Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Popcorn Lung' Lawsuit Nets $7.2M Award
ABC ^ | September 20, 2012 | Anthony Castellano

Posted on 09/20/2012 6:42:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Boogieman
Yes it would, because it would have helped protect the manufacturer from potential liability. This guy may have ignored the warning and gotten the disease anyway, but he couldn’t have claimed that the manufacturer was aware of the risk and concealing it from the consumer.

More text simply to protect a company from the courts, not to protect the consumer... Yeah, that's making regulations that make sense... WARNING: Hot Coffee is hot!

41 posted on 09/20/2012 10:40:23 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kingu

“More text simply to protect a company from the courts, not to protect the consumer.”

No, it protects both the company and the consumer. The consumer may choose to ignore it, but then they are just assuming the risk that they are now aware of. It doesn’t mean the warning doesn’t serve a purpose for the consumer.


42 posted on 09/20/2012 11:18:13 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Also... “WARNING: Hot Coffee is hot!”

is a ridiculous comparison. Hot coffee being hot is an obvious fact that shouldn’t require any warning, since it is common knowledge. Diacetyl used in artificial butter causing lung disease due to repeated exposure is certainly not common knowledge.


43 posted on 09/20/2012 11:20:19 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Also... “WARNING: Hot Coffee is hot!” is a ridiculous comparison. Hot coffee being hot is an obvious fact that shouldn’t require any warning, since it is common knowledge. Diacetyl used in artificial butter causing lung disease due to repeated exposure is certainly not common knowledge.

It is not. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Repeated self induced over exposure is the fault here. Or do you propose that every bottle of water in the United States has the following warning printed on the label: WARNING: Over use of this product can produce a toxic reaction that may lead to physical harm or even death!

Water poisoning happens FAR more often, and often proves fatal.

We MUST get away from this 'It isn't my fault..' mentality - he did this to himself, he deserves nothing, the company is not at fault. He ate the damn things twice a day for 10 years - find me someone who thinks this is a reasonable use of this product.

44 posted on 09/20/2012 12:20:54 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kingu

“It is not. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Repeated self induced over exposure is the fault here.”

By your logic, I could start selling ice cream that contained a non-lethal dose of cyanide, with no warning on the product, just as long as it wasn’t harmful unless you ate too much ice cream (however much that is). Ludicrous.


45 posted on 09/20/2012 1:29:35 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

If the level of cyanide was of a low dose that wouldn’t affect you unless you ate it twice a day for ten years, yeah, it’d be not only legal, but it is COMMON today. If you’re afraid of it, never ever eat peach ice cream. The body processes small amounts of cyanide without harm.


46 posted on 09/20/2012 2:10:15 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kingu

It might be legal, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be liable. They are two separate things.


47 posted on 09/20/2012 2:30:29 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

He clasped the bag around his face and huffed it.

He did it every day, day after day, year after year.

I have toured the OSHA lab where they did the work on this issue. I first heard about this there, and the article I posted verifies that account.


48 posted on 09/20/2012 3:14:59 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
It might be legal, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be liable. They are two separate things.

Since I'm arguing that the idiotic court system is the problem here, discarding personal responsibility for some uber Mommy who will 'protect' you from your own foolish idiocy, I personally don't give a rip if it's either.

But in this particular case you're wrong, going by previous case law - a person ate five servings a day of locally made peach ice cream and later succumbed to cyanide poisoning. The family tried to sue the ice cream maker, the court dismissed the case stating that 'the courts aren't there to protect people from doing foolish things.' As a sign of how foolish this was, the text includes a suggestion that suing an ammunition maker because you shot yourself with a gun would be equally foolish. This was in 1946 - my, how far we've fallen.

49 posted on 09/20/2012 3:19:31 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: kingu

“But in this particular case you’re wrong, going by previous case law”

Not really, since that case isn’t comparable. You’re using an example of a naturally occuring toxic ingredient that would be easily ascertainable by anyone who wished to know. Just as dog owners generally know you don’t feed stuff with chocolate in it to dogs, or you don’t eat lots of shellfish when you are pregnant. My example was of someone intentionally adulterating their product nobody would reasonably assume was toxic with a toxic ingredient, and then neglecting to give any warning of that increased toxicity to the consumer.


50 posted on 09/20/2012 4:40:59 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“He clasped the bag around his face and huffed it.”

The article says no such thing. It says:

“When he broke open the bags, after the steam came out, he would often inhale the fragrance because he liked it so much,”

He smelled the food, that much we know. There’s no clue that he shoved his head in the bag and huffed it like you are claiming.


51 posted on 09/20/2012 4:45:48 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"If you put your mind to it, anything is possible!"


52 posted on 09/21/2012 5:28:56 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson