atw: Re: Wacky Warning Labels
- From: "Warren Lewington" <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:00:03 +1100
Yep Mary, some punters did.
wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxx
WJL Consulting.
PO Box 404,
Liverpool, NSW
Australia, 1871
www.wjl.com.au <http://www.wjl.com.au/>
Phone/facsimile: +61 2 9876 5345
Mobile/cell phone: +61 0408 612 752
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MHT
Sent: Thursday, 3 January 2008 07:32
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Wacky Warning Labels
One might infer that thee are a little vexed with the auto industry and your
somewhat cryptic responses are related to events that have left an indelible
impression:)
I've gone the route of taking extra seminars and studies on warning labels,
Tort Law, etc (which are only found at the University of Michigan, School of
Engineering, so far as I know).
I will side-step the soap box and spare you both my vast experience and
considered opinion on warning labels (she says modestly :), but will point
out that there are three instances when a warning label is required:
1) A clear danger that can not be avoided or designed out (or if not a
danger, required information).
2) Potential danger from misuse, or from use other than the intended use
(which you generate from a well-thought out risk analysis and it is
understood that you can not think of everything, but a well document effort
will save your bum).
3) A history (what did some punter do that you would never in a million
years have thought of, but having done so, they have now established a
history that you must warn about).
My guess is that this thread belongs to what is behind door number 3, and
some "creative", possibly drunk, punter found yet another way to risk life
and limb relative to entering a bus via the wndow and possibly managed to
self-select out of the gene pool (with any luck - well before breeding), and
in doing so, established a history that the bus company now has to warn you
about, even though sober, intelligent, and honorable person that you are,
you would never dream of repeating such ill conceived folly or try to profit
from it.
That said, these "silly," warnings (and Tort Law) came about because
industry has a naughty little predilection for putting their bottom line at
the top of the list, well ahead of something as insignificant as death and
maiming, and even in today's climate, will risk a lawsuit (which they
usually win unless they have been pretty blatant in their disregard) rather
than spend a couple of pennies to ruin the shiny, uncluttered look of their
gadget with a label that will just "give people ideas" anyway.
The well paid for media spin (key word SPIN) and wacky waning label contests
would have you believe otherwise, but there are no "frivolous" lawsuits that
go forward. If a lawsuit has no merit, it will die in disclosure before
even getting near court. And if the same faces keep appearing with their
grubby little paws out trying to make a buck, they get placed on a short
list and banned from attempting future lawsuits. Unless a company is sloppy
with their documentation and warnings , injury lawsuits against corporations
with an entire team of eager legal beagles are not an EZ way for an
unscrupulous punter to turn a buck. Even if you can't think of everything,
showing well documented intent to make every effort to properly warn and
hiring the trained personal to do it properly (waves paw in air), wins big
brownie points with the Judges.
Keep in mind also that companies that are successfully sued, can seal the
court records as part of the settlement, and then create a media feeding
frenzy per "frivolus big money" lawsuits, that has little to do with what
went on behind closed doors. The McDonalds hot coffee caper was just such a
case. I got the "scoup" from a psychologist who testified in that case and
have been boycotting McDonald ever since. What the media portrayed bore
little similarity to what actually took place, but the court records were
sealed as a part of the settlement - which would have been considerably
higher but the judge reduced the amount that the outraged jury wanted to
award, and then the lawyers and burn unit doctors got most of it anyway.
And now that my attempts to avoid the soap box have clearly failed, I will
step down and indulge myself a parting shot before I sign off. Our main
failing in the USofA is not so much that we "let stupid people stay
alive", but rather that we elect them to high office.
Cheers
Mary
On 1/2/2008 1:17:50 AM, austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Darwin award level winners at the don't ask you really, really don't want
> to know quality. Put it this way, if there was no WorkCover, we would have
> a collectively higher IQ in this country just because of the attrition
> rate in the the automotive industry....the mistake here is that we let
stupid people stay alive.
Other related posts:
