Who choked on cards?

billwaltonsbeard

I got some 09/10 Topps basketball in today, and the boxes have a Choking Hazard Warning on them. It also makes sure and lets us know that they're meant for ages 6+.

Ridiculous warning labels like this ( and McDonald's coffee cups warning that 'contents are hot') are almost always the result of some lowlife piece of garbage suing a company or business, because of their own stupidity.

Was there recently any kind of suit filed against Topps or any other card manufacturer?

zep33

everybody sues nowadays. This country is now a giant CYA country.

Several years ago at Saab, all of a sudden we got a bulletin that were not allowed to sell any of those little tubes of touch up paint. Apparently some dork in California decided to drink some of it and sue because the bottle didn't say not to drink it. We had to wait till the new bottles came out with the proper warning labels.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some kid ate some cards and his parents sued

zep33

Actually I might just go ahead and eat a couple Barry Bonds cards, sue and then claim that I thought they were chocolate bars

BassPro77

<< <i>Actually I might just go ahead and eat a couple Barry Bonds cards, sue and then claim that I thought they were chocolate bars >>


and thats why i tested positive for steroids

BassPro77

probably choked on a wrapper

STUPID FU----- PEOPLE

lawnmowerman

<< <i>Who choked on cards? >>



Donovan Mcnadd has choked many times.

gumbyfan

<< <i>Donovan Mcnadd has choked many times. >>

storm888

1994 Child Safety Protection Act as amended:

Toys that are found to have inappropriate warning labels are considered "misbranded."

The government may seize these items and fine the manufacturer up to $1.25 million for distributing them.

.......


USPIRG.org

CHOKING HAZARDS

Choking on small parts, small balls and balloons remains a leading cause of toy-related deaths and injuries.

Between 1990 and 2004, at least 157 children died after choking or asphyxiating on a toy or toy part; seven children died in 2004 alone. Our researchers found:

• Although most toys on store shelves are safe, PIRG researchers still found toys for children under three with small parts and toys with small parts for children under six without the statutory choke hazard warning label.

• Toy manufacturers are over-labeling toys by placing choke hazard warnings on items that do not contain small parts. This could dilute the meaning of the warning labels, making them less useful to parents. CPSC should push manufacturers to apply the choke hazard warning only when necessary.

• Mattel, a large toy manufacturer, now includes a non-statutory and vague warning on some of its toys, saying “Small parts may be generated.” If a toy contains small parts or can break easily into small parts that pose a choking hazard, the company should use the statutory warning. Toys without small parts should not include this confusing label.

• Balloons, which cause more choking deaths than any other children’s product, are still marketed specifically for children under age three (such as “Baby’s First Birthday”) and with characters appealing to children under eight years old (such as “Bob the Builder”). Toy manufacturers should not market balloons to children under age eight.

////////////////////////////////


Labels are good.

We cannot abide stupid folks allowing their children
to choke on toys. The "over-labeling" is about CYA,
but it might save some kid from choking.

otwcards

<< <i>Donovan Mcnadd has choked many times. >>



Choke? Did someone say, "Choke?"

justmichael

<< <i>

<< <i>Donovan Mcnadd has choked many times. >>



Choke? Did someone say, "Choke?"

>>



Thank you from the bottom of my heart
Signed,
Dedicated Cowboy Hater

lawnmowerman

<< <i>

<< <i>Who choked on cards? >>



Donovan Mcnadd has choked many times. >>




and Plaxico Burress will be choking many times. Not that there is anythng wrong with that.

lawnmowerman

I'd hit it. Actually, only if Tonya said I could

stown

Tabe

<< <i>Ridiculous warning labels like this ( and McDonald's coffee cups warning that 'contents are hot') are almost always the result of some lowlife piece of garbage suing a company or business, because of their own stupidity. >>


The famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit was 100% legit. No way should coffee be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and skin grafts.

Tabe

scooperqpr

I heard some woman was allergic to eggs.she ate some and sued as the EGG CARTON never said "contains eggs". Now egg cartons have to be labeled "may contain eggs'. Go figure

storm888

"..The famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit was 100% legit. No way should coffee be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and skin grafts."

Tabe

///////////////////////////

Yup.

Pulls from.......

WSJ

1994

Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received
at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had
settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

The Court's mediator told the Defendant to settle the NM case for $225,000.
Ronald refused.

The Plaintiff would have taken $150,000. Ronald offered $800.

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company,
jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused
serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that
McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe
burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified
that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures,
saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned
$15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's
either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when
compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's
was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham.
"They were not taking care of their consumers."

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which
they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck
for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton
conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's
the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35
million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much
as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced
the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct
reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system.
Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported
to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati
had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing
serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

///////////////

It's not smart to drink scalding-hot coffee - or anything else - while in a car.

Monster corps are in biznez to make their officers rich, rip consumers, and
steal equity from shareholders. Anytime Plaintiffs' lawyers can whack 'em,
it's a good thing.

NickM

The Mets have choked repeatedly, but not to the Cards.

Nick

rbdjr1

I read plenty of people are choking on cards


they are choking on credit card debt


rd

PoppaJ

True story ...............

Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver’s seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich.

Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner’s manual that she couldn’t actually leave the driver’s seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

PoppaJ

clydecoolidge

Geez, I have my 2 year old son "collecting" cards with me, and he never once put one in his mouth. Strange warning for sports cards, but in this day and age, not really a surprise.

digicat

<< <i>Geez, I have my 2 year old son "collecting" cards with me, and he never once put one in his mouth. Strange warning for sports cards, but in this day and age, not really a surprise. >>



My 11 month old daughter will chew on baseball cards if I let her. So will my cat.

1989FleerBillRipkencollector

zep33

<< <i>True story ...............

Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver’s seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich.

Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner’s manual that she couldn’t actually leave the driver’s seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

PoppaJ >>



not true



SNOPES

clydecoolidge

<< <i>

<< <i>Geez, I have my 2 year old son "collecting" cards with me, and he never once put one in his mouth. Strange warning for sports cards, but in this day and age, not really a surprise. >>



My 11 month old daughter will chew on baseball cards if I let her. So will my cat. >>



I can see that, but since you wrote "if I let her," that's a major clue that whoever actually needed to have the warning on the cards, probably needs a parenting class or two.

digicat

<< <i>I can see that, but since you wrote "if I let her," that's a major clue that whoever actually needed to have the warning on the cards, probably needs a parenting class or two. >>



Common sence isn't so common sometimes, and the folks who lack it don't realize it until it's proven. And even then, they might miss it.

lawnmowerman

<< <i>

<< <i>Geez, I have my 2 year old son "collecting" cards with me, and he never once put one in his mouth. Strange warning for sports cards, but in this day and age, not really a surprise. >>



My 11 month old daughter will chew on baseball cards if I let her. So will my cat. >>



My daughter Abby would to when she was younger.

clydecoolidge

Freakin' classic!!!! How long were you waiting for this thread, lol.

gtgrad99

I noticed on my automatic shower cleaner (filled with Scrubbing Bubbles w/ bleach) there is a sticker that reads "Not to be used as a body wash". I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face if some dumb@$$ tried to explain to a jury why they should be compensated for trying that. Why can't we just let Darwinism run its course?

lawnmowerman

<< <i>Freakin' classic!!!! How long were you waiting for this thread, lol. >>



I actually posted these pics back when we first took them ,about 2.5 years ago. I forget the thread but it was something funny.

I kid you not, here was the face she made when I took the cards when they began to fall apart

storm888

(The Winnebago fable is)

not true

SNOPES

////////////////////////

Of course it's NOT true.

After 55-years and billions of dollars spent convincing folks of a lawsuit crisis,
the insurance companies have succeeded. There is very little that "journalists"
will not repeat and readers will not buy.

In 1986, former CIA director William Casey's Manhattan Institute (MI) created the Project
on Civil Justice Reform, with funding from all of the same insurance companies that had
been circulating bogus lawsuit stories for the previous 30-years.

The project was targeted specifically at journalists.

(AIG and BIG-tobacco were prime players in the fable building. By the early 1990s,
BIG-tobacco paid about 50% of numerous disinformatzia campaigns' expenses.)

In a 1992 memo, MI president William Hammett explained the strategy:

"Journalists need copy, and it's an established fact that over time they'll 'bend' in the
direction in which it flows. The nation's print and broadcast media, is the most potent
instrument for public education - or miseducation - in existence."

...............

TOPPS and other responsible corps are simply obeying the laws that are meant to
protect consumers.

TOPPS warning labels cost consumers nothing. If TOPPS "saved money" by NOT
including warning labels, TOPPS would NOT lower the cost of their cards; they
would keep the "saved" money for themselves.

And, if TOPPS avoids lawsuits by using warning labels, the money thus "saved"
by TOPPS will NOT be shared with consumers.

Mefer

Well you didn't choke did you? The warning served its purpose.

Matt

TheBoz

<< <i>everybody sues nowadays. This country is now a giant CYA country.

Several years ago at Saab, all of a sudden we got a bulletin that were not allowed to sell any of those little tubes of touch up paint. Apparently some dork in California decided to drink some of it and sue because the bottle didn't say not to drink it. We had to wait till the new bottles came out with the proper warning labels.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some kid ate some cards and his parents sued >>




that is the problem with the USA in a nutshell




WAY TOO MANY LAWYERS with nothing to do but STIR UP FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS.....


WE NEED TO CAP MONETARY AWARDS AND STOP TRIAL LAWYERS IN THEIR TRACKS........



ALSO WE NEED TO CLOSE SOME LAWSCHOOLS AS THEY ARE PUTTING OUT WORSE AND WORSE QUALITY AMBULANCE CHASERS

BassPro77

so if i opened a 70's pack and choked, can i sue.
if i don't die from the gum first.
can i sue for bad gum in a pack?????

otwcards

<< <i>The Mets have choked repeatedly, but not to the Cards.

Nick >>



Nick:

I guess you've forgotten 2006 . . .

Top of the 9th . . . Yadier Molina hits a 2-run homerun off Aaron Heilman to break a 1-1 tie.

Bottom of the 9th . . . Bases loaded . . . 2 Outs . . . Adam Wainwright curveball . . . Carlos Beltran watches it for a called 3rd strike . . . GAME OVER!