10th Annual Wacky Warning Labels Out 445
autophile writes "It's official: M-Law's 10th Annual Wacky Warning Label Contest is over. First prize has gone to a washing machine label urging not to put people in washers. Started to promote awareness of excessive litigation, the contest highlights common sense warning labels, such as the one that warns not to dry cellphones in microwave ovens. Companies find it necessary to stick crazy warnings on their products because of previous insane lawsuits: 'A front loader (washing machine) is just at the right height — speaking now as a mother and not a corporate spokeswoman — for a four-year-old,' said Patti Andresen Shew of Alliance Laundry Systems. Personally, I think a four-year-old precocious enough to read and understand all the warning labels hidden all over a product probably doesn't need those labels."
Excessive litigation better than the alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that is a rehtorical question because if you read /. you know why.
The real question is, how would an average person know? Most look like they are made of plastic which is of course microwave safe. If you've immersed your phone, drying it out with heat can fix it. (I know, I baked a friend phone in my oven at 150 degrees to bring it back to life.)
So no, I don't think we need labels, there are so many they aren't read anyhow.
How can we make it obvious that this is a bad idea? Or better yet, how can we make it possible that no damage will occur to either device then this happens?
This is one of the challenges that engineers face. How do you make your products work well, be bulletproof, be easy to use, do what the customer needs doing, and yet not cost a fortune.
Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how. Think asbestos and tobacco being sold as recommended by doctors. (Yes, that second one really happened--there used to be cigarette commercials saying "4 out of 5 doctors recommend [brand] cigarettes")
I guess you want anybody who doesn't research every single fucking product they buy for seven years to die.
It's a warning sign rather than a label... (Score:5, Interesting)
Labels for the manufacturers (Score:5, Interesting)
The most extreme example I've seen is a box of Q-tips. So far, most of the labels menioned have been to prevent stupid use of a product. In this case, the manufacturer puts on a label to allegedly prevent the intended use.
Everybody knows what Q-tips are used for: to clean the ear canal. They were designed for that. Yet the box currently has a warning in bold block letters: DO NOT USE SWAB IN EAR CANAL. The label also lists - with pictures! - all the things that their lawers think they should be used for: removing makeup, cleaning your keyboard, etc.
This is all done just to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Re:What happens when the warning negates the purpo (Score:2, Interesting)
How to make stupid lawsuits go away. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. And a number of articles on the case have pointed out that McDonald's also served hot chocolate at the same scalding temperature as their coffee. Hot chocolate is mostly drunk by children. McDonald's management knew this, had reports of injuries from both the coffee and the hot chocolate, but failed to lower the temperature. Endangering children like this is a level of irresponsibility that's a bit much for even the most rabid Social Darwinists.
Also, followups have pointed out that the lawsuit had the desired effect. McDonald's lowered their serving temperature for both coffee and hot chocolate to a more reasonable 140F (60C).
Another footnote was that most of the settlement went to pay the victim's lawyers; she reportedly got less money than her hospital bills.
[I tried to get a degree symbol into those temperatures, but none of the standard HTML "entity" encodings worked.
I have a client who manufactures ladders... (Score:2, Interesting)
He was telling me that within a few years, nobody will be manufacturing ladders in the United States anymore, and it will become impossible to buy a ladder. The reason? There are so many frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors and retailers of ladders that the cost of defending them and/or insurance against claims will make it a money losing proposition.
Re:bash.org says: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry. When I'm driving a car, I am driving a car. Much like any technology that can kill people (e.g. chainsaws) you really should be multitasking only two things: do your job and don't kill people (unless it's a gun, which is meant to kill people anyway.)
When driving a car I am not:
No. You are not good enough of a driver to do these either. If you are, why aren't you a professional race-car driver? (And many pro race-car drivers will tell you not to do these things either.) If you want to eat, drink, yack and read take the bus or a train that serves breakfast. Voice mail exists so you don't have to carry on a 5-way conference call while swerving down Interstate 40 on your way to hell.
(This rant has been brought to you by the letters G, E, T, A and the word 'clue.')
I suspect this is not people being clueless, though. It's people willing playing a deadly game to 'be productive' and make up for playing WoW / serfing pr0n at 4am.
Re:On your next 1040 (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying you could hire an educator for minimum wage. I'm saying that as compensation, the government should at least allow you to claim the federal minimum wage for the required contact hours, adjusted for class size (you're kids get the benefit of a low instructor-student ratio at your expense). Since there are no special federal education requirements, licensing exams, or annual education requirements for home educators, a reasonable compensation is FMW - it's the lowest common denominator. You're not doing it to save money - you're doing it because you want them to get a "better" education (however it is you define better - eveyone does it differently).
Expenses are deductible, I just suggested a statutory labor deduction for home school instructors who do not get paid. If you want to pay your spouse $40,000 per year, along with the payroll taxes and such, you can deduct up to $9,000 of the expense. Be my guest. Just remember that you'll pay income, employment, FUTA, and local taxes on that money. Books are deductible. Buildings and electricity must be carefully justified, just as in a home based business - if you use that space for any other purpose, it's probably not deductible. If you sell your house with a dedicated addition, you must claim the proceeds (as a portion of your basis) as a capital gain for any deduction you've taken.
Re:Well she has a point... (Score:2, Interesting)
"What are the bumps on the side of the road for?"
I told them they were there to warn drivers when they were wandering over the side of the road. We drove over some to show them how they worked. They were even more confused.
"Why would you wander off of the road?"
I had to explain that it could happen if you were tired, or maybe if you weren't paying attention or something like that. Then they got me.
"You Americans are so worried about being safe. Why not just not drive tired and pay attention to driving?"
Because that, my friends, would not be the American way.
Re:Well she has a point... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I think that much is clear. The point that the contest is trying to make is that your chances of successfully suing them should already be minimal without the labels. They are trying to remind people of that by showing the existence of some really stupid warning labels, thus showing the absurdity and brokenness of a justice system that makes the labels necessary.
On a side note, I happen to partially disagree with them that the existence of these warning labels proves our justice system is broken (at least in this particular way). It's all about the level of risk vs. the cost of eliminating the risk. If I owned a home in an area that was well above the nearest body of water (or creek, river, etc.) and thus had very low chances of flooding, and if a reputable insurance company offered me a legit flood insurance policy good for 50 years for a one-time premium of $1, I would probably buy that insurance. Any kind of flood damage is pretty unlikely, but I won't miss the $1, and if something did happen, I'd be covered.
In the same way, if you're a lawyer for a manufacturer and there is any kind of warning label you could put on the product that describes a real event that could happen, even if it requires the user of the product to be dumb as dirt for it to happen, and even if it requires the judge and jury to act in a ridiculous manner for the lawsuit to succeed, the fact is, you don't know that those two things won't coincide and bite you in the butt. They probably won't, but given that it costs you very little to prevent it, and given that you could lose millions of dollars if it does happen (say, in a wrongful death lawsuit), why not do it?
So, the fact is that warning labels are cheap insurance. It's almost always a good idea to opt for cheap insurance, where that means insurnce that actually costs significantly less than it "should" if the cost were based on doing the math. But cheap insurance can be made cheaper in two ways: either hold the cost as a constant and increase the risk being insured against, or hold the risk constant and reduce the cost. So how do we know that these stupid warning labels really indicate anything about the justice system and its tolerance of frivolous lawsuits? Isn't it also possible that all they indicate is that with modern manufacturing techniques, it's really, really cheap to put warning labels on things?