Lawyers, Toys and Money
January 26th, 2004 | by mtpolitics |As you may or may not know (or care), one of the courses I am taking this semester is “Business Law,” the title of which is self-explanatory. (Har!)
Now, what I know about law, you can fit in a thimble. I know a little bit about Torts, from the expert tutelage of Master Sgt. John “Jack” Steele.
In reading Jim’s excellent Sgt. Steele stories, I was struck by an example he gave of something that is not a tort: You’re having a high time lounging at a hotel pool, and just a couple of feet away, a toddler falls into the pool and drowns. By just reaching out and grabbing the child, you could have saved her. But, by letting her die, you’ve done nothing illegal.
Something like that might be legal, but does it make it right?
These are some of the vagaries of law that make me skittish whenever I get involved with it, no matter how peripherally.
Doing my homework tonight, one of the problems was a case from Pennsylvania where a 15 month old toddler tragically choked on a Playskool block, and died. The parents subsequently sued Playskool, claiming that Playskool was culpable in their son’s death.
The link above is from the Appellate Court, which happens to be the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The District Judge disimissed the case, saying that it was patently obvious that the toddler would choke on the block, and that the package was clearly labeled for 1-1/2 year olds to 5 year olds.
I know that I’m going to probably be quite unpopular when we discuss this in class tomorrow, but I find myself in agreement with the judge. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what kind of toys your kid can choke on, regardless of how they are labeled. Any age guidelines on a product, to me, are simply that, guidelines. Anyone who knows their children should be able to judge whether or not a toy is age-appropriate.
Anyway, if you didn’t see it coming, or if you haven’t read the appellate decision, the 3rd Circuit overturned the District Court’s dismissal of the case.
Spake the court:
We do not believe that here Matthew’s parents were clearly alerted to the fact that the product presented a special danger to Matthew; nor do we believe that it was objectively unreasonable for them to have assumed that Matthew was an intended user.
The Spousal Unit™ and I rejected untold numbers of toys due to what we thought were choking hazards, and we based our judgement on what we thought – not what the box said.
I don’t mean to belittle the tragedy that befell that poor child, but leaving a 15 month old toddler alone in a playpen with a bunch of blocks, to my way of thinking, is negligent in the extreme, regardless of how a product is labeled.
In other words, “Yes. We have a gott-damned tort!”
Don’t we?
7 Responses to “Lawyers, Toys and Money”
By Rita on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
I can see how the appellate court got there….the block would’ve likely been a choking hazard to even the recommended 1 1/2 to 5 age group, but there was no warning on the box. And even a reasonable person might assume that, even though the blocks were small, they would be safe because there was no warning.
You’ve got to remember that product liability is a tort of a different color….different rules than a ordinary tort. Here the court apparently found that there was a danger that wasn’t readily apparent to the intended user….hence the liability for no warning. And the intended user is the average person, not the smart ones like me & you.
My favorite product liability case is a guy who sued because when he was using his lawnmower to trim his hedges it slipped and cut off his arm or something. No liability of course, because that was clearly an unintended use of a lawnmower.
That case always tickles me because you know he would’ve had to be a big burly rascal to pick up a lawnmower & trim his hedges with it….big AND dumb.
; )
By mtpolitics on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
Using a lawnmower to trim hedges?!?
That’s proof positive that the universe is building bigger and better idiots.
…even a reasonable person might assume that, even though the blocks were small, they would be safe because there was no warning.
Good gravy. That just makes my head spin. So, in other words, a “reasonable person” needs someone else to do their thinking for them? We’ve really lowered the bar for “reasonable,” haven’t we?
I don’t think I’d last long as an attorney.
By Rita on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
Ah yes, but you’re thinking like an engineer. I’ll bet you can look at a block and think “you know, that looks within a few 1/1000ths of the size that might fit down my child’s windpipe”, right? But most people can’t do that….myself included. My rule of thumb was if it looked even close to a size that would completely fit inside my kid’s mouth, I didn’t buy it….no matter what the warning label did or didn’t say. But you’ve got to remember that neither you nor I are average.
Now think about a person you know of average intelligence. Can you see how they would prolly think that the blocks looked small but since there was no choking hazard warning it would be ok to buy them because after all, companies are required to have a warning label? Or so the average person would think. I think.
The opinion says that the block barely fit through the tube used to check for choking hazards, so I wouldn’t think it would be all that obvious to the average person that the block was dangerous. That’s the type of danger that a company has a duty to warn of….a product that is not an obvious danger to the average person when used for its intended (or anticipated) purpose. It’s reasonable to assume kids are going to put blocks in their mouths. It’s also reasonable to expect companies to warn of choking hazards that aren’t obvious to the average person.
Tell ya what. Take an informal survey of some average people with these facts, i.e., a box of blocks, recommended for ages 1 1/2 to 5, the blocks look kinda small but there’s nothing on the box about a choking hazard….and ask them if they think it’d be ok to buy them for a small child. I’ll bet you’ll be surprised at their answers.
And remember the court found that the blocks could’ve been made safe with a simple design change. That’s another important element of finding product liability you’ll prolly see on a test.
By TL Hines on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
As much as it scares me, I can see the logic of Rita’s reasoning: I bet most people would assume the blocks were safe, in the absence of any warning.
Sigh. What does it say about our society when we let common sense take a back seat to product labels?
By Wulfgar on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
I agree completely that the relevant component should be parental responsibility. But it seems to me (IANAL but my emphasis was prelaw {and religious studies but why quibble}) that to attempt to rule based on ideas of responsibility is an attempt to legislate (courtwise) morality. It has been established by president that companies may not market product that is unsafe for intended use. It has never been established to what degree parents are responsible for the actions of their children, or the choices they make for their children. To attempt such a thing would be to establish a particular moral imperative, something our courts have been haphazard about at best.
By mtpolitics on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
to attempt to rule based on ideas of responsibility is an attempt to legislate (courtwise) morality.
Isn’t it the same thing if you shift the responsibility to the company that manufactured said item?
By Jim - Parkway Rest Stop on Jan 27, 2004 | Reply
You must consider that what the Third Circuit did here (and, admittedly I have not read the opinion) was tp reverse the DISMISSAL of the case in the District Court (i.e. before a trial).
That means that the Third Circuit could not rule, as a matter of LAW, that the warnings on the toy were sufficient, but rather that the sufficiency of the warnings should be a matter for the jury (not the court) to decide.
I suspect that all the good common sense that people voiced here would be typical of the manner in which a jury would approach the issue.
Now straighten out those gott-damned gig-lines!