When Good Products Go Bad - More Thoughts on Product Liability
by Darren Ashby

Side Bar Your Honor One thing is for sure, Chipcenter boasts a very intelligent audience. The reader feedback was thought provoking, cogent, and even offered solutions to the concerns I've addressed. Here are some highlights: Matt sends in the following experience where he questions : Are they getting this training in school? ...I remember a number of years back (20ish) I was taking delivery of a lab bench for my home shop. It was one of those presses wooden tops about two inches thick that weighed about 150 pounds. Well I was helping the trucker unload it from the truck. The trucker was in the truck and I was on the receiving end. While he was handing it down to me, it broke out of its cardboard wrapping and landed on my foot. The end result was a broken toe. Anyway, a few days later, I ran into an acquaintance that recently graduated law school. When he saw me gimping he inquired why. After I told him the story, the first words out of his mouth were "lets sue!" I politely declined and thought to myself 'my God, what are they teaching them in law school!' I saw him again about a week later and apparently he had given my injury considerable thought about who we would sue, our strategy, etc. Well at that point I had to blast him and fortunately never heard from him again. I am sure he found another accident to get rich off of. The point is, accidents happen in life. Nothing is perfect. Nobody is perfect. All circumstances cannot possible be foreseen. Unfortunately greed is the motivating force in the majority of these cases and until the legal system stops entertaining these frivolous lawsuits we are doomed... David is simple, to the point, and funny too boot, just the way I like it! I agree. It is WAIST not WASTE (that is what's leftover after you eat a burger) and NADDA is NADA. Keep up the rant. Maybe someone will listen and do something. I agree with Alan, it must be a government plot! Darren, ...Anyway, your latest article really strikes home for me as well. I am no genius, but boy have I run into a lot of really dumb people lately. These people are not morons, incapable of learning, it just appears that they were never given the opportunity to excel. Of course now, over achievers are the bad guys. They make everyone else look bad and of course, "they blow the curve." Case in point, last year, my daughter's eighth grade graduation class had a separate "Awards" ceremony for kids that got "too many" accolades because of their hard work and efforts. Instead of giving these hard working kids credit in front of their peers at graduation, they "recognized" them in a obscure meeting -- one that even the parents did not find out about 'till that night. The staff was afraid that they would hurt some kids feelings that did not get an award. Heck they did not get one because they did not DESERVE one! So much for teaching your kids that hard work and effort pays off. This is partly why there are so many really stupid law suits -- while I have no great love of liars (sometimes called lawyers), they are just sharks coming into a feeding frenzy. The problem is that people are being goaded into stupidity. Personally, if there was ever a Government plot, I think this is it. If people can't tie their shoes, you can either sell them slip-on's or better yet, set up a Government Bureau of Shoe Tying to issue grants to think-tanks to figure out how to make people feel better about not being able to tie their shoes and even to feel OK about the slip-on's. All the while creating an infrastructure that feeds on people's inability to think for themselves! Oh, and by the way, stupid people will never figure out more of their pay-check goes to the Government than they get themselves. Also, I can't believe how personal responsibility has become virtually non-existent in our culture. It's the phase of the moon, our gender, "society", or twinkies -- you name it. What ever happened to "I did it, It was my fault." OK, most normal people don't like the added attention when they fail at something, but how the heck are they ever going to learn NOT to do whatever again? We need to get back to being our own masters. We need to work to correct out faults and learn by them. We also need to be proud to be successful. There will always be those that are incapable, through no fault of their own, of being the brightest bulbs in the string, but that's no excuse for putting dimmers on all the others -- to bring everyone to an equally low level. The lowest common denominator is not what makes societies advance it is the few that have had the courage (and ability) to excel and lead the rest out of the dark. Would it not be better to raise a few more of those people? Sincerely, Alan Frank points out the effect this has had on health care. Thank you for your article in the EE Times titled "It's Not My Fault - Some Thoughts on Product Liability ". Just like you, I also get angry when I hear of ridiculous lawsuits. The problem of out of control lawsuits has been a problem for quite some time, and has driven the cost of most products and services we buy to skyrocket, including the cost of health care. It's too bad the news services don't bring these problems up more often. If they did, perhaps we could get control of this situation. Thanks again for your article. Sincerely, Frank Nothing like a good disclaimer to get things started! :) Disclaimer: This note does not represent the official view of my employer, my wife, any of my neighbors, nor anyone else in this or any other universe. Furthermore, reading this note might cause eyestrain, boredom, anger, elation, or other physical or psychological changes to your body. Most readers find these changes to be temporary, but long-term effects might also result. If reading this note causes discomfort, please delete this note immediately, and consult a mental health professional to determine any underlying causes or necessary treatment. I enjoyed your article, "It's Not My Fault - Some Thoughts on Product Liability." Although I think you are a bit hard over on the subject, and disagree with lumping shrinks (most of whom try to engender MORE person responsibility) with lawyers, I do agree that there is a large and growing problem. I am reminded of an item I bought just the other day, which had four large, brightly-colored warning labels glued to the AC power cord, all of them essentially saying "be careful, electricity can be dangerous." Not only was I annoyed about what this said about our society, but I was also kind of angry at having to spend my personal time removing these ugly flag-like labels and shipping them to a landfill that is already overflowing with other unnecessary trash. Then it hit me! Maybe the manufacturer installed particularly large and ugly labels as a protest! Hmmm... If it were not for generating unnecessary trash, exaggerating the labels and disclaimers, thereby making them really annoying, might be a way to raise awareness and get society to change. And don't get me started about the unsightly "air bags can kill you" labels on the visors of new cars, which are impossible to remove without destroying the visors. Then again, maybe we should make them even bigger and uglier... I think there is also another culprit in all of this, Us. For returning outrageous verdicts when we sit on juries (screw the companies, they can afford it, etc.), for allowing lawyers to manipulate us into bringing the cases, and for not showing enough outrage to get the system changed. Should you choose to quote any of this, please do not attribute it to me personally. I get enough spam already, but that's the subject of another rant. The more I think about it, the more I think Ken's idea will work. Hi Darren, I saw your article on lawyers, I have to agree. Part of the problem is just about everybody in government is a lawyer so we won't see legislation limiting the nonsense. But I have a solution -- anyone who passes the bar should be ineligible to run for public office. (With the exception of stuff like DA etc.) This may sound extreme - but think about it, where engineers receive extensive training to evaluate facts & data and come up with the best engineering solution -- these guys are actually taught to ignore what's morally right or wrong and instead argue vehemently for whoever is paying the bill. Right - so lawyers (and hence politicians) have been trained, the facts aren't important, justice isn't important - instead look for the loophole or twist the story so your side wins (the money). We won't have much of a chance to curtail this nonsense until we get these bums out of office... Or your other suggestion, kill them all. Ken Many readers sent in great ideas, suggestions and stories, but I'm afraid there is not room on the Internet to print them all. Thanks for the feedback though! Disclaimer: This article in no way intends to portray the viewpoint of Chipcenter or its affiliates, and neither they nor myself are liable for any anger at lawyers in general caused by this discussion. Isn't that a fitting way to wrap this up, in the small print?

In the previous article, I rather vehemently expressed my opinion about the legal system and its faults. The feedback I received was incredible. In fact, it rivaled the original pyro article and my treatise on September 11th in reader response. You are invited to read the side bar (minor pun intended) for some of the reader highlights I've been enjoying. The best suggestion from the readers, in my opinion, was to make the careers of politicians and lawyers mutually exclusive. You can go into politics or become a lawyer, but not both. That way the ethical dilemmas that promote a lawyer's ability to ignore what's right in lieu of greed, under the veil of being a zealous advocate, will be banned from the political arena. Hopefully, we would see (in a generation or two) some moral fortitude creep back into office and straighten the system out. More than one reader made this suggestion, and the more I think about it, the more I think it just might work.

However, I have to confess. I started this discourse on an entirely different tact, one based on an experience I recently had with a corporation who I felt was not being very responsible with their product. I intended the concern that I have always had with the legal system to be a counter point to this encounter with corporate irresponsibility. As you can see though, in my previous article, the angst with legal finagling was freely flowing and I had a hard time turning it off. Thus, this has become a two-part installment.

Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot

It all began with our first family dog; his name is Rufus. He is a golden lab with so much energy it borders on hyperactivity (not unlike my oldest son). He is a large dog and occasionally our younger children would get hurt as he tried to jump up on them in a playful manner. We attempted on many occasions to train him not to jump on the kids, though we were unsuccessful. We also struggled with keeping him inside the yard when we let him out of his pen to run around.

Struggling with these issues, we were naturally quite excited when we found the "contain and train" dog collar system at our local Petsmart store. It is a "correctional" collar that works by sending a varying shock to correct behavior. There is a remote control that you use for training under supervision, and a wire you can use to fence in the containment area where you are keeping your pet. We used the product for a few days, and were quite pleased. Our pet was beginning to understand not to jump up on the little kids. We were planning to lay the containment line the coming weekend when it happened. It rained. We were gone most of the day, and since we hadn't laid the containment line yet, Rufus was in his pen. After we got home, I sent my oldest son out to walk the dog. He came back in and told me Rufus wouldn't let anyone near him to put on his leash. I went to help him and what I saw made me sick. Rufus had this sickly green color around his neck, under the training collar. There was this nasty wet/burnt hair and flesh smell. Something was obviously wrong. I carefully removed the collar to find a huge gaping hole in Rufus' neck, right under one training collar prongs. For those with morbid curiosity, here are some pictures of the injury.

Ouch!

We called the vet for an emergency visit. She had to knock Rufus out to be stitched up because he was so disturbed by the incident. She said it was one of the worst electrical burns she had ever seen. It was obviously caused by some malfunction of the collar that made it continuously shock our pet for several hours. The collar had signs of galvanic corrosion around the battery cover leading me to suspect that the rain had somehow caused the malfunction. The battery cover was metal and on the positive lead of the battery, I think maybe there was some type of short (due to the rain) from the correction probes to this cover that made the unit go berserk and injure our dog. Needless to say, we weren't very happy with this product anymore. We mailed the company pictures of the injury and a letter of complaint. I figured, hey chances are they are a responsible company right? Wrong, after a lengthy delay I finally got a response. They said they would cover the vet bill, but only if I signed a document saying the company was not at fault. And they gave me two days to make that decision.

Well, I called the contact person to voice my complaints; after all I wouldn't have sent the letter if I didn't think they were at fault, would you? Well, the contact person was nice enough and I presumed her to be simply a victim of her corporation (not unlike myself). I asked her if she had seen the pictures. She had. I asked her if she thought her company was being fair with me. She said the lawyers told her it was my fault that I had the collar on in the rain. This didn't make any sense to me because it's a containment system designed to work outside right? There were no warnings in the manual about using it in inclement weather. Being an avid techno-geek, I actually read the manual. Still somehow this was supposedly my fault, and I would get no apology or recompense from their company. After voicing my frustration at that, she made a statement that still gets to me today. She said, "This is what our legal department says is all we need to do." It bothered me to the core, that the lawyers decide what the company can "get away with" and that is how you decide if you are at fault or not. I asked her if my only alternative was to sue. She said yes.

Suddenly, I was the peon getting dumped on by the big corporation. Not having a bunch of cash sitting around to go through a legal battle made me look at those personal injury commercials in a whole new light. I can clearly see how the legal "bottom feeders," as we call them now, came into existence. After all, isn't fighting for the peon a noble and worthy cause? It may very well be the case that the first lawyer to offer his services based on a settlement was doing so for a good and decent reason. Too bad that has spun so out of control due to greed at both a personal and a corporateⁱ level. Given the lawyers made the call on this one, I think Shakespeare's council (who I found out the Eagles were quoting) to "kill all the lawyers" could have saved me some grief in this case.

The truth is, I feel very wronged by this corporation, and the only option left to me is to sue. However, I don't much care for the whole lawsuit process as you can see from the previous article. The quandary that this puts me in is a bit wearisome, but I thought of a way out. I figure my astute readers can help me resolve this dilemma. So I put the question to you. What is worse, runaway lawyering or corporate irresponsibility?

The Last Word

One final warning, if you have one of these collars you may want to return it. Unless, of course, you live in a desert were it never rains and your dog doesn't drink water. Because now you know if that collar gets wet you might be stitching a hole up in your dogs' neck as well.

----------------------------

Footnotes

ⁱ This greed is very prolific. In fact, a good friend of mine recently passed the bar and joined a firm not far from where I live. I asked him if he could mail these guys a letter to get their attention. He responded that if it were his firm there would be no doubt, he would do it. (He's one of those good lawyers that you hear so rarely about.) But as he explained to me, his firm wouldn't allow him do that. Because the small $$ (mine) compared to big $$ they might get if the collar company ever wanted them to represent them in another case, stopped them from helping me out. They wouldn't help the little guy, because they might, just might, get more cash helping the big corporation out! Talk about rub me wrong!

Product Engineering Archive