Hot Coffee

[SoonerHoops]

Documentary premiers tonight at 8 on HBO. Been winning all kinds of awards at film festivals. Supposed to focus on tort reform and the Mcdonalds coffee case.

[soonerchk]

McDonalds has good coffee. People should stop suing them.

And why is it McDonald's fault that some of their customers are stupid?

[SoonerHoops]

And why is it McDonald's fault that some of their customers are stupid?


It's not.

[SoonerHoops]

I hope someone else is watching this. Shocking.

[Wayne Jarvis]

And why is it McDonald's fault that some of their customers are stupid?

If you read this, it may change your mind: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[texaspokieokie]

I understand that, like Kosmo Kramer, she gets free coffee @ any McDonalds
for the rest of her life.
:D

[Lott's Bandana]

I missed the docu, but have seen photos of the senior woman's burns from the original lawsuit. They were horrifying.

Not big on frivolous lawsuits, but that woman went through a tremendous amount of pain and suffering, making me think that coffee was yes...a bit too hot.

[KABOOKIE]

If I crashed my corvette into a brick wall should GM give me $2 million?

Why not? Most cars top out at ~125 MPH and I’m sure any lawyer worth a **** could find a memo by GM that stated, “We want this corvette to be faster than fast. That’s what our customers want!”

Plus my injuries due to my negligence would be really really really severe. Who’s going to pay my doctor’s bill?

[NormanPride]

At some point the company has to be responsible for design flaws or business decisions that put the consumer at risk. If McDonalds made 500 degree coffee and put it in a container that tipped over easily then they should be liable if people get injured, especially if they knew the risks and still went forward to cut costs.

Beyond that, companies that go out of their way to make customers happy are frequently rewarded with loyalty and return business. Hell, Apple and Google almost have cults following them, even though they're (especially Apple) turning more and more evil.

[soonerchk]

Their are few things in life less appealing than lukewarm coffee. I'm very brave, I will take my chances.

[SoonerHoops]

If I crashed my corvette into a brick wall should GM give me $2 million?

Why not? Most cars top out at ~125 MPH and I’m sure any lawyer worth a **** could find a memo by GM that stated, “We want this corvette to be faster than fast. That’s what our customers want!”

Plus my injuries due to my negligence would be really really really severe. Who’s going to pay my doctor’s bill?


Your comparison is so ridiculous it hardly warrants response.



Their are few things in life less appealing than lukewarm coffee. I'm very brave, I will take my chances.


Reduction from excessively hot does not equal lukewarm

[soonerchk]

Your comparison is so ridiculous it hardly warrants response.





Reduction from excessively hot does not equal lukewarm


At McDonalds it does. They no longer serve coffee that is even close to hot. I have to suffer because other people can't handle a grown up beverage.:pop:

[yankee]

I enjoy hot coffee in the morning as much as the next person, but it gives me the morning ****s like no other. I'm talking like within 30-45 minutes after I down it. HOW DO I COMBAT THIS PROBLEM??? [hairGel]

[Curly Bill]

I enjoy hot coffee in the morning as much as the next person, but it gives me the morning ****s like no other. I'm talking like within 30-45 minutes after I down it. HOW DO I COMBAT THIS PROBLEM??? [hairGel]

Sue someone.

[StoopTroup]

Quit eating.

[Boomer.....]

Here it is online: http://www.putlocker.com/file/1F65B882B3AFD185

[KABOOKIE]

Your comparison is so ridiculous it hardly warrants response.
Yes, because asking people to have more than 20% responsibility for their own damned actions is just too much to ask. :rolleyes:

My comparison is far from ridiculous and more spot on than you litigious losers want to admit. A Corvette is a faster than “reasonable” car. GM purposely makes their Corvettes dangerously faster than necessary for an automobile. If they sold me one and I then proceeded to pour it on my lap er, I mean crash it at high speed into a brick wall, there should be some compensation for my severe injuries. I’m equally certain that after the accident if I asked GM directly to compensate me a lowly sum of $20,000 to help cover medical bills they would laugh at the thought. But, hire a lawyer and some jury will feel sorry for my horrendous injuries and how GM was a big bad mean company that made millions in profit and should be penalized for profiting off such dangerous products.

Like McDonald’s coffee, Corvettes would be governed to a much slower speed thereby creating a much safer product for idiots er, people to use.

[thecynic]

I've never had a cup of coffee. ever.

[soonerchk]

I've never had a cup of coffee. ever.

Is that typed with a sense of shame or pride?

[waynepayne]

If I had to get skin grafts onto my vajayjay I'd be mad too.

[SpankyNek]

Yes, because asking people to have more than 20% responsibility for their own damned actions is just too much to ask. :rolleyes:

My comparison is far from ridiculous and more spot on than you litigious losers want to admit. A Corvette is a faster than “reasonable” car. GM purposely makes their Corvettes dangerously faster than necessary for an automobile. If they sold me one and I then proceeded to pour it on my lap er, I mean crash it at high speed into a brick wall, there should be some compensation for my severe injuries. I’m equally certain that after the accident if I asked GM directly to compensate me a lowly sum of $20,000 to help cover medical bills they would laugh at the thought. But, hire a lawyer and some jury will feel sorry for my horrendous injuries and how GM was a big bad mean company that made millions in profit and should be penalized for profiting off such dangerous products.

Like McDonald’s coffee, Corvettes would be governed to a much slower speed thereby creating a much safer product for idiots er, people to use.

This would be an accurate comparison if GM decided to only have the speedometer go to 60, or installed it with four wheel drum brakes from an 82 Chevette, or made the seatbelts out of cellophane.

Corvettes are advertised as sports cars that go fast, if McDonalds had advertised their coffee as "Hot enough to burn you straight down to your subcutaneous layer, guaranteed" you might have the parallel you are looking for.

[Midtowner]

From the Lectlaw article (excerpted from an ATLA Journal):


There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----

[KABOOKIE]

This would be an accurate comparison if GM decided to only have the speedometer go to 60, or installed it with four wheel drum brakes from an 82 Chevette, or made the seatbelts out of cellophane.

Corvettes are advertised as sports cars that go fast, if McDonalds had advertised their coffee as "Hot enough to burn you straight down to your subcutaneous layer, guaranteed" you might have the parallel you are looking for.

GM only crash test their Corvettes at 45-50 MPH impacts, not at 185 MPH. Yes GM advertises their Corvettes to be fast just like McDonald’s advertised their coffee to be hot. However, if I crash a Corvette at 185 MPH all of those fancy disc brakes, air bags and seatbelts are for naught due to their limited crash worthy testing. 185 MPH! Fast enough to shove your femur through your diaphragm and puncture your lung.

[SpankyNek]

GM only crash test their Corvettes at 45-50 MPH impacts, not at 185 MPH. Yes GM advertises their Corvettes to be fast just like McDonald’s advertised their coffee to be hot. However, if I crash a Corvette at 185 MPH all of those fancy disc brakes, air bags and seatbelts are for naught due to their limited crash worthy testing. 185 MPH! Fast enough to shove your femur through your diaphragm and puncture your lung.

Does every Corvette immediately travel 185 mph as soon as the ignition is turned, forcing everyone to accept it in its most dangerous state?

It's not like the lady dropped a bunch of hot stones in the coffee to "live on the edge."

[Lott's Bandana]

"185" figures prominently in this thread.

[KABOOKIE]

Does every Corvette immediately travel 185 mph as soon as the ignition is turned, forcing everyone to accept it in its most dangerous state?

It does if you're stupid enough to pour it on your lap er, hold the gas pedal down.

[tulsaoilerfan]

I wonder if the person would have gotten so much money if they were 50 years younger? Jurors seem to love old people in cases like this

[tulsaoilerfan]

And 700 claims in 10 years is not that many IMO; people should be more damn careful with their coffee

[SoonerHoops]

I wonder if the person would have gotten so much money if they were 50 years younger? Jurors seem to love old people in cases like this


Punitives are not compensatory for the plaintiff. They serve as a deterrent or punishment for the defendant. If you would actually watch the documentary or do some research, the jurors said that their punitive amount was based on the profit that McDonald's makes on coffee in a specific, short timeframe (A 24 hour span IIRC).

[SoonerHoops]

It does if you're stupid enough to pour it on your lap er, hold the gas pedal down.


Do you understand the difference between an unintentional accident and a voluntary act?

[SpankyNek]

Do you understand the difference between an unintentional accident and a voluntary act?

It would appear that any response in the affirmative would lack credibility.

[KABOOKIE]

Do you understand the difference between an unintentional accident and a voluntary act?

The Corvette driver did not intend to crash at 185 MPH. If GM is going to make it's vehicle capable of those speeds then it needs to have safety measures in place to prevent people from seriously injuring themselves in the unexpected event of an accident.

McDonald's wanted its coffee hot, hotter than practically consumable.
GM wants its Corvettes fast, faster than the law allows for the public.
McDonald's had hundred of people that had scalded themselves due to their hot coffee.
GM has had hundreds of people seriously injured or killed due to an unnecessarily fast car.

I'm surprised an enterprising lawyer hasn't figured this one out.

[Midtowner]

You expect to die when you have a wreck at 185 MPH.

http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/burn.jpg

You don't expect this to happen when you spill coffee in your lap.

[pphilfran]

Everyone should at least watch the first 10 minutes of the vid prior to commenting...

[SoonerHoops]

I'm surprised an enterprising lawyer hasn't figured this one out.


Facepalm.



Everyone should at least watch the first 10 minutes of the vid prior to commenting...


No way that's going to happen. It's easier for everyone to live with their version of this lawsuit story and preconceived notions

[Midtowner]

No way that's going to happen. It's easier for everyone to live with their version of this lawsuit story and preconceived notions

Facts are irrelevant. I was told by Rush Limbaugh that if I was conservative, I had to be in favor of making people be accountable for their own actions--so long as those people aren't either wealthy or incorporated.

I was told that the Constitution mattered a lot, and that I should protect and defend it, except for that whole 7th Amendment thing. I don't know what the founding fathers were thinking about when they said we should let juries decide civil damages instead of lobbyists and legislators. Those must have been the deist Founders.

[KABOOKIE]

You expect to die when you have a wreck at 185 MPH.

You don't expect this to happen when you spill coffee in your lap.

Oooooh I see. So it’s an level of expectation that determines liability? Like, if 90% of people expect to be killed or injured while doing something then you’re just stupid if you do it. Maybe I’m just smarter than the average idiot out there but I would expect to be burned like that if I poured fresh coffee on my lap.

[IndySooner]

It does if you're stupid enough to pour it on your lap er, hold the gas pedal down.

I thought I read that the actual story was that the coffee melted the styrofoam cup. If that's the case, I'd say that's McD's fault.

[Midtowner]

Oooooh I see. So it’s an level of expectation that determines liability? Like, if 90% of people expect to be killed or injured while doing something then you’re just stupid if you do it. Maybe I’m just smarter than the average idiot out there but I would expect to be burned like that if I poured fresh coffee on my lap.

It's reasonable expectation, not whether your subjective belief dictates a certain outcome.

[SoonerHoops]

It's reasonable expectation, not whether your subjective belief dictates a certain outcome.


Stop letting facts and law get in the way of Kabookie's argument.

[Midtowner]

Stop letting facts and law get in the way of Kabookie's argument.

Sorry about that.

McD's clearly needs tort reform to protect it from frivolous lawsuits of people who spill coffee in their lap which causes 3rd degree burns to their crotcheral region within 2-7 seconds.

My bad.

[Midtowner]

The Corvette driver did not intend to crash at 185 MPH. If GM is going to make it's vehicle capable of those speeds then it needs to have safety measures in place to prevent people from seriously injuring themselves in the unexpected event of an accident.

McDonald's wanted its coffee hot, hotter than practically consumable.
GM wants its Corvettes fast, faster than the law allows for the public.
McDonald's had hundred of people that had scalded themselves due to their hot coffee.
GM has had hundreds of people seriously injured or killed due to an unnecessarily fast car.

I'm surprised an enterprising lawyer hasn't figured this one out.

How do you think the danger of driving 185MPH on purpose compares to the danger of drinking coffee?

Such an idiotic comparison on so many levels...

[KABOOKIE]

It's a reasonable expectation thing. Just like you know that driving 185 MPH is dumb, I think pouring hot coffee on your lap is equally dumb too. Most people above an IQ of 72 would have understood that reasonable expectation.

[GKeeper316]

If I crashed my corvette into a brick wall should GM give me $2 million?

Why not? Most cars top out at ~125 MPH and I’m sure any lawyer worth a **** could find a memo by GM that stated, “We want this corvette to be faster than fast. That’s what our customers want!”

Plus my injuries due to my negligence would be really really really severe. Who’s going to pay my doctor’s bill?

this is a gross over simplification and not a very good analogy at all.

[SoonerHoops]

It's a reasonable expectation thing. Just like you know that driving 185 MPH is dumb, I think pouring hot coffee on your lap is equally dumb too. Most people above an IQ of 72 would have understood that reasonable expectation.


Do you understand the difference between an unintentional accident and a voluntary act?


Thanks for answering my question as a resounding no.

[KABOOKIE]

And thanks for understanding that whether it be accidental or intentional, the fact of the matter remains that it was of her own stupid actions.

[KABOOKIE]

Also, are you lawyers trying to tell me that prior to this incident that you had no reasonable expectation to believe that pouring hot coffee in your lap could scald the **** out of you? Right.

[Midtowner]

That's not the test. It's been explained to you. That you don't understand demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. Go look at the thread again and again until you get it.

And no, most people don't think this could happen:

http://www.jvmlaw.com/images/CoffeeBurn.jpg

From spilling coffee in your lap which was designed to be sold to people travelling in cars where the likelihood of a spill in a lap or on one's person is greatly enhanced.

A company which knowingly creates a hazardous product, which could very easily have not been hazardous does get to bear some of the burden for the harm it causes.

Apparently you know better than the lawyers, the judge and the jury who actually saw the evidence in the case, the Arizona legislature who created the products liability laws, etc. They should probably bow down to your superior wisdom.

[SoonerofAlabama]

So, what does McDonald's do to fix this? jw

[KABOOKIE]

So, what does McDonald's do to fix this? jw

They sale cold coffee.

[TheLadiesMike]

If your analogy was any good there would have been such a case by now. It's not and there isn't.

[KABOOKIE]

Nobody thought about suing the **** out of McDonald's until recently either and hot coffee had been around for eons.

[MR2-Sooner86]

The only thing that pissed me off about this case is the floodgate of lawsuits that followed against any major corporation about any little thing. For example the retards suing Walmart because they slipped on a grape.

[Midtowner]

Nobody thought about suing the **** out of McDonald's until recently either and hot coffee had been around for eons.

The hot coffee case was neither all that recent nor the first products liability suit of all time. The only reason you even know about it is because corporate PR machines made a bet that they could misrepresent the facts and convince a bunch of dunderheads that there's some sort of lawsuit abuse going on, when in fact, that isn't the case, and when in fact, this case is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

The public's only way to ensure corporations aren't producing things that will hurt is by making it unprofitable for them to do so. The courtroom is the only place we can accomplish that.

[Mongo]

their apple and cherry pies are hotter than their coffee

[Midtowner]

The only thing that pissed me off about this case is the floodgate of lawsuits that followed against any major corporation about any little thing. For example the retards suing Walmart because they slipped on a grape.

That's totally wrong. That case didn't "open the floodgates" for anything.

Slip and falls aren't as common as you think, but why shouldn't a place inviting you to do business on their premises be charged with warning you of and keeping you safe from dangerous conditions on their property?

[texaspokieokie]

their apple and cherry pies are hotter than their coffee

rite on !!! also, the apple ones are very good !!!

[MR2-Sooner86]

That's totally wrong. That case didn't "open the floodgates" for anything.

The hell it didn't.

You have probably heard about Stella Liebeck, 81, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's instead of accepting their $20,000 offer. In that instance, Stella may have indeed been burned by scalding hot coffee, but since then, there have been many other silly lawsuits involving products that have received far less attention. For example, did you know a man received $50,000 when he sued a small company that makes basketball nets because he claimed the company was responsible when he caught his teeth in a net while dunking a ball?

Companies who make products hear about these outrageous lawsuits, and often decide to add common sense warnings on their product - “just in case.” This year’s list of M-LAW winners are:

#1. Taking first prize was a warning found on a bottle of drain cleaner. The label reads: "If you do not understand, or cannot read, all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product";

#2. Second prize was for a label on a snow sled that advises users: "Beware: sled may develop high speed under certain snow conditions";

#3. Third place winner was a label on a compact-disc storage rack that warns: "Do not use as a ladder";

#4. Fourth place went to a warning label on a fishing lure (sporting three steel hooks) which advises that the lure is "Harmful if swallowed";

#5. Fifth place was for a smoke detector which warns: "Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire."


Past weird product warning label winners:
- On a massage chair: "Do not use massage chair without clothing... and never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving"
- On an electric router made for carpenters: “This product not intended for use as a dental drill”
- A warning label found on a baby stroller cautions the user to “Remove child before folding”
- A prescription of sleeping pills stating, “Warning: May cause drowsiness”
- A sticker on a toilet at a public facility warning: “Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking”
- A snowblower warning: "Do not use snowthrower on roof"
- On a dishwasher: "Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher"
- Unusual warning on a CD player: “Do not use the Ultradisc2000 as a projectile in a catapult.”
- An “Aim-n-Flame” fireplace lighter cautions, “Do not use near fire, flame or sparks”
- A label on a hand-held massager advises consumers not to use “while sleeping or unconscious”
- On a container of underarm deodorant: “Caution: Do not spray in eyes”
- On a cartridge for a laser printer: “Do not eat toner”
- A household iron warns users: “Never iron clothes while they are being worn”
- A label with a hair dryer reads, “Never use hair dryer while sleeping”
- A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow warns: “Not intended for highway use”
- A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns, “Do not drive with sunshield in place”
- On a Bathroom Heater: “This product is not to be used in bathrooms”
- A can of self-defense pepper spray warns users: “May irritate eyes”
- A warning on a pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists: “Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover”
- A popular manufactured fireplace log warns: “Caution - Risk of Fire”
- A box of birthday cake candles says: “DO NOT use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity.”

Weird product labels are a sign of our lawsuit-plagued times. In the ‘good old days’, if someone spilled coffee in their lap, they simply called themselves clumsy. Today, people call themselves an attorney. This "sue first, ask questions later" mentality has not only produced weird warning labels, it has increased the cost of products and services families use daily. (http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2004/Weird_Warnings.htm)


Slip and falls aren't as common as you think, but why shouldn't a place inviting you to do business on their premises be charged with warning you of and keeping you safe from dangerous conditions on their property?

You must get tired chasing all of those ambulances.

[SoonerHoops]

Nobody thought about suing the **** out of McDonald's until recently either and hot coffee had been around for eons.


Gotta hand it to you Kabookie, you're a glutton for punishment, at least on this thread.




The hell it didn't.

[url=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2004/Weird_Warnings.htm]


You must get tired chasing all of those ambulances.


There's so much wrong with that website it's laughable. In fact, the sentence quoted below nearly made me fall off my chair for reasons that should be obvious. Either way, there's absolutely nothing on that website to suggest that those lawsuits were filed because of the recovery in the Liebeck case.



The annual "Stella Awards" are named after Stella Liebeck (see above) who inspired the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States...


And spare me the ambulance chaser crap.

[Midtowner]

The hell it didn't.

You have probably heard about Stella Liebeck, 81, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's instead of accepting their $20,000 offer. In that instance, Stella may have indeed been burned by scalding hot coffee, but since then, there have been many other silly lawsuits involving products that have received far less attention. For example, did you know a man received $50,000 when he sued a small company that makes basketball nets because he claimed the company was responsible when he caught his teeth in a net while dunking a ball?

Companies who make products hear about these outrageous lawsuits, and often decide to add common sense warnings on their product - “just in case.” This year’s list of M-LAW winners are:

#1. Taking first prize was a warning found on a bottle of drain cleaner. The label reads: "If you do not understand, or cannot read, all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product";

#2. Second prize was for a label on a snow sled that advises users: "Beware: sled may develop high speed under certain snow conditions";

#3. Third place winner was a label on a compact-disc storage rack that warns: "Do not use as a ladder";

#4. Fourth place went to a warning label on a fishing lure (sporting three steel hooks) which advises that the lure is "Harmful if swallowed";

#5. Fifth place was for a smoke detector which warns: "Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire."


Past weird product warning label winners:
- On a massage chair: "Do not use massage chair without clothing... and never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving"
- On an electric router made for carpenters: “This product not intended for use as a dental drill”
- A warning label found on a baby stroller cautions the user to “Remove child before folding”
- A prescription of sleeping pills stating, “Warning: May cause drowsiness”
- A sticker on a toilet at a public facility warning: “Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking”
- A snowblower warning: "Do not use snowthrower on roof"
- On a dishwasher: "Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher"
- Unusual warning on a CD player: “Do not use the Ultradisc2000 as a projectile in a catapult.”
- An “Aim-n-Flame” fireplace lighter cautions, “Do not use near fire, flame or sparks”
- A label on a hand-held massager advises consumers not to use “while sleeping or unconscious”
- On a container of underarm deodorant: “Caution: Do not spray in eyes”
- On a cartridge for a laser printer: “Do not eat toner”
- A household iron warns users: “Never iron clothes while they are being worn”
- A label with a hair dryer reads, “Never use hair dryer while sleeping”
- A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow warns: “Not intended for highway use”
- A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns, “Do not drive with sunshield in place”
- On a Bathroom Heater: “This product is not to be used in bathrooms”
- A can of self-defense pepper spray warns users: “May irritate eyes”
- A warning on a pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists: “Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover”
- A popular manufactured fireplace log warns: “Caution - Risk of Fire”
- A box of birthday cake candles says: “DO NOT use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity.”

Weird product labels are a sign of our lawsuit-plagued times. In the ‘good old days’, if someone spilled coffee in their lap, they simply called themselves clumsy. Today, people call themselves an attorney. This "sue first, ask questions later" mentality has not only produced weird warning labels, it has increased the cost of products and services families use daily. (http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2004/Weird_Warnings.htm)



You must get tired chasing all of those ambulances.

Seriously... passing off email forwards as evidence of fact. You truly are a glutton for punishment. Can you find evidence that any of those were actually warning labels not on some tort reform astroturf group's website? No?

You should really check into that Obama being a Muslim thing. I hear there's some truthiness to that as well.