WARNING! labels....

[hogdogs]

On other forums my signature is "WARNING! labels are the life support for the terminally STUPID.
Why is this in "political" section of TFL? Hang with me folks!
Why does a lawn mower deck need a sticker showing severed fingers or toes? Ain't everyone old enuff or strong enuff to start one (reach the pedals on a rider) aware that them whirling grass hacking bladesjust might be something to avoid with body parts?
This is just one example! I feel it was only since the FDR administration that American citizens were empowered to become STUPID and SURVIVE. Financially stupid? Yessir... A couple with a combined income of $125,000 cannot afford a $4-500,000 home, 2 vehicles one truck is a 4 door powerstroke diesel costing $35,000+ momma drives an Excursion (maybe a diesel) worth $40,000. They have a ski boat in the garage worth $25-45,000 and in the driveway 2 jetski... ERRRR pwc's worth $20,000 minimum for the 2 and trailer... Oh yeah they are vibrant youngsters so they ride motorcycles... ERA wifey gets one too... so hubby has a softail $16,000+ and momma has a sportster $12,000+ (YMMV) okay so where in the hell is this couple ever gonna pay for this? The home price I posted is very low...
Now for safety... We all agree safety/seat belts save lives and baby seats save baby lives.... Why is there a damn sticker ON THE SEAT? If you done bought the baby car seat you know it is helpful? Why must the upholstery inside the vehicle be RUINED by the graffiti on a sun visor? Why is there no sticker inside and outside of the door stating "IF YOU SLAM YOUR FINGERS IN THE DOOR THEY WILL BE INJURED, BROKEN OR EVEN CUT OFF" ? Why in the hell is therwe a warning on a bottle of soda warning "YOU COULD PUT AN EYE OUT" for crying out damn loud how many eyeballs were ruined? I could tell you of dozens of attempts at the "Darwin Award" I tried... None of them were tried after a sticker warned me and NONE of these have a sticker now! I give you just one example... "Warning... Placing a .22 long rifle round on top of your upright bb gun and firing could cause injury to any one of your 2000 body parts"... Lucky for me I am alive... I have no injury and no Darwin Award but I wised right up! It ain't about stupid moves folks... It is about the Gene Pool! Had I died my folks woulda cryed while my casket was put in the ground and moved on! Who do you sue? Daisey for making the gun? Crosman for the BB? Remington for the .22ammo? Kmart for selling any/all of the combo? It is the removal of accountability that is to blame for much of this nation"s woes!
Rant of a redneck... Paused...
Brent

 

[SecDef]

Sure am glad they noted that my heart medication might interfere with my migraine medication, since I didn't go to med school.

Labels are NOT for stupid people. They are a symptom of a need for torte reform.

 

[hogdogs]

TORTE? I reckon that means lawyer/legal? YUP I agree that needs fixed but if folks did not contract a lawyer to sue than it would fix itself... Had I EARNED the "Darwin Award" as a kid my folks would have rolled their collective eyes at any ambulance chaser stating... "He earned it!" It is the removal of accountability... whether it was the people demanding a lawyer or lawyers demanding a client it was the Government that slowly allowed Americans to forget who is ULTIMATELY responsible. I accept that farmers needed subsidized to feed the soup kitchen during the "great depression" but right after those subsidies should have been removed... not until Regan did most get removed...
Brent

 

[SamHouston]

If I screw up it can't be my fault, it's got to be your fault and something you did. Just ask my lawyer. Also I hope you have plenty of insurance cause I don't won't to work anymore.

Someone should have put a warning label on that hammer. I think my thumbs broke. I wonder if I can get disability from the government?

 

[GoSlash27]

^ There's your answer. Every warning label in existence was inspired by an example of stupidity.
There's a warning label on blowdriers warning you not to use them in your shower. This implies that someone was dumb enough to do it.
I'm no lawyer, but here's my idea for tort reform: If the defense can demonstrate that the plaintiff was brain-dead prior to the incident, then they won't be held liable because they have materially helped our society by thinning the herd.

 

[roy reali]

Double Talk

Many years ago I purchased a gun with an interesting warning in its manual. There was the warning about safely storing the firearm safely and seperate from the ammo. Then there was a warning against this warning.

It said that harm could come to you if you need to access the gun quickly. In other words, if some BG enters your home and a delay happens in getting to your firearm, the BG can cause you harm.

I don't remember the gun and I don't think I even own anymore. But I found this to be an odd warning to say the least.

 

[JWT]

Warning lablels are created by corporate lawyers in an attempt to protect their companies from other lawyers who are attempting to get their clients lots of money for basic stupidity.

(Or course the fact that the lawyers suing are doing it out of their sense of social responsibility, the fact that they walk home with large sums of money if the succeed has nothing to do with it - and pigs can fly....)

Individual responsibility is a concept that seems to have largely gone by the wayside in todays society.

 

[shaggy]

Labels are NOT for stupid people. They are a symptom of a need for torte reform.

"Torte reform" is not the answer, unless you need to revise your cake recipe. Of course, if you serve me a bad torte that makes me sick, I'd probably sue for the tortious torte.

Tort reform isn't the answer either, unless you're the type that continually looks to the government to solve your problems. Lawyers only ask the court for a remedy, they don't automatically get it just for asking, and its not the judge that usually awards it. If you believe in less litigation and personal responsibility, one only has to look to the jury for the problem. The jury is the group that decides some sleazy lawyer's outrageous demand on behalf of their client is reasonable and makes the award. Just because a lawyer asks a jury to award a few million dollars to his client because a restaurant dared serve him hot coffee doesn't mean he's entitled to it, and it doesn't mean the jury has to award it to him. If you want to place blame, look to the people in your community who make up the juries there and buy into those ridiculous claims.

The right to sue for damages when you are injured by another shouldn't be limited or curtailed because some people abuse that right. I doubt you would say the right to buy or own a firearm should be limited or curtailed because some people abuse that right to the detriment of others, would you?

 

[GoSlash27]

Shaggy,
Good point. I guess the best answer is to subject yourself to jury duty and see to it that the next time some dimbulb runs himself over with his car the manufacturer isn't held liable on your watch.

 

[hogdogs]

One system flaw is the rules the judge is REQUIRED to read to the jurors as to what they are looking for to make a ruling.
Another is that the citizens should say... "Whoa it on up there Mr.Bambalance Chaser" "That kid made a STUPID mistake and payed the ultimate price... We will do our best to spread the word but we don't feel it is right to sue the manufacturer of said device...
Now if I pull the trigger on my shotgun and a TRIPLE charge of powder blows my head off maybe the shell maker SHOULD pay for negligence. When a guy backs over a toddler at his wife's daycare with a riding mower, why does he get to sue for "pain and suffering"? Why are said toddler's parents suing the machine maker? The machine was doing what designed to do... Cut the grass while human operator sits on his butt and "DRIVES"... These are the things that CHAP MY ASS! I heard argued that the machine should not mow in reverse. WHY-DA-HELL-NOT? Does yer car shut off when you go in reverse? You got blind spots in a car and NONE from the seat of a rider mower...
REDNECK RANT... PAUSED...
Brent

 

[GoSlash27]

One system flaw is the rules the judge is REQUIRED to read to the jurors as to what they are looking for to make a ruling.

A bigger problem IMO is that the judge is *not* required to inform the jury that they are free to say "not guilty" no matter what the law says.

 

[hogdogs]

GoSlash, You are cordially invited to stop by for a beer!
Brent

 

[GoSlash27]

Offer graciously accepted if I'm ever down that way

 

[shaggy]

One system flaw is the rules the judge is REQUIRED to read to the jurors as to what they are looking for to make a ruling.

And in tort actions this usually come down to the "reasonable man" standard which IMHO brings culpability for such ridiculous awards right back to the jury. If I sue the manufacturer of a blender because I
stuck my hand in it, the jury should see the culpable party not as the manufacturer that was being unreasonable in making and selling a blender that worked as advertised, but rather my own stupidity in shoving my paw between the whirling blades.

I guess the best answer is to subject yourself to jury duty and see to it that the next time some dimbulb runs himself over with his car the manufacturer isn't held liable on your watch.

Exactly.

 

[hogdogs]

Shaggy, If that post was an attempt to garner an invite fer a beer it worked as planned! Zackly my point... I just couldn't remember the word... But yer also invited to stop by fer a beer...
Brent

 

[shaggy]

hotdogs - Better be careful with that offer; I may be down there in FL (Naples) in a few weeks for vacation and take you up on it. Of course if you get to NYC or Philly, the beers are on me.

 

[hogdogs]

I am about as far from naples as you can get within the state but the offer stands... as for me and the nawth East... if'n I am hogtied, beaten about the head and neck and hauled against my will I may be found up yer way... otherwise I doubt you will see my shadow blockin' yer sunlight... (what little there is)...
Brent

 

[Wildalaska]

No offrnse boys, but how can you discuss tort reform when by your posts, you have no idea of how the system works and why.

Grab yourself a Prosser and get back to us.

WildincreasessignalAlaska ™

 

[hogdogs]

WA, As you may have seen or may yet to see, I make a thread from the layman/redneck/simple guy point of view...
I thought they was lawyers now i see they are torts or torte fighters? The system is not what i was speaking of. It is the fact that since FDR the American citizen has had dropping levels of self accountability. Be it thru financial dealings, injury made to self or others out of negligence or even intentional.
Here is one for ya'll, we have a house of (likely) illegal immigrants up the clay road. They own at least 3 Chihuahuas that chase cars, EVERY CAR, and have for a year. The cars are not going fast enough to "chase" so these dogs are in front of and beside the vehicle. Florida state law calls these dogs "property" so to hit one is an "auto accident with property damage". At what point does the dog owner need to replace my brake shoes since HIS PROPERTY causes my foot to needlessly apply brake pressure? At what point is his property not protected by law since they ain't on a leash? If you are coming by here for a beer and you kill one on the way I will up the offering to shots of premium bourbon, tequila or rum!
Brent

 

[copenhagen]

I do tend to agree with HogDogs. I have no clue what a Tort, Torte, or Tortellini is, but I do know the latter is pretty fowl- at least the MRE version...

At any rate, ever noticed that the big money interests may not have as many labels? I'm curious how Budweiser gets away with "Please enjoy our product responsibly." Not that I don't love me some Bud now, just noting what I view as a double standard. Pretty sure there should be a label there somewhere on the bottle that says "Warning: consuming this product could cause you to wake up in the yard in a neighboring state, lose your cell phone, forget what you did, and have a strange pain in your rear."

Now that I got that out of the way, I find that many warning labels have largely outlived their usefulness. Needless to say, I do see why companies use them, because who wants to get sued? I guess it's time we crack down a bit more on lawsuits that are trying to reward people for being retards. But it's one of those slippery slope things. Where do you draw the line? Can you really expect our friend SecDef to have a clue that he can't take his heart medication with his migraine medication? Then again, I bet you money his heart medication says to keep out of reach of children. Now there's an interesting one. The kind of parent that would allow his child access to a medicine whose primary function is to monitor the ticker... Well, they may not be fit to have children anyway. Guess I see that as nature's way of making us better.

It's a sticky situation the way I see it. Some warning's are indeed needed. Most in my opinion are not.