Should I contact a lawyer?

[HskrGrl]

We bought my 2 year old daughter this toy over the weekend.

http://www.allaboardtoys.com/assets/product_imagesl/MAT-K6953.jpg

Today when she was playing with it the little heart knob pulled right off the door and she choked on it and threw it back up. I just called Mattel to tell them about what happened. They said someone will call me back tomorrow and set up a refund. Should I go ahead and contact a blood sucking lawyer and try to become a millionaire off of this? :rolleyes:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Heck ya...I ve thought about suing the dog food companies over my 18 month old's addiction to dog food but my case doesn't look as good as yours

[OKLA21FAN]

I think you should help that poor Nigerian dude get his friend's money back

[KABOOKIE]

So your little girl sucked the knob off?

This comment was in extremely poor taste and I really should be smarter than this. I will never post anything this stupid again. Right? Right... I'm blaming it on the ice, and the time my momma dropped me on my pointed head.

Seriously, why do people say **** like this about somebody's two year old child? Damn.

[HskrGrl]

So your little girl sucked the knob off?

No matter how I answer this question it's going to sound really bad. :O

[SteelClip49]

I would think a toy like that would not be suitable for a 2 year old. Usually on toys like that, the cover usually has starting age to when to start playing with it. Kudos if you get a refund for this even though she may not be the proper age according to what the label says. Good thing obviously she is ok, which is more important.

[walkoffsooner]

yea" but he would probably choke on it to.

[HskrGrl]

The age on it is 3 and up. She is 2 and a half. I told them that right from the start. If it's not going to be safe for a 2.5 year old it's not going to be safe for a 3 year old. But still I took away the small items that came with it that could cause a potential choking hazard. She mainly just wanted to play with the snow white, animals and kitchen that made noise anyway. She could care less about the spoons, bottles, and Snow White's shoes.

[HskrGrl]

Give yourself a pat on the back for saving her life.
And, remind your daughter that you saved her life when she becomes an eye-rolling, smart-alec, "you don't know sh**" teenager.

Would that work better than the "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

[C&CDean]

Would that work better than the "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

Oh you'll use the hell out of that one when she hits about 14 or so.

[HskrGrl]

But at 13 I can start threatening her that if she keeps it up she won't make it to see her 14th birthday, right?

[OKLA21FAN]

But at 13 I can start threatening her that if she keeps it up she won't make it to see her 14th birthday, right?
no, thats about the time you use the line

'my house....my rules'

[RacerX]

Should've mailed Mattel the knob and puke in a ziploc.

[C&CDean]

no, thats about the time you use the line

'my house....my rules'

That's the nice thing about being the dad. You can just say "no way in hell I spawned a little POS like you. Your mother must have been screwing the neighbor." Moms can't deny that the little hell-spawn is theirs.

[OCUDad]

That's the nice thing about being the dad. You can just say "no way in hell I spawned a little POS like you. Your mother must have been screwing the neighbor." Moms can't deny that the little hell-spawn is theirs.I tried that on Mrs. Dad once when OCUSon was being a typical teenage POS. Her response was "musta gotten switched in the hospital nursery."

You can't win.

[OKLA21FAN]

i still remember the first utterance out of my mouth of 'my house, my rules' and thinking to myself, 'i have become my father' the circle was complete from that moment on and Dad and I had a better respect for each other.

[76soonergrad]

If you want to mess with a lawyer, I'm sure someone is out there to represent you.

On the other hand, do you really want to?







__________________________

[HskrGrl]

Maybe I'll just save some of the million dollars and ship her off to boarding school when she hits puberty.

[soonerboomer93]

Would that work better than the "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

oh just make sure the first time you say it, you make sure they believe it. I sure as **** believed my mom the first time she said it to me.

[olevetonahill]

It also helps if you have a 12 inch Cast iron skillet in ur hand as your all red faced screamin " Im gonna Kill ya, ya lil bastard " I beleived her

[phead903]

The age on it is 3 and up. She is 2 and a half. I told them that right from the start. If it's not going to be safe for a 2.5 year old it's not going to be safe for a 3 year old. But still I took away the small items that came with it that could cause a potential choking hazard. She mainly just wanted to play with the snow white, animals and kitchen that made noise anyway. She could care less about the spoons, bottles, and Snow White's shoes.

A girl that doesn't care about shoes?!?:eek:

[MamaMia]

You could report the unsafe toy. http://www.cpsc.gov/talk.html

[HskrGrl]

You could report the unsafe toy. http://www.cpsc.gov/talk.html

Thank you. I will go report it now. :)

Phead, she just hasn't noticed that Snow White doesn't have shoes on. But she loves all 5 pairs of cute little shoes and boots that she has even though she takes them off the first chance she gets. :p

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Sue China!

[Okla-homey]

Let me get this straight.

No harm done...except to the toy and the ejected sputum/vomitus which presumably soiled the surface(s) on which it landed.

No doctor bills.

On what theory could any blood be sukked? Perhaps punitive damages to discourage the evile multi-national toy conglomerate from marketing toys with succable knobs?

On these facts, any recovery would be nominal and would not justify the expense of a lawsuit.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[frankensooner]

Uh, homey, what about intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress? That poor child is having nightmares about heart shaped door knobs and is frightened of the Disney Store now. She can't enter the mall without screaming. No damages my patootie! ;)

[TexasLidig8r]

Let me get this straight.

No harm done...except to the toy and the ejected sputum/vomitus which presumably soiled the surface(s) on which it landed.

No doctor bills.

On what theory could any blood be sukked? Perhaps punitive damages to discourage the evile multi-national toy conglomerate from marketing toys with succable knobs?

On these facts, any recovery would be nominal and would not justify the expense of a lawsuit.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Two words... class action.

The fact that recovery would be nominal sets up a necessary element for class litigation.

They obviously sold thousands of these unsafe units.. therefore, the numerosity element is met.

The defects are all the same, therefore, the typicality element is met.

The damages are the same.. the amount spent on the unsafe product which has the potential to cause severe damage to unsuspecting consumer victims.. therefore the commonality element is met.

She bought the product, you find an experienced attorney and.. the adequate class representative element is established.

The client, and all clients in the class get a voucher for the amount spent on this horribly dangerous product.... attorney recovers high 6, low 7 figures in attorneys fees used to protect the citizenry of the United States.

God.. I love democracy!!! :D

[Okla-homey]

Two words... class action.

The fact that recovery would be nominal sets up a necessary element for class litigation.

They obviously sold thousands of these unsafe units.. therefore, the numerosity element is met.

The defects are all the same, therefore, the typicality element is met.

The damages are the same.. the amount spent on the unsafe product which has the potential to cause severe damage to unsuspecting consumer victims.. therefore the commonality element is met.

She bought the product, you find an experienced attorney and.. the adequate class representative element is established.

The client, and all clients in the class get a voucher for the amount spent on this horribly dangerous product.... attorney recovers high 6, low 7 figures in attorneys fees used to protect the citizenry of the United States.

God.. I love democracy!!! :D

and Mattel promptly moves to implead the Chinese manufacturer, as a necessary and indispensible party, to which, Mr. CHICOM toymaker says bah! Upshot...goose egg for the class.

[OKLA21FAN]

lawyer fight!!!!!

:pop:

[BigRedJed]

The fact that Lid is championing a lawsuit should be evidence enough that you should NOT sue. The only worthwhile reason to sue, considering everything turned out OK, is to remove from the market the risk to other kids. Contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission instead.

[TexasLidig8r]

and Mattel promptly moves to implead the Chinese manufacturer, as a necessary and indispensible party, to which, Mr. CHICOM toymaker says bah! Upshot...goose egg for the class.

ah..but you allege that your claims against Mattel for negligent marketing and advertising an inherently dangerous product stands independent of Ho Chi Minh Corporation.

And, you move to dismiss the third party claims between Mattel and Ho Chi Minh alleging that the Court does not have jurisdiction since the contract between Mattel and Ho Chi Minh in all likelihood contains a forum selection clause specifying the Hague as the mandatory locus for any disputes and that even if arguendo, the Court had jurisdiction, Ho Chi Minh is not liable because of its sovereign immunity since Ho Chi Minh Corp is merely an arm of the Chinese government.

Set... you still satisfy all elements and Mattel is now placed in the uneviable position of defending against a meritorious class action and having to prosecute a foreign government before the Hague.

(oh.. as an side, I would be much more inclined to defend Mattel.. sometimes it's just fun to think things through from the Plaintiff's side!) :D

[HskrGrl]

Let me get this straight.

No harm done...except to the toy and the ejected sputum/vomitus which presumably soiled the surface(s) on which it landed.

No doctor bills.

On what theory could any blood be sukked? Perhaps punitive damages to discourage the evile multi-national toy conglomerate from marketing toys with succable knobs?

On these facts, any recovery would be nominal and would not justify the expense of a lawsuit.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

But everytime she walks by the table and sees the toy sitting in it's box she says "Nana's toy icky" That's not enough to build a case on? :confused:

[Okla-homey]

ah..but you allege that your claims against Mattel for negligent marketing and advertising an inherently dangerous product stands independent of Ho Chi Minh Corporation.

And, you move to dismiss the third party claims between Mattel and Ho Chi Minh alleging that the Court does not have jurisdiction since the contract between Mattel and Ho Chi Minh in all likelihood contains a forum selection clause specifying the Hague as the mandatory locus for any disputes and that even if arguendo, the Court had jurisdiction, Ho Chi Minh is not liable because of its sovereign immunity since Ho Chi Minh Corp is merely an arm of the Chinese government.

Set... you still satisfy all elements and Mattel is now placed in the uneviable position of defending against a meritorious class action and having to prosecute a foreign government before the Hague.

(oh.. as an side, I would be much more inclined to defend Mattel.. sometimes it's just fun to think things through from the Plaintiff's side!) :D

So you argue some kind of specious res ipsa-style theory on causation to get Mattel? Good luck with that. Moreover, the PRC is not a signatory to any commercial Hague protocols. Since Hague jurisdiction is strictly voluntary,the Court is powerless to compel its appearance or enforce a default judgment.

You might get the PRC to defend a claim in a US court if it has significant assets in the US which are vulnerable to attachment. But again, sovereign immunity would be a ponderous and nearly unassailable obstacle for any plaintiff or class of plaintiffs.

Additionally, you can bet your Alden loafers Wally-World would be in their corner filing amicii out the wazoo. The cost of litigation would be astronomical.

[crawfish]

So your little girl sucked the knob off?

This comment was in extremely poor taste and I really should be smarter than this. I will never post anything this stupid again. Right? Right... I'm blaming it on the ice, and the time my momma dropped me on my pointed head.

Seriously, why do people say **** like this about somebody's two year old child? Damn.

Even with the disclaimer...you deserve to be negged.

[TexasLidig8r]

Additionally, you can bet your Alden loafers Wally-World would be in their corner filing amicii out the wazoo. The cost of litigation would be astronomical.

The cost of poker is high.. but.. so are the potential rewards.

Unfortunately, there are too many hungry sharks circling out there waiting for something like this...

[BigRedJed]

The cost of poker is high.. but.. so are the potential rewards.

Unfortunately, there are too many ethically-challenged, bow-tie-wearing, greasy and smarmy horn lovers circling out there waiting for something like this...
Fixed.

[Okla-homey]

The cost of poker is high.. but.. so are the potential rewards.

Unfortunately, there are too many hungry sharks circling out there waiting for something like this...

True enough, but inherent in good lawyerin' is giving a potential client the unvarnished truth about their case and the odds of a recovery. The fact many practitioners choose to minimize the downside and maximize the upside is one of the reasons the profession is held in such low regard by the general public.

[TexasLidig8r]

True enough, but inherent in good lawyerin' is giving a potential client the unvarnished truth about their case and the odds of a recovery. The fact many practitioners choose to minimize the downside and maximize the upside is one of the reasons the profession is held in such low regard by the general public.

You have no idea how true that actually is.

I have lost a number of potential clients and potential cases because I wouldn't blow smoke up their arse... they get the real skinny and quite frankly, tend to hear more about how their case has holes instead of the "Oh.. we're going to be awarded a quadrillion dollars!... or.. our defense has no weaknesses!"