stealth2
Under the Radar Member
Well... HE's certainly learned not to stick it where it doesn't belong! As the parent of a daughter? I thank Electrolux for the lesson!
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Injured child and no warning labels on a vacuum cleaner
- Thread starter loving_parents
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Well... HE's certainly learned not to stick it where it doesn't belong! As the parent of a daughter? I thank Electrolux for the lesson!
I suspect there aren't enough product labels in the world to deter an adolescent with a history of placing his penis where it doesn't belong. If it wasn't the vaccum cleaner, it would have been the leaf blower.
These loving_parents might have fared better sewing warning labels into Junior's underwear.
Proserpina
Senior Member
Well, at least it wasn't the wood-chipper.
Be thankful for small mercies.
Be thankful for small mercies.
OHRoadwarrior
Senior Member
It is nice that your son warns you what he stuck his penis in before you touch, use, eat or drink with it. This can also avoid complications of seed exposure if he uses something, used comparatively by the mother or sister in the family and they fail to clean it first.
Gail in Georgia
Senior Member
"Electrolux - he dug it out from the attic. It was grandma's "
Perhaps you could also consider suing grandma.
Seriously....these are the kind of lawsuits that garner media attention. Is that what you'd like for your son should you wish to continue this line of nonsense?
Gail
P.S. All my old vacuums are Electrolux (you can find these beauties on ebay); they are absolutely great work horses of machines; last forever and far outwork the junk that passes for a modern vacuum today.
Perhaps you could also consider suing grandma.
Seriously....these are the kind of lawsuits that garner media attention. Is that what you'd like for your son should you wish to continue this line of nonsense?
Gail
P.S. All my old vacuums are Electrolux (you can find these beauties on ebay); they are absolutely great work horses of machines; last forever and far outwork the junk that passes for a modern vacuum today.
Ohiogal
Queen Bee
Those that have seen American Pie would think of using warm food -- particularly pie -- to get off with.
Mass_Shyster
Senior Member
Ouch, ouch, ouch.
BUT. . . warning labels are stuck on all sorts of products because there are brainless people in the world. A warning label can prevent brainless people from misusing a product and then suing a company for injuries sustained. The absense of any sort of warning label on a product with moving parts could actually support a successful suit.
That said, loving_parents said the vacuum was an older model vacuum, and that makes a successful suit less likely. Products change over time to meet new safety standards. Any new vacuum will be designed with new safety measures and warning labels firmly in place.
Even so, I agree with Proserpina that speaking with a personal injury lawyer (and educating the son) makes sense.
(I realize this is probably Mike or prayers, but just in case. . . )
Subsequent design changes will not relieve a manufacturer from liability in the old models.
OP should find a products liability lawyer, not a personal injury lawyer. They're different specialties.
The trick here will be proving that the vacuum was in the same condition (with any warning labels affixed) as it was when it left the control of the manufacturer.
See Restatement of Torts section 402A for the requirements of a products liability suit.
quincy
Senior Member
A products liability lawyer is a good suggestion, but I don't really believe there is a cause of action here - although at first I thought there might be. The age of the vacuum is just one factor that I feel works against a claim.
A product is not defective if it is safe for normal use. From Richard A. Epstein's Cases and Materials on TORTS: "A product that is sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." An example given by Epstein is that of whiskey - "Good whiskey is not unreasonably dangerous merely because it will make some people drunk, and is especially dangerous to alcoholics; but bad whiskey, containing a dangerous amount of fusel oil, is unreasonably dangerous."
If an injury results from abnormal handling of the product, then liability falls to the mishandler of the product and not to the manufacturer of the product. And I cannot think offhand of a handling more abnormal than sticking your penis in a vacuum hose.
A manufacturer is required to give directions and/or warnings on proper use to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous. The Electrolux probably came with a booklet with warnings (most will mention moving parts). There are some warnings, however, that do not need to be given by a manufacturer because a manufacturer is not expected to be prescient and know all ways a product can be misused.
I contend that no manufacturer of a vacuum would expect their product to be used in the manner described here.
I think the mom needs to find another way to pay the medical bills. A lawsuit is bound to be a costly exercise in futility.
Last edited:
tranquility
Senior Member
A products liability lawyer is a good suggestion, but I don't really believe there is a cause of action here - although at first I thought there might be. The age of the vacuum is just one factor that I feel works against a claim.
A product is not defective if it is safe for normal use. From Richard A. Epstein's Cases and Materials on TORTS: "A product that is sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." An example given by Epstein is that of whiskey - "Good whiskey is not unreasonably dangerous merely because it will make some people drunk, and is especially dangerous to alcoholics; but bad whiskey, containing a dangerous amount of fusel oil, is unreasonably dangerous."
If an injury results from abnormal handling of the product, then liability falls to the mishandler of the product and not to the manufacturer of the product. And I cannot think offhand of a handling more abnormal than sticking your penis in a vacuum hose.
A manufacturer is required to give directions and/or warnings on proper use to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous. The Electrolux probably came with a booklet with warnings (most will mention moving parts). There are some warnings, however, that do not need to be given by a manufacturer because a manufacturer is not expected to be prescient and know all ways a product can be misused.
I contend that no manufacturer of a vacuum would expect their product to be used in the manner described here.
I think the mom needs to find another way to pay the medical bills. A lawsuit is bound to be a costly exercise in futility.
Well, it depends on the story the boy tells. Perhaps he was just riding on it.
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/571/571.F2d.51.77-1276.77-1275.html
quincy
Senior Member
Ouch, ouch, ouch. Who the heck are growing these boys anyway?
The mom could have an attorney review the facts to determine if there is an action worth pursuing and the likelihood of success in such an action.
What a sad state of affairs it is when pre-teen boys can stick their penises where no sane boy should or would and still get awarded a whole lot of money to compensate for their stupidity.
There is, on brief review, apparently no statute of repose for product defects in New Jersey.