Comments on: The parable of the exploding washing machine

By: Justinian Lane

Justinian Lane — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:28:12 +0000

You know, California is sounding better and better to me: No snow, beaches, Highway 1, authentic Mexican food instead of this bland midwest variety, and product liability law that favors the buyer.

Ridiculous examples aside, what’s so wrong with deeming a product defective if it doesn’t perform as consumers expect it would?

I don’t consider myself an idiot (go ahead and take the cheap shot) but I wouldn’t have ever guessed gasoline rags in a washing machine would pose a fire hazard. I would have assumed that all the water and detergent would neutralize the gasoline. Considering how easy it is to get gas on your clothes – defective gas pump, changing your fuel filter or carburetor, etc. – I’m sure lots of guys put clothes with gasoline in the washer.

OK, I just checked my Kenmore washer. It does indeed have a warning on it about gasoline and vegetable oil. Who knew?

I’ve owned this washer for at least 6 years, and never notice the warning label. But every time I open the thing, I see the big Kenmore tag with its serial number. Maybe the warning label should go there, eh?

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:35:04 +0000

A major purpose of government is to protect the big guy from little guys. Back in the 70’s we got it backward.

We are blessed to have a carade of enginneers who provide us with automobiles that work almost every time, cheap airfare that lets us visit distant relatives or see
the world, and health care that enables surgeons to repair the heart with stents. Also vaccines and good water and sewage treatment and on and on.

It makes no sense to value a dip lawyer, Ralph Nader for example, with magic intuition. Look what happened with the breast implants. Magic intuition about democracy doesn’t work either.

By: TC

TC — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:48:47 +0000

Best solution, get the he11 outta CA while the getting is good!

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:57:34 +0000

As a non-attorney, Bruce Nye’s exposition on product liability in California was informative and more than a little frightening. I particularly liked his conclusion; that the Schlubb family would/should get nothing on the grounds of sheer idiocy. Here’s my question: given the inability of the defendants to cite the willful ignorance and stupidity of the Schlubb’s as a defense, the non-predictive nature of juries (think McDonald’s and coffee) and the distinct likelihood of the plaintiff being successful (Big bad corporations vs the little guy), wouldn’t it be more likely that the two defendants would feel extreme pressure to settle out of court? From what I’ve read over the years, it’s the cost of settling cases like these that drives up costs, not the occasional loss in court for a far larger amount. Is that still true?