On May 2, Bill Childs’ blog covered the litigation over Wolfgang Puck self-heating latte cans, a bad business idea gone worse when the cans never quite worked right. A June 17 commenter, however, perhaps demonstrates why some people need lessons in natural selection rather than attorneys (all misspellings in original, emphasis added):
When will there be a class action suit against WP Gourmet Lattes? In this microwave society and Campbell Soup’s TV ads on microwavable soup in a can, WP’s self-heating can was negligent in it’s small, hidden warning against heating in a microwave (which causes a severe explosion in a matter of seconds). Our microwave was destroyed, our kitchen covered in dried latte and most important, my wife required 7 stiches above her eye.
Some skepticism is warranted; on the Internet, noone knows if you’re a dog, or an especially subtle prankster. I almost hate to publicize this: there’s some chance it’s fake, and if it’s real, it’s likely that this post will help Mr. Edwards find a lawyer who thinks Wolfgang Puck should be held liable when people put a self-heating can in the microwave because its warnings against it weren’t sufficiently idiot-proof.
13 Comments
Wow. That’s hostile.
First of all, it’s a plausible argument that the labelling is insufficient. Given, as the commenter correctly notes, that most other “self-heating” containers on the market today DO go in the microwave (even those with metal in their packaging), it might have been incumbant on this one to clearly and visibly indicate “BUT NOT THIS ONE.” I haven’t seen the cans so I couldn’t say whether the labelling actually was reasonably sufficient, but it certainly seems like such labelling would at least be reasonably necessary. The company is selling consumers a new and unfamiliar technology that is dangerous without instructions, and since it is new, there’s no source for those instructions other than the company itself (the consumer obviously can’t rely on past experience to fill in the gap, since that would likely suggest that it was ok to microwave).
Secondly, your comment about the misspellings was petty, and the commenter didn’t deserve it. There was neither any egregious error nor any overall lack of thoughtfulness to warrant such scorn.
It’s “plausible” that the labelling is insufficient only in our over-litigious society. Professor Jonathan Turley criticizes the “Wacky Warning” contest as highlighting examples of unnecessary labelling, because no tort suit could possibly come from this. “Do not put metal can in microwave” would absolutely qualify for the wacky warning contests.
Absolutely no warning is called for. Common sense says you don’t put a metal can in the microwave, period, unless there are specific instructions to the contrary. That there was a warning, and someone might have been careless enough to disregard it, doesn’t show that there should’ve been a larger warning; rather, it shows that people are quick to blame others for their own carelessness. Does every piece of metal need a large prominent “do not put in the microwave” warning because of Campbell’s innovation? Forks? Knives? Cans of aerosol cheese?
Second, my comment about the misspellings was a neutral editorial comment, and much less intrusive than adding multiple “[sic]”s in the text.
mmmm….microwaved spray cheese…..
A common OL theme: warning labels can never be made absolutely idiot proof, as previous posts reveal:
https://www.overlawyered.com/2005/03/australia_city_75_liable_becau.html
I would rather live with danger than, for example, have my beautiful new sports car’s appearance marred by multiple, ugly, un-removeable warning labels on sun visors, nav system, glove box doors, etc.
> Common sense says you don’t put a metal can in the microwave, period, unless there are specific instructions to the contrary.
It’s not just Campbells. Chef Boyardee and Hormel micromeals have lids made entirely made of metal. Granted most of it comes off before microwaving (they are clear about you needing to do that) but you are still left with a metal rim that, nonetheless, you are supposed to put in the microwave. Anyone with experience with that kind of “self-heating” container might easily therefore think there was something about this particular “self-heating” design as well that also negated the apparently not-absolute “don’t put metal in the microwave” rule.
It isn’t as simple as a “don’t put a metal fork” in the microwave. People have experience with metal forks and know they don’t belong there. But if they do have experience with prepared meals they might very well believe that they do, in fact, belong there unless they are specifically told they don’t.
It isn’t about litigiousness; it’s about what people’s reasonable expectations should be of how things work in an increasingly complex world.
There is no reasonable English definition of “self-heating” that applies to a Chef Boyardee microwave container. NB that there’s absolutely no warning on a regular can of non-microwave-safe Chef Boyardee, other than the directions on how to prepare the product in the microwave. Which is the same sort of direction that’s on the Wolfgang Puck latte: follow the directions and no one gets hurt.
At some point, human beings need to learn to look both ways before crossing the street, to not stick their fingers in the electrical outlet, to not spill hot beverages on themselves, and to not put metal in the microwave except under controlled circumstances after reading the label. That’s what parents are for. One can’t expect to learn common sense on the back of a can of latte.
Anyone who thinks there is a cause of action here must believe the tort system can overcome natural selection.
A more logical policy, perhaps, would be to make consumers take a test, like a driver’s license test, before they can buy a microwave oven. Anyone dumb enough to believe they can stick whatever they like in a microwave oven, unless there are bright orange hazard labels on the product, should have to cook what they eat the old fashioned way. (And no sharp utensils, either.)
Not to pick on a previous commenter, but I think she needs to familiarize herself with the concept of “self-heating.” Pretty much by definition, there are no self-heating containers in microwaves. That would be “microwavable,” not “self-heating.” The “self” is a rather clear indication that it doesn’t go in the microwave.
If we need to put a conspicuously placed warnings on SELF-heating cans, then I guess veterinarians should be required to tattoo warnings on pets not to dry them in the microwave.
Of course, the warnings regarding metal and arcing are plentiful in the microwave’s instruction manual. I read one that informed me not to “deep fat fry” in the microwave.
Not to pile on, but I have to agre with Ted and Jeff…
Cathy, where have you EVER sen something labelled as “self-heating” that you put in the microwave?!?
I’m trying to figure out where it all ends. I design industrial machinery for a living. If you could see what we go through to prevent people from injuring themselves on our machines, you wouldn’t believe it. As soon as we make something idiot-proof somebody out there breeds a better idiot.
I’d like to say I, too, hate to pile on, but that would be a load of crap. As I posted over on Bill Childs’ blog:
Call me an idiot but “self heating” would suggest to me that a product wouldn’t need microwaving.