This is crazy...... (tort reform)

[WTJ]

i agree, its a simple gas can, if ya cant make one thats simple, either quit or make something else.
I dont think they should be responsible for certain stupid injuries but then im not on that jury.

Well. the simplest, and best, gas can ever manufactured are the new GI fuel cans manufactured in Canada. However, you cannot have one as all gas cans must be CARB compliant. What is CARB, you ask. Why, that's the California Air Resources Board. Wait,wut, California, you say. Why, yes, California now tells the rest of the country what gas cans are good for them to use. How is that possible, you ask. Well, the FedGov Clean Air Act says that California was first to make rules on environmentally, but maybe not personnel, safe fuel cans so all the sheep must comply.

However, you can buy those illegal cans in Canada for 20CAD. Just don't bring them here. I guess the Canadians have different air....

BTW, you can thank Ronald Reagan, El Supremo Conservativo, for CARB.

 

[Lurker66]

Or ya can use a milk jug or chlorox bottle. Ive never seen a gas container inspecter at any gas station.

I still doubt lawsuits were the reason the company has to close. Competition, poor managment or loss of market share is prolly closer to truth.

 

[farmerbyron]

I don't think all of you are stupid. I think a lot of you let your emotions rule your decisions and shape your world view. This prevents you from seeing the proverbial "bigger picture." That doesn't make you stupid, it makes you shortsighted.

And FYI junior, my life is very busy and it is "wonderful" because I have an incredible wife, great staff and good friends. Making your life "wonderful" is not that difficult. It just takes a little work.

No, I would not take a case like this. I feel for the child, and I wonder what evidence the jury had that compelled it to make an award against the company.

Whatever the case, it is a shame that the child was horribly burned and that the company has to close down. But also remember bankruptcy is a business tool, and the company may or may not stay shut down.

If it were your kid, maybe not.

Kind of funny to use the "emotions ruling decisions" argument while talking about this case.


As far as "my kid" goes, I need to PM a little story about my kid and someone else's negligence if I can ever get to a computer.


I realize why you are so against any kind of tort reform. It is your livelihood and any reductions of opportunity are going to negatively impact your bottom line. It's simple economics and I don't blame you.

 

[inactive]

Or ya can use a milk jug or chlorox bottle. Ive never seen a gas container inspecter at any gas station.

I still doubt lawsuits were the reason the company has to close. Competition, poor managment or loss of market share is prolly closer to truth.

There's some truth to this. If Blitz was the singular manufacturer back in the day, they would have been able to set prices commensurate to their costs, including suits and insurance. If a litigious society drove up their costs of production, why didn't just raise the prices of gas cans to offset this? Sure we might end up paying 30 bucks for some specialized red Tupperware, but that may be what it takes to keep them in operation.

But since they are closing, I don't believe it's just the suits that make their business unproductive. I agree there's got to be more to it. My guess is more competitively priced alternatives from overseas or elsewhere. Also gas cans are a funny thing. They have to be emissions compliant for California (CARB), so you just can't start painting water jugs red and selling them. If the emissions regulations are ever-changing, that could pressure them out of the market as well.

 

[inactive]

I realize why you are so against any kind of tort reform. It is your livelihood and any reductions of opportunity are going to negatively impact your bottom line. It's simple economics and I don't blame you.

I work for an insurance company, and my company has been opposite many of the suits that help make JB his massive amounts of money. But I am against tort reform (though my industry supports it). Why?

Because I don't think the government has any role in arbitrarily deciding these matters between two parties engaged in a civil suit. It should be reserved for the parties and their counsel to argue, and the judges and jurors to decide. Tort reform allows the government to weigh in on judgements before a suit is even filed, or really before a tortfeasor even causes anyone any damages. How does the government know what a ceiling for ANY and ALL damage claims could possibly be before reviewing any one case on its own individual circumstances and merits?

It's not unlike gun control laws allow the government to place restrictions on all citizens because of a few incompetent our outrageous ones. Should they punish the whole based on the actions of a few?

 

[Lurker66]

Yeps, i agree.

 

[farmerbyron]

I work for an insurance company, and my company has been opposite many of the suits that help make JB his massive amounts of money. But I am against tort reform (though my industry supports it). Why?

Because I don't think the government has any role in arbitrarily deciding these matters between two parties engaged in a civil suit. It should be reserved for the parties and their counsel to argue, and the judges and jurors to decide. Tort reform allows the government to weigh in on judgements before a suit is even filed, or really before a tortfeasor even causes anyone any damages. How does the government know what a ceiling for ANY and ALL damage claims could possibly be before reviewing any one case on its own individual circumstances and merits?

It's not unlike gun control laws allow the government to place restrictions on all citizens because of a few incompetent our outrageous ones. Should they punish the whole based on the actions of a few?

I can't really disagree with your premise that govt. should butt out of most civil situations. However, frivolous lawsuits are very costly and can make business difficult as evidenced by Blitz. Or say you are a gun or ammo manufacturer that many would like to run out of business. The idea of loser pays sounds like a great option for tort reform without creating a cap on judgements. You would make damn sure you had an actual case before you willy nilly filed a lawsuit hoping for a payday.