View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
WTF is ambiguous about "Injury or drowning could occur while wearing this garment"?
Hell, they don't even call it a VEST. They call it a GARMENT. How many garments do you know of that will float you?
Go look for your next class-action lawsuit somewhere else.
Last edited by Swass on Sep 28, 2007 10:18 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
King of the Tigers Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 1416 City: Mesa, Az
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Puck3tt, my condolences about your brother. I can't imagine almost anything worse.
Also, make sure you talk to a really good attorney, and by that I mean someone who has tons of credibility with product liability. Plenty of attorneys would love to take your case but they'll likely be in it for the money. (But they'll promise you it's to right a wrong that was done to your brother.) I give you a 99.9% chance of winning with one of "those" attorneys (He'd have to be a total idiot to lose in a jury trial) but if you get a credible one then you can possibly enact some good change. If I were you I'd find a big defense firm, tell them your story and that you'd like to be recommended to a credible attorney. They'll often know who the scumsuckers are and who the credible attorneys are.
A lot of people on here are criticizing you and your brother for thinking the A-10 would provide flotation. In a sense, I agree, I bought and wore an A-10 once and at first I thought it was great. (I float in the water with my board underneath me) But after a hard fall where I was ejected from my board I realized that it would not float me properly and never used it again.
But in another sense JP and other companies, despite their warnings, are marketing something that looks like a safety device and is marketed right next to actual safety devices. (Imo, shops and online retailers should market "impact vests" in a completely different area than flotation devices.) It is a little like a car company installing "impact belts" that are not designed to hold you in your car in a bad wreck, just slightly lessen the impact. The problem is that even with GIANT warning labels, the average consumer will see the belts, assume it does what other belts do, and not worry about it. If I see a row of lifejackets, I'm going to assume they'll all float me. Until I wore the A-10 I had no idea how little it would float me.
The A-10 looks like a safety device, fits like a safety device, has similar features as a safety device, but is not an actual safety devices. Better warning labels may not have saved your brother's life but imo, every non-USCG vest should have a big red internal label/sign stating that it is not a flotation device and if worn as such could result in death.
I hope you don't sue the pants off of JP. But I think the whole industry needs to change its approach to "impact vests." A credible attorney can help make these changes happen without putting anyone out of business.
Last edited by King of the Tigers on Sep 28, 2007 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
brew Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 2778 City: Jackson
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | The point is that you have to make the warning lables as clear and unambiguous as is necessary to get your point accross. Parents and others probably wouldn't be as likely to buy these vests if it said "Warning, this vest will not float you if you are knocked unconscious, and you cannot rely in any way on this vest to provide floation to prevent drowning." |
While I understand where you are coming from with this, I still think personal responsibility should outway corporate responsibility on this issue. If you choose to wear a non-USCGA vest, then you should know what you are getting into. Also, I don't think the company should have to explain it to you, since the Coast Guard sets the rating. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lukewtwt Outlaw
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 Posts: 200 City: Memphis
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
King of the Tigers wrote: | If I see a row of lifejackets, I'm going to assume they'll all float me. Until I wore the A-10 I had no idea how little it would float me. |
Seriously, if you can't look at an A-10 compared to a USCGA vest and tell how much difference in flotation there will be, you are an idiot.
King of the Tigers wrote: | The A-10 looks like safety devices, fits like safety devices, has similar features as safety devices, but are not actual safety devices. Better warning labels may not have saved your brother's life but imo, every non-USCG vest should have a big red internal label/sign stating that it is not a flotation device and if worn as such could result in death. |
Such a warning (albeit not in red, but w/e) is already on there. IN BOLD. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chavez Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 27375 City: Roseville
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | every non-USCG vest should have a big red internal label/sign stating that it is not a flotation device and if worn as such could result in death. |
Every non-CG vest I have seen, save "not for consumer use" prototypes, already have a similar warning label. _________________
Quote: | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
King of the Tigers Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 1416 City: Mesa, Az
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
lukewtwt, I know that by posting what I did I'll get flamed like crazy for it. Go to it. I knew the A-10 wouldn't float me as well as a USCG but I didn't think there'd be that big of a difference.
The fact is that the industry is marketing something that looks like a safety device right alongside saftety devices, and from a design standpoint that is idiotic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chavez Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 27375 City: Roseville
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
King of the Tigers, and why is that "idiotic"? _________________
Quote: | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lukewtwt Outlaw
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 Posts: 200 City: Memphis
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well then why don't you contact the board shop in your signature and tell them to quit selling comp vests, since they are so "idiotic." See what they say about how the demand is for those.
Do you look at a Mini Cooper and a Hummer and think that both will stand up to a full-on t-bone wreck with a semi truck the same way? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
King of the Tigers Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 1416 City: Mesa, Az
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
chavez, Because you set yourself up for serious litigation. But from a design standpoint, design is supposed to be self-explanatory. If I have a bunch of things that look like they serve a certain purpose and have for years served that purpose, then to make something that looks the same, but has a different purpose, even with words telling you the new purpose, it is bad design.
Even with warning labels you have to expect that if someone who's never been on a boat before gets on your boat and goes to put on a life jacket, there's a good chance they won't read the label.
I completely believe in personal responsibility but this is bad design in an area (watersports) not known for attracting the safest and most careful people. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
King of the Tigers Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 1416 City: Mesa, Az
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
lukewtwt wrote: |
Do you look at a Mini Cooper and a Hummer and think that both will stand up to a full-on t-bone wreck with a semi truck the same way? |
That's a really stupid and irrelevant example. Bravo.
You also said that I called comp vests idiotic. I never did and if you read what I said you'll know I never did. (here I'll save you the trouble: it's the marketing of them that is the problem.)
Come up with good points and I'd be happy to debate you. Twist my words and I'm not going to waste my time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
While I understand where you are coming from with this, I still think personal responsibility should outway corporate responsibility on this issue. If you choose to wear a non-USCGA vest, then you should know what you are getting into. Also, I don't think the company should have to explain it to you, since the Coast Guard sets the rating.
|
This is why numerous states enacted comparative fault legislation so that the negligence of a plaintiff and a defendant can be weighed accordingly.
King of the Tigers - I agree with you in the sense that this appears to be a failure to warn type lawsuit. It will come down to what a jury believes is reasonable in light of the marketing of the product and numerous representations, whether express or implied, that these vests are appropriate to use while wakeboarding.
Quote: |
Go look for your next class-action lawsuit somewhere else.
|
Who said anything about a class action? Why don't you try adding some substance to a thread for once. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
What did I say that lacks substance? You ignore the substance that doesn't fit your preconception. I'll ask you again: what's ambiguous about Injury or drowning could occur while wearing this garment? How could that be interpreted to mean anything other than what is says?
Quote: | I agree with you in the sense that this appears to be a failure to warn type lawsuit. |
Talk about lack of substance. You keep saying that, but you provide no basis for that argument. At what point in the process is there a failure to warn the consumer of the danger of wearing this product? At the point of purchase? At the point of manufacture? Does a consumer have any responsibility to read the materials that come with the product? If the consumer fails to read the warning that is printed on the product itself, is that a failure of the manufacturer? Does it have to be in red? How about bold red? Is the text too small?
Last edited by Swass on Sep 28, 2007 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ontrider Ladies Man
Joined: 30 Jul 2003 Posts: 16491 City: Russia
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
02lightning, in your honest, non-legal opinion... do you really think the family deserves monetary compensation from Jet-Pilot? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
He doesn't have a non-legal opinion, and his legal opinion sucks ass. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
02lightning, in your honest, non-legal opinion... do you really think the family deserves monetary compensation from Jet-Pilot?
|
That's an interesting question. If it were my brother, I would want him back. I would want JP to revise their warnings, make them more prominant, display them on their website, and raise awareness of the risks. Unfortunately, we cannot bring people back to life. Some companies are motivated only by money. If they think bad press will affect sales, they change whatever they need to. If they get popped with a judgment and they want to avoid it happening again, they change.
I'm not sold one way or another on whether JP was at fault. It's a gray area. I feel for the guy and I'm sympathetic. I don't think he's being unreasonable because I think I'm a fairly intelligent person and regardless of the warnings on the JP vests I own, I expected that they would float me if I got knocked out.
However, based on how the legal system works, and in consideration of what typically motivates companies to take action, I'm leaning towards yes, I think the guy's family should be compensated.
Again, how would you feel if this was your brother. I've seen some horrible cases involving asbestos workers who are dying of mesothelioma. They were warned about the dangers of asbestos, but kept working with it because no one made it clear just how dangerous the stuff was. Again, it's a gray area. There are valid points to be made on both sides.
I guess all I'm saying is that if it were my brother I'd be pissed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would a person who has NEVER seen a life jacket in their life look at an A-10 and assume it's safe to wear as a flotation device? Perhaps. O2 likes to talk about "reasonable people." OK, lets talk about reasonable people. Would that reasonable person who has never seen a life vest before take it upon themself to read the materials that come with the product, including the entirely unambiguous warning printed on the product itself that clearly identifies the product as a non-life saving device? I think a reasonable person would. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
He doesn't have a non-legal opinion, and his legal opinion sucks ass.
|
Nice. Well thought out. I'm sure you're much more qualified than I am to discuss legal issues. If you offer night classes in how to be a better attorney, please let me know where I can sign up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I "keep talking about reasonable people" because that's the standard by which warnings are judged you retard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I don't think he's being unreasonable because I think I'm a fairly intelligent person and regardless of the warnings on the JP vests I own, I expected that they would float me if I got knocked out. |
So, you've been warned, you acknowledge that you've been warned, yet you still expect the product to perform up to a standard that it clearly is not designed to meet??? And that's reasonable to you???? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not everyone has the same opinions and will think the same you, Swass. Ever thought about that? I'm not sure that your opinions equate to reasonableness... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes - now I'm taking shots at you because you lost any shred of credibility.
I'll ask you a third time: Is Injury or drowning could occur while wearing this garment an ambiguous statement? It's a simple question that you refuse to answer because it makes your position untenable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ontrider Ladies Man
Joined: 30 Jul 2003 Posts: 16491 City: Russia
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
02lightning, I agree with swass completely... I don't see anything wrong with what he's asking you.
I asked you a question and you tip-toed around it, said it was grey, turned it into a legal question and THEN finally implied you would WANT compensation. In my opinion they don't deserve a cent. Could they get compensation though? Maybe.
And if you're gonna pull the "how would you feel if it was your family" - you are talking to the wrong person. There is a big problem with personal responsibility these days and the end result is usually stupid things like coffee labels that say "Caution... Coffee is Hot and can burn you". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's the spirit! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Is Injury or drowning could occur while wearing this garment an ambiguous statement?
|
The statement is ambiguous in the sense that even wearing a CGA apprved jacket, injury or drowning could occur. I think it would be better to state something like, "This is not a CGA aproved jacket. This garment will not prevent you from sinking if knocked unconscious. This jacket will not prevent you from drowning if injured and unable to swim." That would be better.
In addition, there are factors like, where is the warning placed, how noticable is it, how big is it, etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Next question. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does the consumer have any responsibility to understand what the criteria for a USGA approved vest is? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lcap Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 10973 City: Homeless
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Puck3tt,
I'm truly sorry for your loss. In WA they do enforce the USCG rule; anyone being towed or on a PWC must wear one. I've worn non USCG vests for a very long time, despite the rule. For me it's much more comfortable; less restrictive, better impact protection, more arm movement, lighter, feel less like a bobber in an ocean, etc. It was my understanding the only difference was how high your head was above the water for USCG vs. Non USCG.
I haven't taken the time to read any responses but was this the first time your brother wore the jacket? If not, didn't he notice that unless he treaded water, he would sink? Or was his drowning a result of his lungs filling with water that tipped the balance of barely floating vs. sinking?
As far as the lawsuit; is that any way to honor your brother? He died doing what he loved to do, wearing the equipment he wanted to wear. You brought up several points about body fat % which is very intelligent but opposing counsel will use the same argument plus the disclaimers/warnings on the jacket and on the sales tag. A manufacturer cannot anticipate the makeup of everyone's body that buys a vest/jacket.
As much as it hurts and as much as it sucks and as much as you'd like to blame someone, there is no blame to pass around. _________________ I hope the weather is calm as you sail up your heavenly stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
02lightning, we obviously have very fundamental differences of opinion regarding where personal resonsibility ends and product liability begins. I'm a retard, and you're a lawyer. That makes us pretty much even on the intellect scale. It might be best if we leave it at that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You kill you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chavez Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 27375 City: Roseville
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
King of the Tigers, I disagree. Putting a very distinct warning statement directly on the garment eliminates the question.
02lightning, the current statement is not ambiguous. It clearly states that the device is not a safety device and is not designed to protect from drowning. It is large, noticeable, and to the point.
Look, the bottom line here is the kid is dead because HE made a poor choice, one that just happens to be ILLEGAL in his state.
Maybe Suzuki should put a big fat warning sticker on Hayabusa that mention injury or death could occur if you drive 160mph with no helmet on? I mean they don't have a big fat warning on the bikes, why not? Shouldn't they?
No, they shouldn't. Why? Because if you participate in an inherently dangerous activity, you are aware (or should be) that there are inherent risks involved with said activity.
I know that somewhere in your law schooling you studied inherent risk. _________________
Quote: | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lcap Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 10973 City: Homeless
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stop the b.s.! Obvious and understandable the majority of gum shoes would encourage litigation, any and all litigation. Pays for electricity to power the GIANT NEON signs in their windows and the even bigger YELLOW pages ad.
Whatever happened to bad things happen? Accidents happen? Life is full of unfortunate twists, turns and non breaking curve balls. I've learned to enjoy the hazards of living vs. sitting on a coach paralyzed with fear to do anything because I may get hurt or die.
Death is the natural conclusion of life. Why such a fear of it? Why is it necessary to always find fault or blame for an unfortunate and tragic accident? If anyone as an "experienced wakeboarder" knows that from time to time you may get knocked out, not wearing the appropriate safety equipment is negligent on the riders part, not the manufacturer. I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I do wear a CGA jacket on the Air Chair AND a helmet AND a wet suit. I don't fear death but I don't want to die being stupid either. _________________ I hope the weather is calm as you sail up your heavenly stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chavez Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 27375 City: Roseville
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PS: don't call swass a retard. If you need to use ad hominem to get your point across, you are not doing a very good job of arguing said point. _________________
Quote: | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swass Guest
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I generally don't resort to personal attacks when discussing issues on WB. I let my emotions get the best of me on this one. I apologize if my contributions to this discussion were offensive to anyone in general, and 02lightening in particular.
I still think I'm right, though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chattwake Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 4064 City: Chattanooga
|
Posted: Sep 28, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think driving 160 miles an hour on a crotch rocket is the same as wakeboarding, but what do I know.
Oh, ok I can play that game. Say you're on a Hayabusa and you're wearing a pro model helmet that states that "Not DOT approved, injury or death may occur." Say you're driving 30 miles an hour and you lay the bike down to miss a dog in the road and your helmet shatters and you suffer a major head injury that clearly would not have happened had you been wearing a DOT approved helmet. Did you expect that helmet to do that based solely upon that warning? Probably not. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|