F-ing Gov't. !

[Chevy Nick]

I'd like to see this thread ran through that software that makes an animated video from a script.

+3

[trentor]

This thread cracks me up.

Camino,

You might give this a look:

http://www.soloperformance.com/SPS-5-Gallon-Utility-Jug_p_1270.html

[67impss]

Now that's a gas can should work well for the Ivory soap crowd(99.98%) including me

Edited January 25, 2011 by 67impss

[SAmadei]

You might give this a look:

http://www.soloperfo...Jug_p_1270.html

Not sure you could use these for gas/kerosene in most states. IIRC, your container needs to be red and be marked 'gasoline' to get gas filled into it, for example.

Granted, most gas station people are not going to stop you... I'm merely saying that you would still be breaking the law.

[trentor]

^ True. I'm not positive if they are, but it says DOT approved and is being sold on a pretty reputable auto racing site. And like you said, no gas station, self-service one anyway, is going to know the difference or even really care.

[Intrepidation]

I see a red one, so that could be used to hold gas. All of Camino's problems are solved. Live is wunderbar. THANKS TO THE POWER OF THE INTERNET.

[Intrepidation]

This thread cracks me up.

Camino,

You might give this a look:

http://www.soloperformance.com/SPS-5-Gallon-Utility-Jug_p_1270.html

[Camino LS6]

Camino,

You might give this a look:

http://www.soloperformance.com/SPS-5-Gallon-Utility-Jug_p_1270.html

That might just work - if you can get a spout for it.

Thanks for the link.

[Justin Bimmer]

That might just work - if you can get a spout for it.

Thanks for the link.

I think that is something that race teams use for race gas. Usually they have some type of hose that connects to the lid for pouring.

Race Can Hose

[regfootball]

I see a red one, so that could be used to hold gas. All of Camino's problems are solved. Live is wunderbar. THANKS TO THE POWER OF THE INTERNET.

until the feds take over your internet!!!!!!!!!!!!! which they are planning to do!!!!!!!!!!!!

(one thing where the feds have a leg up on CARB)

[Robert Hall]

Speaking of gas cans, I don't think she still uses it for the lawn mower gas, but my Mom has a can that is over 40 years old that my Dad used for years...a big metal can (like a round barrel w/ a sloped top), with a metal cap that screws on/off w/ a rubber spout that attaches for pouring. I remember my Dad still using it as recently as the mid '90s, used to stick in the trunk of a car and go a couple miles to the gas station in town and fill it up to fuel the tractor and mowers.

One of those interesting little details I remember of rural life long ago and far away.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

I think that is something that race teams use for race gas. Usually they have some type of hose that connects to the lid for pouring.

Race Can Hose

Yeah, it's definitely the race type. I guess they are skirting the laws by selling the can and spout separately. I'm going to check with the suppliers we use for the race cars.

We have some cans like that (just larger), but we use a hand pump rather than a spout or hose. They are way too big to handle otherwise.

[Intrepidation]

So I bought a 5 gallon CARB can for diesel yesterday. Cost me $16. Filled it up, took it home, poured the entire contents into the filler neck. Not a drop spilled. How is this possible? HAXX?

Joking aside, I liked how the nozzle doesn't allow fuels to vent out, which meant that the car didn't smell like diesel when I got home. I may have to do it again tonight, just to be sure the furnace doesn't run out before the oil truck comes tomorrow. With these frigid temperatures lately the furnaces has bee chewing through oil. Honestly I don't recall Natural Gas being that costly last winter.

[Satty]

until the feds take over your internet!!!!!!!!!!!!! which they are planning to do!!!!!!!!!!!!

(one thing where the feds have a leg up on CARB)

I'm going to invest in tinfoil.

[FAPTurbo]

I'm going to invest in tinfoil.

Better do it. You already missed the gas can bubble. Don't want to be left behind this time around.

[Robert Hall]

Make your peace.

Soon all your internets are belong to usa

[Intrepidation]

You have no chance to survive, make your time.

[regfootball]

Oprah is behind it. She has her own tv network now, you know. That is just the trojan horse to something entirely worse.

[regfootball]

I'm going to invest in tinfoil.

before every game....you want some?

[SAmadei]

Oprah is behind it. She has her own tv network now, you know. That is just the trojan horse to something entirely worse.

So far OWN is a failure. It barely gathers 50% of the ratings the Discovery Health channel did before it was canabalized.

[regfootball]

even after the appearance of the never before known half sister? (biological definition of sister)

wow, the timing of that was convenient for press.

if it's OWN i guess she can't be P WNED then........

Burned Boys Family Sues Gas Can Company

even if you leave a 6 year old alone to pour gas on a fire you can still blame it on the maker of the can! SUE! SUE! (I swear that lawyer's name was Beelzebub).....

farmers pissed off because it takes to long to fill the tractor

Edited January 26, 2011 by regfootball

[Camino LS6]

Thanks for posting that, Reg.

The farmers get it.

[Intrepidation]

So, parents let a 6 year old try and pour highly flammable gasoline on a fire and are surprised when he got burned? Yeah, real legitimate way to make a case for yourself.

[Camino LS6]

So, parents let a 6 year old try and pour highly flammable gasoline on a fire and are surprised when he got burned? Yeah, real legitimate way to make a case for yourself.

...and then some swine lawyer gets involved.

Disgusting.

[FAPTurbo]

A local attorney for the boy and his mom filed a federal lawsuit Monday blaming the manufacturer of the portable gas can, Blitz USA, for Dylan's injures. They said the company should have known something like this would happen, and they could have prevented it.

I don't think Blitz assumed its purchasing base would consist of functionally retarded parents who'd let their six year olds pour gas on a bonfire.

[Satty]

Don't gas cans have a big warning that says something like "don't keep near an open flame"?

[regfootball]

So, parents let a 6 year old try and pour highly flammable gasoline on a fire and are surprised when he got burned? Yeah, real legitimate way to make a case for yourself.

no, they didn't LET him, they were just off doing what rednecks do and left the kid alone by a fire and a gas can!!!!!!

Don't gas cans have a big warning that says something like "don't keep near an open flame"?

Sure, if CARB or the feds mandate that. Problem is that there is like 5 paragraphs of associated warnings also on there, its a little hard for a 6 year old to read a legal document in 5 seconds....

[Croc]

Guys, READING COMPREHENSION. I don't get why you're so hung up on the 6-year-old's age here...that fact isn't relevant at all to the allegations of the lawsuit. The suit is over a defective and unsafe design, one which allegedly could potentially explode whether being used by a 6-year-old or a 66-year-old. If the gas can design is defective and its contents can explode/injure someone, that has nothing to do with the age of the victim. The article even mentions other reports of similar accidents with much older victims. So...who cares? I love a good white trash pile-on as much as anyone, but this is ridiculous.

[Justin Bimmer]

Not only can we thank California for giving us safety fillers on new gas cans we can once again thank the great State of California for the ability to sue companies who make dangerous products. From Wikipedia:

Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.

The difficulty with negligence is that it still requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct fell below the relevant standard of care. However, if an entire industry tacitly settles on a somewhat careless standard of conduct, then the plaintiff may not be able to recover even though he or she is severely injured, because although the defendant's conduct caused his or her injuries, such conduct was not negligent in the legal sense. As a practical matter, with the increasing complexity of products, injuries, and medical care (which made many formerly fatal injuries survivable), it is quite a difficult and expensive task to find and retain good expert witnesses who can establish the standard of care, breach, and causation.

Therefore, in the 1940s and 1950s, many American courts departed from the MacPherson standard and decided that it was too harsh to require seriously injured consumer plaintiffs to prove negligence claims against manufacturers or retailers. To avoid having to deny such plaintiffs any relief, these courts began to look for facts in their cases which they could characterize as an express or implied warranty from the manufacturer to the consumer. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine was also stretched to reduce the plaintiff's burden of proof. Over time, the resulting legal fictions became increasingly strained.

Of the various U.S. states, California was the first to throw away the fiction of a warranty and to boldly assert the doctrine of strict liability in tort for defective products, in 1963 (under the guidance of then-Associate Justice Roger J. Traynor). See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963). The importance of Greenman cannot be overstated: in 1996, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now known as the American Association of Justice) celebrated its 50th anniversary by polling lawyers and law professors on the top ten developments in tort law during the past half-century, and Greenman topped the list.[3]

In Greenman, Traynor cited to his own earlier concurrence in Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring). In Escola, now widely recognized as a landmark case in American law,[4] Justice Traynor laid the foundation for Greenman with these words:

“ Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection. ”

The year after Greenman, the Supreme Court of California proceeded to extend strict liability to all parties involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective products (including retailers)[5] and in 1969 made it clear that such defendants were liable not only to direct customers and users, but also to any innocent bystanders randomly injured by defective products.[6]

Since then, many jurisdictions have been swayed by Justice Traynor's strongly persuasive arguments on behalf of the strict liability rule in Escola, Greenman, and subsequent cases—including nearly all U.S. states, the European Union, Australia, and Japan— and have adopted it either by judicial decision or by legislative act. Notably, South Africa, New Zealand, and the U.S. state of North Carolina have soundly rejected strict liability; Canada continues to officially reject it but under American influence has gradually adjusted certain aspects of negligence and warranty law to make them more favorable to consumers.

Oddly, although the Greenman rule was transmitted to most other states via Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second (published in 1964 after Greenman), the Supreme Court of California refused to adopt Section 402A's "unreasonably dangerous" limitation upon strict liability in 1972.[7] Thus, strict liability in California is truly strict, in that the plaintiff need not show that the defect was unreasonable or dangerous. On the other hand, in California, the defendant is allowed to introduce evidence in a strict products liability action that the plaintiff contributed to his or her own injuries.[8]

Although the Supreme Court of California has since become more conservative, it continues to endorse and expand the doctrine. In 2002 it held that strict liability for defective products even applies to makers of component products that are installed into and sold as part of real property.[9]

[Camino LS6]

The product wasn't defective - the parents were.

I'd charge them with neglect.

[Justin Bimmer]

The product wasn't defective - the parents were.

I'd charge them with neglect.

In a civil matter, most states will allow for a cross-complaint to try and show the plaintiffs were either comparatively negligent or contributorally negligent. If the cross-complaint is successful, it will either mitigate the damages or may completely wipe out any claim for damages. However, in Strict Liability cases, this may not remove liability if the Defendant is found liable under SLIT.

[Croc]

The product wasn't defective - the parents were.

I'd charge them with neglect.

Again, that's not what the lawsuit is about.

[Croc]

In a civil matter, most states will allow for a cross-complaint to try and show the plaintiffs were either comparatively negligent or contributorally negligent. If the cross-complaint is successful, it will either mitigate the damages or may completely wipe out any claim for damages. However, in Strict Liability cases, this may not remove liability if the Defendant is found liable under SLIT.

Exactly. Basically, the plaintiffs need to prove that the absence of a "flame arrestor" renders this product dangerously defective.

[SAmadei]

Guys, READING COMPREHENSION. I don't get why you're so hung up on the 6-year-old's age here...that fact isn't relevant at all to the allegations of the lawsuit. The suit is over a defective and unsafe design, one which allegedly could potentially explode whether being used by a 6-year-old or a 66-year-old. If the gas can design is defective and its contents can explode/injure someone, that has nothing to do with the age of the victim. The article even mentions other reports of similar accidents with much older victims. So...who cares? I love a good white trash pile-on as much as anyone, but this is ridiculous.

Hmmm... So what you're saying is that they were unable to prevent the product from leaking or exploding suddenly by using their intellect to hold down a lever? About three or so of our members were able to use their superior intellect to use the product without issue, so I guess the defense lawyers are going to want to get a hold of them and learn of their secrets. ;-)

Either that, or they got lucky and didn't experience something ranging from leakage and inconvenience to 3rd degree burns.

Edited January 27, 2011 by SAmadei

[Robert Hall]

Hmmm... So what you're saying is that they were unable to prevent the product from leaking or exploding suddenly by using their intellect to hold down a lever? About three or so of our members were able to use their superior intellect to use the product without issue, so I guess the defense lawyers are going to want to get a hold of them and learn of their secrets. ;-)

Either that, or they got lucky and didn't experience something ranging from leakage and inconvenience to 3rd degree burns.

Speaking of someone doing stupid $h! with gasoline, there was something on one of the sites last week about some dolts in an '80s Dodge van that poured gasoline into a cup then poured into the carby...started it, and the gas vapors exploded.

[SAmadei]

Speaking of someone doing stupid $h! with gasoline, there was something on one of the sites last week about some dolts in an '80s Dodge van that poured gasoline into a cup then poured into the carby...started it, and the gas vapors exploded.

Oh, yeah... Here.

Of course, this is a great demo why I don't refill cars/trucks/mowers in an enclosed space. They did this from inside the van, while it was closed up. Bad idea. Pouring a little gas into the carb is a good way to get a dry fuel system primed... but you have to still be careful. In a van, that means opening the doors and getting everyone out.

[Croc]

Hmmm... So what you're saying is that they were unable to prevent the product from leaking or exploding suddenly by using their intellect to hold down a lever? About three or so of our members were able to use their superior intellect to use the product without issue, so I guess the defense lawyers are going to want to get a hold of them and learn of their secrets. ;-)

Either that, or they got lucky and didn't experience something ranging from leakage and inconvenience to 3rd degree burns.

The article clearly stated that the gasoline ignited and the ignition followed the gas/vapors INTO the gas can. The can eventually exploded, covering the boy with burning gasoline. The lawsuit is over whether or not a "flame arrestor" that would have prevented flames from entering the can should have been part of the can design.

[Intrepidation]

Guys, READING COMPREHENSION. I don't get why you're so hung up on the 6-year-old's age here...that fact isn't relevant at all to the allegations of the lawsuit. The suit is over a defective and unsafe design, one which allegedly could potentially explode whether being used by a 6-year-old or a 66-year-old. If the gas can design is defective and its contents can explode/injure someone, that has nothing to do with the age of the victim. The article even mentions other reports of similar accidents with much older victims. So...who cares? I love a good white trash pile-on as much as anyone, but this is ridiculous.

It's not defective. I'm pretty sure gas cans aren't intended to be used to pour gas on fires. I mean on what planet does that even sound like a good idea? If you use it to, Oh i don't know, pour gas into a tank of some kind, its intended purpose, you don't have an issue with flames following the vapor trail, because there would be none. Anyone who thinks its a super cool idea to do so is just asking for a fireball in their face. Shame on the parents for leaving a gas can where a child can get a hold of it and not educating them that its a bad idea to pour gas on a damn fire.

[Croc]

It's not defective. I'm pretty sure gas cans aren't intended to be used to pour gas on fires. I mean on what planet does that even sound like a good idea? If you use it to, Oh i don't know, pour gas into a tank of some kind, its intended purpose, you don't have an issue with flames following the vapor trail, because there would be none. Anyone who thinks its a super cool idea to do so is just asking for a fireball in their face. Shame on the parents for leaving a gas can where a child can get a hold of it and not educating them that its a bad idea to pour gas on a damn fire.

I don't disagree, but that's not what this is about.

[Satty]

Any vessel designed to transport flammable materials is inherently dangerous. They really should just change the warning label to "$h!s gonna blow up!"

[Intrepidation]

Especially if you think its a good idea to pour said highly flammable liquid on flame.

[Robert Hall]

Especially if you think its a good idea to pour said highly flammable liquid on flame.

Putting out fire with gasoline...

[Justin Bimmer]

The problem is, should the company have designed and or manufactured the product to prevent explosion if exposed to a direct heat source.

[Intrepidation]

Sure if you made it from weapons grade titanium. But if people are unwilling to pay $60 for a galvanized steel tank, what do you think the odds are of them paying for a tank strong enough to container the energy of gasoline igniting?

I think the more pressing question is: why is America f-ing retarded?

[regfootball]

i just bet that 6 year old kid is a hoot. have explosives, will travel. all while the parents are off downing malt liquor.

I think the more pressing question is: why is America f-ing retarded?

garbage in, garbage out. we don't ask anyone to evaluate things for themselves these days. although, i think we can give a waiver to the six year old. its the parents who need a lobotomy.

[Croc]

The problem is, should the company have designed and or manufactured the product to prevent explosion if exposed to a direct heat source.

Bingo.

[Croc]

Sure if you made it from weapons grade titanium. But if people are unwilling to pay $60 for a galvanized steel tank, what do you think the odds are of them paying for a tank strong enough to container the energy of gasoline igniting?

..."strong enough"?? Yea somehow I don't think the strength or materials of the can itself has anything to do with a "flame arrestor" or this lawsuit.

[Intrepidation]

Don't pour gas on an open flame or hot surface and it won't combust.

[PurdueGuy]

I like the button on my newer gas can. I use the can only for filling my push mower. I can get it all tipped up & in position, then push the button to start pouring, so there's no initial sloshing gas where I don't want it while tipping or aiming the can initially. Then, when the tank is full, I release the button and the pouring stops immediately. I spill so much less than with my old can. It also has two handles built in, which is nice for positioning/holding.I can see where there would be situations where its spout wouldn't be long enough though. I'm also tempted to remove the little safety lock that has to be clicked into place before you can pour. Then it'd just be as simple as pick it up, aim it, push the button, pour, release, done. I could see not wanting to hold the button though, some some kind of click open & closed type button could be a nice feature on a nicer can or something. Doesn't take long enough to fill a push mower tank for that to matter though, IMO.

[Intrepidation]

I like the button on my newer gas can. I use the can only for filling my push mower. I can get it all tipped up & in position, then push the button to start pouring, so there's no initial sloshing gas where I don't want it while tipping or aiming the can initially. Then, when the tank is full, I release the button and the pouring stops immediately. I spill so much less than with my old can. It also has two handles built in, which is nice for positioning/holding.I can see where there would be situations where its spout wouldn't be long enough though. I'm also tempted to remove the little safety lock that has to be clicked into place before you can pour. Then it'd just be as simple as pick it up, aim it, push the button, pour, release, done. I could see not wanting to hold the button though, some some kind of click open & closed type button could be a nice feature on a nicer can or something. Doesn't take long enough to fill a push mower tank for that to matter though, IMO.

I love that too. No initial spill. Just get the can in position and depress the lever, then let go for it to stop. No mess. I was very pleased that none of my 5 gallons of diesel ended up in the snow.