I saw on the news this morning where this lady dropped her pop tart in the toaster and left it while she drove her kids to school. When she got back, her house was on fire. So, she is going to sue Kellogs for making pop tarts and Black and Decker for making toasters. I wonder if her opening statement would be---"Oh, I am not an idiot for leaving a heating appliance turned on while no one was at home. It is everyone elses fault, not mine."

You'd think that if she knew the toaster was already broken, which was evident if the pop-tart never popped up, she woudl have monitored it. Not only that, but from what I've seen most toasters are self contained. Wouldln't it be pretty hard to start a fire with a toaster??

It's a shame,but in these times anyone can sue anyone else.There are probably some safeguards to prevent frivolous lawsuits,but I wonder if they are ever used.

Well the newer style Black and Decker toasters are made of plastic on the outside. Star to melt and with continued heat WILL burst into flames.
Not too tough to start a fire with one, but she showed no common sense!

Are you saying Pop Tarts are incendiary? Does the Pentagon know about this? Do the commies?

The "old formula" for the strawberry pop tarts would burst into flames pretty easily, but Kellogs saw that it could cause a problem and changed something about them a while back so that they cannot be used for signal flares anymore. I guess this person has not heard about the new formula, non flamable tarts and is just trying to get rich quick from being an idiot. If she had died in the fire, would she be a candidate for a Darwin award?

quote Originally posted by Indiana_resto_guy: Well the newer style Black and Decker toasters are made of plastic on the outside. Star to melt and with continued heat WILL burst into flames. Not too tough to start a fire with one, but she showed no common sense!

Actually I have one of those. The reason for the plascit os to keep the outside cool to the touch, which works pretty well. There's still pretty much about an inch between the metal that does get warm and the outside plastic. I mean, it's not impossible, but from my expertice as a child of TRYING to set everything on fire, highly unlikely.

I just love it!
About once a year, I get to post this link...
http://www.sci.tamucc.edu/~pmichaud/toast/

Strawberry Pop-Tart Blow Torches.

------------------
Raydar - aka Steve

Black 88 Formula.
Red 88 Duke coupe. "The Project"
88 Formula parts car. "The Donor"

Sounds like you guys gave me my project for tomorrow, hehehe

------------------

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know the explosion potential of a Strawberry-Banana smoothie?

suger will burn real well we used it in a homemade rocket fuel as kids, pop tarts are mostly suger.that dummie deserves no $$$ needs a kick in the rear.

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

Actually, no one knows the particulars of the case, especially if we heard it through the media. The issues with product liability are performance of product as well as safety. The element of the woman leaving the house is a non-issue because if the toaster/pop tart did cause a fire, why would it matter if she were home, the product failed to perform and was a safety liability? An argument could be that if she were home, she could have extinguished the fire had it been small. Her absence or presence in the house did not contribute to the fire with the facts that are presented here. It is not the duty of a consumer to compensate for shortcomings of the manufacturer. Besides, it would be pure speculation to ascertain whether the fire started as a small eruption or an immediate flare.

I think it's necessary to ask yourselves (the ones that think the plaintiff is stupid and/or frivolous) if you've ever left the house with the clothes dryer on. Would you expect the appliance or the clothes within the dryer refrain from combustion under normal circumstances? What if a lamp burst into flames while the occupants were gone, would there be lines of people saying they should not have left the house with them on? What if the occupants were sleeping? What if the occupants were blind?

The media paraphrases stories by including only the interesting facts and often skews the entire set of facts without consideration for the totality of the circumstances. For anyone that doesn't believe me, go watch a trial and then read the newspaper. Newsworthy doesn't mean important, it means sensational.

The minute we declare all stupid sounding lawsuits as frivolous will be the time when defendants will forego proving themselves not responsible and proving the plaintiffs stupid. A degree of that is present today, but it certainly is not the crux of most successful civil suit defenses. If we nix all lawsuits that sound stupid, society will assume a diminished perception of responsible behavior. I'll tell you why. Criminal jeopardy is utilized to punish those for committing societies worst offenses. Civil sanctions are imposed to establish and maintain responsible behavior. If we dismiss all lawsuits that don't meet the threshold of what someone considers legitimate, then people will become less considerate and responsible to each other. Anyone in the criminal arena that has any sense realizes that deterrence doesn't work to deter crime for 90%+ of society. I believe civil suits do successfully deter irresponsible behavior, especially between citizens. If suits were dismissed more than they were entertained, people would start acting irresponsibly toward each other. When you start to explore all the facts, you will start to understand how and why the judicial system works the way it does. Oh, they do have safeguards to ensure frivolous suits are not entertained. The court hears arguments of jurisdiction, legal standing, and many other issues that pertain to substantiality.

Stop Dis'en poptarts or I'll sue.

------------------
'84 SE 2.5l
'85 Coupe 2.5l now getting a 3800
'86 SE 2.5l

Hmm Ed, I did not think about that. What I did think about was this on the side of my box of Pop Tarts- "Do not leave toaster unattended"
I have looked on my lamps, my dryer, my dish washer, even my Mr. Coffee and none of them have that kind of warning. When Greg's house flooded because an upstair's toilet fill line's plastic nut split and caused $15,000 worth of damage, should we have sued Lowe's and American Standard for the damage? That is why you have homeowner's insurance.

Have you read packs of cigarettes that post all kinds of warnings from 'causes cancer' to may cause birth defects?' I guess the cigarette manufacturers won that suit with their disclaimers; the pop-tart lady plaintiff should heed that situation and realize she has no chance of winning. Remember, most of these suits are decided by juries comprised of citizens, not just arbitrary panels of judges acting under political influence. Have you seen soda bottles read the warning, "Open with caution?" How about McDonalds coffee cups reading something to the effect of; Caution hot coffee? When you go to amusement parks, read the signs that are posted with, "Ride at your own risk." How about my favorite, prenuptial agreements. How often do they get overturned? You cannot sign away your right to sue. A signature on a contract only shows intent going into the agreement.

Do these disclaimers indemnify against lawsuit? No, they merely show some kind of conscious effort going into an agreement of use. These disclaimers don't absolve anyone or any manufacturer of product liability. What if you read the sign at the amusement park on the roller coaster that states, "Ride at your own risk" and the coaster has a mishap that is related to negligent maintenance, is the park liable? Probably, but if we go by the standard given in this thread by the majority of the posters, we would dismiss the suit before it was heard because the sign was posted.

All I'm saying is that if we relegate ourselves and our legal system to an attitude of dismissing lawsuits that appear frivolous without hearing the facts, then we set ourselves up for corruption and disregard for civil order. It's the tension created with civil suits that promotes civil order. Civil suits help prevent or dissuade racial discrimination in housing, employment, and other facets. Civil suits promote manufacturers against producing harmful products. Civil suits, as well as criminal laws promote order amongst citizens. If we defray accountability, then we undermine responsibility. You can call these suits frivolous and ridiculous, and maybe they are, but if we fail to at least hear them, we will do more harm than giving them a fair chance in our judicial system with due process.

So Ed what exactly do you think about the imfamous Mcdonalds coffee incident, load of BS or legitiment? I dont know the the facts but i still am in disbelif of that particular case, its coffee it hot, she was clumsy, and she should get over it.

Ed you talk about responsibility, what about persolal respoinsibility? I am intelegent and independant, therefore i should have a level of personal responsibility. Meaning that if my toaster catches a piece of toast on fire, i feel it is my responsibility.

Now what if this case involved a loaf of bread from the local bakery and a brand of toaster that was out of business? Well the lady would have to take personal responsibility and suck it up.

I do believe that the courts do serve many good functions in society, as Ed outlined. However things truly are going to far people dont think what is the best way to solve there problems they think if i sue i will get money.

And it all comes down to money, if there was no money awarded from lawsuits people wouldnt even think about suing for most of the assinine things that should fall under personal responsibility

Leave it to Ed to try to justify that case. Jeez. I cant roll my eyes enough at you and people like you.....
Look out Perry Mason...BTW Terry, I didnt know you live in Anniston...I used to live there (Jacksonville actually)...

[This message has been edited by My7Fieros (edited 07-30-2001).]

Remind me never to go pick up pop tarts at the grocery store in the Fiero!

And EdsB52, you are consistent in your posts, no matter what thread it is...consistently full of bull. And if this person wins their case and Kelloggs raises the price of pop tarts by 10 cents per box to cover the product liability cost, we'll know it's people like you that are to blame.

quote Originally posted by EdsB52: ...What if a lamp burst into flames while the occupants were gone, would there be lines of people saying they should not have left the house with them on? What if the occupants were sleeping? What if the occupants were blind...

Well Ed, you finally stepped in it...
Why would they have a lamp on if they're blind?!

1) Yes, the toaster would be reasonably expected to "pop-up" when done heating.

BUUUT....

Any "reasonable" person would NOT engage a toaster then run out of the house. Toasters heat for less than a minute in most cases, and if she were in the house when it malfunctioned, it can be reasonaby assumed that it started making a loud clacking noise (like mine does when something gets jammed in there from being insertet incorrectly.

Her actions do not seem reasonable to reasonable people, as a matter of fact, it sounds like she heard about the flaming pop-tarts and decided she wanted a new house. She didn't realize that pop-tarts no longer combust under normal circumstances (everything is flammable under certain circumstances) and wanted to sue for damages beyond a new house (probably to furnish it), so she chose to do it this way.

My $.02 (I'll send you the bill).

------------------
Michael ~ triadtuning@hotmail.com
-----------------

Photoshop rendering of planned exterior modifications.

Hmmmmmmm......

Im getting tired of my house and I would like to move

but its such a hassle

I think Ill get a gallon of Crisco oil, put it in a frying pan on my Amanda gas range, turn it on high to make some french frys, and then goto work for the day.

then Ill sue Crisco, the supermarket that sold it to me, Amanda, the state of Iowa for allowing Amanda to manufacture dangerous products in their state

the gas company

Best Buy for selling me the range

And the potatoe farmer that grew the dangerous potatoes.

I don't know when the change from flammible to non-flammible Pop-Tarts was made, but I have set a Pop-Tart on fire. I was home at the time and got the fire out before anything was damaged.

I agree with EdsB52, there maybe inportant facts that we'll never hear because it ruins a good story. For example, maybe she started the Pop-Tart, then one of the kids started a fight, she broke it up, then they were late for school. Regarding the McDonalds coffee incident, one of the facts that was very much in absentia was that McDonalds was told by their own employees that the coffee was being kept too hot and could cause serious burns.

WOW Cool I guess this will open the door for my suit after burning my finger with a match.

1 The manufaturers of the matches for not having the proper warning labels at all possible viewing angles

2 PepBoys for providing the distractive advertisment that broke my concentration whilst striking the match thus causing said injury.

3 The store that provided me with such a volitile substance without insuring I have proper knowledge on use of said matches and for not providing me with proper documentation on the use there of.

4 The creator of fire, for being the root of this evil.

5 The makers of pariphin wax that is used to "enhance" the volitile nature of matches.

6 The logging industry for providing the match manufacturers with raw materials to construct match sticks

7 The sulphur industry, obvious reasons

8 The ATF for not regulating a device that is almost always related to Alcahol and Tobacco

9 The Earth for natruly producing all the needed items for matches eg the parifin wax, sulphur, and wood

10 Finaly everyone on the planet that has struck a match and not reported the obvious dangers so that I might have avoided such a horrible fate

Reason for suit

1 (3) weeks lost wages due to disabilities suffered by a match burn to the right index funger.

2 Pain and suffering

3 Mental anguish

4 Rehabilitation expences

5 Surgical expences to remove the "burn" scar

6 since my inability to obtain gainfull employment after this incident I would ask the court for reasonable compensation provided by the defendants until I am able to work again.

This kind of crap makes me embarrassed to live in the U.S..

ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, YOU STUPID POPTART-BURNING DUMBA$$!!!!!

this kinda nonsense could be put to a stop immediately

the US is the ONLY country in the world where you can bring a lawsuit against someone else without fear of being countersued for the court cost if you lose.

anywhere else in the world, if you bring a suit against someone, and it has no merit, then YOU have to pay for the other persons legal costs.

There is only one group of people that wont let the system be corrected to stop this:

The lawyers - they make fortunes settling out of court on friviouse cases, cause its cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it - and if you fight it, then even if you win, you loose, cause the cost of defending a case can be in the millions.

quote Originally posted by Neal: So Ed what exactly do you think about the imfamous Mcdonalds coffee incident, load of BS or legitiment? I dont know the the facts but i still am in disbelif of that particular case, its coffee it hot, she was clumsy, and she should get over it. Ed you talk about responsibility, what about persolal respoinsibility? I am intelegent and independant, therefore i should have a level of personal responsibility. Meaning that if my toaster catches a piece of toast on fire, i feel it is my responsibility. Now what if this case involved a loaf of bread from the local bakery and a brand of toaster that was out of business? Well the lady would have to take personal responsibility and suck it up. I do believe that the courts do serve many good functions in society, as Ed outlined. However things truly are going to far people dont think what is the best way to solve there problems they think if i sue i will get money. And it all comes down to money, if there was no money awarded from lawsuits people wouldnt even think about suing for most of the assinine things that should fall under personal responsibility

"So Ed what exactly do you think about the imfamous Mcdonalds coffee incident, load of BS or legitiment? I dont know the the facts but i still am in disbelif of that particular case, its coffee it hot, she was clumsy, and she should get over it."

I don't know the facts either, that's why I don't make any prejudgments. All I know is what the media tells me unless I observe a trial, read a transcript, or witness it personally. I do know that I have cursed makers of cups and lids for making them incompatible causing me to spill cold drinks at times.

"Ed you talk about responsibility, what about persolal respoinsibility? I am intelegent and independant, therefore i should have a level of personal responsibility. Meaning that if my toaster catches a piece of toast on fire, i feel it is my responsibility."

Kind of an abbreviated set of facts, aren't they? What if we hypothetically interject the conclusion that the coils on the toaster were defective and 100% to blame for the fire, could we transfer the fault to the manufacturer? At what point does the manufacturer assume liability? If not at all, we are in for some real shoddy products. Manufacturers make products popular to increase demand, hence sales. Manufacturers make products safe to avoid lawsuits.

"Now what if this case involved a loaf of bread from the local bakery and a brand of toaster that was out of business? Well the lady would have to take personal responsibility and suck it up."

The local bakery still carries liability and is probably insured as a provision of their business license. If not insured, you pursue their assets if they are liable. I don't know the laws requiring businesses to be bonded after they close their business. I'm guessing there are provisions, but if a business is insolvent for whatever reason, they don't make a good defendant. So I guess a layman way of stating that would be to 'suck it up.'

"I do believe that the courts do serve many good functions in society, as Ed outlined. However things truly are going to far people dont think what is the best way to solve there problems they think if i sue i will get money."

There are going to be abuses with any system. However, if we dismiss all suits that appear to be frivolous without investigating the facts, we will do more harm than entertaining all suits for viability. Example: If the DOT got together with the courts and decided all rear-enders are 100% automatically the fault of the rear vehicle, there would be no deterrence against slamming on the brakes to get people to smack into the back of you. Now that we entertain arguments that the front vehicle might carry some culpability, we open the door to dynamic thinking that puts a shadow of a doubt in the minds of people that might act irresponsibly. When ever we 'black-and-white' things, we regress into closed-minded thinking systems.

"And it all comes down to money, if there was no money awarded from lawsuits people wouldnt even think about suing for most of the assinine things that should fall under personal responsibility"

That's a true statement! If no money were awarded, there would be no lawsuits. Would people sue for moral victory? Personal responsibility, or irresponsibility is at the crux of civil suits. It's rewarded or punished in terms of money. How else do you want to do it; public condemnation or spankings? Let's take an abstract example to illustrate what I mean. Let's remove the civil courts all together. Now, I'm driving down the road knowing as long as I don't break a criminal statute, I can do whatever I want without regard to personal responsibility or courteous behavior to anyone. I pull into a parking spot, open my door, and realize I don't have a lot of room so I slam my door into the brand new car next to mine. As I'm leaving the store, a different car is parked next to me and I carelessly swipe into it on the way out. I comply with the law and leave my personal information on the windshield, but I won't be sued because there are no civil courts. I've committed no crimes here, just accidental behavior that can't be punished because there is no forum. Then I go to work where I'm a journalist and I write defaming information about your sexual practices with small farm animals. Hey, it's not illegal to write that stuff and I can't be sued! The problem is that even though it's not true, you can't get a date, have to move, and need therapy as a result of the trauma my written words have caused. Do you get it yet?

There is a bike manufacturer in the states named TREK, biggest bike company in north america and the second biggest in the world. I sell trek bikes at my shop and was having a conversation with one of the higher up's about lawsuits. His abvrieated comments were that most lawsuits are settled outside of court and the ones that seem like bs are usually dropped by the person wanting to sue in the first place.

Point is that many people will try to get free money, and when its challenged and not rewarded the run away

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: this kinda nonsense could be put to a stop immediately the US is the ONLY country in the world where you can bring a lawsuit against someone else without fear of being countersued for the court cost if you lose. anywhere else in the world, if you bring a suit against someone, and it has no merit, then YOU have to pay for the other persons legal costs. There is only one group of people that wont let the system be corrected to stop this: The lawyers - they make fortunes settling out of court on friviouse cases, cause its cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it - and if you fight it, then even if you win, you loose, cause the cost of defending a case can be in the millions.

I agree with you Ken, for the most part. There have been instances where winning defendants have been awarded lawyers fees and are often awarded court costs (filing fees). At the same time, if exorbitant fees were awarded to winning defendants all the time, plaintiffs would be afraid to sue rich defendants even if they had legitimate cases. I believe the reason judges don't award lawyers fees is because it defeats equal protection under he 14th Amendment (due process). All people should have access to the courts and it might deter some if they feared sanctions, especially when suing a corporation.

To take your concerns a step farther, what do you think about people accused of crimes that successfully defend themselves while going broke? I think the State should reimburse defendants that successfully fight criminal charges against them. There are safeguards against that phenomenon, like the Grand Jury, but many weak cases are unsuccessfully tried that leave huge expenses for defendants.

EdsB52, you keep bringing up this 10% of the facts garbage. Look, if the 10% of the facts that you have doesn't make the case obvious to you, then it's clear that you are SEARCHING in the other 90% for LOOPHOLES. So just be honest about it. People like you won't accept the obvious and are always LOOKING for ways to excuse people. Now if you want to be that way, then fine, but just be honest about it and admit that is your outlook and bias upfront.

By the way, a good hint that you are one such person is the LENGTH of your posts needed to somehow try to justify your contorted viewpoint.

Finally, 6 ft. tall, 170 pounds, 32 inch waist. No need to limit the pop tarts.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: EdsB52, you keep bringing up this 10% of the facts garbage. Look, if the 10% of the facts that you have doesn't make the case obvious to you, then it's clear that you are SEARCHING in the other 90% for LOOPHOLES.

WHAT!!!! How the F does 10% of the facts provide enough information for you to make a judgement?!?!? How can 90% be loopholes?!?! The only way that 10% of anything can be valid is if that 10% is completely and totaly representative of the whole.

Try this: create a poll of whether strip clubs should be shut down. In a town of 1000, ask 100 people their opinion. For the first poll, ask 100 people coming out of a anti-**** meeting. For the second poll, ask 100 people coming out of a adult bookstore. Now, do you think either one of those two 10%'s will be valid?

I am starting a petition.

All who are sick of Ed's mouth (fingers?) and would like to plead with Cliff to finally rid our world of his BS, please post here...

Oh and Ed, you didn't say "partially blind" or "toaster oven", you said "blind" and "toaster". A toster, is a toaster, is a toaster.

You're obviously a kid trying to study some kind of law in junior college who thinks he's a supreme court justice. The stuff you're reading in those books is nice, but a bit of common sense and maturity go a long way.
No one here thinks you're some 40 year old established attorney, so cut the crap.

Good day.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: EdsB52, you keep bringing up this 10% of the facts garbage. Look, if the 10% of the facts that you have doesn't make the case obvious to you, then it's clear that you are SEARCHING in the other 90% for LOOPHOLES. So just be honest about it. People like you won't accept the obvious and are always LOOKING for ways to excuse people. Now if you want to be that way, then fine, but just be honest about it and admit that is your outlook and bias upfront. By the way, a good hint that you are one such person is the LENGTH of your posts needed to somehow try to justify your contorted viewpoint. Finally, 6 ft. tall, 170 pounds, 32 inch waist. No need to limit the pop tarts.

So ambiguity or brevity is correlated with being correct and proportionately, comprehensiveness is correlated with being wrong? We may not even have 10% of the facts, I just arbitrarily posted that number. We might have 10% of the facts, but have them incorrectly. Remember Salem?

You posted;

"People like you won't accept the obvious and are always LOOKING for ways to excuse people."

Actually I'd rather find a way to hang a corporation than excuse someone! Not really, but to me the central issue here is; does a corporation have the right to produce products that fail to perform, or perform with inherent safety problems. So I'm not trying to excuse anyone, I'm trying to establish if the corporation is culpable or it is merely a case of consumer error. By you saying that I'm trying to excuse someone, what you're really saying is that consumers carry a civil presumption of fault. I think the corporation and every citizen should carry a civil presumption that they act responsibly, but if someone makes a claim against that presumption, we allow that person or corporation the due process afforded by the Constitution and hear the case pending it meets the threshold of substantiality. We can't determine that threshold in this forum with limited information from a biased poster. What you're asking for is 'tort reform.' In this case it would be 'pop-tort reform.'

Steve, very simple. If the 10% (again, as EdsB52 said-an arbitrary figure)known contain the essential elements of the situation, you can keep piling on superfluous arguments to equal 90% but THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE JUDGEMENT. However, I obviously didn't make that clear because your example had nothing to do with fact, it had to do with a poll. My contention only is referring to a case with factual elements. Now I agree if we aren't presented with the essential facts then the judgement can be wrong. My point is that once you identify the key elements--assuming they are protrayed accurately--I don't care what the rest of the details are. So what happens in many cases like this is, yes, the 10% DOES represent the whole, and the 90% is excuses, blaming others, etc.

So considering that, EdsB52, woa, that's NOT good.

What was good, though, was the "pop-tort reform". Got a chuckle out of that.

And I'm for people being able to avail themselves of "DUE process", but there are plenty of clear cases of people trying to avail themselves of "UNDUE" process. These are the cases that are so obvious that I am referring to only needing a FEW simple facts to decide (the "10%")and not needing to hear the rest of the excuse, finger-pointing, whining, and jibberish to follow.