Amusing warnings on a raft: Americans apparently the dumbest.

[treestar]

So I am on vacation and in the pool, there is an ordinary looking raft, made in China, of course.

The warnings on it are in every language imaginable - this thing sells throughout the EU, in China itself, in Brazil and in Australia, and in the U.S.

I presume the warnings comply with the law of each country.

So the interesting little cultural comparison:

The Brits' (and the translations appeared to say the same thing) one says that one should recognize that only swimmers should use this raft, and that using it as a "watercraft" is not really such a great idea, but if done, it would mean one should account for winds and currents.

The U.S. one warns that it is not a lifesaving device and that children should be supervised, that no one should be allowed to dive into it and that with misuse, death, drowning or serious injury could occur. No one should be allowed to dive into it. They are specifically warned that adults should be present when it is used.

Notice how the Americans must have the consequences spelled out, have to be warned of specific misuses, and are seen as expecting it to act as a "life saving device." The Brits are seen as able to consider the risks of their behavior and don't need the consequences spelled out for them and apparently are assumed not to have any absurd expectations about life-saving.

The best part was the Aussie warning. "Only use under competent supervision." That was it! Nothing else! It appears the Aussies are the smartest of us all! Just a general warning that does not even mention children. I guess they can figure that out on their own, and not to dive into it or think it can be used as a life saving device!

[TexasObserver]

1. The warnings are based upon laws in each country.

The warnings are based upon laws in each country.

[cobalt1999]

2. ...or Americans have the most lawyers.

Manufacturers don't put labels on based on desire or intelligence, but to stay away from lawsuits.

[Romulox]

4. Lawyers don't decide tort cases--usually juries do. nt

[treestar]

7. But exactly! And the juries have given out awards based on such things!

Juries give out the awards when a lawyer argued that there was no warning that the kid shouldn't be allowed to dive into it. Someone must have gotten an award from a jury when it failed to act as a rescue device.

And the lawyers account for that when they decide what cases to pursue. A tort lawyer who uses common sense does not succeed. Only one who knows what the juries are capable of. Otherwise, many a case would be rejected.

[Romulox]

11. Nope. That's not a good assumption.

That's not how it works. Tort law, by its very nature, is meant to be forward looking. In a product liability case, a manufacturer may be held liable for the failure to warn consumers of dangers based on foreseeable misuses of that product.

Therefore the presence of a warning does not indicate anyone has successfully sued based on the lack of same warning.

[treestar]

17. Then why are they afraid of it enough to print it out?

I really don't think the warnings are based on prospective happenings. Or they'd be too long and the entire raft couldn't fit them. What "could happen" in imagination is endless. Any lawyer would know that and the specifics wouldn't be there. It would be dangerous enough to leave out whatever else you could think of, the plaintiff's lawyer could say it wasn't in the warning, and that was negligent, and some jury would go for it - in fact something as specific as those two things indicates there were more than one cases of such happenings.

Warnings on anything are interesting for that reason, but this thing had so many different languages and even different English-speaking country languages that I found it interesting to compare them. One thing about the American one that stood out was the specificity and the explicit warning of consequences. Only happens where some plaintiff lawyer successfully got an award by arguing that the plaintiff didn't get warned that misuse could cause serious injury!

[Romulox]

19. It's hard to believe you're an attorney if you are not familiar with the concept of FORESEEABILITY.

"I really don't think the warnings are based on prospective happenings."

Ummmm...:hi:

Product liability and negligence

A products liability claim is usually based on one or more of the following causes of action:

design defect,
manufacturing defect,
a failure to warn.

The claims may succeed even when products were used incorrectly by the consumer, as long as the incorrect use was foreseeable by the manufacturer (or other party in the "supply chain").
In general, products liability claims are based not on negligence, but rather on strict liability. Under the theory of strict liability, a manufacturer is held liable regardless of whether it acted negligently. It allows recovery for an injured customer who might be in a difficult position to prove what a manufacturer did or did not do wrong in its design or manufacturing process. It is presumed that a manufacturer with its deep pockets may be better situated to absorb the cost of liability and would consider such expense in setting price for its products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability

[Romulox]

3. Don't you claim to be an attorney? These warnings have nothing to do with intelligence.

:eyes:

[treestar]

8. They do have something to do with the perceived intelligence of

juries. Probably the result of awards juries have made.

I claim to be an attorney, and would not have made a good tort lawyer, because I'd probably have thought: you let your kid dive into the raft, liability is going to be on you." And I'd have been wrong.

You seem to think juries come out of thin air, or are created by tort lawyers out of thin air, or have nothing to do with the American population.

[Romulox]

16. Juries are not seated via representative sampling, so...no it doesn't.

"You seem to think juries come out of thin air, or are created by tort lawyers out of thin air, or have nothing to do with the American population."

You seem to be unaware of even the basic concept of scientific sampling, so...

[treestar]

18. There are millions of juries selected all throughout the US every

day and they make the decisions. The plaintiff lawyer knows what they are like when they take the case - by seeing cases that have been won in the past and knowing what they can talk people into. Scientific sampling doesn't come into it. If we used scientific sampling then we wouldn't need juries or even elections. Whoever decides what they feel they must explicitly warn against for their product doesn't use scientific sampling, but past experience. Some number of cases are enough. If they get enough cases of juries giving plaintiffs awards for getting hurt by jumping into water with a raft, they'll add a sentence about not jumping into water with the raft.

Why are their warnings on window curtains that gettting caught in the cord could strange a child? Not because it happens so often statistically, because it happened a few times. That's all corporate America needs before they add the warnings.

[Romulox]

20. I don't know what you're on about, but it's clear this thread is just an excuse for your ranting

Also, you appear to not know what you are talking about. :silly:

Not interested.:hi:

[Lex]

5. George W. Bush has been President 2 terms & the fact that Americans

are not all that bright is demonstrated to you by the warnings on that raft?!!1

[Marrah_G]

6. The warnings are the result of lawsuits- not a sign of a country's intelligence.

[treestar]

9. So who makes up the juries that made the awards on the lawsuits?

In fact, until recently, juries came from the voter rolls.

Come on, let's not be so sensitive. Americans do expect too much. We can't deal with it if we dont' face it.

[Marrah_G]

15. I disagree- the warning are not there to protect the consumer , but rather the company.

Any lawsuit is bad even if the company wins.

You are labeling all Americans or most Americans as dumb.

I disagree and think your entire premise is rather "dumb".

[TexasObserver]

25. Agreed. The buyers of the product are the ones who want the language.

It's designed to protect those in the chain of sale from consumer lawsuits.

[TexasObserver]

23. JURORS only answer the questions the judge submits to them. They don't decide anything else.

JURORS only answer the questions the judge submits to them. They don't decide anything else.

If someone gets that multimillion dollar judgment against XYX corp for leaving a loved one in a wheelchair for life, it's because there are laws passed by legislators, signed by governors, and enforced by judges, all of whom are applying the law of the state.

You are falsely attributing to jurors the responsibility and blame. They are asked to make findings, and they do so. Your complaint is with the judgments YOU don't think are worthy.

Why do you identify with insurance companies and big businesses? Very unDemocratic.

The civil litigation deck is stacked heavily in favor of the corporate defendants in this country. If you don't know that, let me be the one to tell you. The reason you have safety features that you protect you from bad consumer goods is the wealth of lawsuits which make those warnings necessary.

Do you really think big business would ever have installed seatbelts or air bags without the lawsuits that made their need apparent?

[RNdaSilva]

10. Imagine that most foreign countries could vote in our GE.

Obama would win in a landslide.

'nough said.

[treestar]

12. Sadly, true. Only here would we even been worrying.

The UK and Australia already did the sensible thing - got out of Iraq. Australia replaced the conservative prime minister with the more liberal party's counterpart. Same with the UK.

Yet here on DU we see a lot of concern that McWar might actually win or keep it close enough to steal.

Not that it directly relates to warnings on a raft (I have been put down above for its supposed triviality) but the general idea is there and this is one little piece of evidence that I just found interesting. Juries are generally taken from the voter rolls.

[Lex]

13. So treestar, if you PM me whining about my post upthread . . .

why don't you allow any PMs back in reply?

Trollish behavior, imho.

[DemoTex]

14. "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."

Warning painted below the cockpit of a friend's 1939 DH-82 Tiger Moth. I flew it anyway!

[slackmaster]

21. I recently acquired a vacuum-tube guitar amplifier

It needed some repairs, including a pair of tubes for the output phase.

As one who is old enough to clearly remember servicing vacuum tube electronic devices like TV sets and audio equipment as a child, I had a bit of a chuckle out of the "No user-serviceable parts inside" sticker.

[Mr. Blonde]

22. I think there is a wide variety in the warnings

at ski resorts too. Those owned by large companies and the government have many many warnings.

Jackson Hole, Wyo (pretty sure it is the one) is privately owned and its warning is basically "if you go in the backcountry and get hurt we aren't coming to get you. Don't be dumb."

[DarbyUSMC]

24. I bought a simplistic toaster a few weeks ago. The warnings

were four pages long. They covered just about everything possible that could happen while making toast. The one thing it didn't cover was the toast becoming a projectile when popping up violently and possibly hitting the user in the eye. Nine times out of ten the toast pops right out of the toaster. If I write to the company, I'm sure they will revise their manual. Arrgggh.
B-)

[2KS2KHonda]

26. My friend has a trailer-hitch mounted "toilet" - for camping and such.

It's actually a fairly decent product, it plugs into the receiver of a regular trailer hitch and is about the right height...just put a bucket underneath and do yer bidness. :D

It has a warning written on the seat: "Not for use when vehicle is in motion."

:eyes: