California sues retailers over lead in toys v.WTF :ugh:

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's the importers who should be checking shit. I wouldn't even be opposed to the retailers suing the importers for not checking the shit before endangering the retailer's customers.

It just seems unreasonable to expect retailers to send off their products for testing when that responsibility should fall to the manufacturers (or importers if they can't guarantee that it's been checked by the manufacturer).

Quality Assurance and Control is a huge industry in and of itself, and for good reason. But in every American manufacturing company, they do all QC either internally, or pay for it to be done externally... either way, QC falls on them. Why would a retailer need to do a second round of QC?

Matel is basically a management firm for many toy manufacturers (as well as, I'm sure, having their own factories). QC responsibility is theirs. They should have ON FILE quality documents for shit they sell.

Exactly. I mean, suing Toys-R-Us? That is stupid. We have a few mom and pop toy stores here that sell Thomas the Train stuff. Should they be sued as well? Or are we only suing the big companies so the lawyers can get richer?

[WickedLou9]

There is something called strict liability in the american tort law system. All it requires a plaintiff to show is that there was a defect in the item, and that the defect led to damages. The maker, seller, producer, whatever don't have to be negligent, they don't have to know about the defect or whatever. There ARE cases that can be brought which allege negligence or malice or whatever and if you can prove those cases they are much more damaging. But strict liability doesn't have the same requirements and generally results in less of a payout, but it's MUCH easier to prove and win such a case. It is essentially a societal insurance policy which has been engineered into the system. The thinking is that the big company is much more able to pay for these damages than is the consumer who was damaged. It's not really about right and wrong. It's about who can afford to pay.
I am not saying I agree with this, but this is the reality of the legal system and it's why this case was brought and why it has a good chance to win.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So you think the Government should sue them as well? Golden!

no, he thinks they're held responsible by having to take care of a sick/injured child

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is something called strict liability in the american tort law system. All it requires a plaintiff to show is that there was a defect in the item, and that the defect led to damages. The maker, seller, producer, whatever don't have to be negligent, they don't have to know about the defect or whatever. There ARE cases that can be brought which allege negligence or malice or whatever and if you can prove those cases they are much more damaging. But strict liability doesn't have the same requirements and generally results in less of a payout, but it's MUCH easier to prove and win such a case. It is essentially a societal insurance policy which has been engineered into the system. The thinking is that the big company is much more able to pay for these damages than is the consumer who was damaged. It's not really about right and wrong. It's about who can afford to pay.
I am not saying I agree with this, but this is the reality of the legal system and it's why this case was brought and why it has a good chance to win.

And that is a pretty fucked up system. Europe has us beat there, by a mile.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is something called strict liability in the american tort law system. All it requires a plaintiff to show is that there was a defect in the item, and that the defect led to damages. The maker, seller, producer, whatever don't have to be negligent, they don't have to know about the defect or whatever. There ARE cases that can be brought which allege negligence or malice or whatever ....

Can you show us one?

I'd like to see a case similar to this... a retailer sells something that is later shown to be harmful and the retailer is sued and loses even though they did everything "by the book." By that I mean they didn't get sued, for example, because they continued to sell the item after being told it was dangerous.

I'd like to see something similar.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And that is a pretty fucked up system. Europe has us beat there, by a mile.

English law is very similar actually. I am not sure about the rest of europe.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Can you show us one?

I'd like to see a case similar to this... a retailer sells something that is later shown to be harmful and the retailer is sued and loses even though they did everything "by the book." By that I mean they didn't get sued, for example, because they continued to sell the item after being told it was dangerous.

I'd like to see something similar.

I don't know if I can find examples of specific cases. I don't have access to lexis nexis or anything. I can provide lots of links to explanations of what Strict Liability is ( it's also called liability without fault ).
Most product liability cases are filed as strict liability cases.

Product liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generally speaking if the presence of lead in the toy can be considered a defect, not part of the original design, and there was damaged caused, the manufactuer and I think the merchant who sold it can both be held liable for damages.


Products Liability FAQ

Q: I was injured using a product. Is the manufacturer liable for my injuries?
A: Possibly. Product liability cases turn not only on whether there was an injury from using the item but also on whether the product was defective or unexpectedly dangerous as well.

Return to index . . .

Q: What does “defective product” mean?

A: A “defective product” is a product that causes damage or injury to a person as a result of some defect in the product itself, its labeling or in the way that the product is used. The manufacturer or the person who sold the product to you can be held liable.

All states have some form of products liability. Cases include everything from a car seat with handles that break when they’re being carried, to a car with an airbag that will not deploy, to harmful side effects from a drug that is improperly tested.
Return to index . . .

Q: What is the basis for a products liability claim?

A: There are three basic types of defects:

• Manufacturing Defect: The product is well designed, but the way in which it was made makes it unsafe. Maybe the kind of plastic used was weak and that caused the plastic to break when it should have been sturdier.
• Design Defect: The design of the product is unsafe, so the entire product line is unreasonably dangerous. See if there’s a better way to design the product and whether it makes sense to do so. Design defects also apply to the way a product is packaged. For example, if a drug is supposed to be sold in a childproof container and it’s not,t and a child takes the drug and dies, the manufacturer can be held responsible.
• Insufficient Instructions or Warnings: The manufacturer may design a product that’s perfectly safe and has no manufacturing defects, but then fails to include proper warnings or instructions for safe operation.

Return to index . . .

Q: What do you need to prove in a products liability case?

A: This varies from state to state. Product liability cases are generally based on strict liability rather than negligence. Strict liability means that you don’t have to prove fault, you only have to prove that the product was defective, it injured you and your injury was as a result of the defect

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

English law is very similar actually. I am not sure about the rest of europe.

When my son and I went to Germany last year. I noticed the result of a population not law suit happy by going to the pool. Kids were having a blast. They were bouncing a ball to each other. Making a chain as they slid down the water slide. Running from here to there. Now go to any American pool. None of that would have been allowed. Lifeguards are everywhere, blowing their whistles at everything. When we got back I was so annoyed by that it actually pissed me off.

[WickedLou9]

The only good arguement that I have heard in favor of Strict Liability is that it's good for the economy. Basically it protects the consumer. People feel confident that, because a manufactuer and seller can be held liable for any defects, that the products you buy are probably safe. If they aren't safe and you are damaged, you have a method to recover damages. This makes people much more likely that people will want to participate in the consumer economy.

[Ardentfrost]

Nothing is good for an economy if it "protects" a consumer without the consumer being involved. If a state can sue a retailer for second-hand selling a product found later to be dangerous, the consumer has gained nothing, and was the only one put in the danger. If the state wins the case and gets money from the retailer, manufacturer, etc... that's still not good for the economy because that's more money focused on programs outside of demand.

Anyhow, I agree with the previous posters that if liability falls on anyone who touched the product, then our system of law if more fucked up than I previously thought. There shouldn't be laws protecting the retailers, but there shouldn't be laws blanket claiming the retailers to be liable in those situations either.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The only good arguement that I have heard in favor of Strict Liability is that it's good for the economy. Basically it protects the consumer. People feel confident that, because a manufactuer and seller can be held liable for any defects, that the products you buy are probably safe. If they aren't safe and you are damaged, you have a method to recover damages. This makes people much more likely that people will want to participate in the consumer economy.

What? How can making everything everyone does more expensive help the economy? Sounds like you might have relatives that need to tell themselves this so they can sleep at night

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

What? How can making everything everyone does more expensive help the economy? Sounds like you might have relatives that need to tell themselves this so they can sleep at night

Hehe. No this didn't come from my brother. Besides, he is usually on the side of the corporation. He does commercial litigation.

It doesn't make everything more expensive. It is only expensive if the product that you make is defective and it hurts someone. The cost has to be born by someone. So the damage to the economy occurs regardless. If I am injured by some product, either I pay, or the corporation pays. Either way someone pays, and the corporation is better able to pay than I am.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm really getting annoyed by this kind of shit. If you meant I'd be responsible for his medical care or in the next karmic plane or whatever, say that. Everything about this thread has been legal responsibility.

Why the fuck do you think legal responsibility exists?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Why the fuck do you think legal responsibility exists?

what?