Posted on 09/20/2012 6:42:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Wayne Watson's love of popcorn almost turned deadly after he developed respiratory problems in 2007 known as "popcorn lung."
Watson, a Denver native, says he ate about two bags of popcorn everyday for 10 years, and developed the rare disease possibly from inhaling the artificial butter smell of the microwave popcorn. On Wednesday, Watson won a $7.2 million verdict against Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., The Kroger Co. and Dillon Companies Inc., for his illness.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
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!
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
It might be legal, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be liable. They are two separate things.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.