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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
43
91
For those who are saying that this is a stupid lawsuit think for a moment. Perhaps it is but you are talking about a person who died from 3rd degree burns because their shirt caught on fire, not because someone poured gasoline on them and set them on fire, not because they were in a car fire. Most of the time if something like this happens you quickly take your shirt off and the worst that might happen is you get a little burned. For this to have inflicted 3rd degree burns over enough of her body to kill her it must have gone up like a roman candle, and probably melted to her too. Any shirt that does that should indeed have a label on it. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, it could just be a bad law suite, but it is also certainly possible.

I'm sorry for your loss, even if it was a stupid lawsuit there are a lot of insensitive @ss holes on here joking about this, just ignore them.
 

McCarthy

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,567
0
76
Originally posted by: Locut0s
For those who are saying that this is a stupid lawsuit think for a moment. Perhaps it is but you are talking about a person who died from 3rd degree burns because their shirt caught on fire, not because someone poured gasoline on them and set them on fire, not because they were in a car fire. Most of the time if something like this happens you quickly take your shirt off and the worst that might happen is you get a little burned. For this to have inflicted 3rd degree burns over enough of her body to kill her it must have gone up like a roman candle, and probably melted to her too. Any shirt that does that should indeed have a label on it. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, it could just be a bad law suite, but it is also certainly possible.

I'm sorry for your loss, even if it was a stupid lawsuit there are a lot of insensitive @ss holes on here joking about this, just ignore them.

^--- What he said.

Yes, clothing will burn. Yes people know this. Find an old shirt or something you're about to throw out and do a controlled burn test. When clothing burns an able bodied adult in that manner we're not talking about your average shirt. I've managed to set my clothing on fire working in the shop a few times, had molten slag (I'm a messy welder) burn through clothes and not start them on fire. For this to have erupted into an infurno she couldn't pat out/take off/douse at the sink leaves me quite sure there was something out of the ordinary about the fabric.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
Originally posted by: Lucky
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.
Hah it was a jury case too. Those lawyers really have the powers of hypnotism on the jurys.

 

Dead3ye

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2000
2,917
1
81
Hot grease that is not already on fire will not catch anything on fire. If her shirt went up in flames, it's because the grease was already blazing. Who knows how much of that flaming grease was on her. I'm sorry, but the grease was the cause here, not the shirt. The shirt just made it worse. There's no doubt that some materials burn faster and hotter than others, but something had to start it on fire first.

I work in an enviroment that is combustible most of the time. NOMEX suits are standard PPE (personal protective equipment) when we enter into a known combustible area. The rest of the time, it is mandated that we wear clothing that is 100% cotton. Anything that has Nylon or other plastic based meterials in it is bad when it catches on fire. It melts to your skin and you can't get it off.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
1. This is a stupid law suit.
2. If you can get millions of dollars from a stupid lawsuit, a lot of you would do it too.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
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.

Are your shirts labelled that they are not bulletproof? Not Napalm-proof? Not Nukeproof?

They should just label all articles that they are not idiot proof, and burn anyone alive who is stupid enough to sue them for such dumb reasons. ALL normal fabrics burn. Unless you are wearing asbestos shirts you should count on them doing so. Does the shirt manufacturer claim they are fire proof or even fire resistant? No? Then burn the rest of the family and their lawyers to make sure no one is left alive to sue for this moronic sh!t.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Sorry about your aunt.

Stupid lawsuit though. How can someone NOT know that a shirt if flammable?
If we had to put a label covering everything on clothes, we might as well wear the damned labels themselves since they'll be just as big if not bigger.
 

Drizzy

Golden Member
Dec 12, 2003
1,229
0
0
That really sucks that your aunt died but I've noticed that people today always want to be compensated for accidents. Well, accidents happen and as crappy as that is it doesnt mean that someone else should have to pay for it... I dont agree with the lawsuit.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: McCarthy
Originally posted by: Locut0s
For those who are saying that this is a stupid lawsuit think for a moment. Perhaps it is but you are talking about a person who died from 3rd degree burns because their shirt caught on fire, not because someone poured gasoline on them and set them on fire, not because they were in a car fire. Most of the time if something like this happens you quickly take your shirt off and the worst that might happen is you get a little burned. For this to have inflicted 3rd degree burns over enough of her body to kill her it must have gone up like a roman candle, and probably melted to her too. Any shirt that does that should indeed have a label on it. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, it could just be a bad law suite, but it is also certainly possible.

I'm sorry for your loss, even if it was a stupid lawsuit there are a lot of insensitive @ss holes on here joking about this, just ignore them.

^--- What he said.

Yes, clothing will burn. Yes people know this. Find an old shirt or something you're about to throw out and do a controlled burn test. When clothing burns an able bodied adult in that manner we're not talking about your average shirt. I've managed to set my clothing on fire working in the shop a few times, had molten slag (I'm a messy welder) burn through clothes and not start them on fire. For this to have erupted into an infurno she couldn't pat out/take off/douse at the sink leaves me quite sure there was something out of the ordinary about the fabric.

Women's clothes have always been different from Men's, frilly, silky, etc.

I'm sure the Uncle was paid off just to make it (Lawsuit) go away. They recognize it was a freak accident and chalked it up to just doing business.

Will this make Women's clothes any less dangerous than Men's? Most likely not.

Not until there is a major outbreak of women getting fried to death cooking with these shirts on.

Like I said then Politicians will step in with a Law protecting the Shirt Companies with a law requiring anyone cooking in the Kitchen to wear Fire Gear. If you don't have the Fire Gear on then you can't sue anymore.
 

SmackdownHotel

Golden Member
May 19, 2000
1,214
0
0
Stupid lawsuit?

Like they said in Training Day: "Hey give him credit, he worked the system. He deserves his reward."
 

mchammer187

Diamond Member
Nov 26, 2000
9,114
0
76
Originally posted by: gopunk
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.

ditto


they shirt may have not been non-flammable but there is a big different between something that will catch on fire and something that is highly flammable

if it is the latter than the lawsuit is certainly justified


the question is whether it is a sitation like
1. the shirt was dipped in gasoline vs. a normal shirt
or
2. a normal shirt vs. a flame retardent shirt

without all the facts I dont see how anyone can call it frivilous
 

knyghtbyte

Senior member
Oct 20, 2004
918
1
0
firstly, sorry to hear for your loss...

now, lets all wear massive thick flame resistant clothing.....just to make sure it doesnt catch fire, and it should still state on a label 'ever so slight possiblity this garment will combust so violently it will kill you but not probable'.

while we at it, i think manufacturers or TVs, Monitors, Microwave Ovens should put a label on their products stating that you must wear a full Nuclear Contamination Team Protective Suit before using this product otherwise you might be at risk from developing forms of Cancer.

Oh and obviously remote controls for electronic goods should have a label stating that protective gloves must be worn to prevent tiny bits of dirt and gunk from being pushed under your fingernail ending in severe gangrene or other various scurvious ailments
(not sure scurvious is a valid word but i cant remember the sodding word i wanted to use..lol)

I think sueing a textile manufacturer because of what happened is just plain wrong.....
besides, how do we know there wasnt a label on the item of clothing that she removed when she bought it that stated not flame resistent?

In fact if anyone should be sued its the manufacturers of the oven or pan or grease. Its their fault she was doing something that could cause fire.....i think all those articles should be labelled 'DO NOT USE UNLESS WEARING FULL FIREFIGHTING GEAR WITH EXTRA PEOPLE THERE AS BACKUP IN CASE IT STARTS SPITTING FAT'

people who sue local authorities because pavements are cracked up and dangerous to walk on and caused them an accident is just about bearable......
sueing a textile manufacturer because they didnt state the clothing was not fireproof really is just sad, pathetic and immoral..........

alas this kind of thing is now happening in the UK as well....so annoying......eventually someone will get sued because they sneezed on someone and gave them flu causing them to take time off work and lose a couple days pay but will get 2.4 million back from the person who gave them flu.....

christ....oh wait....shouldnt say that, he might sue me for blasphemy :confused:

 

ggavinmoss

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2001
4,798
1
0
People aren't adequately prepared to handle the grief associated with losing a loved one. Filing a lawsuit makes the person feel like their doing something about their situation, even if it isn't warranted.

-geoff
 

knyghtbyte

Senior member
Oct 20, 2004
918
1
0
Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
People aren't adequately prepared to handle the grief associated with losing a loved one. Filing a lawsuit makes the person feel like their doing something about their situation, even if it isn't warranted.

-geoff

yes, nice to vent their frustrated grief by sueing a company for so much money it ends up folding and all the staff lose their jobs, some of which probably lose their house from missed mortgage payments and commit suicide after shooting their spouse and kids to save them the pain of living poor.........hmm....sorry but there are other ways to deal with things, causing other people pain shouldnt be one of them.......

 

Gilby

Senior member
May 12, 2001
753
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Citrix
you are a retard. she was using the shirt as INTENDED, she was wearing it as a SHIRT! Some chemical in the fabric made her shirt flame up when hot grease slattered on it and killed her. WTF was she suppose to do, wear it as a sock?
And you can't fscking read. My advice is that you pour gasoline over your head, light yourself on fire, and then you family can sue the clothing manufacturer and get stinkin' rich. :roll:

You are one worthless excuse for a human being.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Well that sounds like craziness. I would pretty much assume all of our clothing is not "flame resistant" except infant sleepwear, and it's marked as such.

I suppose if your aunt made a practice of buying shirts that were flame resistant and had always done so from that manuf., but this one wasn't, that might be a case, other wise no. Sorry to hear about your aunt though.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Lucky
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.
Eh? Why should the vehicle even have windows? Clearly, it should be safer for the passengers carried inside, for the entire outer surface of the vehicle to be 100% steel-covered. No windows, anyways. That way, no matter how drunk they are, or where they are driving (important, since they couldn't see the road in any case, nor whether there might even be a road), that they will all stay safely within the vehicle in the (eventual) impact event.

1. Sue all motor vehicle mfgs that design vehicles with windows.
2. ...
3. Profit!!!

 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Next your uncle should sue the company that makes the oil, because I'm sure they're missing from their label "May catch your clothing on fire if hot enough".

:(
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Should you be able to sue a food supplier or restaurant because you choke from not chewing your food properly?
Interesting point. What about if it was a (normally boneless) ground-meat sandwich, that actually contained an ~2.5" bone in it? (True story - my local Taco Bell in fact. Damn good thing that I always open my sandwiches for "observation" before biting into them.)