The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

You too can do something stupid and make bank!

I saw this on the news a couple days back.  As always, I thought there had to be more to it because the lawsuit didn't make any sense.  Generally when that happens I find the news source took one side of a story and ran with it.  I still have my questions, but it kinda makes sense to me now. . .

There is a cottage industry just to sue Blitz.  All over the country.  There have been jury verdicts against them for millions of dollars in Mississippi, Texas, Utah., etc..  not just the liberal states one might expect.  I will trust the dozens of people on juries who heard the case and made a decision over some news story anyday (even if it is still strange to me). Basically Blitz refused to change their design.  

If an idiot pours gas on a fire the expected result is the idiot gets burn.  However, on a Blitz can the flame travels up the stream of gas, into the can, and causes an explosion.  The same result if you spill gas on an overheated muffler or a spark sets it off.  The result isn't (just) the idiot (or gas pourer) getting burned, it is everyone within a distance getting splashed with napalm.  This reulted in several deaths and many more severe burns (2 year old in Utah, Cheerleader in Texas).

Why?  A number of reasons:

1) The company conducted a study and learned that most of its users customers would, at some point, use the can in a manner which could lead to ignition of the gas stream.

2) The company learned that a flame suppresser (a screen over the mouth of the container) would let gas flow out and prevent flame from going into the container.  This is required on industrial gas cans and cans for use by the US Government.  It would cost as little as 5 cents per can.

3) The company actively lobbied and spoke at hearings against setting standards requiring the devices.

4) At one point the company ordered the devices but canceled the order, allegedly  due to cost concerns.

5) The company failed to implement child resistant caps, made the warnings on the can the same color as the can itself (I don’t think this matters on pouring gas on fires…), and I guess some models didn’t even have pressure relief openings on the back.

The basic argument is the same as the Ford Pinto:  The company knew there was a problem that would likely lead to some of their customers getting injured (yes, in many cases those who made dumb decisions) and chose not to remedy it, allegedly for cost reasons.  The facts made juries, even in conservative states, mad enough to pay millions of dollars.

Still Blitz didn’t change the design and kept getting sued.  Their main customer is Walmart – who demands the most affordable products.  Done in by cheapness?  I still have wonder about those jury decisions, but juries in conservative states who saw the facts probably know better than I do.

I hope the assets are bought out and the plant gets reopened.  It seems like a few medications could make this company successful again.  But for now, if you want the cheapest gas cans you will have to buy the ones made in China I guess.

5) The company failed to implement child resistant caps, made the warnings on the can the same color as the can itself (I don’t think this matters on pouring gas on fires…), and I guess some models didn’t even have pressure relief openings on the back.

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
 
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?

Narrator: A major one.

I thought the Pinto reference was strong. Once a company is made aware of product weakness and decides overtly to ignore it (in the case of Pinto, Ford actually balanced the cost of paying off lawsuits vs the cost of an inexpensive engineering correction) they become culpable in resulting injuries. BTW, Ford was notorious for making those cost vs payout analyses that ignored safety. Of course my feeling comes from a juror's perspective, not a lawyers perspective.

To do otherwise means a big change in a lot of practices like bartenders being held responsible for cserving drinks to a drunk with car keys. Or car manufacturers putting 575 hp into cars that are sold to old fat guys with no reflexes and no experience with high speed maneuvers.

Perhaps I’m confused by your second paragraph, but you are aware that bartenders and bar owners are held liable now under DRAM shop laws, right?  If someone injured by you can prove you were over-served (credit card receipts and eye-witness accounts are pretty hard to beat) at a bar or restaurant prior to getting in or on your vehicle and driving drunk, that bar or restaurant gets sued right along with you and they do end up paying out. 

No. . .they've been the victim of really stupid litigation.  About 4 years ago a neighbor of mine (a few streets down) burn't his 1,600 sf home to the ground, because his fireplace did not have gas, so he thought he would take his gas can from the garage and pour gas on the logs to light a nice fire in the living room.  He did so, and the resulting fireball caused a flash that ignited the Blitz gas container sitting about a foot away from the fireplace.  The house burned down, and he battled his insurance company for about a year.  During that time, he and his lawyer went after Blitz and won.  The house that sits on that lot is now about 2,500sf and he has two Caddys.

You too can do something stupid and make bank!

It looks like it was Blitz's turn at parasitical litigation. Saw it with nursing home litigation first hand in the early 2000s until their money ran out. In this case, it looks like it lasted until a boat load of people lost their jobs.

Another one of those industries that screamed about "unwarranted government intrusion".

When the reality is, the industry needed (and still needs!) the government to climb up every orifice it has and mandate fixes.  Oh, wait - it has done that, but then just ignored enforcement!  Well, maybe they will get it right next time....

ahem...www.midwestcan.com

Made in America and they are self venting and apparently aren't blowing up.

Or car manufacturers putting 575 hp into cars that are sold to old fat guys with no reflexes and no experience with high speed maneuvers.

If someone injured by you can prove you were over-served (credit card receipts and eye-witness accounts are pretty hard to beat)

Think Darwin Award and hope the old fat guy doesn't take out any innocents.   "You" don't have to buy those cars.   There are plenty of old fat guy wimpy cars available. 

ahem...www.midwestcan.com

Made in America and they are self venting and apparently aren't blowing up.

The first two gas cans I pulled out of the garage were American made. One vented and one self venting with clear warning labels on the sides.

Still not stupid proof, but good cans.

It isn't the old fat guys I'm worried about. When the guy stomps on the pedal and the vehicle spins out of control and runs over nearby pedestrians because he saw some commercial that led him to believe that real guys drive these overpowered snarling beasts, that's when I think they may be liable. It doesn't matter that the fine print on the commercial says, "closed track, do not try this in the real world".  They are then in a similar position as the bartender imo.

This actually happened over on Cherry Street a few years ago. Guy pulled his Porche out of a parking lot and floored it. Even a Porche will lose traction under certain conditions. He lost it and ran over a couple of pedestrians. However, you never see Porche advertising their cars as extensions of male anatomy.

Why are you storing gasoline in portable containers in your garage?  Is there any chance your gas fired house heater or water heater are there too?

Where did you find they are self venting?  I looked on the website and did not see that.

Kinda late for that now. Those who need to feed their families but no longer have jobs are now effed in part by dumbassed consumers.

So Chevy shouldn't be able to sell fast cars because some over-confident idiot stomped on the peddle and unfortunately injured or killed people? Should Budweiser be prohibited from selling beer because they advertise in similar ways as you claim Chevy does, because some people drink too much and act like idiots thereafter?

People cannot be coddled all the time. Unfortunate events happen, but it's not our responsibility to try and stop every possible bad thing from happening. Common sense doesn't seem to be very common anymore, and if we continue down this path I agree with zstyles, we will have an idiocracy very soon.

So Chevy shouldn't be able to sell fast cars because some over-confident idiot stomped on the peddle and unfortunately injured or killed people?

People cannot be coddled all the time. Unfortunate events happen, but it's not our responsibility to try and stop every possible bad thing from happening. Common sense doesn't seem to be very common anymore, and if we continue down this path I agree with zstyles, we will have an idiocracy very soon.

"Unfortunate events" don't have to be encouraged and condoned.

It would be trivial to put a limit on automotive speed - just put an upper limit into the program so that the car cannot exceed "XX" miles per hour - how about 90?  There really is no point to having a car that will go from 0 - 165 mph in 15 seconds with a system where the highest limit - soon to be - is 85 mph.  And for the plaintive bleat about "passing" - well, when was the last time any normal human being passed a car at 165 mph?  That is misdirection BS.  If you accelerate beyond the 80 to 90 going around someone on a two lane road - you are an idiot, who has no clue about proper, safe passing procedure and are a danger to yourself and others on the road.

We don't do that due to the "unwarranted government intrusion" lack-of-mentality in the country and the "high performance" driver delusion that affects the guys who buy those cars.  (The Corvette owners know who they are!  And others...)

I wasn't clear enough - that was for the nursing home industry...

A good many high-performance German cars are speed-limited.  Of course, they are limited to 155 mph.   8)

I want to remind you that in previous generations, the big three did reduce hp/weight because insurance companies began to balk at their products being put into the hands of teenagers and increasingly bad drivers. First the big three lied about the hp, then they began to measure the hp at the rear wheels to diminish the numbers till they could redesign the suspension and motors for safety.

I'll look it up again. I seem to remember they offered several type cans besides water containers etc. One even had an automatic shut off feature. The point I wanted to make was that there are other manufacturers of these cans, in America, for whom safety seemed paramount. They didn't go the Ford route which balances safety off with cost. Blitz refused to make a simple inexpensive change and stood on principle.

I was eye deep in nursing home litigation for about five years. Saw some legitimate cases, but lots of crap. Fact is, nursing homes are part of a very tough industry. Lots of worker turnover and injuries, poor wages, but lofty expectations. Are there crappy owners? Yep. But I know lots of great people in the business as well.

well, when was the last time any normal human being passed a car at 165 mph?  

Gas cans;
Blitz changed the design a few years ago to eliminate the vent at the back of the tank.  Probably due to some regulation somewhere?  It was a bad idea - makes the tanks harder to handle, which I submit reduces safety rather than increasing it.

This actually happened over on Cherry Street a few years ago. Guy pulled his Porche out of a parking lot and floored it. Even a Porche will lose traction under certain conditions. He lost it and ran over a couple of pedestrians. However, you never see Porche advertising their cars as extensions of male anatomy.

WSJ article re Blitz from 7/23/12 and  today, the WSJ published a Letter to the Editor (see below) with the attorneys’ responses to the article. 
WSJ: The Tort Bar Burns On - A case study in modern robbery: Targeting the red plastic gas can
Like 19th century marauders, the trial bar attacks any business it thinks will cough up money in its raids. The latest victims are the people who make those red plastic gasoline cans.
Until recently, Blitz USA—the nation's No. 1 consumer gasoline-can producer, based in Miami, Oklahoma—was doing fine. It's a commoditized, low-margin business, but it's steady. Sales normally pick up when hurricane season begins and people start storing fuel for back-up generators and the like.
Blitz USA has controlled some 75% of the U.S. market for plastic gas cans, employing 117 people in that business, and had revenues of $60 million in 2011. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has never deemed Blitz's products unsafe.
Then the trial attorneys hit on an idea with trial-lawyer logic: They could sue Blitz when someone poured gas on a fire (for instance, to rekindle the flame) and the can exploded, alleging that the explosion is the result of defects in the can's design as opposed to simple misuse of the product. Plaintiffs were burned, and in some cases people died.
Blitz's insurance company would estimate the cost of years of legal battles and more often than not settle the case, sometimes for millions of dollars. But the lawsuits started flooding in last year after a few big payouts. Blitz paid around $30 million to defend itself, a substantial sum for a small company. Of course, Blitz's product liability insurance costs spiked.
In June, Blitz filed for bankruptcy. All 117 employees will lose their jobs and the company—one of the town's biggest employers—will shutter its doors. Small business owners have been peppering the local chamber of commerce with questions about the secondary impact on their livelihoods.
The tort-lawsuit riders leading the assault on Blitz included attorneys Hank Anderson of Wichita Falls, Texas; Diane Breneman of Kansas City, Missouri; and Terry Richardson of Barnwell, South Carolina. All told, they've been involved in more than 30 lawsuits against Blitz in recent years.
The rest of the plastic-can industry can't be far behind, so long as there's any cash flow available. The American Association for Justice's (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) annual conference in Chicago this month will feature, with a straight face, a meeting of the "gas cans litigation group."
The Atlantic hurricane season started June 1, and Blitz estimates that demand for plastic gas cans rises 30% about then. If consumers can't find the familiar red plastic can, fuel will have to be carried around in heavy metal containers or ad-hoc in dangerous alternatives, such as coolers.
Trial lawyers remain a primary funding source for the Democratic Party, but stories like this cry out for a bipartisan counter-offensive against these destructive raids that loot law-abiding companies merely because our insane tort laws make them vulnerable.
A version of this article appeared July 23, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Tort Bar Burns On.
WSJ: Letter to the Editor: Tort Suits Exist to Punish Bad Behavior, Help Victims
The story you present in your editorial "The Tort Bar Burns On" (July 23) of lawyers ambushing an innocent corporation because adults pour gasoline on fires makes a captivating tale, but it is pure fiction. Try telling that story to Rob Jacoby who was walking with his Blitz gas can, William Melvin who was filling a lawn mower, four-year-old Landon Beadore who knocked over a can with his tricycle or Chad Funchess who was fueling his chainsaw. Each individual ended up in a burn unit fighting for his life when a Blitz gasoline can exploded. Although there are instances of rekindling a fire, most of those were unsuspecting young boys who paid for the mistake with their lives. Blitz on the other hand was not unsuspecting.
Beginning in the 1920s, gasoline cans were equipped with flame-arresting screens to prevent explosions, including Blitz's metal gasoline cans. Arrestors prevent explosions in a variety of products from water heaters to charcoal lighting fluid to Bacardi 151 Rum. Arrestors cost four cents if designed into a spout and 75 cents if placed inside the can. Tragically, Blitz removed these safety devices from their plastic cans.
Had Blitz's customers foreseen their gruesome injuries, none would have touched a Blitz can. In stark contrast, Blitz's management foresaw the danger and made a conscious decision to sell the product, knowing many of the injured would be children.
Understandably, insurance companies have refused to insure Blitz, speaking with one clear voice that Blitz's product is too dangerous. As Blitz's final insult to its workers and injured customers, Blitz paid its CEO hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses as it threw its workers into the street.
A strong and effective civil justice system provides accountability when dangerous products harm consumers. Look no further than Blitz for proof that this is needed.
Diane Breneman, Esq.
Kansas City, Mo.
Hank Anderson, Esq.
Wichita Falls, Texas
Terry Richardson, Esq.
Barnwell, S.C.
The small business- and jobs-destroying tendencies of opportunistic personal-injury litigation in America are well demonstrated by the story of Blitz USA, a gasoline-can maker sued into bankruptcy, but you stop short of demanding that both major parties' candidates for office this November openly debate the problem and offer solutions.
If President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney are continuously going to trade barbs about "outsourcing," "off-shoring," "vampire capitalism" and "crony capitalism," along with their impact on economic growth and employment, then the candidates also should be obliged to speak to the toll that incessant and wholly preposterous lawsuits take on our economy.
White House visitor logs make clear that Mr. Obama is quite friendly with trial lawyers, and their generous campaign support for him and his party help explain his administration's efforts to expand liability and the prospect for evermore lawsuits.
Mr. Romney has been very slow on the stump to make the obvious connection between reasonable tort-reform legislation and economic growth (see Texas and other tort-reforming states that are faring better economically than most).
In too many jurisdictions across the country, the tort system grows more absurd each year as risk-averse investors move more capital and jobs overseas.
Meanwhile, physicians practice "defensive medicine" to the tune of perhaps $200 billion annually, hoping to avoid lawsuits but raising the cost of health care for everyone. Surely those who are genuinely injured by actual negligence or recklessness of another must have access to our courts for fair and prompt recompense. But allowing gas-can makers to be sued out of business because a few people handled gasoline imprudently is to willfully burn down America's economic house. Our presidential candidates must tell us how they'll put out the fire.
Darren McKinney
American Tort Reform Association
Washington
A version of this article appeared July 31, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Tort Suits Exist to Punish Bad Behavior, Help Victims.

Until this case, I had always assumed the screen in the nozzle on metal cans was a crude filter for the fuel.  No idea it was a flame-arrester.  At four cents a copy, Blitz foobared up.  I’m not excusing the moronic actions which resulted in many of the injuries, but Blitz at least would have had a defense that they made them as safe as possible.

TTC is right, there’s a great opportunity for someone to step in and buy the assets, re-design the cans and put 117 people back to work.  Unfortunately, I don’t have that much cash laying around at the moment.  ;)

Like the McDonalds coffee lady.  Yeah, it makes for a good antecdote to say some dumb lady spilled coffee on herself and won millions of dollars.  There was much more to that story if you actually study it and the debate is not that simple.

A study by U of Texas with the u of Illinois shows "Tort Reform" had no impact on the number of doctors per capita in texas (it has continued to decline against the national average) or the cost of medical services (rising at a higher rate).  The conckusion was other factors far outweigh any effect med mal lawsuits and the restrictions of citizens rights might have.

http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2012/12/the-last-week-how-lawsuits-doomed-an-american-icon/

Look around this website, interesting to say the least. This one really got my attention.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071219/NEWS/959420007

I'm sure CF will have some explanation why a seven year old should get sued.

Edited. That plaintiff ^^has given up the ghost.

I'm quite certain there is a hold-harmless clause in the fine print which says if you are injured you are on your own.

Porsches are actually some of the most difficult cars to drive and handle properly and can easily lose traction in most every condition (I'm talking 911s here, not Cayennes). They handle completely differently than every other car out there other than aircooled VWs (and even then you really have to gun the horsepower into the 150+ range). Driving a high-horsepower, rear-engine, short-wheelbase car is just not something twits in Camrys are used to or frankly capable of. Usually people who buy them know this and are more skilled drivers than most, but you'll still get some idiots driving with their dicks - it was probably daddy's car.