| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2011 11:37:48 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
....
 This is a photo taken at Niagara Falls (Canadian side) and it amazes me that we actually have to post signs like this one. How many of you don't know that being swept over the falls could be dangerous.
Ray |
Not trying to poke fun at such an incident, but apparently the signs don't work anyway.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2011 07:54:01 AM · #77 |
When I worked in consumer product development as an engineer, we had to take a week long class about warnings and hazards. A good part of the class was focused on legal cases and how they drive warnings that are placed on products. As an example, there's a warning on your washing machine about not putting solvents into it. There's a reason that warning is there. The case involved a guy who liked to work on cars and had a lot of parts to wash, so he got a clothes washing machine, filled it with solvent and greasy car parts and pressed start. Great idea, right? The washer cabinet had filled with flammable vapors from the solvent and when he pressed the start button, the arc from the motor ignited the vapors, creating a huge fireball.
Another case involved a house fire that destroyed the house and killed some of the people living there. The fire marshal speculated that one of the contributing factors was the clothes dryer. So the family sued the appliance company claiming the product was negligently designed. As part of the discovery process, all of the documentation pertaining to the design and development of that dryer were subpoenaed. Now, the dryer itself was adequately designed and had passed all of the testing requirements, including one in which the dryer was intentionally ignited to see if it would contribute to the fire. It passed that test. However, while observing the test, one of the engineers had scribbled in the margin of his notes "Burn baby, burn". That idle scribble was blown up and put in front of the jury and was the key to a multi-million dollar judgement against the manufacturer.
I could go on...
On the other hand, there are less ethical companies that, in the absence of the threat of lawsuits and penalty judgements would place products out there with hidden defects that present a real danger to consumers, without adequate testing to detect and correct them.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2011 08:19:46 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
When I worked in consumer product development as an engineer, we had to take a week long class about warnings and hazards. A good part of the class was focused on legal cases and how they drive warnings that are placed on products. As an example, there's a warning on your washing machine about not putting solvents into it. There's a reason that warning is there. The case involved a guy who liked to work on cars and had a lot of parts to wash, so he got a clothes washing machine, filled it with solvent and greasy car parts and pressed start. Great idea, right? The washer cabinet had filled with flammable vapors from the solvent and when he pressed the start button, the arc from the motor ignited the vapors, creating a huge fireball.
Another case involved a house fire that destroyed the house and killed some of the people living there. The fire marshal speculated that one of the contributing factors was the clothes dryer. So the family sued the appliance company claiming the product was negligently designed. As part of the discovery process, all of the documentation pertaining to the design and development of that dryer were subpoenaed. Now, the dryer itself was adequately designed and had passed all of the testing requirements, including one in which the dryer was intentionally ignited to see if it would contribute to the fire. It passed that test. However, while observing the test, one of the engineers had scribbled in the margin of his notes "Burn baby, burn". That idle scribble was blown up and put in front of the jury and was the key to a multi-million dollar judgement against the manufacturer.
I could go on...
On the other hand, there are less ethical companies that, in the absence of the threat of lawsuits and penalty judgements would place products out there with hidden defects that present a real danger to consumers, without adequate testing to detect and correct them. |
Everyone should be force to watch the HOT COFFEE documentary on HBO. (and judgment in the legal context has no "E")
My whole point, and what the McDonald's lawsuit was all about was that actuarial types in corporations, most famously car companies(as depicted in the novel and major motion picture "fight club") actually use the amount of liability they may face in wrongful death product liability lawsuits as a gauge as whether to fix/redesign/recall products- imagine if there was a true cap on verdicts? How safe would your family be in a car when Ford or Toyota have no one to answer to? How much less would they test a medication before they put it on the market?
Once again, Insurance companies and corporations have done a marvelous job of shifting our focus, (with some help from the comical advertising lawyer community) -
but lets not for one second be naive... its not about personal responsibility, its about corporate and insurance company profits. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 08:28:50 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
That idle scribble was blown up and put in front of the jury and was the key to a multi-million dollar judgement against the manufacturer. |
The jury system makes little sense, we take it for granted that there is some benefit in it, and it is one of the things enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is somehow beyond question since it is so engrained. A jury of their peers... Let trained judges with oversight make the rulings, give them some latitude and respect to make good decisions. Review those decisions if needed, but drop the sham jury award system, it enriches the lawyers more than anyone else. They have pushed a system of confusing laws and regulations just to ensure an endless stream of clients they can over charge, almost all politicians are... drumroll... Lawyers! Make bad laws, then lets fight em in court! All the way to the supreme court and then we can start a states rights case next!!!
The funny thing is: Lawyers are next on the technology scrap heap! :)
//www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?pagewanted=all
so there are benefits in technology replacing people!!!
So long suckers! Stand there while we all hit you in the ass with the door! With fewer lawyers, maybe the world can be free of the foolish wasteful tyranny.
Added: Not sure if that link works, if you google: lawyer discovery done by computer
it was the first entry, it is a NYTimes article.
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 08:32:46. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 08:58:25 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
When I worked in consumer product development as an engineer, we had to take a week long class about warnings and hazards. A good part of the class was focused on legal cases and how they drive warnings that are placed on products. As an example, there's a warning on your washing machine about not putting solvents into it. There's a reason that warning is there. The case involved a guy who liked to work on cars and had a lot of parts to wash, so he got a clothes washing machine, filled it with solvent and greasy car parts and pressed start. Great idea, right? The washer cabinet had filled with flammable vapors from the solvent and when he pressed the start button, the arc from the motor ignited the vapors, creating a huge fireball.
Another case involved a house fire that destroyed the house and killed some of the people living there. The fire marshal speculated that one of the contributing factors was the clothes dryer. So the family sued the appliance company claiming the product was negligently designed. As part of the discovery process, all of the documentation pertaining to the design and development of that dryer were subpoenaed. Now, the dryer itself was adequately designed and had passed all of the testing requirements, including one in which the dryer was intentionally ignited to see if it would contribute to the fire. It passed that test. However, while observing the test, one of the engineers had scribbled in the margin of his notes "Burn baby, burn". That idle scribble was blown up and put in front of the jury and was the key to a multi-million dollar judgement against the manufacturer.
I could go on...
On the other hand, there are less ethical companies that, in the absence of the threat of lawsuits and penalty judgements would place products out there with hidden defects that present a real danger to consumers, without adequate testing to detect and correct them. |
Everyone should be force to watch the HOT COFFEE documentary on HBO. (and judgment in the legal context has no "E")
My whole point, and what the McDonald's lawsuit was all about was that actuarial types in corporations, most famously car companies(as depicted in the novel and major motion picture "fight club") actually use the amount of liability they may face in wrongful death product liability lawsuits as a gauge as whether to fix/redesign/recall products- imagine if there was a true cap on verdicts? How safe would your family be in a car when Ford or Toyota have no one to answer to? How much less would they test a medication before they put it on the market?
Once again, Insurance companies and corporations have done a marvelous job of shifting our focus, (with some help from the comical advertising lawyer community) -
but lets not for one second be naive... its not about personal responsibility, its about corporate and insurance company profits. |
What no one in this thread has pointed out is that all products are inherently flawed since they are the product of human work, and humans are far from perfect. Some of the dangers presented by a product are due to that same human error that makes us human. In other words, they are honest mistakes. Others are the result of carelessness, or even willful failure to correct. In cases of such negligence, the damages are tripled (or more). Of course, that negligence has to be proven to a jury. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 12:20:31 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
... (and judgment in the legal context has no "E"). |
Depending on which English speaking country you happen to be in, of course. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 01:06:07 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
On the other hand, there are less ethical companies that, in the absence of the threat of lawsuits and penalty judgements would place products out there with hidden defects that present a real danger to consumers, without adequate testing to detect and correct them. |
Sometimes even (successful) lawsuits aren't enough -- at one point Ford decided that it was cheaper to pay off victims (or their families) than to impliment a $6/car design change to prevent the Pinto's gas tank from exploding in a rear-end collision.
Originally posted by rcollier:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
....
This is a photo taken at Niagara Falls (Canadian side) and it amazes me that we actually have to post signs like this one. How many of you don't know that being swept over the falls could be dangerous.
Ray |
Not trying to poke fun at such an incident, but apparently the signs don't work anyway. |
Earlier this year three people were swept over Nevada Falls in Yosemite as they stood in the river to pose for a picture ... :-(
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 13:09:48. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 01:54:04 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
On the other hand, there are less ethical companies that, in the absence of the threat of lawsuits and penalty judgements would place products out there with hidden defects that present a real danger to consumers, without adequate testing to detect and correct them. |
Sometimes even (successful) lawsuits aren't enough -- at one point Ford decided that it was cheaper to pay off victims (or their families) than to impliment a $6/car design change to prevent the Pinto's gas tank from exploding in a rear-end collision.
|
Indeed...you can read the case here.
However, what's not mentioned in the case is that the so-called design "flaws" were, in fact, typical of many automobile designs at the time, not just Ford Pintos. The number of deaths attributed to rear impact fires was greatly exaggerated by both the media and the rumor mill and was, again, typical of other automotive designs at the time.
The so-called "Pinto Memo" in which the analysis of paying off the plaintiffs was compared to the cost of a redesign was not used or consulted by Ford during development of the Pinto and in fact was actually part of a document assessing the value of human life using NHTSA's own guidelines, not as a tool for assessing Ford's liability.
Additionally, in previous decisions, the CA Supreme Court actually encouraged manufacturers to trade safety for cost.
You can read all about it in a 1991 analysis from the Rutgers Law Review. (The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case)
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 13:56:08. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 02:40:02 PM · #84 |
Every regulation balances safety against cost/time ... it's where you place the balance point which matters.
For example, the administration has recently chosen to trade a certain number of deaths and illnesses from respiratory and cardiac disease for "not impeding economic growth" -- right now primarily represented by jobs in building prisons and the energy industry -- by "delaying" implimentation of the new EPA regulations governing ozone levels, the ones based on the "best scientific research and opinion" available. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 02:45:26 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Earlier this year three people were swept over Nevada Falls in Yosemite as they stood in the river to pose for a picture ... :-( |
<-- sick bastard should be sued for causing mental anguish. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 02:50:19 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
|
 |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:06:12 PM · #87 |
| Is that a Pinto you're driving? |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:07:53 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every regulation balances safety against cost/time ... it's where you place the balance point which matters.
For example, the administration has recently chosen to trade a certain number of deaths and illnesses from respiratory and cardiac disease for "not impeding economic growth" -- right now primarily represented by jobs in building prisons and the energy industry -- by "delaying" implimentation of the new EPA regulations governing ozone levels, the ones based on the "best scientific research and opinion" available. |
And, your point is what exactly? We could place an increased emphasis on safety, but at what cost? Cars could be made much safer, but who is going to buy a $250,000 Camry?
Despite years of mythological demonizing of Ford over the design of the Pinto, the real truth is that nothing they did was out of line with common accepted practice in automobile design that was going on at the time. The fact is that the plaintiff's lawyers were able to paint for the jury, a picture of Ford as an uncaring manufacturer of firebombs disguised as cars, generate sympathy for their client and get a big payout from the evil Ford Motor Co..
|
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:09:12 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Originally posted by Spork99:
That idle scribble was blown up and put in front of the jury and was the key to a multi-million dollar judgement against the manufacturer. |
The jury system makes little sense, we take it for granted that there is some benefit in it, and it is one of the things enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is somehow beyond question since it is so engrained. A jury of their peers... Let trained judges with oversight make the rulings, give them some latitude and respect to make good decisions. Review those decisions if needed, but drop the sham jury award system, it enriches the lawyers more than anyone else. They have pushed a system of confusing laws and regulations just to ensure an endless stream of clients they can over charge, almost all politicians are... drumroll... Lawyers! Make bad laws, then lets fight em in court! All the way to the supreme court and then we can start a states rights case next!!!
|
let judges decide? yeah that will be fair for individuals(that is sarcasm in case you couldn't tell) sounds way too European to me. Listen- we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- that last thing we need to do is screw with the jury system.
Everyone laughs at "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" line from Shakespeare, but what that line meant was, the first thing a dictatorship does, is kill all those associated with justice, fairness, laws, democracy... it was a compliment to lawyers.
So you can insult lawyers, wish for a lawyerless world- but make sure nothing ever happens to your family. Arbitration with a referee of the defendant's choice would be alright for your family? |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:13:24 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:13:28 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Is that a Pinto you're driving? |
My dad had a Pinto wagon for years -- it was great; with the manual steering and 5-speed stick-shift it drove like a sports car ... |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:17:15 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Is that a Pinto you're driving? |
My dad had a Pinto wagon for years -- it was great; with the manual steering and 5-speed stick-shift it drove like a sports car ... |
I had one too. 74 model. 5 speed. I used to pray the darned thing would catch fire. No such luck... |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:23:36 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every regulation balances safety against cost/time ... it's where you place the balance point which matters.
For example, the administration has recently chosen to trade a certain number of deaths and illnesses from respiratory and cardiac disease for "not impeding economic growth" -- right now primarily represented by jobs in building prisons and the energy industry -- by "delaying" implimentation of the new EPA regulations governing ozone levels, the ones based on the "best scientific research and opinion" available. |
And, your point is what exactly? |
My point is that there is a continuum along which society must place the balancing point between safety and cost; there can be (ind certainly is) reasonable disagreement about where to place that point. For example, should airlines be required to inspect and perform maintenance on their planes every:
[ ] 10 legs (takeoff/landing)
[ ] 20 legs
[ ] 50 legs
[ ] 100 legs
[ ] 1000 legs
[ ] whenever they damn feel like it
Some want to carry deregulation to ridiculous extremes, while simultaneously impeding people's ability to seek recourse through litigation. You can't have it both ways, either there are governmental regulations to protect the public from hazardous and fraudulent products, or you have to "let the market take care of it" by making litigation too expensive to continue engaging in the undesirable practices.
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 15:25:08. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 03:25:28 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Is that a Pinto you're driving? |
My dad had a Pinto wagon for years -- it was great; with the manual steering and 5-speed stick-shift it drove like a sports car ... |
I had one too. 74 model. 5 speed. I used to pray the darned thing would catch fire. No such luck... |
Hell, I drove not one, but TWO Corvairs during my high school years and immediately after. My dad liked Corvairs; he was an engineer and they were creative engineering. When discussing damage done to auto manufacturers, let's not ignore Ralph Nader's smear job on the Corvair...
R. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 04:21:56 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
It goes without saying that I am a moronic wingnut. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 04:31:15 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every regulation balances safety against cost/time ... it's where you place the balance point which matters.
For example, the administration has recently chosen to trade a certain number of deaths and illnesses from respiratory and cardiac disease for "not impeding economic growth" -- right now primarily represented by jobs in building prisons and the energy industry -- by "delaying" implimentation of the new EPA regulations governing ozone levels, the ones based on the "best scientific research and opinion" available. |
And, your point is what exactly? |
My point is that there is a continuum along which society must place the balancing point between safety and cost; there can be (ind certainly is) reasonable disagreement about where to place that point. For example, should airlines be required to inspect and perform maintenance on their planes every:
[ ] 10 legs (takeoff/landing)
[ ] 20 legs
[ ] 50 legs
[ ] 100 legs
[ ] 1000 legs
[ ] whenever they damn feel like it
Some want to carry deregulation to ridiculous extremes, while simultaneously impeding people's ability to seek recourse through litigation. You can't have it both ways, either there are governmental regulations to protect the public from hazardous and fraudulent products, or you have to "let the market take care of it" by making litigation too expensive to continue engaging in the undesirable practices. |
In your example, the inspection interval is defined by the cyclic fatigue test results, model predictions, FAA regs and statistical analysis.
We do have it both ways...there are government regulations that protect the public and litigation over an accident due to a defect, even if is through no fault of the company being sued is extremely expensive. Often, it's the company with the most money that's sued, even if the negligence is on the part of a third party.
Take for example a commercial aircraft crash. Is it the airline's fault? How about the aircraft manufacturer's fault? Or the maintenance contract company? The supplier of the pump that may have caused the crash? Or the manufacturer of the defective part that supposedly caused the pump to fail? How about the material supplier that supplied the material that the defective part was built from? The supplier of the raw material that the material supplier refines?
It's simplistic and unrealistic to say something like, "Whatever company made the mistake should pay." because crash analysis is far from perfect and a mechanical problem might only get narrowed down to a particular system. Or there might be a any combination of human error (in the tower, in the cockpit, in the hangar...or even security), mechanical failure, software glitches, computer hardware failure etc. The current approach is to go after the company with the deepest pockets.
Another interesting discussion is one about how excess regulation and threat of litigation stifle innovation.
Message edited by author 2011-09-07 17:06:11. |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 05:23:00 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
It goes without saying that I am a moronic wingnut. |
I thought you were a lawyer. ...eh, semantics. :P |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 05:34:26 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we have a whole bunch of moronic wingnuts running around, telling us what the founders wanted or didn't want, and tons of pro second amendment people out there- even though it only ever meant to apply to militias in the context of the pre-revolutionary english occupation- |
Are you saying that you're a moronic wingnut? |
It goes without saying that I am a moronic wingnut. |
I thought you were a lawyer. ...eh, semantics. :P |
+1 |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 05:51:11 PM · #99 |
I imagine you won't see this today. What were my parents thinking?
 |
|
|
|
09/07/2011 06:01:03 PM · #100 |
Ahh that wonderful jury system: force people to skip work and family for almost no pay to sit in boredom for days or weeks or potentially more in debate about someone they do not know or really care about. They get to stop the boredom and go home to their families and earn a living again when they reach an agreed on verdict. You must really believe blindly in justice to think that most jury members wont just vote with the majority so they can go home Nighttrain.
Why don't you trust a trained judge? They are lawyers who have been through a even more strict process and are reviewed with track records. Jury's are random people chosen by the better lawyer to sway the verdict. Nothing fair about that. Those times the law has meddled in my family, it has usually been either/or destructive and expensive. I do not see any savior in the law, just a very effective tool of abuse and control for those with money or power. Limit all trials to two years max and lawyer fees to a total of 10% max of the award, and maybe, maybe you have a working system. You need a jury so bad, use a panel of judges. To say the system, as it is, is great, is as blind as you can get. |
|
