A product liability action filed in San Francisco alleges that “defendants failed to warn the plaintiff that playing with a sharp sword displayed in its store would result in the plaintiff slicing his hand when he attempted to place it back in its sheath.” [Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar](& welcome Bainbridge readers)
6 Comments
Operator stupidity should be a sovereign defense against liability.
“Your honor, the plaintiff is too stupid to draw breath.”
“Agreed. Case dismissed.” {Bang of gavel}
How about if the store offers to put up a warning sign “Due to lawsuit by (insert name) because he cut his hand on a sharp blade, be warned that our knives and swards may be sharp and cut if not handled properly”
[…] that playing with a sharp sword … would result in the plaintiff slicing his hand.” (h/t Walter Olson) Then there’s the $4.25 million verdict in the case of the missing pet turkeys in South […]
Although to some extent, I can see their point, as it were. If the government is going around making big noises about how it’s working to ensure that we can’t see/touch/handle/own/use anything that could hurt us, then obviously anything we can see/touch/handle/own/use should be perfectly safe for any use we see fit…
How appropriate that this was published today. Today is the 235th Anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate Generals Corps by the Second Continental Congress in 1775, and, part of the ceremony celebrating that is for the Birthday cake dedicated to the Army JAG Corps to be cut using a sword.
More amazing is that in the thousands of such ceremonies conducted around the world for so many decades, there is not one report of any Army lawyer managing to cut him or herself with the sword.
Product Warning:
“Certifiable morons and greedy fake litigants must never handle sharp objects, or run with scissors.”