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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Well I think alot of people here say one thing but when faced with a similar situation would do the exact opposite. From what the OP said It sounds like the shirt/blouse must have ignited very fast and spread rapidly over the entire garment. If they were willing to
settle out of court then the manufactures lawyers must have advised their clients that the plaintiff has a really good case against them. There are laws that protect consumers from clothes being non flame retardent such as the case with Halloween costumes.

It's lawsuits like this that will FORCE the manufacture to change the materials used in their garments. Alot of people think there are to many lawsuits in the U.S.A. and there are some frivolous lawsuits, but if it were not for many of the lawsuits many consumers would be unsafe. Take for instance the tobacco lawsuits, because of the lawsuits there are so many ANTI-smoking ads being shown on T.V. PAID for by the tobacco companies.
I believe those ads make a difference in some young peoples minds and they would not exist if the lawsuits did not force the tobacco companies to make them or at least FUND for them.

I can honestly say I would sue someone or a manufacture if I lost a loved one due to negligence. And I would use the money to give to the ones that suffered the loss of a loved one NOT to make up for them losing a loved one but to help comfort them in knowing that someone paid for their negligence.

And to OP if you feel the money is blood money, then when your uncle dies and if he leaves you some or all of it. DON'T take it or take it and give it to charity. BUT I feel when the time comes you will take it and enjoy it like most people would regardless of what they say on a internet message board.



 

ghostman

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2000
1,819
1
76
I watched a news magazine once about how certain fabrics burn a lot faster and more violently than others. I'm going to assume that the clothing burned so fast, she wasn't able to remove the item before she suffered the burns.

I hate all this litigation stuff, but if it happened to my family, I'd sue just as much as the next American.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: Trogdor91
If the shirt went up in an unusually quick blaze, then the shirt company is at fault.
If it burned like a normal shirt would, then the shirt company is alright in my book.

 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: Epoman
If they were willing to
settle out of court then the manufactures lawyers must have advised their clients that the plaintiff has a really good case against them.

wrong. many times companies will settle even if they know they can win the case in court in order to avoid publicity. the terms of a settlement are usually confidential. I wonder if they are in this instance, and if the uncle actually violated them.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Yeah, they should put warning lables on paper too. Each individual sheet should have the warning. I mean, it's not like it's common knowledge that paper, like clothing, is flammable.

Hate to have to say it, but your uncle is an idiot and people like him are the reason that corporate insurance costs keep getting inflated and passed on to consumers.

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
*sigh*

people just need an excuse to sue in this country
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.
It's CLOTH! Cloth is flammable! If you don't understand that, your IQ isn't sufficient to fasten velcro shoes.

ZV
 

Atomicus

Banned
May 20, 2004
5,192
0
0
Almost as ridiculous as the McD's case with the hot coffee. HOT coffee will burn you regardless of the fact that the cup doesn't have a warning label.
 

Vampirrella

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2001
1,211
0
71
Congrats to your uncle on the win, he deserves it after losing his partner in a freak accident IMO
 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: Yossarian
Originally posted by: Epoman
If they were willing to
settle out of court then the manufactures lawyers must have advised their clients that the plaintiff has a really good case against them.

wrong. many times companies will settle even if they know they can win the case in court in order to avoid publicity. the terms of a settlement are usually confidential. I wonder if they are in this instance, and if the uncle actually violated them.

True, but what I said sill stand companies DO settle if they know it will cost MORE if a jury gets ahold of it. But you are right too in your statement. And the uncle probally was not supposed to state how much the settlement was for.
 
Aug 16, 2001
22,505
4
81
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
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."

Sorry about your loss here but I really have to agree. Common sense says that fabric will burn.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Dasm, sorry for the loss of your Aunt and you have the gumption to post your family contribution to what is one of the leading downfalls of the U.S., Bullsh!t court cases.

Do we all have to go into the Kitchen wearing Fire Gear now??? :confused:
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
There may have been a little more to it than that.

If she went up that fast, the shirt sounds like it was made out of a pretty flammable material.

It sounds like more of a design defect case (IE the shirt should have been made of safer materials.)
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,582
4
81
Originally posted by: tec699
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?


Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
:roll:

Yeah, I really expect a shirt made of anything other than Nomex to be flame-retardant.

- M4H

that was my first thought....if its not nomex, i assume it can catch on fire. i consider your uncle a dick on this one; sorry he lost his wife, but people really dont need to sue over every little thing just because they can get away with it. especially for 1.5 mil. i dont know what id do if i got some of that cash from his will, but i have a feeling i wouldnt want to keep it myself, meh to it.

besides; did she use a splatter guard? if not...you dont cook less-safe because something didnt say "oh by the way....this can catch fire". things like this are why splatter guards were invented...and theyre dirt cheap at that. of course knowing how to cook should allow you to keep so much grease from popping up that you will be set aflame from it if its just the clothing that caught on fire.

I wouldnt have sued the manufacturer over this....for all anyone knows the perfume or deodorant your aunt had on could have been what really caused the blouse to catch flame....ive gotten grease on my clothes a few times and havent caught on fire from it; but alcohol in perfume or spray deodorant or whatever could cause such a terrible thing to happen. its sad she died...its sorry that your uncle sued because of it.
 

sniperruff

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
11,644
2
0
lawsuits are too common these days. it was purely an accident.

but sorry for the loss. compensation is always good but in my opinion no amount of money can replace a life.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Citrix
for you people who say this is a stupid lawsuit. Do think product manufactures have a responsibilty to provide a safe product?
Of course, if you mean safe when used as intended. I'm sorry to hear about the OP's aunt, but dousing yourself in cooking grease and lighting yourself on fire is not using the shirt as intended. Driving drunk and too fast and killing yourself is not using Ford's product as intended either. It is abusing the product and the risk and blame should be placed squarely on the consumer/user, when it logically belongs.

How fscking hard is this to understand?

Should you be able to sue a food supplier or restaurant because you choke from not chewing your food properly?

The OP's uncle and his lawyers are everything that is wrong with this country. I feel sorry for the OP for losing his aunt, I feel sorry for the OP's aunt for the pain she must have went through in such a horrible death, but I hope the OP's uncle burns in hell for all eternity for callously turning the horrible death of his wife into winning the lottery.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Vampirrella
Congrats to your uncle on the win, he deserves it after losing his partner in a freak accident IMO
Right. Because every freak accident where a death occurs should be like winning the lottery... :roll:

His "win" comes at the burden of the rest of us, with the cost hidden in higher prices for our goods.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,721
3,128
136
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: alien42
i did a science project in middle school (a long time ago) on the flamability of different fabrics. it is not difficult for clothing manufacturers to make clothes that are less flammable and do not burst into flames. more power to the uncle in this case.

a similar example would be self extinguishing cigarettes. some states have laws that require the cigarette manufacturers to make them for import to their state. otherwise they dont make the self extinguishing smokes even though there is no noticable difference between the two and manufacturing costs are the same.

Obviously there is a difference or the cigarette company would make them all that way.....I can figure that out just by common sense...something the lady who died with the t-shirt obviously didn't have.....

who said common sense applies? look at the research behind the two cigarettes and you will see how wrong you are. its called you can not teach an old dog new tricks, aka, the cig companies (large corporations and industries in general) will not change unless they are forced to or it will save them money. it took cheap quality japanese auto imports before the US car industry started making changes for the better.
 

UncleWai

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2001
5,701
68
91
why are you b!tching when you will are the recipient of your uncle's will?
You should replace all his flame resistent shirts with flammable shirts and ask him to cook some bacons at the stove.
Double jackpot