“The court also concluded the beverage could not be considered a “simple” product and given this fact, the dangerous quality of the product could not be within the realm of common knowledge so as to say the dangers were open and obvious.”
OK, the court has now ruled that the knowledge that a can of carbonated liquid might spw when you open it is now “within the realm of common knowledge”.
Is there ANYTHING LEFT “within the realm of common knowledge”? ANYTHING AT ALL?!?!?
Gravity, maybe? Oh, no, we’ve got rulings against that on already…
I’m intrigued by the summary in the POL post, and have a couple of questions for the legal experts out there. What does the one word sentence, “Reversed” refer to? The trial court verdict?
Also, what is the rule for finding something a “simple” product? It sounds like being judged a simple product would have saved Coke some grief. I’m wondering what is not simple about sugar water?
This website should be called “new lows” for the precendents that are being highlighted. What is the endgame in this act of selling and buying? Signed contracts for every pack of gum, bottle of milk, and bag of potato chips? Or is it implied already? The best reason for not starting my own business is the cost of lawsuit protection.
Or is it even possible? I already feel queasy about buying a home in the current state of torts. Help!
Admitting that she somehow injured herself with a can of soda should be nearly as embarassing as the DEA officer who shot himself in the foot.
Embarassing personal acts that result in self injury should be object lessons to those who shoot themselves in the foot or eye. Now everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame and a chance at free money.
Court rules Coke should have warning label regarding product fizz
This in from PointofLaw (via Overlawyered): Below is the summary of an unpublished opinion recently issued by the Michigan Appeals Court. The decision allows a case to go forward against The Coca-Cola Company based upon spray exiting a can of Diet Coke…
5 Comments
“The court also concluded the beverage could not be considered a “simple” product and given this fact, the dangerous quality of the product could not be within the realm of common knowledge so as to say the dangers were open and obvious.”
OK, the court has now ruled that the knowledge that a can of carbonated liquid might spw when you open it is now “within the realm of common knowledge”.
Is there ANYTHING LEFT “within the realm of common knowledge”? ANYTHING AT ALL?!?!?
Gravity, maybe? Oh, no, we’ve got rulings against that on already…
I’m intrigued by the summary in the POL post, and have a couple of questions for the legal experts out there. What does the one word sentence, “Reversed” refer to? The trial court verdict?
Also, what is the rule for finding something a “simple” product? It sounds like being judged a simple product would have saved Coke some grief. I’m wondering what is not simple about sugar water?
This website should be called “new lows” for the precendents that are being highlighted. What is the endgame in this act of selling and buying? Signed contracts for every pack of gum, bottle of milk, and bag of potato chips? Or is it implied already? The best reason for not starting my own business is the cost of lawsuit protection.
Or is it even possible? I already feel queasy about buying a home in the current state of torts. Help!
Admitting that she somehow injured herself with a can of soda should be nearly as embarassing as the DEA officer who shot himself in the foot.
Embarassing personal acts that result in self injury should be object lessons to those who shoot themselves in the foot or eye. Now everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame and a chance at free money.
Court rules Coke should have warning label regarding product fizz
This in from PointofLaw (via Overlawyered):
Below is the summary of an unpublished opinion recently issued by the Michigan Appeals Court. The decision allows a case to go forward against The Coca-Cola Company based upon spray exiting a can of Diet Coke…