New at Reason

February 26, 2007

Instructions for reading Nick Gillespie's new article: Point eyes at screen. Words should be read from left to right. While reading, do not turn off computer.

Comments

Unclaimed Mysteries|2.26.07 @ 7:28AM|#

"To avoid danger of suffocation keep away from babies."

Antarctic Penguin|2.26.07 @ 7:49AM|#

In Antarctica, there are more dangers than I can count and yet, somehow, my species manages to survive without warning labels.

Garth|2.26.07 @ 9:26AM|#

Not really a warning label, but I have a clear plastic bottle of apsirin that has a picture of an aspirin on the label with the notation that the picture is "actual size".

Did I mention that the bottle is CLEAR?

|2.26.07 @ 9:27AM|#

While makers of shoddy goods should be punished to the full extent of the law, the bogus cases do little more than cost consumers billions of dollars a year.

While I understand and agree with the point Mr. Gillespie is making above, the antecedent clause of that statement bears a bit of quibbling. Surely, the mere making of shoddy goods should not be punished, and many a libertarian would take exception to the current "full extent of the law" in that regard.

Of course, makers of goods, shoddy or not, who make false claims should be subject to punishment, and the damage suffered by users (proximately) caused by the makers' negligence should be compensated; but the expanded scope of strict liability in tort law and the promiscuous enabling of class actions and punitive damages permitted under the "full extent of the law" is quite another matter. So, for that matter, are the nearly all-encompassing regulations imposed on producers of all sorts of goods.

If anything, I'd say the current "full extent of the law" is at least as much a part of the problem as it is of the solution.

Guy Montag|2.26.07 @ 9:55AM|#

Amy noticed something similar the other day

It is amazing how many cheeses contain milk these days!

|2.26.07 @ 10:10AM|#

Not really a warning label, but I have a clear plastic bottle of apsirin that has a picture of an aspirin on the label with the notation that the picture is "actual size".

Does it seem much bigger?

|2.26.07 @ 10:55AM|#

D.A. Ridgely: Until I see a company marketing shoddy goods as such, I'll assume that Gillespie meant what you said.

Making shoddy products and false advertising goes hand in hand.

|2.26.07 @ 11:35AM|#

Have you ever been outside the asylum? If you want to know where the asylum is, just read the side of a box of toothpicks. If you ever find yourself on the outside looking in, please say hi to Wonko for me.

|2.26.07 @ 12:06PM|#

Hilarious, though I've read that the McDonald's case was actually pretty decently done and not an example of a frivolous lawsuit, like the ones it inspired. I don't remember too clearly, though.

Dear Nick Gillespie, don't use "begs the question" when you mean "brings up the question". I was just informed this weekend that libertarians and their ilk think they're smarter than everyone else.

uncle sam|2.26.07 @ 12:11PM|#

I liked the one on the treble fishing hook package:
"Do not swallow."

|2.26.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Aghghg! I can't believe you linked to Ashida Kim. He is the biggest fraud, ever. His site needs it's own label "not for real application to daily living"

|2.26.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Megs already scolded Mr. Gillespie for misusing "beg the question," so I'll just mention my all-time favorite warning label: "Do not use in shower." On a hair dryer.
Yes, really.

Windypundit|2.26.07 @ 1:19PM|#

This was in the instruction manual for my camera:

"When operating the diopter adjustment control with your eye to the viewfinder, be careful not to put your fingers or fingernails in your eye."

|2.26.07 @ 1:46PM|#

Megs is right. If you want to oppose frivolous lawsuits, cool, but the McDonald's one was pretty unfrivolous.

A quote:

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Antarctic Penguin|2.26.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Deep Omega, here is another quote from the same site: "No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results"

Umm. actually sleazy lawyers and sleazy customers of sleazy lawyers ARE.

|2.26.07 @ 3:14PM|#

DeepOmega,

McD's bean counters ALSO admitted that it was more cost-efficient to pay those claims and use hotter water than it was to buy enough coffee to achieve the same flavor at lower temperatures. Something about higher water temperatures drawing more flavor from fewer grounds.

|2.26.07 @ 3:20PM|#

D-Right. And the idea of suing for millions was to reverse that equation.
I also used to believe that the hot coffee suit was a great example of over-litigiousness. Until, that is, a Con Law prof explained the reasoning behind the suit.

Larry A|2.26.07 @ 3:39PM|#

The one I love is the "No Preservatives Added" label. On preserves.

The problem, of course, is that there are so many warning labels that the necessary ones get buried in the static.

Antarctic Penguin|2.26.07 @ 4:33PM|#

"The problem, of course, is that there are so many warning labels that the necessary ones get buried in the static."

So the next logical step is to sue the companies that DO put silly warning lables on the products!

|2.26.07 @ 6:43PM|#

Megs: I have that same pet peeve. Turns out, it's one of those misuses of a word that happens so often, that those of us who walk upright have simply given up on enforcing the rule. Fine. "Begs the question" now means "raises the question."

Normally I fight this kind of thing, but I can't remember the last time someone used the term correctly.

uncle sam|2.26.07 @ 8:19PM|#

I was just informed this weekend that libertarians and their ilk think they're smarter than everyone else.

Most anyone with a few neurons to rub together think they are smarter than everyone else. There are no political restrictions on this human characteristic.

The question is: Which political philosophy, if implemented, will produce the best human society.?

JD|2.27.07 @ 12:02AM|#

Argh. I keep telling myself that I'm not going to respond to these things, but... Coffee that is at 180 degrees when freshly made has a name: "correctly-made coffee". You should actually start with water that's about 195. If coffee made at home is served at 135, that's because Americans routinely drink swill and have no idea they're doing it. There's no way in hell my coffee at home is 135, thank you very much. You cannot just "use more coffee" to "brew at lower temperatures" and get the same flavor; it doesn't work that way. Extraction is a function of many things, like time, amount, and temperature, and you can't easily make tradeoffs and maintain quality. The quality of a cup of coffee also begins dropping the second it's made, so if you're interested in good coffee, you make it correctly and serve it immediately.

Those are the practical arguments. The philosophical argument can be boiled down to SO WHAT? So the coffee was hot. Coffee is usually hot. This woman was of advanced years, and therefore presumably knew that hot things can burn. The world is full of dangerous things, and McDonald's did not force her to put a dangerous thing between her legs in a moving vehicle. Consider this thought experiment: what if "McDougal's Hardware" had sold her a knife, and she had put the knife between her legs in a moving vehicle. Would anyone seriously argue that hardware stores should have to sell dull knives because people might cut themselves on sharp ones? Sadly, we do seem to be moving towards a world in which people expect everything to be made of Nerf and have rounded corners, lest they hurt themselves.

|2.27.07 @ 1:07AM|#

JD - right. Because when I buy my coffee from McDonalds, I expect maximum flavor potential. Let's be honest here - the additional taste benefits provided by the temperature difference could probably be found some other way, as McDonalds own representative admitted. This isn't a question of "the only way to get maximum flavor was through temperature" - it was a cost-saving measure.

Philosophically speaking, the McDonalds rep admitted that consumers probably were not aware that third degree burns were possible. By their own claims, they were selling a dangerous product to uninformed consumers - and their records of prior injuries backed this up. You, personally, may think it ridiculous to not realize that coffee is dangerous - and if McDs claimed the same, maybe they'd have a leg to stand on. But they didn't. They admitted to selling a product that was more dangerous than consumers realized, and selling it to people who would use it in a dangerous way. Their research showed that people drank it immediately, while in the car. If McDougal's Hardware sold knives in drive through windows, and said that they thought their customers didn't know that knives were sharp, I'd be a bit peeved with them, too.

Your hypothesis of a rounded Nerfland is pretty fun, I have to admit. Wouldn't it be awesome if everything was made of Nerf? Unfortunately for Nerf-lovers everywhere, there haven't been any lawsuits against knife sellers, in the 15 years since McDonalds was victimized by a nannystate judge. What a shame.