Annoying when someone picks up on your point, uses it to twist a new unsupportable point and uses that to ‘prove’ you are wrong. Called a strawman i believe.

It seems almost impossible to show some lawyers why ‘defective product’ is not the same as ’caused the death’.

Second, one lawsuit did not push this company over the edge. Many did. Do you really think that no company should ever go out of business because of litigation regardless of how bad of a product they make?

In medical malpractice law, there is the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” (“the thing speaks for itself.”): eg. If a septic surgical sponge is found stitched into a post-operative patient whose condition deteriorated, you don’t have to provide witnesses on exactly who stitched it in and when.

I see a judicial “res ipsa loquitur” when a gas-can manufacturer is sued into oblivion on behalf of someone who poured gasoline into a burning stove.

Hugo, have you really reviewed the evidence in this case and figure out how a judge should rule on a motion notwithstanding the verdict? Really?

Canvasback, let me tell you… I cannot STAND the “modern” plastic gas cans. These things have the most impossible open/close system, an unworkable cap contraption combinging twisiting, a pump and locking mechanisms that seem practically designed to confound the user and prevent gas from coming out. I’m told that the old metal cans with a simple spout and screw cap are now unlawful — federal regulations. I wonder if it’s illegal to trade in those things on ebay, who knows. I’d like to get one, though.