American sue happy douche baggery.

[Miramonti]

Those irritations look pretty severe. I'd let the court decide.

Indeed. Need to sue for thread fail.

 

[John Connor]

I have been using Old Spice since Jr High. No issues at all. I even use the new stuff. Fiji to be exact.

 

[Slew Foot]

Should every single person who discovers they're allergic to a product be able to sue the producer of that product? "My son had to be rushed to the hospital due to an allergic reaction. We're suing Planter's Peanuts, because it's their fault." Seems rather ridiculous to me.

This, the product works fine for 99.9% of the people using it

 

[Aikouka]

I had to stop using Old Spice because of rashes, but I'd never think of suing. But, I wonder if I have a valid suit against Panasonic for my microwave? It says "Your meal is ready!" whenever it's done, but the food may not actually be done. That's a hazard! D: 😱

 

[Brainonska511]

Let the courts decide. Everyone thought the McDonalds hot coffee incident was frivolous too. It wasn't.

Exactly. People will latch onto seemingly frivolous things, demand legislative action, and then realize only later how much the screwed themselves out of being able to seek recompense should they be wronged (see: arbitration).

 

[blankslate]

Exactly. There's a critical difference between pleasantly "hot" and "so dang hot it's going to give you third degree burns". You should look up the pictures - I won't post 'em here... they're icky.

I got infracted for posting them once... oddly enough.


__________

 

[zinfamous]

Coffee is hot. Spill something hot on you, you might get burned. Who knew?

Yes, it was frivolous, and stupid. Hot means HOT, dummy.

I suggest you actually educate yourself about that case rather than make baseless assumptions. Oh, you don't want to simply because your ignorant assumption is the same as truth? Well, carry on then.


This case, looks like a real tissue burn and not a simple rash. Could be a negligent issue in manufacturing that particular stock at a certain factory, or just outright negligence in the formula--improper testing, cheap/fraudulent regulations within the country of manufacture.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The issue with the ability to sue for anything makes it super risky for people to start a business. A big company like McDonald's or P&G can afford to deal with these but a small player will loose everything and probably have to go bankrupt. Something needs to be done to stop this stuff.

P&G actually does TONS of animal testing of their products (actually quite cruel practices, but that's another story) but even through all those tests, it's impossible for them to know 100% that a product will be 100% safe for 100% of people.

 

[boomhower]

That is a sever rash. I don't have an issue with the lawsuit to settle the cause of the burn. If it's a manufacturing defect then some compensation would be appropriate. If it is an allergy to an ingredient then no compensation and he can pay the legal bills for P&P for not doing due diligence prior to filing suit.

 

[Mai72]

Time to make my millions.

From working hard and investing? Hell's no!

From suing and playing the lottery! The American way! 🙂

 

[elitejp]

The courts should throw this out. You have to wonder if this is the first time that person ever used deodorant, or maybe they have a general idea about getting a rash from certain deodorants.

 

[destrekor]

This case, looks like a real tissue burn and not a simple rash. Could be a negligent issue in manufacturing that particular stock at a certain factory, or just outright negligence in the formula--improper testing, cheap/fraudulent regulations within the country of manufacture.

I think it likely is closer to a chemical burn, but it is still likely something that would be classified as an allergy or hyper-sensitivity, and not a manufacturing defect.
How could it be a defect if tons of people use it without problems?

Now, could it have an ingredient for which more people are hyper-sensitive than most other ingredients? Quite possible... but I'm not sure you blame damages on the company.

People are hyper-sensitive to all kinds of things. Some ingredient, to which one is hyper-sensitive, can cause what amounts to a chemical burn, whereas there could be no reaction in those who are not hyper-sensitive.

Some things are classified as an allergy (and this could still be called that), but I think things like reactions to products that touch the skin are technically hyper-sensitivity as opposed to an immunological allergy. There are various chemicals that produce the scents or dyes used in products ranging from deodorant to laundry detergent, and people react in many ways to them. More often than not it is a hive-type response, but a response similar to a chemical burn is not out of the question.

But even with that, I don't know if you should place the fault, and damages, on a manufacturer of a dermatological product if a slightly larger population of users are sensitive to the ingredients when compared to other similar products. If it was a large portion of people? Perhaps. But if it's still in the category of "a few people are sensitive to this, but most are not" then I can't see it as anything other than a frivolous suit.

That is a sever rash. I don't have an issue with the lawsuit to settle the cause of the burn. If it's a manufacturing defect then some compensation would be appropriate. If it is an allergy to an ingredient then no compensation and he can pay the legal bills for P&P for not doing due diligence prior to filing suit.

I think it should be determined if it's an allergy or a case of hyper-sensitivity prior to going to court. The court room is not the place to determine if something was an allergic reaction or not.

 

[SheHateMe]

I used Nair once and got really bad skin irritation under my arms. I let it heal and just tried a different product.

Why are they suing if their skin was just too sensitive? Use something else!

 

[lxskllr]

I used Nair once and got really bad skin irritation under my arms. I let it heal and just tried a different product.

Why are they suing if their skin was just too sensitive? Use something else!

Look at you, with your sense and responsibility. Are you American?


:^P

 

[DrPizza]

I reconsidered, and there's one possibility where I think a lawsuit would be warranted: a formulation error when mixing the product - say, the active ingredient that some people are allergic to is supposed to be 3%, but due to poor mixing or error, it was 90% in the stick that caused the reaction.

 

[kranky]

Old Spice Classic is awesome but anything with aluminum zirconium will give me horrible rashes like you see in the pics.

Same for me. Can't use anti-perspirant, only deodorant.

 

[purbeast0]

long long time ago when i was trying new deodorants i remember specifically trying old spice gel styles and it irritated my skin as well. i just stopped using it right away. maybe i should have sued, i could be a millionaire.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

any deodorant that is clear gel, not white-colored, will do that to me

took me a few months to learn why my armpits were always red and on fire and hurt to touch

The problem is that it isn't deodorant. It's Anti-perspirant. If it has a drug facts on the back then it's an Anti-perspirant.

Growing up I was a fattie that used to sweat all the time. My armpits would be drenched regardless of what product I used. Later in life after slimming down I finally realized that the problem is the Anti-perspirant. I switched to a SIMPLE deodorant and have never looked back.

Deodorant = Used to mask any smell, isn't intended to stop sweating from occurring.
Anti-perspirant = Used to try to stop the sweating from occurring. I've found that it often does the opposite, I presume one's body can get used to the chemicals and they aren't so effective anymore when you use it for years straight.

 

[destrekor]

The problem is that it isn't deodorant. It's Anti-perspirant. If it has a drug facts on the back then it's an Anti-perspirant.

Growing up I was a fattie that used to sweat all the time. My armpits would be drenched regardless of what product I used. Later in life after slimming down I finally realized that the problem is the Anti-perspirant. I switched to a SIMPLE deodorant and have never looked back.

Deodorant = Used to mask any smell, isn't intended to stop sweating from occurring.
Anti-perspirant = Used to try to stop the sweating from occurring. I've found that it often does the opposite, I presume one's body can get used to the chemicals and they aren't so effective anymore when you use it for years straight.

I've been meaning to try moving away from anti-perspirants. They don't seem to do a damn thing. They certainly don't cause reactions on my skin, so I guess that's a check in the win column.

But I've always wanted to control sweating. I am not a fatty, but I sweat like on. lmao

I have had more success with certain varieties compared to others. A specific formulation of the active ingredient. If you've ever read the ingredient list, that aluminum formula can be one of many different formulations, different in both strength and specific chemical formula. A certain one at a high enough strength works better than most others for me.

But I still need to try something different. If not trying to stop it helps my body adapt it could be better in the long run.

 

[Rakehellion]

The issue with the ability to sue for anything makes it super risky for people to start a business.

You can't sue for anything, you can only sue if someone does something illegal.

A big company like McDonald's or P&G can afford to deal with these

Should it be more risky to be a consumer? Do you enjoy it when companies intentionally release products that harm people because they can pay the legal fees?

 

[zinfamous]

I think it likely is closer to a chemical burn, but it is still likely something that would be classified as an allergy or hyper-sensitivity, and not a manufacturing defect.
How could it be a defect if tons of people use it without problems?

Now, could it have an ingredient for which more people are hyper-sensitive than most other ingredients? Quite possible... but I'm not sure you blame damages on the company.

People are hyper-sensitive to all kinds of things. Some ingredient, to which one is hyper-sensitive, can cause what amounts to a chemical burn, whereas there could be no reaction in those who are not hyper-sensitive.

Some things are classified as an allergy (and this could still be called that), but I think things like reactions to products that touch the skin are technically hyper-sensitivity as opposed to an immunological allergy. There are various chemicals that produce the scents or dyes used in products ranging from deodorant to laundry detergent, and people react in many ways to them. More often than not it is a hive-type response, but a response similar to a chemical burn is not out of the question.

But even with that, I don't know if you should place the fault, and damages, on a manufacturer of a dermatological product if a slightly larger population of users are sensitive to the ingredients when compared to other similar products. If it was a large portion of people? Perhaps. But if it's still in the category of "a few people are sensitive to this, but most are not" then I can't see it as anything other than a frivolous suit.



I think it should be determined if it's an allergy or a case of hyper-sensitivity prior to going to court. The court room is not the place to determine if something was an allergic reaction or not.

You could be right, but what I meant was, as Dr. Pizza later explained more clearly, is that if there was a defect in formulation at the factory, or even in the initial composition of the product, this could be legit.

Plenty of people could be fine with the normal concentration of active ingredient, but if this particular can came out of a specific lot that was mis-formulated that day at the factory, then that would certainly be negligence.

The only way to know for sure is to open up a case and an investigation. I'm no fan of excessive lawsuits, but there is a necessary need for them: to hold companies and services accountable.

Whether this ends up being frivolous or not, it appears to me a case that probably warrants investigation to determine that.

 

[destrekor]

You could be right, but what I meant was, as Dr. Pizza later explained more clearly, is that if there was a defect in formulation at the factory, or even in the initial composition of the product, this could be legit.

Plenty of people could be fine with the normal concentration of active ingredient, but if this particular can came out of a specific lot that was mis-formulated that day at the factory, then that would certainly be negligence.

The only way to know for sure is to open up a case and an investigation. I'm no fan of excessive lawsuits, but there is a necessary need for them: to hold companies and services accountable.

Whether this ends up being frivolous or not, it appears to me a case that probably warrants investigation to determine that.

Put it that way, and I think you have a valid point, and perhaps it is best for it to proceed to the courtroom. I had let myself forget that most fact-finding occurs in response to a lawsuit or criminal trial, so the various lawyers will be attempting to glean all they can during the proceedings.

I'm curious to see how this shakes out.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Should it be more risky to be a consumer? Do you enjoy it when companies intentionally release products that harm people because they can pay the legal fees?

Well in a case like this clearly it's not a risk for the consumer if the product works fine for 99% of people. I do believe corporations should be held liable for any major damages such as a product that is known to fail all the time or known to cause issues. But a 1 in a million incident, no. They need to be held to a certain standard, and they are, that's why there is the FDA and other regulatory bodies. But if by chance an incident slips through the cracks I think a company should have a chance to at least look into it before being sued. In this case I doubt there's much they can do considering the product works fine for almost everyone else.

Kinda like the McDonald's hot coffee, if the cups kept breaking and people kept getting scalded, and McDonald's did not do something to make the cups stronger after being made aware of the issue, then yeah, I think that should be grounds for a lawsuit, but a single incident where some idiot spills scalding hot coffee? No. Companies should not be at the risk of other people's idiocy. That is out of their control.

Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my microwave because I put a cup of water in it for 10 minutes and burned myself?

I normally hate on corporations, and generally they are evil and don't care about anybody, but how about we punish them for doing actual evil things, instead of weird sporadic incidents that are practically out of their control?