Wego Kite Tube of Death Accident

[MaggieL]

_

[Trilby]

Maggie, you know as well as I that that 'release of liability' isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Maggie, you know as well as I that that 'release of liability' isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I know no such thing.

You seem to have a problem with contracts. How about instructions?

[MaggieL]

There's eleven more pages of instructions. If you choose to ignore them, what excuse do you have for blaming the manufacturer? The device isn't defective.

I really would like to get to select my own risks, rather than have everything but the lowest common denominator unavailable because somebody too dumb to live needs to be protected from themselves.

[wolf]

We have lost a lot of majorly cool things to the stupidity of the lowest common denominator.

*sigh* Like children's toys with small, easy to swallow parts. I loved my real Mr. Potato Head.

[Ridgeplate]

Hey, if they didn't want us to eat the Mr. Potato Head pieces, then they shouldn't have made them so damned tasty! I still remember that little hat...

Delicious!

[Trilby]

whatever.

[Ibby]

I have to side with Maggie on this one; the government/judicial system is not there to protect me from MYSELF. If I'm going to ride a big ol' piece of goddamned plastic twenty feet in the air, without safety equipment, then that's my problem, not the maker's.

Do they shut down gun companies because people shoot themselves with the guns sometimes?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Do they shut down gun companies because people shoot themselves with the guns sometimes?

They certainly try.

[Elspode]

"But I read the instructions and ignored them. Doesn't that still make the manufacturer liable? After all, you can't expect *me* to be responsible."

Later, the same person would consume lighted cigarettes for breakfast, chase it with five quarts of bourbon, and take 12 sleeping pills...because they were really tired and needed lots of sleep, then sue RJ Reynolds, Jim Beam and Squibb.

[glatt]

OK, so if you dig around on the website and find the owner's manual and hunt and poke around you can find other warnings about the thing. You had to go past all the descriptions about how wonderful the thing is in order to find those warnings. Most shoppers probably aren't going to poke around for that stuff, and the company knows it. The tube/kite is marketed as safe. There is no hint that it can kill you. What would motivate a potential buyer to look for warnings about it if there is no hint that it's dangerous?


Also, the manual may say that the product is to be used at a lower speed. At the link wolf posted, there are a few people who say the kite won't become airborne at those lower speeds. So you have a company that is marketing a kite tube that won't fly unless you are going around 30 MPH, but the liability lawyers are saying that you should only use it at 15-20 MPH. The company knows full well that people will go 30, and their lower speed recommendation is not sincere. It's simply an insincere attempt to CYA.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

OK, so if you dig around on the website and find the owner's manual...

It's linked directly from the page you're complaining about. So is the instructional video. And having been around this sort of equipment in the past, I can pretty much assure you that there's a placard on the device itself someplace impossible to ignore when using it telling you not to use it unless you've read and understand the instructions and warnings.

Most shoppers probably aren't going to poke around for that stuff, and the company knows it.

If you buy it without reading the information provided on that page, and then discover after reading the instructions that it's not for you, then you should probably retun it unused and ask for a refund.

If you refuse to read the instructions, why should the company indemnify you if you screw up?

Originally Posted by glatt

The tube/kite is marketed as safe.

It is? Where?

Originally Posted by glatt

There is no hint that it can kill you. What would motivate a potential buyer to look for warnings about it if there is no hint that it's dangerous?

That's bullshit...go back and look at the instructions again. Can you imagine applying the standards you're trying to promote in this case for water skis? Snow skis? Automobiles?

Originally Posted by glatt

Also, the manual may say that the product is to be used at a lower speed. At the link wolf posted, there are a few people who say the kite won't become airborne at those lower speeds.

As the instructions state, the tow speed at which it beomes airborne depends on several factors, including the wind speed and direction, how it is inflated, and how much weight it is carrying. You have to learn by careful experimentation how all that works. Again, this is all explained in the instructions.

Originally Posted by glatt

So you have a company that is marketing a kite tube that won't fly unless you are going around 30 MPH

You don't know what airspeed it flies at because you don't know how heavily it's loaded. You alsodon't know what the airspeed is unless you know what the wind speed is and what angle the tow is to the wind.

Assuming the kite stalls at 30 mph airspeed (which sounds awfully high to me) , the towing speed can be zero in a 26 knot wind. I'm not suggesting you should use it that way (the instructions say not to use it on windy or gusty days), just pointing out the variable factors that make it impossible to claim "it won't fly unless towed at a dangerous speed".

Do you want to have a society where a product can't be sold unless it's complelely safe even when the instructions are ignored? Goodbye, lawnmowers...in fact anything powered with gasoline, including your car. Ditto things that use house current in the kitchen or bathroom. Sayaonara, power tools. Adios, any household chemical or cleaner stronger than bar soap. Boats are obviously too dangerous for "shoppers". You can forget about skis, roller blades and bicycles.

Even if you do want this, I don't think you have a right to impose it on others.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You can forget about skis, roller blades and bicycles.

Even if you do want this, I don't think you have a right to impose it on others.

There was a bike lawsuit years ago that had the potential to sink the industry. It seems that if you remove the reflectors and are drunk riding downhill in the dark without a helmet some stupid jury is going to blame the bike company. I forget if it was overturned or they settled out of court but there was a short period of time where the potential lawyer upgrades threatened to send bike prices through the roof.

[glatt]

As long as we are talking about fundamental questions here, do you think the government or individuals through lawsuits should be able to get manufacturers to ever stop manufacturing a product because of safety issues?

You use cars and lawnmowers as examples. They are perfect examples. Both cars and lawnmowers have been regulated from the outside to become much safer. Highway fatalities are way way down because of collapsing steering collumns, crumple zones on cars, seat belts, air bags, etc. etc. You know this. I don't have to lecture you on it. Why are you so opposed to outside regulation of dangerous products? Do you wish we still lived in a world where industrial machinery had no guards? Where certain death awaited you if you got in a car crash? Regulation of some products is a good thing. Do you disagree? Should there be no regulation whatsoever?

Tell me. Do you think these kite tubes are safe? Would you ride one or let a loved one ride one?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Do they shut down gun companies because people shoot themselves with the guns sometimes?

Since you're not in the US, you probably aren't aware of this ... they've been trying.

Lawsuits have been attempted against several gun manufacturers because criminals use their products in the commission of crimes.

I've never been clear on the logic of this one, because nobody has tried to sue Ford as being responsible for drunk driving accidents because they make the cars.