Like the moron who put his RV on cruise control and won a lawsuit against the company.
That never happened. At least, the incident you're thinking of never did. Someone may have sued over faulty cruise control, but it wasn't because they thought it was an auto-pilot.
Like the moron who put his RV on cruise control and won a lawsuit against the company.
That never happened. At least, the incident you're thinking of never did. Someone may have sued over faulty cruise control, but it wasn't because they thought it was an auto-pilot.
Really? I read that exact story. I think it was from the "Stella Awards" thing, though I don't know how reputable they are.
Like the moron who put his RV on cruise control and won a lawsuit against the company.
That never happened. At least, the incident you're thinking of never did. Someone may have sued over faulty cruise control, but it wasn't because they thought it was an auto-pilot.
Really? I read that exact story. I think it was from the "Stella Awards" thing, though I don't know how reputable they are.
In the spring of 2002, a telling of the venerable Cruise Control legend became part of a widely circulated "outrageous lawsuits" list known on the Internet as the "Stella Awards":
In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago.
The Grazinski entry had been added to a compilation of other false entries -- it was just another howler tacked on.
Seriously, my family had lawn darts when I was growing up. Now there's a dangerous toy. You know why I didn't die? Because my parents set us aside every summer and told us why they were dangerous. And then they supervised us while we played.
What kind of scary-ass lawn darts did you have? Mine were blunt as hell, and wouldn't pierce anything harder than soft dirt. I would have needed some sort of gasoline-powered lawn dart cannon in order to hurt somebody with those things.
Man you never saw the really scary eye-gouging lawn darts? 'Cause trust me, they existed.
Although I've got to disagree with jclast here. The kind of lawn darts we're talking about had no business ever existing. The concept was fundamentally flawed, no amount of supervision can compensate for that.
On man, I remember those. They were insane. My friend's stepdad owned them and we nicked off with them one day to throw at random stuff. When he found us playing with them he held the kid down and threatened to thread a metal pipe through his arsehole. Stepdads should come with warning labels.
If your too stupid to realize you will get harmed if you use your hand to stop the chains, you deserve what happens when you do attempt to do so.
This seems a lot like what Cat was talking about on the last page. Out of curiosity, do you seriously believe that stupidity is a crime worthy of gruesome injury, mutilation, and possibly death?
Companies have been succesfully sued because there were so many warning labels that the one warning that might have saved the person was not sufficiently obvious amongst all the noise.
If your too stupid to realize you will get harmed if you use your hand to stop the chains, you deserve what happens when you do attempt to do so.
This seems a lot like what Cat was talking about on the last page. Out of curiosity, do you seriously believe that stupidity is a crime worthy of gruesome injury, mutilation, and possibly death?
No not really, but if someone experiences a grusesome injury, mutitialtion or death because they were incredibly stupid its not the company's fault and shouldn't have to pay for person's mistake.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
While agencies like the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) and OSHA have mandated rules for what goes on a product label, companies also have to take into consideration what other warnings they wish to present to help against liability as has been mentioned earlier in the thread.
I might argue that the law practitioners have done a very good job in convincing both the private companies and whatever jury is present in each case that the consumers are to be treated as three year olds who must have their hands held when dealing with products. 30-40 years ago if someone had gone through the Hot Coffee case with McDonalds, there's a better chance they would've been laughed at by the judge and not given their trial.
On a sarcastic note, perhaps we should consider starting up some big project called "natural selection" and just take off all the warnings off labels to see what happens?
On a sarcastic note, perhaps we should consider starting up some big project called "natural selection" and just take off all the warnings off labels to see what happens?
On a more interesting note, what if we did what you said instead of what you meant? Like, instead of "WARNING! Steam is extremely hot!" just say "Steam is extremely hot", and see if people can still figure out for themselves that it's a bad thing.
On a sarcastic note, perhaps we should consider starting up some big project called "natural selection" and just take off all the warnings off labels to see what happens?
On a more interesting note, what if we did what you said instead of what you meant? Like, instead of "WARNING! Steam is extremely hot!" just say "Steam is extremely hot", and see if people can still figure out for themselves that it's a bad thing.
Good call. I mean, we don't want these labels to be biased...who's to say steam being hot is a bad thing?
On a sarcastic note, perhaps we should consider starting up some big project called "natural selection" and just take off all the warnings off labels to see what happens?
On a more interesting note, what if we did what you said instead of what you meant? Like, instead of "WARNING! Steam is extremely hot!" just say "Steam is extremely hot", and see if people can still figure out for themselves that it's a bad thing.
To my delight, I find that there is a different warning on each pack of cigarettes. Mine says: "Warning: Smoking can cause fetal damage or premature birth." Fuck it – I've found my brand! "Yeah, give me a carton of Low Birth Weights." Just don't get the ones that say lung cancer, you know? Shop around. It is your body.
Posts
That never happened. At least, the incident you're thinking of never did. Someone may have sued over faulty cruise control, but it wasn't because they thought it was an auto-pilot.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
On man, I remember those. They were insane. My friend's stepdad owned them and we nicked off with them one day to throw at random stuff. When he found us playing with them he held the kid down and threatened to thread a metal pipe through his arsehole. Stepdads should come with warning labels.
Think EULAs.
wut
Blondes are stupid, hawhaw. BeautifulJoe is a comedian- or so he would like to think!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh, I get it now. Ha ha, pretty women are dumb enough to do really dumb stuff, but still smart enough to read warning labels. Rofflestaffel.
Try this on for size:
On a hair straightener: DO NOT USE IN ANY ORIFICE
I might argue that the law practitioners have done a very good job in convincing both the private companies and whatever jury is present in each case that the consumers are to be treated as three year olds who must have their hands held when dealing with products. 30-40 years ago if someone had gone through the Hot Coffee case with McDonalds, there's a better chance they would've been laughed at by the judge and not given their trial.
On a sarcastic note, perhaps we should consider starting up some big project called "natural selection" and just take off all the warnings off labels to see what happens?
Good call. I mean, we don't want these labels to be biased...who's to say steam being hot is a bad thing?
How about another alternative?