The LEO thread

[Leo Lyons]

Do you include all those at Purdue Pharma who, to satisfy their greed for money, knowingly caused the addiction deaths of tens of thousands?

Welcome to the Strawman family! Let's start with a quote from O Really:
"Trump isn't directly responsible for some nut actually sending bombs or shooting people..."

OK, now let's address your off-the-wall accusation:
Purdue Pharmaceuticals develops a drug for pain relief; a strong pain reliever, Once that drug leaves their facilities, they have no further control over it. If a prescribed dose sickens or kills, yes, they're liable; so they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on those annoying fine print instructions and disclaimers they package in each container, knowing the outcome if the drug is still misused.
They depend on government controls and responsible medical professionals to properly prescribe to their patients. If the Drs. are on the take, or the drugs are stolen, drug manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible.
(Your remarks are very similar in nature to those who sue gun manufacturers because some half-baked clown goes on a shooting spree with a firearm they made.)

Let's suppose for a moment you invented a product that was beneficial or very helpful in everyday work, play, or one's well-being; but in the wrong hands or misused, it could cause injury or death. You spend big bucks on printed instructions, warnings, and disclaimers, but despite all your precautions, someone is seriously injured or killed by your product. Should you be held responsible for their injury or death? Should you get the death penalty?

One more: Do you place blame on car manufacturers who, to satisfy their greed for money, knowingly causes the deaths of tens of thousands who die in car wrecks? uh-oh...

[O Really]

Manufacturers get sued all the time for people injured by their products. Depends a lot on whether the product is used for its intended purpose and in doing so was injured in a manner that could/should have been prevented by the manufacturer. Some seem frivolous until/unless you read the actual case. F'rinstance... guy goes to a bar, gets soppy-assed drunk, climbs onto his Honda motorcycle and pulls out into the street in front of a pickup. Pickup has no opportunity to miss the bike and knocks it off into a ditch. Bike catches on fire and the rider gets serious burn injuries. So the driver sues Honda. When you've stopped your laughing, read on. The reason the bike caught on fire was because of the design of the fuel system, which did not shut off as it should in an accident. So even though the accident itself was the rider's fault, even getting hit by the truck and crashing off the road the rider wouldn't have been very seriously injured without the fire.

And... woman buys a cosmetic product that came in a vase-looking container with a cork lid. After the product was used up, she used it as bathroom decor with a plastic flower inside the container. One day, she's cleaning the toilet and leaned with her hand on the top of the container top. The cork, with its tapered top, broke the container and the glass seriously cut the woman's hand and arm, cutting some nerves and tendons. Woman sues Revlon.
And got a good settlement. Theory was that Revlon sold the product knowing the container was attractive and likely to be used after the product was gone. In fact, they designed that container specifically to attract people to it and showed in on the package sitting on a bathroom counter. Thus they should have known that pressing the cork in could break the fairly thin glass.

[Leo Lyons]

Manufacturers get sued all the time for people injured by their products. Depends a lot on whether the product is used for its intended purpose and in doing so was injured in a manner that could/should have been prevented by the manufacturer.
Yes, they do get sued; and sometimes successfully; and in reading litigation stories; so many of these cases are extremely ridiculous; aka 'McDonald's Hot Coffee syndrome'. We live in a sue-happy culture; but even more ridiculous, is the mentality of jurors who decide the outcome. Manufacturers and large companies are viewed as huge, heartless entities literally rolling in cash and are sitting back to rob the masses of their hard-earned cash. They have plenty of money, so what's a few million to pay off that poor starving lawyer (who's going to get the bulk of any settlement) and to keep poor old John and Jane Doe from having to work for the rest of their lives?

Some seem frivolous until/unless you read the actual case. F'rinstance... guy goes to a bar, gets soppy-assed drunk, climbs onto his Honda motorcycle and pulls out into the street in front of a pickup. Pickup has no opportunity to miss the bike and knocks it off into a ditch. Bike catches on fire and the rider gets serious burn injuries. So the driver sues Honda. When you've stopped your laughing, read on. The reason the bike caught on fire was because of the design of the fuel system, which did not shut off as it should in an accident. So even though the accident itself was the rider's fault, even getting hit by the truck and crashing off the road the rider wouldn't have been very seriously injured without the fire.
Well, this particular scenario is frivolous because I know of no other motor vehicles that have a fuel shut-off in case of an accident. A shut-off would be as useless as tits on a boar hog anyway had the fuel tank ruptured.

And... woman buys a cosmetic product that came in a vase-looking container with a cork lid. After the product was used up, she used it as bathroom decor with a plastic flower inside the container. One day, she's cleaning the toilet and leaned with her hand on the top of the container top. The cork, with its tapered top, broke the container and the glass seriously cut the woman's hand and arm, cutting some nerves and tendons. Woman sues Revlon.
And got a good settlement. Theory was that Revlon sold the product knowing the container was attractive and likely to be used after the product was gone. In fact, they designed that container specifically to attract people to it and showed in on the package sitting on a bathroom counter. Thus they should have known that pressing the cork in could break the fairly thin glass.
This reflects on my comment above about juries throwing a pity party for a poor, hapless victim of a manufacturer who is sitting back rolling in tons of cash.

[O Really]

so many of these cases are extremely ridiculous; aka 'McDonald's Hot Coffee syndrome'. We live in a sue-happy culture; but even more ridiculous, is the mentality of jurors who decide the outcome. Manufacturers and large companies are viewed as huge, heartless entities literally rolling in cash and are sitting back to rob the masses of their hard-earned cash. They have plenty of money, so what's a few million to pay off that poor starving lawyer (who's going to get the bulk of any settlement) and to keep poor old John and Jane Doe from having to work for the rest of their lives? [/color]

[sigh] I can't believe there's so many people who've never bothered to read the facts of the "McDonald'shot Coffee syndrome" case. First, the lady wasn't just mildly burned. She had third degree burns on her legs - melted pantyhose - and significant recovery time and scarring. So what did she do? She asked McDonald's to pay for her medical expenses. Only after they refused did she sue them. So why did McDonald's lose? Their coffee really is much hotter than most. McD kept theirs at 170 degrees compared to 140 most everywhere else. That's the difference in an "ouch..oh shit" and a trip to the hospital. Also, there had been some 700 other complaints about the coffee temp, with no effort by McD to cool it down. And a part of the reason they serve it so hot is because they offer free refills in-house. But if it starts out so hot, the diner will be finished before it cools down enough to finish and get refilled. The jury was unsympathetic to McD. But the final settlement, seen as "exorbitant" by some, was only the amount of profit (not sales) McD makes on coffee in one day. Not exactly a crippling amount - hardly enough to be noticed. The bad publicity probably was worse than the dollars.

[O Really]

I may have been mistaken about the exact cause of the motorcycle's fuel issue. Maybe there wasn't any fuel cutoff issue. It's been a while since I read it, but I had the principle right. Something in the design of the bike cause the fuel to catch fire.

[O Really]

The theory on blaming gun manufacturers for things gun owners do is pretty sound, actually. Which is why the NRA and the manufacturers are trying so hard to ridicule the idea. Problem for them is that it can be argued that the purpose of a handgun is to cause physical harm. So when the device is used in the manner it is designed to do, and that use results in personal injury, then there's a line back to the manufacturer. Pretty much the same theory as finally got to the cigarette companies. Same theory doesn't work for, say, a chain saw. Sure, you can injure/kill someone with a chain saw, but that's not its intended purpose. Handguns, though...

[billy.pilgrim]

Do you include all those at Purdue Pharma who, to satisfy their greed for money, knowingly caused the addiction deaths of tens of thousands?

Welcome to the Strawman family! Let's start with a quote from O Really:
"Trump isn't directly responsible for some nut actually sending bombs or shooting people..."

OK, now let's address your off-the-wall accusation:
Purdue Pharmaceuticals develops a drug for pain relief; a strong pain reliever, Once that drug leaves their facilities, they have no further control over it. If a prescribed dose sickens or kills, yes, they're liable; so they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on those annoying fine print instructions and disclaimers they package in each container, knowing the outcome if the drug is still misused.
They depend on government controls and responsible medical professionals to properly prescribe to their patients. If the Drs. are on the take, or the drugs are stolen, drug manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible.
(Your remarks are very similar in nature to those who sue gun manufacturers because some half-baked clown goes on a shooting spree with a firearm they made.)

Let's suppose for a moment you invented a product that was beneficial or very helpful in everyday work, play, or one's well-being; but in the wrong hands or misused, it could cause injury or death. You spend big bucks on printed instructions, warnings, and disclaimers, but despite all your precautions, someone is seriously injured or killed by your product. Should you be held responsible for their injury or death? Should you get the death penalty?

One more: Do you place blame on car manufacturers who, to satisfy their greed for money, knowingly causes the deaths of tens of thousands who die in car wrecks? uh-oh...

No strawman involved, but still an almost reasonable answer from you.

What about a board meeting where they discuss the cost of redesigning a hazard compared to quietly paying settlements for resulting deaths?

Death penalty?

[Vrede too]

Of course, that's not even close to an accurate description of Big Pharma's culpability in the opioid abuse epidemic, something Leo Lyons supposedly cares oh so very much about.

The drug industry’s triumph over the DEA
Amid a targeted lobbying effort, Congress weakened the DEA’s ability to go after drug distributors, even as opioid-related deaths continue to rise, a Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’ investigation finds.

Even POSPOTUS had to ditch his nominee for drug czar over it.

After exposé, Trump says he’ll ‘be looking into’ his choice for drug czar post

Why address reality when you can just make shit up?

[sigh] I can't believe there's so many people who've never bothered to read the facts of the "McDonald's hot Coffee syndrome" case....

Yeah, but those facts are so obscure and difficult to look up before spewing the corporate lapdog whine.

Oh wait,

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. Although a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded $640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded. The jury damages included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided....

The theory on blaming gun manufacturers for things gun owners do is pretty sound, actually. Which is why the NRA and the manufacturers are trying so hard to ridicule the idea....

Not just ridicule. They buy off and/or threaten legislatures to make such suits illegal rather than allowing a citizen jury to listen to all factors and decide whether liability is warranted or not, an immunity from accountability which almost all other consumer products don't have.

[O Really]

No strawman involved, but still an almost reasonable answer from you.

It was, wasn't it?

[Vrede too]

The car manufacturer example doesn't have much relation to the real world, either. They can be, should be, have been and are successfully sued for issues that cause injury and death. As a result of this and along with regulation, cars are far safer than they used to be

[Leo Lyons]

[sigh] I can't believe there's so many people who've never bothered to read the facts of the "McDonald'shot Coffee syndrome" case.

I should have clarified. I knew the outcome of this case and the why fors. I was referring to the number of copycat suits that followed. Hence, the word syndrome. My bad.

I may have been mistaken about the exact cause of the motorcycle's fuel issue. Maybe there wasn't any fuel cutoff issue. It's been a while since I read it, but I had the principle right. Something in the design of the bike cause the fuel to catch fire.
That "something in the design" was most likely the fuel tank rupturing and the metal-to-asphalt-created sparks igniting the fuel.
No ridicule intended.

[Leo Lyons]

The theory on blaming gun manufacturers for things gun owners do is pretty sound, actually. Which is why the NRA and the manufacturers are trying so hard to ridicule the idea. Problem for them is that it can be argued that the purpose of a handgun is to cause physical harm. So when the device is used in the manner it is designed to do, and that use results in personal injury, then there's a line back to the manufacturer. Pretty much the same theory as finally got to the cigarette companies. Same theory doesn't work for, say, a chain saw. Sure, you can injure/kill someone with a chain saw, but that's not its intended purpose. Handguns, though...

Shotguns and rifles were made with hunting and self-preservation in mind; handguns mainly for self-preservation; that is to say, to PROTECT one's self from physical harm, not CAUSE physical harm. I can't see why a manufacturer can be held liable for someone using it to CAUSE physical harm.

[Leo Lyons]

The car manufacturer example doesn't have much relation to the real world, either. They can be, should be, have been and are successfully sued for issues that cause injury and death. As a result of this and along with regulation, cars are far safer than they used to be.

I wrote: "Do you place blame on car manufacturers who, to satisfy their greed for money, knowingly causes the deaths of tens of thousands who die in car wrecks?"
I should have worded it to read: Do you place blame on car manufacturers who, to satisfy their greed for money, knowingly make a product that causes the deaths of tens of thousands who die in car wrecks?
Recalls issues and product defects aside, I was referencing careless or drunken driving, inexperience, excessive speed, etc.---forces outside the norm of vehicle operation that the car maker has no control over. Let's say someone plastered a tree at 90 mph in a 45 zone and had to be peeled off the remains of the car. Should the maker of the car be sued?

[Leo Lyons]

What about a board meeting where they discuss the cost of redesigning a hazard compared to quietly paying settlements for resulting deaths?
That's not admitting guilt; it's called CYA to prevent some fast-talking lawyer from convincing a sympathetic jury to clean their clock because they're rolling in cash.

Death penalty?
Death penalty is announced in cases of premeditated murder; often with brutal and/or heinous circumstances.

[Leo Lyons]

Of course, that's not even close to an accurate description of Big Pharma's culpability in the opioid abuse epidemic, something Leo Lyons supposedly cares oh so very much about.
I became involved after the product leaves the labs. My job description had nothing to do with manufacturing. Duh.
Beside, it's you and your kind that wants drugs in every home...oh wait, legalization will prevent abuse. I forgot.

The drug industry’s triumph over the DEA
Amid a targeted lobbying effort, Congress weakened the DEA’s ability to go after drug distributors, even as opioid-related deaths continue to rise, a Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’ investigation finds.
Wasn't my problem then, not my problem now. I'm retired.

Why address reality when you can just make shit up?
Because you thrive on it.

I hope you're breathing much better now that you've pulled your oversized head out of your ass.

[O Really]

Let's say someone plastered a tree at 90 mph in a 45 zone and had to be peeled off the remains of the car. Should the maker of the car be sued?

If it were one of the 2009-11 Toyotas with the sticking accelerator issue? I'd say so. Yes, even if the driver was also plastered. Each case stands on its own. There are no easy answers or black/white decisions.

[billy.pilgrim]

What about a board meeting where they discuss the cost of redesigning a hazard compared to quietly paying settlements for resulting deaths?
That's not admitting guilt; it's called CYA to prevent some fast-talking lawyer from convincing a sympathetic jury to clean their clock because they're rolling in cash.

Death penalty?
Death penalty is announced in cases of premeditated murder; often with brutal and/or heinous circumstances.

You can do better. I'm asking you if the board members have committed premeditated murder of they sit around and discuss how to hide a flaw in their product that will kill some people who are correctly using their product.

These people know and fully understand that their product will kill innocent people. They also know that revealing the truth will cost them money.
And they choose the money.

Why isn't this murder?

[O Really]

Shotguns and rifles were made with hunting and self-preservation in mind; handguns mainly for self-preservation; that is to say, to PROTECT one's self from physical harm, not CAUSE physical harm. I can't see why a manufacturer can be held liable for someone using it to CAUSE physical harm.

And in the process of "self-preservation" the shooter causes personal injury. But if the tool is used to cause personal injury without any "self-preservation" involved, then that turns into a situation comparable to a guy who has a guard dog for "self-preservation." Let that dog attack some lady walking her chihuahua on the sidewalk and see how many suits you get. Owner, trainer - heck, maybe even breeder if the situation is awful enough.

But if its not a trained guard dog, it's just a sad accident and the dog gets put down, the owner's home insurance pays something, and maybe some misdemeanor charge and everybody goes on.

Gun manufacturers sell a product that is designed for particular tasks. Handguns are designed to shoot people. AR-15style weapons are designed to shoot a lot of people quickly.

I'm not saying the liabilty lawsuits against the weapons manufacturers will succeed. Probably won't - at least not inititally. But it's not a concept to be ridiculed, nor is it out of line of other well-established liability. .

[Leo Lyons]

Let's say someone plastered a tree at 90 mph in a 45 zone and had to be peeled off the remains of the car. Should the maker of the car be sued?

If it were one of the 2009-11 Toyotas with the sticking accelerator issue? I'd say so. Yes, even if the driver was also plastered. Each case stands on its own. There are no easy answers or black/white decisions.

"Recalls issues and product defects aside, I was referencing careless or drunken driving, inexperience, excessive speed, etc.---forces outside the norm of vehicle operation that the car maker has no control over."

[O Really]

Well, dang, Leo - you do like to shift the parameters as you go along, don't you? If you define your accident down to "no factors the manufacturer has control over" and include only contributing causes that are attributable to the driver, then no, a lawsuit against the manufacturer would not be productive. But that's somewhat of a moot issue anyway because there are very few instances if any where it occurs that an accident totally the fault of the driver results in a suit against a manufacturer.