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

To: Boogieman
Of course blame is assigned only to the manufacturer, if the manufacturer does not notify the consumer of a hazard that is well known to them and could be easily avoided if the consumer were made aware.

Just curious, what method would you suggest would have worked in making someone who ate two bags of microwave popcorn daily for ten years aware of this astoundingly tiny danger? A marching band waiving banners stating that he is a stupid idiot? Because some tiny text on the box wouldn't have affected this case in the slightest.

You CAN'T make laws or regulations or rules based upon exceptions. Is it possible to get this 'popcorn lung' from casual consumption of this product? I've yet to see any credible evidence about it. The two class actions based upon it were thrown out of court. This was simply listening to a sob story without using the slightest bit of common sense - yeah, you got sick because you didn't use a product in a rational manner. That's your problem, not anyone else's.

Then again, rational reactions and acceptance of personal responsibility have slowly slipped away from even conservative forums.

35 posted on 09/20/2012 8:56:10 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: kingu

“Because some tiny text on the box wouldn’t have affected this case in the slightest.”

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.

The manufacturer decided to take this risk by not doing that, knowing that some people will get sick and sue them. They apparently decided that the amount of money they lose on these lawsuits is less than the sales they might lose if people read a warning label on their product and decided to go with a safer alternative. They made a business decision to accept the lesser potential loss, plain and simple.

“you got sick because you didn’t use a product in a rational manner. That’s your problem, not anyone else’s.”

Whether he was using the product in a “rational manner” is completely subjective when it comes to food and eating habits. I think that eating tofu is irrational, but that’s a wholly subject argument that would have no bearing on a discussion like this. He was preparing the popcorn according to the directions and consuming it, which is the intended use. There is nothing, in and of itself, irrational about that, despite the fact that you think he shouldn’t have been eating so much popcorn.


38 posted on 09/20/2012 9:31:04 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

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