It is currently Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 721
955876 wrote:
Quote:
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits


Ummm by that logic people would be able to sue alcohol manufacturers for DUI deaths. Doesn’t happen. And holding a company liable for the actions of an individual is a huge slippery slope.

What about car companies? Anybody sue a car company after some scumbag drives said car through a crowd of people?

Let’s just agree your comment was silly and not well thought out.

Best thing about this thread are the photos of the smile on Shaziers face.

That right there is a grounded and quality individual. I hope he plays again. If he doesn’t though, he most definitely will find success doing something else in life.

Same could not be said about a lot of pros if something similiar happened to them. The injury would become their crutch...


Let’s agree that your reply was not well thought out. Companies have been sued many many times including car companies for unsafe mechanisms and for being used in unintended ways.

Ever hear of a toy company getting sued because parts are too small and can get swallowed? I am sure they didn’t intend for the 3 year old to be biting the head off a Star Wars Happy Meal toy. Product getting used in unattended ways and there have been lawsuits of this variety.

Substitute mentally unstable person for infants. Substitute guns for toys. And tell me manufacturing insane amounts with no regard for how they would be used or distributed in the midst of certain segments of the population and geography, and it sounds to me like a very similar case but with more deaths in the books. No law suits only because of laws protecting gun manufacturers is my understanding.

Wings and beer consumption causes more deaths and health issues than football if it was studied in depth was my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:48 pm
Posts: 479
My take on the whole thing is that the Steelers are required to provide a player's status and that's it... And with him on the IR they don't even have to do that. Shazier's health and progress at this point is a private matter and how much he shares is completely up to him. I'd love to get more frequent updates as he was rapidly becoming one of my favorite active players, but it's just none of my business and I respect that.

This is completely unfounded, but I have a sneaking suspicion he's a little better than the pictures show and that the wheelchair is precautionary to ensure the spine is completely stabilized. When he does decide to update us fully on his progress, I think we'll all be very happy for him and his prognosis (football be damned).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2079
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
955876 wrote:
Quote:
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits


Ummm by that logic people would be able to sue alcohol manufacturers for DUI deaths. Doesn’t happen. And holding a company liable for the actions of an individual is a huge slippery slope.

What about car companies? Anybody sue a car company after some scumbag drives said car through a crowd of people?

Let’s just agree your comment was silly and not well thought out.

Best thing about this thread are the photos of the smile on Shaziers face.

That right there is a grounded and quality individual. I hope he plays again. If he doesn’t though, he most definitely will find success doing something else in life.

Same could not be said about a lot of pros if something similiar happened to them. The injury would become their crutch...


Let’s agree that your reply was not well thought out. Companies have been sued many many times including car companies for unsafe mechanisms and for being used in unintended ways.

Ever hear of a toy company getting sued because parts are too small and can get swallowed? I am sure they didn’t intend for the 3 year old to be biting the head off a Star Wars Happy Meal toy. Product getting used in unattended ways and there have been lawsuits of this variety.

Substitute mentally unstable person for infants. Substitute guns for toys. And tell me manufacturing insane amounts with no regard for how they would be used or distributed in the midst of certain segments of the population and geography, and it sounds to me like a very similar case but with more deaths in the books. No law suits only because of laws protecting gun manufacturers is my understanding.

Wings and beer consumption causes more deaths and health issues than football if it was studied in depth was my point.


The tort cases you allude to involve a product defect (in design) with strict liability. In cases where someone is using a gun, there is no product defect (i.e., the gun functions the way it is meant to function). It just so happens that the person using it decides to harm another party.

Under the argument you proffer, if I use my computer to bash someone, Apple can be sued by that someone. Clearly, that shouldn't be the case; there wasn't a defect (latent or otherwise) in Apple's computer that led to the harm. Now, if the gun randomly fired without someone attempting to use it in the manner prescribed, then sure your fact pattern makes sense and product liability would apply. Just in the same way if an Apple computer randomly blew up causing damage.

You can't just say: Product X caused harm Y to Z, therefore Z has a valid cause of action against the manufacturer of X. There needs to be some kind of product defect; otherwise, no company could stay in existence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 721
Ever seen Venetian blinds with the annoying stickers to prevent kids from hanging themselves? No design flaw.

What about IKEA and the tipping dressers?

Lawn darts...remember those?

Three wheeled ATVs...remember those?

Those weren’t design flaws.

The argument is not whether it would work to curb gun violence, the argument is if said manufacturers deserve to be quarantined from the court system, which has in the past demonstrated both adeptness and folly to protect the public from products, manufacturing and manufacturers.

....and much more interesting than banning the NFL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 721
Steelafan77 wrote:
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


What do you think the sticker says on Cowher’s jacket?

Always makes me laugh when security procedures snag the “obviously he/she is allowed in” individuals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1038
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


What do you think the sticker says on Cowher’s jacket?

Always makes me laugh when security procedures snag the “obviously he/she is allowed in” individuals.


Hi, My Name is:

Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 721
randomsteelerfan wrote:
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


What do you think the sticker says on Cowher’s jacket?

Always makes me laugh when security procedures snag the “obviously he/she is allowed in” individuals.


Hi, My Name is:

Bill


That is funny. Hi my name is “LET’S GO! RIGHT NOW!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2079
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Ever seen Venetian blinds with the annoying stickers to prevent kids from hanging themselves? No design flaw.

What about IKEA and the tipping dressers?

Lawn darts...remember those?

Three wheeled ATVs...remember those?

Those weren’t design flaws.

The argument is not whether it would work to curb gun violence, the argument is if said manufacturers deserve to be quarantined from the court system, which has in the past demonstrated both adeptness and folly to protect the public from products, manufacturing and manufacturers.

....and much more interesting than banning the NFL.


https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cg ... ontext=mlr

Bit dated, but weight of authority seems to be strongly on my side. I would need to read the specific cases you cite, but my guess is there was some kind of defect identified.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 721
Zeke5123 wrote:
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Ever seen Venetian blinds with the annoying stickers to prevent kids from hanging themselves? No design flaw.

What about IKEA and the tipping dressers?

Lawn darts...remember those?

Three wheeled ATVs...remember those?

Those weren’t design flaws.

The argument is not whether it would work to curb gun violence, the argument is if said manufacturers deserve to be quarantined from the court system, which has in the past demonstrated both adeptness and folly to protect the public from products, manufacturing and manufacturers.

....and much more interesting than banning the NFL.


https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cg ... ontext=mlr

Bit dated, but weight of authority seems to be strongly on my side. I would need to read the specific cases you cite, but my guess is there was some kind of defect identified.


I agree 100% that the law is on the side you are arguing! The gun manufacturers are in a protected class, which makes the point of the original article asinine.

The author is worried about a happy football professional getting paralyzed and insinuating that there is evil involved and America's pastime should be eliminated(exaggeration for effect), meanwhile gun manufacturers are in a protected status; lawn darts and three wheeler companies were ordered to stop producing because of holes in human heads, injuries and deaths, yet gun manufacturers can produce unimpeded and make parts that specialize in putting holes in human heads faster and in more volume than even the military wants. Yet we all throw our hands in the air and falsely scream 2nd amendment.

If you don't think that is the ultimate hypocrisy and the author, a voice of the people, choose instead to focus on a pretend NFL hypocrisy article....that is my point.

You know in your heart of hearts I am right and this argument makes sense!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2079
My guess is the facts you think you understand are different compared to facts actually identified. For example, I am sure if we look into the details regarding lawn darts, etc. we can find something to distinguish between darts and guns. The law you want to articulate is that if Manufacturer X creates Product Y and Product Y harms third party Z, then Z can sue X. That is a really bad system.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group