Via Volokh (where commenters have a lot to say, and are about to start arguing about coffee), humorist and California judge William Bedsworth comments on the New Jersey college-student-falls-out-of-bed-loft case we covered August 16:
Tragically, “There were no warning labels on the bed, and it had never ‘cross[ed his] mind’ or ‘occurred to’ plaintiff that he could fall or that the bed was dangerous in any way. He testified that had he seen a warning, he would have been ‘aware of the hazard that was present’ and slept closer to the wall, as he had done after the accident.” Honest. Says so right in the opinion.
And he had an expert, George Widas, who testified that industry standards in the bed-making industry require that the manufacturer affix a warning “that says make sure that you protect yourself from this fall hazard.” According to Widas, the warning label should have had “black letters on an orange background” and included a warning that both identified the hazard and explained how to avoid it.
So the label should have said — in Day-Glo green letters on a phosphorescent-pink background -— “THIS IS A BED. USE ONLY WHILE AWAKE.” Or perhaps “IF YOUR IQ IS NOT THIS TALL, YOU CANNOT RIDE ON THIS BED.” Or how about an arrow pointing downward, with the legend “FALLING IN THIS DIRECTION COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. FALL ONLY UPWARD OR TO THE SIDE.” …
9 Comments
Says a lot about the mental maturity of current generation students if they can’t imagine that falling out of a bed can hurt…
The manufacturer should sue the parents and schools of the kid for creating a nitwit like that, and the store should face criminal charges for selling a potentially dangerous implement to someone incapable of handling it safely.
Maybe also put in place a system of mandatory bed training, requiring a license to buy and use a bed (with type ratings per category of beds similar to what is present in aviation for different aircraft types).
In the end this kid (legally an adult) will get his just reward. The web remembers everything and all is searchable. As schools for graduate work or future employers interview him they will undoubtedly be curious about his past, as I routinely do with job applicants. His admitted stupidity and propensity to blame others for his own acts will be a sure coversation starter at a job interview.
Might have a future in Congress…
A fall-hazard warning label on a bunk bed would cause me to be overcome by an uncontrollable fit of laughter, quite possibly causing permanent physical injuries due to spasms and lack of oxygen to the brain, not to mention ruinous damage to my reputation. I would sue for $2.78 million.
There is no way anyone who is on the ball enough to be in college (which, sadly, these days isn’t really saying all that much), would be stupid enough that he wouldn’t realize the hazard of a bunk bed.
Bottom line: The kid was lying to make a buck. How anyone could find in his favor is mind-boggling.
Even if there was a warning label on the bunkbed who’s to say that he would have paid any attention to it? I wonder if he could even read it? He is in college after all.
Well, to be fair, Stockton State College is only a college in the broadest possible meaning of the word.
I don’t understand juries. Perhaps it’s the judge’s influence regarding following the judge’s instructions that pressures juries to vote a certain way (despite jury nullification)? Or, juries have some kind of magical groupthink that prevents them from making rational, common sense decisions? Can you write a post or reference links to why juries work the way they work?
I think I meant to post the last comment on the 217 million stroke misdiagnosis verdict. It would have made more sense.