Justin Bimmer

Tip of the hat to thee Croc.

No, I'm not saying that the lawsuit by the parents of the burned child are in the right. I think their lawsuit is pretty frivolous. A 6 year old child should not be handling a gasoline container period. It is not reasonable for a company to have to design a gas can for use by 6 year olds when they cant operate anything that uses gasoline as a fuel.

All of the examples here are clearly not what strict liability was designed for. A clear example of strict liability is a situation where an easy fix to a safety issue can be made at little cost in design or manufacture. An example would be the clutch on a self propelled mower for when you release the handle, it stops moving. Or a kill switch cord on personal watercraft.

what ever happened to shooting tin cans or actual targets with grades on them. I remember in Dirty Harry, they used to shoot photos of people in Magnum Force when they were having their shooting championship. Harry shot a bystander and somebody yelps "he shot a good guy" or something like that.

Agreed, however, we are not just talking about idiots here. We are also discussing if manufacturers should make their gas cans hold up to exposure to a direct heat source. Every set of facts are different. In the case of the kid blowing himself up by pouring gas on a fire is different than say having the gas can 30 ft away from a running generator and it exploding. For example.

Yes, that's good. But there are three elements to Strict Products Liability. 1) Warning 2) Design 3) Manufacture. Any one of those 3 elements can be defective in order to have a cause of action.

I think it is quite an important premise. If a company wants to make gasoline containers, one valid concern should be exposure to direct heat source. The last thing I would want is for a product I make to blow up because somebody got too close to fire or a heater or a running engine. Companies SHARE responsibility with the users of their products. If it turns out that nothing could have been done with reasonable investment in product compared to the risk, then the company will prevail.

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

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.

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:

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

+1

Acutally, it is the future. Kevin Butler, the VP of Sony is creating a new photoshop program. I used that to create that entry.

Here is my entry:

WAIT!!!! The evil California government CARB has invaded CANADA!!!

There are at least 10 states that require CARB type emissions on items. Also, I bet more gas cans are bought in California then in 20 states combined. Plus, if these things really were horrible death traps, they would be recalled. I am reminded of a clever quip my father used to tell me "Save a dime, spend a dollar"

I figured since it was California's fault the world has to suffer with crappy gas cans. They should be the state that offered you the award.