The argument that these types of labels can protect both the consumer from harm and the company from litigation seems rather shaky to me. The companies can’t warn against every possible stupidity, and so saying that the consumer doesn’t have to use common sense and can sue if something isn’t specifically warned against leaves too many openings for ridiculous lawsuits. And it might also give some consumers the idea that if something isn’t specifically prohibited by the label, then it’s okay to do it; they might decide to forego any sort of responsibility of their own to use their judgment.
The labels in most cases are a direct result of litigation Acci… someone, somewhere DID some of this ridiculous stuff and then sued the companies who have created these labels.
I agree with your statement that people might decide to forgo responsibility… it seems the norm rather than the exception nowadays
I think that one of the best and most all-inclusive warning labels (as far as protecting from litigation) I’ve seen was on a laboratory machine I had to work with. The machine was of a type that had some rather serious hazards by its very nature, and was even worse than it would otherwise have been because it was really a piece of junk. On the side of it was a great big bright yellow warning label, with all sorts of warnings written in Italian. Then it had in English: “WARNING—DO NOT!”.
I think that one of the best and most all-inclusive warning labels (as far as protecting from litigation) I’ve seen was on a laboratory machine I had to work with. The machine was of a type that had some rather serious hazards by its very nature, and was even worse than it would otherwise have been because it was really a piece of junk. On the side of it was a great big bright yellow warning label, with all sorts of warnings written in Italian. Then it had in English: “WARNING—DO NOT!”.
Acci
Peter… there are links to photos of some of the winners in the original post… Photo page
Acci
