VisorCentral.com - Pop Tart Fire -Who's Responsible

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Pop Tart Fire -Who's Responsible (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=17289)

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 07-31-2001 06:03 PM:

Pop Tart Fire -Who's Responsible

ABC News Story About Pop Tart Fire

I'm sorry but to sue a manufacturer of pop tarts over this is ridiculous in my opinion and I'm wanting the "Posters" opinions as well.

Here is a tip - don't leave the house with any oven on! Next thing somebody is going to sue a match company because they actually do start fires.

Take Responsibilty for your own Actions or Inactions

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by K. Cannon on 07-31-2001 07:15 PM:

Hmmm, sounds like you're in favor of tort reform.

I don't even like to leave my dryer going when we're not home.

Posted by visor empowered on 07-31-2001 07:22 PM:

I voted a resounding "NO"! However, the reality of the matter is that since there is precidence (the older case from 1995), then she has a good chance of at least getting a settlement. Kellog's will probably settle out of court to end the situation and avoid any negative publicity.

Personnaly, I think that the judge should either through out the suit or find the woman guilty of contempt (for a frivolous law suit) and fine her as well as force her to pay Kellog's court costs!! Also, why not have social services come down and embarass her a bit by putting her through the process to determine if she is "fit" to raise her children. If the courts were to do more of this kind of thing (loss of money, embarrasement, etc) maybe we would start to see less and less of this type of lawsuit.

It seems to me that if "ignorance is no excuse" when it comes to trying to escape prosecution (e.g - Gee, officer, I didn't know that the speed limit was 35!), then it should not be able to be used as an excuse to seek a suit in court.

Ok, rant off!!

__________________
What the Heck! It's what I want!

Posted by IamZaphod on 07-31-2001 07:46 PM:

The instructions also contain warnings, do not leave toaster unattended while in use, may cause burns or fire hazard.

I listened to the lawyer being interviewed on the radio last night. He claims that that Kellogg knows about an inherent defect in their product. The warnings in the instruction are part of his proof. By this logic Pop Tarts and most other items must be taken off the market completly. You can't sell them with out warning of possible mishaps and warning prove knowledge of inherent flaws. Shortly we will all be living in huts that we make ourselves.

__________________

---S---

Posted by ehaseltine on 07-31-2001 07:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by IamZaphod
Shortly we will all be living in huts that we make ourselves.

It still wouldn't help, we could still sue the government for "allowing" us to build shoddy buildings!

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 07-31-2001 08:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by visor empowered
Personnaly, I think that the judge should either through out the suit or find the woman guilty of contempt (for a frivolous law suit) and fine her as well as force her to pay Kellog's court costs!! If the courts were to do more of this kind of thing (loss of money, embarrasement, etc) maybe we would start to see less and less of this type of lawsuit.

ditto

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by joshmcgown on 07-31-2001 08:17 PM:

All this time, I have been wondering why then idiot sued Kellogs. First off, I thought tosters automaticly poped up. Even if it were a toster oven - it was her fault for being stupid enough to leave it on. Did she not realize that something that has a crapload of sugar in is is going do melt and get extremely hot, possibly causing a fire? I dont think Ralph Nader even would touch this one.

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-31-2001 08:24 PM:

I'm suing Whirlpool because I stubbed my toe against my fridge. Pain and suffering was terrible, and worth every penny of the 1 million stated in the lawsuit. To keep it from getting ugly, I'll settle out of court for $20, though.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by lock_n_load on 07-31-2001 08:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by visor empowered
Personnaly, I think that the judge should either through out the suit or find the woman guilty of contempt (for a frivolous law suit) and fine her as well as force her to pay Kellog's court costs!! Also, why not have social services come down and embarass her a bit by putting her through the process to determine if she is "fit" to raise her children. If the courts were to do more of this kind of thing (loss of money, embarrasement, etc) maybe we would start to see less and less of this type of lawsuit.

I couldn't have said it better! Hello everyone!

Posted by IamZaphod on 07-31-2001 09:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by joshmcgown
All this time, I have been wondering why then idiot sued Kellogs. First off, I thought tosters automaticly poped up. Even if it were a toster oven - it was her fault for being stupid enough to leave it on. Did she not realize that something that has a crapload of sugar in is is going do melt and get extremely hot, possibly causing a fire?

She put the tart in the toaster and then left to run her child to school/day care. Gone for 10-15 minutes. The guy on the radio asked the lawer about the fact that she left, his response was that everyone makes mistakes. She is only asking for $200,000 dollars for the replacement caused by the fire. That is all she can ask for because those are the real cost associated with the incident. She will also ask for punative damages which the jury makes up the amount. I think that she should sue the store she bought the Pop Tarts and the toaster from for not properly instructing her on the safe use of the toaster and pointing out that she might draw an unlikely conclusion from the labling of the Pop Tarts, That even though every one else is capable of toasting a Pop Tart with out causing a fire, that she is not. This also does a great job of showing her own kids that you don't have to be responsible for your own actions.

__________________

---S---

Posted by homer on 07-31-2001 10:02 PM:

quote:
I don't even like to leave my dryer going when we're not home.

Good for you. You should NEVER leave the house with a dryer going. It can, on occasion, cause a house fire...just as leaving your stove on can.

Also, be sure to clean out the exhaust tube every year...lint build-up can catch fire as well.

As for the pop-tart case, i believe that if you stuck ANYTHING into a toaster and left it, it would probably cause a fire.

I think Kellogg should sue her for defamation.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by mensachicken on 07-31-2001 10:06 PM:

no doubt Kellogs will settle. i have an ex girlfriend whose dad owns a large bottle manufacturing company (shampoo, peanut butter, etc etc.).

a few years ago some moron sued his company because he dropped his bottle of shampoo while in the shower and it cut his winky as it went by. i kid you not. the bottle company settled.

as a funny aside, my ex-gf's dad tried to recreate the incident in the shower--so did his son. both failed.

mc

Posted by jhappel on 07-31-2001 10:25 PM:

QOUTE:
Hmmm, sounds like you're in favor of tort reform.

Don't you mean "TART" reform?????

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by ThirdMan on 07-31-2001 10:54 PM:

Two things:
1) I am ashamed to admit that I mis-clicked and accidentally voted "yes"... Sorry! Please forgive me!

2) A ex-friend of my sister threatened to sue Kellogs because she burnt her mouth on a pop-tart. All she did was write them a threatening letter and they sent her a couple thousand dollars. I suppose they figured that was cheaper than getting lawyers involved. My guess is that Kellogs will quickly settle for an "undisclosed amount".

__________________
--
ThirdMan

Posted by Yorick on 07-31-2001 11:01 PM:

I'm surprised that someone would be dumb enough to put something in the toaster right before leaving ...
but then, the stupidity of the general populace never ceases to amaze. It's why we have all these warning labels.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 07-31-2001 11:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ThirdMan
Two things:
1) I am ashamed to admit that I mis-clicked and accidentally voted "yes"... Sorry! Please forgive me!

You are forgiven - thank goodness someone takes responsibility for mis-clicking. You are going to sue Visor Central for it though, are you?

Mensachicken:

Are you serious? Of course you are and that guy probably thought that up while in the shower reenacting the opening seen from American Beauty with Kevin Spacey. This is sad.

Thirdman:

You are probably correct. Kellogg's will settle just because of the bad press. It's cheaper to keep it out of the papers then to have the negative advertising.

I hope that the family that is suing though reads Visor Central because all of the responses have been negative to the law suit. Get a gripe people.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by MarkEagle on 07-31-2001 11:28 PM:

It's a conspiracy!!! This woman must be a distant relative of the one who sued McDonald's over the hot coffee.

As stated already, we all need to take responsibility for our own actions. As for the $200,000 claim, doesn't this person have homeowners insurance?

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 07-31-2001 11:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
It's a conspiracy!!! This woman must be a distant relative of the one who sued McDonald's over the hot coffee.

As stated already, we all need to take responsibility for our own actions. As for the $200,000 claim, doesn't this person have homeowners insurance?

Probably, but then this would be double dipping and the IRS doesn't tax insurance nor lawsuit payoffs. What a great way to earn a living!

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by Yorick on 08-01-2001 12:07 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by RSGMOOSE
Get a gripe people.

get a gripe? isn't that the problem?

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 08-01-2001 04:20 AM:

I can't spell

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick

get a gripe? isn't that the problem?

Thanks Yorick - at least your not suing me. Grip is correct.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page