5 ms·
I invite you to read both the claims and the judgements related to the Instant Pot lawsuits yourself; they're all quite clear, and you can come to your own deci
by nickff 8mo ago
I invite you to read both the claims and the judgements related to the Instant Pot lawsuits yourself; they're all quite clear, and you can come to your own decision about how reasonable they are.
My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock, after which the lid (predictably) flew off, and they were injured (mostly by the hot steam and bits of food). I think it's ridiculous for people to expect safety mechanisms to be impossible to bypass, but maybe you disagree!
- judahmeek 8mo ago> My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock And you obviously think doing so was next to impossible therefore Instant Pot shouldn't be liable. But what evidence do you have of the difficulty of bypassing that specific safety mechanism?
- nickff 8mo agoI've owned and used two of the affected models (for ~6 years in total), and also read the version of events presented by the plaintiffs (in their claims), as well as the judges' view of what happened. I originally read the documents to understand whether the unit I own is safe, and believed in its safety strongly enough that I have continued to use it.
- judahmeek 8mo agoSo you've never actually tried to bypass the safety mechanism to determine the difficulty of doing so? Because I'd bet you that the jury certainly did.
- nickff 8mo agoI’d make that bet, because you obviously don’t know much about pressure cookers or the law. Juries hear expert testimony; they do not perform independent investigations. I have inadvertently tested the safety mechanisms, and they are quite secure. I will not do what plaintiffs say they did, because it is so incredibly stupid.
- judahmeek 8mo agoYou're right. Google has informed me that my expectation that juries could independently test safety mechanisms is completely wrong.