10th Annual Wacky Warning Labels Out

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."

Comments

Reason for this kind of warning

[DavidV]

An under-evolved hairless ape recently put an infant in the clothes dryer in Sydney because he thought it would be fun for the child. It may have been for the few seconds before the 3rd degree burns started developing. This kind of cretin is the reason for this kind of warning.

Re:Reason for this kind of warning

[MisterBuggie]

Erm, why is this modded troll? This actually happened...
Article here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/wet-baby-in-tu mble-dryer-man-charged/2006/05/30/1148754978203.ht ml

We need better warning labels on the /. mod system ;-)

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ

[Registered Coward v2]

I'm glad you brought up the hot coffee suit. I have something you'll need to agree to. A plaintiff sued McDonald's for selling him a milkshake, which he placed between his legs while driving (sound familiar?) Because of this, he temporarialy lost his ability to drive (so he testifies) and crashed his car, causing injuries and costs to the plaintiff. Now, he never won the case, but it seems to me anyone who is in beleif of hot coffee lady needs to write that judge RIGHT NOW and explain their absolute disappointment with him for not awarding several million dollars to the plaintiff for his injuries.

After all, the situation is identical to hot coffee lady, except this time the drink is too cold.

Hardly. The plaintiff was not driving, nor was the car moving when she got burned. She held the cup between her legs and was opening it to put in sweetener when it spilled.

McDonald's had reports of injuries before this event; they even knew it was being served too hot to be consumed. McD's refuised to settle, and eventually lost to the tune of $500,000 - then they settled.

This case is not, despite the FUD, a stellar example of lawsuit abuse; rather it highlights what the court system should do - hold people accountable on both sides. (The award was reduced 20% due to the plaintiffs actions being viewed as partly responsible)