UF Law grad kicks the nuts off of Big Tobacco

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by UFLAW81, Jul 21, 2014.

  1. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,636
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    The company that made these gas cans was right here in the town where I live. That company was bankrupted by lawsuits of people who poured gasoline on fires and then were burned or killed in the resulting explosion and fire. This was in spite of the warnings you see printed on the can. It was one of the largest employers in town with excellent wages and benefits. Unfortunately, the assets were sold in a bankruptcy auction.
  2. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    What a nice, well reasoned, and illuminating post.
  3. Lawdog88

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,339
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Hey, when did Baskin Robbins start putting heroin in the Rocky Road ? Who knew ?

    Kinda sorta the same thing.
  4. UFLAW81

    UFLAW81 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The point is, consumers were pouring gasoline on fires, despite warnings that pouring gasoline on fires would cause explosions. Never mind that everyone knows pouring gasoline on fires causes explosions, the company went as far as to warn consumers that pouring gasoline on fires causes explosions. Never mind the fact that industry standard flame arresters were not not put on the cans, people were pouring gasoline on fires. Just like stupid little eight year old Landon Beadore, who was carrying some items down to the basement of the family home, when he accidentally knocked over a gas can containing gasoline. Although no fluid spilled out, the vapors flowed unfettered from a spout not equipped with a flame arrester. The vapors traveled across the concrete floor to the pilot light of the gas-fired water heater. Once ignited, the vapor carried the flame back to the filled can, which exploded beside Landon, immolating the boy. He survived, but was severely burned. The flame arrester would have avoided this and this type of storage accident was common and the companies who still make gas cans with the arresters have not had a similar experience being sued by consumers who are pouring gasoline on fires.
  5. lacuna

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    It would be better to make sure the facts are correct before you attempt to justify your position, 81.

    Labeling burn victim Landon Beadore, a "stupid little eight year old," continues to reveal your contempt and a disturbing lack of empathy. For your edification here are facts found on the 'Net concerning the tragic incident.

    http://attorney-group.com/alabama/blitz-gas-can-explosion-lawsuits/

    Gas Can Explosions:
    • Landon Beadore is a 3-year-old who, while putting up his sister’s tricycle, knocked over a Blitz fuel can. A water heater ignited the vapors, which flashed back into the can. This caused an explosion that covered almost half of Landon’s body with severe burn injuries. This explosion could have been prevented with a flame arrestor.
    - See more at: http://attorney-group.com/alabama/blitz-gas-can-explosion-lawsuits/#sthash.MwpEY1zL.dpuf

    http://gascansafety.org/real-storie...-defective-blitz-gas-can-nearly-kills-toddler

    Explosion caused by defective Blitz gas can nearly kills toddler
    [​IMG]
    Landon Beadore and Melissa Weeks (Hudson, New York - Sept. 2003)

    Landon Beadore was his mother’s little helper. At age 3, he knew it was his job to help pick up his toys in the backyard and put them in the basement cellar when it was time to mow the lawn.

    On Sept. 16, 2003, Landon was bringing in his tricycle when he bumped a plastic Blitz gas can that the family purchased at a local convenience store, accidentally tipping it over. Vapors from the defective can immediately created a flashback fire, ignited by the pilot light from the family’s water heater in the cellar. Neighbors said they could hear the explosion from miles away.

    Landon’s mother Melissa Weeks, 32, ran to her screaming son as his shoes and feet literally melted to the floor, rendering Landon immobile and trapped in the cellar fire. Melissa ran into the cellar engulfed in flames, grabbed Landon and ran back outside.

    Melissa and Landon were flown to a local hospital, and while Melissa had substantial burns on her hands from putting out the fire on Landon, her little boy suffered severe burns on more than 47 percent of his body.
    QGator2414 likes this.
  6. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Yes, he had the wrong age but you clearly missed his sarcasm and apparently the point of his post if you think he actually believes the kid was stupid.
  7. lacuna

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Sarcasm is detestable.
  8. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,636
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    It also says keep out of reach or use of by children and keep away from heat sources. Everyone feels badly about the burned child but stupidity of the parents should not be compensable.
    QGator2414 likes this.
  9. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    A warning doesn't provide an absolute defense in product liability suits and if you take a couple minutes to think about it you'll understand why.

    In this case poor little Blitz chose not to install flame arresters on its canisters despite the industry using them. How much did Blitz save by not installing them? Less than a dollar. It's competitors used them, OSHA required them in work place cannisters, and they had a nominal cost which could prevent severe injury or death.

    If you think Blitz's cans were safe because of the warning label, feel free to go find one and use it at your house. You wouldn't catch me around one since a simple normal act like filling my lawnmower could cause a flashback explosion.
  10. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,374
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If a child falls into a pool and drowns, should you be able to sue the people who built the pool?
    If a child cuts himself with shears that were not properly stored, is that on the manufacturer of the shears?
    If a child shoots himself or a sibling or a friend, is that on the manufacturer of the gun?

    It's up to parents to keep things safe for their children. If you don't know that little kids shouldn't have access to gasoline under *any* circumstances (safety valve or not), you shouldn't have the right to sue somebody over a problem caused by parental neglect.

    I get the idea that it isn't too much to ask to add a safety measure, but if that's important to you, then purchase the kind of can that does have one.

    As far as smoking goes. I hate cigarettes with a passion. I have friends, family, and neighbors that smoke...but at the end of the day it's on them (not the supplier). We all have the capacity to overcome our addictions. At the end of the day, it's a choice. I'm familiar with addiction, both from personal experience, and from being around others (some who have overcome, and some who have not).

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
    OklahomaGator and QGator2414 like this.
  11. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    That particular case just gets more attention because a child is an especially sympathetic victim. It's not about being a child like the manufacturer wants people to believe. It was dangerous in its design for its normal and intended purpose, regardless of whether it was an adult or child. When they blow up from static from your clothes, filling lawn equipment, or simply tipping over in the basement in the general vicinity of a water heater (I can't find any information on just how close it was) you have a major problem. Especially when a cheap design change rectified the issue, your competitors use the reducer, the Feds don't allow it in the workplace without one, and even Consumer Reports called not having them dangerous 30 years prior.

    As for the smoking addiction issue, exactly how more addictive should a manufacturer be allowed to make their product and not disclose it and subsequently lie about it? 2x harder to quit? 3x? Impossible to quit?
  12. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Why should the beer, bourbon, wine, etc manufacturer be allowed to supply their product to the alcoholic that ends up with liver disease?
  13. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    We've already been over this. No one is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to sell alcohol (or cigarettes). It's when you you covertly add chemicals to make it more addictive to keep people buying your product and then lie about it that becomes the problem.
  14. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,636
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    I use Blitz gas cans all of time and never have had an accident, fire, or explosion. I didn't store them in the house, I kept them out of reach of small children, I didn't pour gas on a fire or ever fill a hot piece of lawn equipment.

    One of the lawsuits was resulted from a father pouring gas into a lit indoor stove while holding a small child in his arms. Again, stupidity should not be rewarded.
  15. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,374
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, 2x harder to quit vs. 3x harder to quit depends more on the individual's mind and circumstances than on any of the chemicals involved. But what do you consider the baseline? I mean, the process of lighting something and inhaling it to make the body cough (which everyone does the first time they try smoking) is *not* in any conceivable fashion something that can be considered a natural activity. So every step in the process of creating a cigarette involves making it more addictive (including marketing campaigns). Along with existing warnings, I'm ok with full disclosure of ingredients and tags for substances that may cause unknown effects (where the effects may still be unknown). I don't think there's any productivity in talking about limits in what you can stuff in a cigarette because that would imply that there exists a safe standard for what goes into a given cigarette.

    I have no problem with more labeling requirements, but I just don't want to settle for the idea that poor smokers don't have any control over their actions.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  16. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,374
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Would you consider a motorcycle dangerous in design? Would you say a higher percentage of motorcycle owners are killed riding their bikes or gas can owners killed by their gas can? I guess I'm trying to establish where you draw the line on what should be considered unreasonably dangerous.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  17. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    So some can stop drinking and some can't and alcohol manufacturers are not responsible. The alcohol is the addictive part!

    Yet some CAN stop smoking and some can't and cigarette manufacturers are responsible? The chemicals are the addictive part!

    Brilliant!

    :rolleyes:
  18. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I know you think you're being clever but you're just highlighting that you don't understand the alcohol equivalent in cigarettes is nicotine, not the secretly added chemicals to increase addiction.
  19. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Motorcycles are dangerous compared to cars but that's clearly not the product liability standard. Just like a know is more dangerous than a spoon you're not going to be liable for the knife cutting a user. It's within a product or class. If a motorcycle design fix had a nominal cost and would prevent a motorcycle's front wheel from randomly falling off and causing a crash and killing or maiming riders, then yes, there would likely be a cause of action.
  20. demosthenes

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    So have many others. If you think that makes them reasonably safe then we'll never agree.

    Sorry for your friends/relatives who lost their jobs but they should blame their management for their callous decision to skimp on a cheap part that would have prevented severe injury to users.

    I would never argue that there isn't a certain level of stupidity (some absolutely ridiculous) associated with many claims. I see claims filed daily that would have many roll their eyes. However, just because there are stupid plaintiffs doesn't mean they're isn't a valid cause of action.

Share This Page