• The MSDS lists the propellants butane, isobutane and propane. As an anesthesiologist, I’m pretty certain that they would not likely cause any harm for one simple whiff. Concentrated (i.e. paper bag) inhalation as in huffing risks asphyxia (lack of oxygen) and cardiac dysrhythmia. These drugs (the propellants) produce anesthetic like intoxication, hence their small abuse potential, but are not used clinically since they have a much greater cardiac risk than the various hydrocarbons that are in use now.


  • That post is a little insensitive.

  • It’s the anesthetics.


  • “That post is a little insensitive.”

    Anything but spo. Rather it was a simple analysis of the chemicals involved and the likelihood of it causing the event to which they were attributed. Which is what the mother is claiming.

    But from my vantage point I am left with a sizable disconnect between the mother’s description of the event and the results. Based on the mother’s demonstration of how it occurred I find it difficult to connect the dots as to how he “shot it into his nose” and if he did manage it anyone’s natural reaction to a spray in the face would be to pull back from it, limiting the amount inhaled. It is possible that he has some sort of reaction to one of the chemicals in the smell’um component. But if that were the case (and assuming the mother had used the spray in the house before this event) the child should have exhibited some allergic reaction prior to “squeezing” the can.

    My most charitable guess is that he could have Valsalva’ed from the shock of getting sprayed in the nose which could have caused the cardiac crisis, but that is strictly a guess and even if correct would mean that the event itself and not the contents of the can caused the death.

  • More frivolous lawsuits.



    And “100,000 people are killed each year by mistakes (frivolous human beings using those pesky frivolous lawsuits to find justice). ”


    This all makes for a nice blog but why not stick to empirical evidence?

  • So let me get this straight. We believe in the power of the free markets and it’s ability for the wisdom of the crowd to pick a winner. We believe in the stock exchange (the wisdom of the crowd) to pick a winner. We believe in this democracy and the wisdom of the crowd, but somehow we do not trust the common man on a jury.

    So, who is the elitist here, the liberals/Democrats or the conservatives/Republicans?

  • Well Mark, I don’t think Walter was saying whether or not the cause of the lawsuit had merit or not. Were you replying to some other post? And what do your links have to do with anything?

  • I thought the same thing about Mark’s post.

  • The connect between the alleged event and the child’s death seems unlikely to me.

    Without benefit of scientific analysis, I tend to think that if Glade is fatal on inhalation it would not be on the market or since it is on the market, we would have seen rather more Glade related deaths than I can bring to mind.

  • Unfortunately there are many more common household chemicals which can injure or kill a child who lacks the ability to comprehend their danger, such as lye, drano, lighter fluid, varnish, and common bleach. Saying that a lawsuit involving the tragedy of a child with the body of an eight-year-old and the mind of a two-year-old using such chemicals is ill-founded, or that the chemical in question is unlikely to cause death, is hardly insensitive.

    What’s insensitive is a lawyer taking a personal injury case on behalf of the child’s estate, rather than respectfully declining it, when the lawyer should know that the likely result is a dismissal which will only cause more heartache for the bereaved parents.

  • We believe in this democracy and the wisdom of the crowd, but somehow we do not trust the common man on a jury.

    Two major problems with jury trials. First, in a case like this, the litigation team will do everything they can to get jurists who are very emotional, and also likely not very able to understand some of the technical / medical information that the defense might present.

    Second, the jury is only allowed to consider the evidence presented, and cannot take into account anything else. If relevant testimony is somehow barred for whatever reason, they won’t hear it.

    Frankly, “a jury of my peers” would not be likely to happen. Not that I’m so brilliant – I’m not – but there are a lot of really stupid people out there. Just ask Bill Engvall. đŸ™‚

  • Look at spo’s response to nevins’ analysis. This isn’t a dig at spo, but, spo’s reaction is exactly what the plaintiff’s lawyers want to hear. Anybody on the defendant’s side who tries to give a factual analysis of why this couldn’t have happened will be raked over the coals as being insensitive about a child’s death, not to mention the whole big business making huge profits from the death of children bit.

  • I read that the coroner stated that it was the glade that killed the child. So is the coroner wrong?