle of shampoo for dogs:
Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish.

On a hair dryer:
Do not use in shower.

On Marks & Spencer bread pudding
Product will be hot after heating.

On a string of Chinese made Christmas lights:
For indoor or outdoor use only.

On Sainsbury's peanuts:
Warning: Contains nuts.

On an American Airlines packet of nuts:
Instructions - open packet, eat nuts.

On some frozen dinners:
Serving suggestion: defrost.

On a hotel provided shower cap:
Fits one head.

On Nytol Nighttime Sleep-Aid:
Warning: May cause drowsiness.

Warning on a cartridge for a laser printer:
Do not eat toner.

Can of self-defense pepper spray warns:
May irritate eyes.

Warning on a Conair Pro Style 1600 hair dryer:
Do not use in shower. Never use while sleeping.

Silly Putty package warning:
Not for use as earplugs.

On a bag of Fritos:
You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside.

Baby stroller warning:
Remove child before folding.

Household iron warns:
Never iron clothes while they are being worn.

A fireplace lighter cautions:
Do not use near fire, flame or sparks.

A handheld massager warns consumers:
Don't use while sleeping or unconscious.

Warning on underarm deodorant:
Do not spray in eyes.

Cardboard car sun shield that keeps sun off the dashboards warns
Do not drive with sun shield in place

Warning on a sharpening stone:
Knives are sharp.

Bottle water label warns:
Twist top off with hands. Throw top away. Do not put top in mouth.

On a box or rat poison
Warning: Has been found to cause cancer in laboratory mice.

On a Domino's Pizza box
Caution: Contents hot!

Toilet bowl cleaning brush warns:
Do not use orally.

An electric cattle prods warns:
For use on animals only

A can of air freshner warns:
Keep out of reach of children and teenagers

Cheap rubber ball toy warning:
Choking hazard: This toy is a small ball.

Caution on a package of dice:
Not for human consumption.

In the manual of a chainsaw:
Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand.

Stamped on the barrel of a .22 calibre rifle:
Warning: Misuse may cause injury or death.

Instructions for an electric thermometer:
Do not use orally after using rectally.

On the wrapper of a Fruit Roll-Up snack:
Remove plastic before eating.

A TV remote controller warns:
Not dishwasher safe.

[Conan71]

The passenger in Tyler's Explorer lived across the street from me at the time.  He was pretty shell-shocked by the whole thing and escaped with only a scratch on his arm.  It was a very sad deal.  There was a similar crash 20 years before that with two other Jenks cross country atheletes where the driver was killed and the passenger survived.

Seeing a $15mm award with another $3.3mm in interest tacked on means that we all wind up paying more for the next new vehicle we buy because someone had a 30 second lapse of judgement.  

As I recall, his speed was estimated at 80 MPH when he went to pass the vehicle in front of him going into the curve at 121st & Delaware.  Vehicles are dangerous and deadly when they are not used as they are intended.  It irks me to wind up paying for other people's mistakes.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

On a blanket from Taiwan:
Not to be used as protection from a tornado.

Warning on fireplace log:
Caution -- Risk of Fire.

Some of those are a riot.  Thank you for the great laugh.  How about simpler labeling:  "Warning, not to be used by stupid people"

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.

A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.

+1

[patric]

I thought the case was about how well an occupant is (or is not) protected in a rollover, and that there were minimum safety standards Ford was expected to adhere to (that they may not have).

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by patric

I thought the case was about how well an occupant is (or is not) protected in a rollover, and that there were minimum safety standards Ford was expected to adhere to (that they may not have).

I'm trying not to post and i don't know all the details of this case, but I have some relevant info on Ford non passenger rated vehicles.

Back in the 80's, a friend of mine who was a private investigator was hired to do physical research at auto salvages of roll-over truck accidents. Seems the client had been a passenger in one and was killed. When it rolled over, the stress on the cab roof popped out the rear window and ejected the passenger through it. Ford refused to pay anything as the accident was driver error and no seat belts were in use. Until 1978 seat belts weren't required in vans and trucks.

However, Ford neglected to reveal that while all the other truck manufacturers were using metal cab roofs with reinforced pillars, Ford had opted to save a little money by using unreinforced composite materials which flexed under pressure popping out the windows. Subsequent research showed that occupants of Ford trucks in rollovers were more likeley to be seriously injured. Ford knew that but fought every one of the cases rather than change the design. There were even former Ford engineers who travelled the country serving as expert witnesses in these cases as they had warned Ford of the weakness. Unless ownership/management has drastically changed there I would guess they still cut corners.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.

A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.

I actually remember in the manual that came with my new lawnmower on the long list of "warnings" there was one that said. Do not use to cut your hair.  A lawnmower!

[cannon_fodder]

The crux of the case was indeed that the vehicle failed to meet the minimum safety standards and that if it had, the kid would still be alive.

If both of those are true, Ford may be liable (unless the attorney has the case overturned because of gross misconduct).

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by patric

I thought the case was about how well an occupant is (or is not) protected in a rollover, and that there were minimum safety standards Ford was expected to adhere to (that they may not have).

It is, and ford has had problems with this area for years which makes them an easy target, however if a car was designed to roll over at double posted speed and leave everyone unharmed, it would weigh about 3 tons and look like a burrito.

[Conan71]

I don't recall where I'd heard it, but I believe there has been some litigation toward FOMOCO ever since they bought Volvo.  I believe it centered around them owning a company with safer technology they could integrate into the Ford product line.

I totally understand liability if a vehicle catches fire due to a flaw in manufacture, a hub breaks on a new vehicle and causes a crash, etc. that a car company could be liable.  But suing a car company for a failure which happened whilst going over twice the posted speed around a corner sounds frivolous to me.

Ostensibly, all of Ford's products have to undergo government-mandated crash and roll-over tests.  Why not just sue the Fed'l Gov't for not requiring NASCAR-type roll cages in every vehicle on the road?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

It is, and ford has had problems with this area for years which makes them an easy target, however if a car was designed to roll over at double posted speed and leave everyone unharmed, it would weigh about 3 tons and look like a burrito.

Oh, you mean one of these...?


Hmmm... "I'd like your Hummer Limo lunch special covered in queso with beans and rice, please..." []