zoocrew

Uh, hmmm. She wasn't saying the conversation was a battle.

ibid. You're so right.

Excellent. Happy Holidays to everyone!

Magnificent job!

You really should check into that. If you don't take reasonable precautions, there is a liability factor.if you let someone borrow an unsafe ladder, you're liable. Notice I said "not far from the truth." I'm sure you just missed that. I was describing the rationale for the reasonable standard of care that people must take, businesses must take, and products have to be held to a safety standard. A stolen ladder is not going to make a case, but if you don't secure the products, knowing they pose a safety risk, even a stolen ladder can be a liability case. In the right circumstance, o

Actually, you're not far from the truth. It is called a Known Hazard. It is part of your homeowner insurance and every business insurance policy. If you have a pool, you have to take extraordinary steps to secure it from people who may injure themselves or die from it. Same if you have a bad porch step and someone falls and injure themselves. Or if you have a dangerous animal, or even something you should have known was a hazard and didn't take reasonable measures to prevent injury or harm. Call your insurance company and tell them you have a party next weekend and your porch is about to f

Argue with OSHA. My link My link 2 Or history. My link

Yes, and what you're ignoring is that there are safety measures put in place over the years because there were at one time even more deaths and injuries.

Not true. There would be MORE injuries without the product safety measures. You're correct that irresponsible parents are a problem, but that doesn't mean we don't take measures to keep unsafe products off the market, or take reasonable steps to educate parents.

But that doesn't mean we don't make laws establishing that it is wrong or what is acceptable.

And that is why the CPSC, various other agencies and health officials are constantly evaluating products to see which ones should be available and which ones should not. Thank you. You've proven my point quite nicely. It would be considered negligence or worse to give a child food she is incapable of eating safely. That's why there are classes to train new parents on feeding. There are resources put into evaluating and studying child development to make the child growth process better understood and safer.

And obviously we need to do more since what we're doing is not working.That is why we need to reconsider what we are doing. But that doesn't mean we stop making the laws or soften the laws. We do more. THAT is the point. The logic you're trying to show is non sequitur. Whoa! I didn't say we should ban guns., YOU said that.

We already do from toys for children. That is called reasonable actions for known product liability.

But a foreseeable risk that is not addressed, though is a known hazard, is actionable because it constitutes negligence.

No, that's why we continue with the laws that require more and more reporting, etc., to try and prevent it. Your point would have been to remove or soften the laws. By continuing the aggressive law making, reporting requirements and more stringent laws, we are trying to prevent it. THAT is the point.

You're serious. A larger base would make it much more difficult to tip over.

That's why we have laws against child abuse and take aggressive measures to prevent it. Thanks for proving the point.

The flaw is in the design that could be altered to make it harder to tip over. Don't forget the autos that had many metal parts inside instead of plastic; the side window/vent that was a missile upon impact; the unpadded steering wheel; power steering and power brakes; etc. Oh, and don't forget certain chemical, children's toys, the Ford Pinto; Firestone tires, flammable pajamas, and even lawn darts. Right. The design flaw that could be altered to make the product safer, just as it was in the other products.

There is such a thing as product safety. Don't forget that in the 60s and 70s, there was little support from the population for air bags, but I don't think many today would say the auto manufactures shouldn't include them.

Yes, that was the phone, not design. Gosh, still making it personal.

Alcohol is not s lethal product. It may be, but that is not the design. Guns, if used will kill.

That would be a use of the term I'm unfamiliar. I think you may wasn't to check the use of "everyday." Is there a reason why you get personal?

Goodness. It's s mug shot. This its not a portrait. She had most likely been crying too. Cut her for the alleged crime but taking about appearance is really just uncouth.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think you've just proven my point. And the word is "insinuating," not "intimating."

You're not following the logic here about product design. Guns have a singular purpose.