Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old 09-03-2014, 08:25 AM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

Speaking of research, Dell, my curiosity was piqued by the first case listed and I decided to do a little more poking around online about that case. And, not surprisingly, the case is not what you presented. What you presented:

"In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles."

First off, "troubles" means that one of the two men was burned over 70 percent of his body and lost the tips of all ten of his fingers, along with most of his hearing and eyesight. The other would have escaped with minor injuries, but he went back in to save his friend, who was burning to death, and so ended up seriously injured himself. The explosion was so strong it threw the homeowner through two rooms and out of the front door of her home. It blew out windows and set a neighbor's tree on fire.

The chemical company first argued that that didn't really count as an "explosion." They then argued they shouldn't have to list "explosive" on the packaging, despite the fact that they USED TO list it on an earlier version of the product.

http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryC...7780/Page1.htm

(This is the document denying Para Chem an appeal. It's a judge making the determination to deny appeal, not a jury)

"Frivolous lawsuits" is a favorite of the Right to trot out ever so often, because limiting damages benefits Big Business, basically giving them more freedom to market unsafe products without fear of liability. And in this case, there were no punitive damages awarded against Para Chem; just compensatory damages. If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray

Last edited by GenuineRisk : 09-03-2014 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.