• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I found out last night that my uncle won a $1.5 mil (+) lawsuit.

T

tec699

Banned
My aunt was killed a few years ago when her shirt caught on fire. She was in front of her stove and the grease from the frying pan shot up, caught her shirt and in-turn she got severe 3rd degree burns. She passed away a few days later at the local hospital.

My uncle sued the shirt manufacture because the label didn't state that the shirt wasn't flame resistant. There was NOTHING! The shirt manufacture must have been in deep sh*t because the case was settled out of court. After the lawyer fees my uncle walked away with over 1.5 million (+). My mom told me that I'm in his will when he passes away.

So should someone be awarded such a high amount or was the shirt manufacture at fault? If it happened to someone that you loved, would you do the same as my uncle?
 
Having never gone through such a situation, I can only say what I think I'd do.

Personally, I wouldn't have sued the shirt manufacturer.

Did your aunt specifically buy it thinking it was flame-resistant? Was she carelessly cooking in front of the stove? Was a fire extinguisher within reach? Did she stop, drop, and roll like a person should've done? How could a spatter of grease cause the shirt to go up in flames that easily?

I for one, do not look for specifically for shirts that are flame resistant. To tell you the truth, it's never even crossed my mind. There's a fire extinguisher within 5 feet from the stove. I also try to be as careful as possible when cooking.
 
Originally posted by: BigJ
Having never gone through such a situation, I can only say what I think I'd do.

Personally, I wouldn't have sued the shirt manufacturer.

Did your aunt specifically buy it thinking it was flame-resistant? Was she carelessly cooking in front of the stove? Was a fire extinguisher within reach? Did she stop, drop, and roll like a person should've done? How could a spatter of grease cause the shirt to go up in flames that easily?

I for one, do not look for specifically for shirts that are flame resistant. To tell you the truth, it's never even crossed my mind. There's a fire extinguisher within 5 feet from the stove. I also try to be as careful as possible when cooking.
Click to expand...


My response would've been what BigJ typed, verbatim. 🙂

Sorry your Aunt died, but 99.9999% of clothing out there will combust if exposed to flame or intense heat such as is generated by electric cooking elements. DUH. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
*sigh*

people just need an excuse to sue in this country
Click to expand...

Hmm...

I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bad but the shirt manufacture was at fault for not correctly labeling their shirts. If the shirt that an individual wears can easily catch on fire then that shirt should be labeled as such. By not labeling a shirt correctly they put their customers at risk.

Now if the shirt was labeled correctly would my aunt have put on a flame resistant shirt before she stood in front of the stove? I doubt it? Who reads shirt labels anyway, but that isn't the point. It's the company that bears full responsibility because they chose to not follow the law and to protect their customers.
 
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
*sigh*

people just need an excuse to sue in this country
Click to expand...

Hmm...

I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bad but the shirt manufacture was at fault for not correctly labeling their shirts. If the shirt that an individual wears can easily catch on fire then that shirt should be labeled as such. By not labeling a shirt correctly they put their customers at risk.

Now if the shirt was labeled correctly would my aunt have put on a flame resistant shirt before she stood in front of the stove? I doubt it? Who reads shirt labels anyway, but that isn't the point. It's the company that bears full responsibility because they chose to not follow the law and to protect their customers.
Click to expand...


OK, along that line of thought. You can easily smash your thumb with a hammer right? YES or NO? So should all hammers come with a warning label that you might smash your thumb if you're not careful?
 
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
*sigh*

people just need an excuse to sue in this country
Click to expand...

Hmm...

I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bad but the shirt manufacture was at fault for not correctly labeling their shirts. If the shirt that an individual wears can easily catch on fire then that shirt should be labeled as such. By not labeling a shirt correctly they put their customers at risk.

Now if the shirt was labeled correctly would my aunt have put on a flame resistant shirt before she stood in front of the stove? I doubt it? Who reads shirt labels anyway, but that isn't the point. It's the company that bears full responsibility because they chose to not follow the law and to protect their customers.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm going to go right ahead and play the Asshole and call bullshit on this whole story.

If your aunt lacked common sense to the degree where she didn't know that >99.999% of fabric will catch fire when heat is applied, she would not have survived long enough for you to meet her.

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
*sigh*

people just need an excuse to sue in this country
Click to expand...

Hmm...

I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bad but the shirt manufacture was at fault for not correctly labeling their shirts. If the shirt that an individual wears can easily catch on fire then that shirt should be labeled as such. By not labeling a shirt correctly they put their customers at risk.

Now if the shirt was labeled correctly would my aunt have put on a flame resistant shirt before she stood in front of the stove? I doubt it? Who reads shirt labels anyway, but that isn't the point. It's the company that bears full responsibility because they chose to not follow the law and to protect their customers.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for your aunt, but please tell me you're not serious.
 
Was she using cooking wine? If so, maybe the cooking wine got on her shirt thus making it flame prone. I dont see how this is the fault of the Shirt company. Seems like an ignorance thing, but thats just my opinion. I was not there, I do not know anything about the situation.

If i were in your unkle's shoes, I would probably not have sued since I would have viewed this as a tragic accident. Unless I had proof that there was no way that the loved one had any fault or ignorance.
 
If the shirt was for some reason incredibly susceptible to catching fire, then sure it should've had a warning. If she turned into a human torch, then yes he should have won.
 
no the story isn't bullsh*t. In fact, when it did happen it was on the news. My uncle lives in Philadelphia PA and channel 6 had the full story. It happened a few years ago so I doubt if you would be able to find anyting about it on-line.
 
Your uncle is a greedy idiot. Cloth+grease+intense heat = fire. Who on earth doesn't understand that equation? Do we really need chainsaws with giant red letters "Warning! Do not shave with this" or umbrellas with warning labels like "Not to be used as a parachute."
 
Grease/ oil on most clothing will burn no matter what unless it is specifically made to 'withstand' fire.

I don't know about you but I don't know anyone that cooks for a living or cooks with fire retardent clothing on...

Oh well maybe they should have had a label to just say.

Koing
 
I read yesterday that ford lost a jury case involving the deaths of 2 teens who, with 2 other pasengers, were in an explorer after drinking heavily. Driving druink, the rounded a corner speeding, lost control, went onto an unpaved road, and then rolled over several time. All four kids were ejected because none of them were wearing seat belts.

And you know why the jury faulted ford?

Because they said that Ford should have used a stronger laminate in it's rear windows, where the two kids that died were ejected. Don't remember hearing about how the jury forgot about the drunk driving, the speeding, the driving off the road, or the not wearing seatbelts.

lawsuits suck.
 
Different fabric materials have different levels of combustiblity.

Most material (now) is treated in a manner that make it self extinguishing. This means (within reason!) when the source of ignition is removed, the material will cease burning.

Now I do remember the days of untreated cotton. Clothing could be ignited by a static spark and the fire would spread like it was soaked in petrol! I experienced this once when adding a charge of wood to a stove and a spark touched my sleeve. The fire was in my face so fast that if I didn't roll backward I would've been severely burned.

My wife had a scare years ago when a sweater of hers ignited in a similar fashion however the source was static electricity.

In either case with untreated materials, the threat of serious burn injury is very real. If people panic, their life is at stake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top