Model Railroading > The Nanny State Encroaches...

My latest packet of Kadee couplers has a warning sticker: "CHOKING HAZARD - Small Parts - Not suitable for children under 14 years."


Ray

I routinely got choked on my toys until I was at least 12. That warning would have helped me.

What happened to "Not to be taken internally."

KG

"Not recommended for children under the age of 12 without parental help. May cause frustration, conflict and perhaps a nervous breakdown".

It's not the nanny state as much as it is the lawyer state. Most of those warnings result from lawsuits filed by twits. I bought a hose sprayer nozzle once that warned me not to aim it at electrical outlets --- which some idiot must have done at some time.

The best is the warning message on a replacement fanbelt:

"WARNING: STOP ENGINE BEFORE PROCEDING"


And it's not lawyers - it's jurys... My friend was on a product liability jury and was the one holdout in a case where a person deliberately removed or disabled (and admitted) multiple safety mechanisms from a lathe and proceded to slice their finger off. He was a teen - so the jury felt sorry for him and wanted to help - despite the facts in the case.

And I'm not a lawyer! :)

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Not recommended for children under the age of 12
> without parental help. May cause frustration,
> conflict and perhaps a nervous breakdown".

This warning should be posted to the front page of most RR forums!!

We must not forget the warning on the side of MC Donald's coffee cups that warns that the coffee inside is HOT!
remember that lawsuit? It is the "no personal responsibility state"or the "lack of common sense" state.
D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/09 10:01 by atsf98.

Remember those small private airplanes called Piper Cubs? The company went out of business after being sued by the wife of a pilot who ran out of fuel and crashed. The lawsuit claimed that the owner's manual did not mention that the consequences of running out of fuel while in the air would result in the plane losing power and dropping to the ground, and held that the company was to blame for not providing that information. A jury awarded the wife so much money the company went bankrupt. Makes me critical of the "jury of my peers" idea. If the jury were indeed my peers, they would have have had the common sense to see the folly of the lawsuit and sent the wife packing! I wouldn't want a jury so dumbass as that to decide what socks I'm going to wear, much less the fate of my life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/09 10:22 by swsf.

It's choking on the BIG PARTS I worry about. . .I mean, not me personally. . .and not children. . .but that's a hazard as well.

That's correct, children are a hazard.

That's how lawyers pick the jurors. I went through jury selection; I was not picked. I was too intelligent or had too much education; take your pick. They also ask questions about you to make sure you are not bias against their client, like: "Have you every been a victim of a violent crime? Do you know anyone in the police force?" It's real--asham of our judicial system. I will never participate in that mockery again even if they threaten to jail me. The clown that shot a man in a violent crime was wearing a military uniform to try get some sympathy out of the jury.

swsf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the jury were indeed my peers,
> they would have have had the common sense to see
> the folly of the lawsuit and sent the wife
> packing! I wouldn't want a jury so dumbass as that
> to decide what socks I'm going to wear, much less
> the fate of my life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/09 21:55 by wabash2800.