4 ms·

I think it's ridiculous to expect people to do some sort of extensive research before they use a product. Should people who smoked before the surgeon general's

by elil17 4y ago

I think it's ridiculous to expect people to do some sort of extensive research before they use a product. Should people who smoked before the surgeon general's warning not have been able to sue the tobacco companies who hid evidence around the dangers of smoking? It would be the same sort of thing from a legal perspective here if the parents claims are true.

Wyoming23 4y ago
Which, to be clear, the claim that a standard component is actually unsafe is absurd. Go look at the road bikes people are out riding on a Saturday morning. At least half of them will be disc brakes with quick release skewers. And these are bikes that people are putting thousands of miles on and ripping down mountain descents. I don't have any information on this bike in particular, but that setup is common and widely used.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
No it is not, especially if you are a parent. My wife spends hours upon hours researching product safety before selecting a bicycle, scooter, shoes, moisturizer, dishware, and other products for use by our family, especially for use by our child. She does this because she believes it is her job as a parent. The Latin phrase Caveat Emptor, "let the buyer beware" comes to us from the Romans more than two thousand years ago. Today there are forums, reviews, lists... when there are safety complaints about a design or a product, it is easier than ever to become aware of these kinds of problems. Companies providing products have a responsibility to provide their products in good faith. This is similar to traffic rules that govern who has a responsibility to yield at an intersection. Assuming you have "right of way" won't help you avoid an accident. That's an assumption of someone else's adherence to the rules. In the same way that you freaking check that the other driver has yielded before making your turn or driving through, you check that a product is safe for your child to use. For this specific instance, why would you deprive a 12 year old child of the exercise they need to grow properly by buying them a motorized bicycle?
- elil17 4y ago
  The parents in question didn't even buy their kid the bike. It was her friend's sister's bike. The law is perfect-tendor, not caveat emptor, for US transactions without explicit agreement to as-is terms. If you think the blame falls upon the parents (say, the friend's parents), should you extend that same logic to other cases? What about baby powder talc, thalidomide, and plastic with BPA? Where is the line I think the way we draw that line now is good. Companies have an obligation to provide products that are as safe as reasonably possible and to inform consumers of safety risks when they cannot be avoided. People can be compensated for the harm caused to them when companies fail to do that. The extreme other end, where people have to research product safety for everything they use in order to avoid snake oil and death traps, seems like a huge waste of everyone's time. I would do the same for my child if I had one, and tremendous respect to your wife for doing that for your kid, but I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be. I hope that if someone dies because they run their well-made E-bike into a wall, that's on them, but that no one ever dies because their E-bike has a faulty component. The latter case is what's claimed here and I think that, if that claim is true, that means the parents here should win the case.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    You're absolutely right about legal liability. They have every right to sue. But as to the discussion of who's at fault in terms of preventing the accident, yes, it's the friend's sister's parents. The friend's sister was still too young (13) for that e-bike which the company rated for age 18 and up. I'm not speaking from the standpoint of how the law ought to work. I agree that companies ought to provide products fit for use and fit for purpose. I agree the parents should be able to sue if the product isn't. The helmet being defective is a much worse problem, if that's true. If we're talking about whose job it is to prevent children from getting involved in an accident of this sort in the first place, however; that's on parents.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > What about baby powder talc You mean like Johnson & Johnson including asbestos in their talc for decades and paying huge civil penalties for it? > I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be This can’t happen when maximizing profit is the incentive. Think about it.

by elil17 4y ago

Wyoming23 4y ago

Which, to be clear, the claim that a standard component is actually unsafe is absurd. Go look at the road bikes people are out riding on a Saturday morning. At least half of them will be disc brakes with quick release skewers. And these are bikes that people are putting thousands of miles on and ripping down mountain descents. I don't have any information on this bike in particular, but that setup is common and widely used.

slowmovintarget 4y ago

No it is not, especially if you are a parent. My wife spends hours upon hours researching product safety before selecting a bicycle, scooter, shoes, moisturizer, dishware, and other products for use by our family, especially for use by our child. She does this because she believes it is her job as a parent. The Latin phrase Caveat Emptor, "let the buyer beware" comes to us from the Romans more than two thousand years ago. Today there are forums, reviews, lists... when there are safety complaints about a design or a product, it is easier than ever to become aware of these kinds of problems. Companies providing products have a responsibility to provide their products in good faith. This is similar to traffic rules that govern who has a responsibility to yield at an intersection. Assuming you have "right of way" won't help you avoid an accident. That's an assumption of someone else's adherence to the rules. In the same way that you freaking check that the other driver has yielded before making your turn or driving through, you check that a product is safe for your child to use. For this specific instance, why would you deprive a 12 year old child of the exercise they need to grow properly by buying them a motorized bicycle?

elil17 4y ago
The parents in question didn't even buy their kid the bike. It was her friend's sister's bike. The law is perfect-tendor, not caveat emptor, for US transactions without explicit agreement to as-is terms. If you think the blame falls upon the parents (say, the friend's parents), should you extend that same logic to other cases? What about baby powder talc, thalidomide, and plastic with BPA? Where is the line I think the way we draw that line now is good. Companies have an obligation to provide products that are as safe as reasonably possible and to inform consumers of safety risks when they cannot be avoided. People can be compensated for the harm caused to them when companies fail to do that. The extreme other end, where people have to research product safety for everything they use in order to avoid snake oil and death traps, seems like a huge waste of everyone's time. I would do the same for my child if I had one, and tremendous respect to your wife for doing that for your kid, but I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be. I hope that if someone dies because they run their well-made E-bike into a wall, that's on them, but that no one ever dies because their E-bike has a faulty component. The latter case is what's claimed here and I think that, if that claim is true, that means the parents here should win the case.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  You're absolutely right about legal liability. They have every right to sue. But as to the discussion of who's at fault in terms of preventing the accident, yes, it's the friend's sister's parents. The friend's sister was still too young (13) for that e-bike which the company rated for age 18 and up. I'm not speaking from the standpoint of how the law ought to work. I agree that companies ought to provide products fit for use and fit for purpose. I agree the parents should be able to sue if the product isn't. The helmet being defective is a much worse problem, if that's true. If we're talking about whose job it is to prevent children from getting involved in an accident of this sort in the first place, however; that's on parents.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > What about baby powder talc You mean like Johnson & Johnson including asbestos in their talc for decades and paying huge civil penalties for it? > I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be This can’t happen when maximizing profit is the incentive. Think about it.