American gas can manufacturer sued into oblivion

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:28 am

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012 ... actory.php

On December 28, 2005, David Calder tried to start a fire in his wood-burning stove in his trailer home—by inserting the nozzle of a $3.99 gas can into the stove to pour gas onto the fire, which Calder admitted was "stupid." (The container itself had "KEEP AWAY FROM FLAMES, PILOT LIGHTS, STOVES, HEATERS, ELECTRIC MOTORS, AND OTHER SOURCES OF IGNITION." impressed into the plastic; nevertheless, Calder included a failure-to-warn claim in his suit.) The resulting catastrophe killed his two-year-old daughter and severely burned Calder. This was, Calder argued, the fault of Blitz USA, the manufacturer of the gas can, for not including more idiot-proofing, though no gas container could reasonably protect against the idiocy of Calder's actions. A Clinton-appointed federal district judge refused to throw the case out, and refused to let Blitz USA argue the "state-of-the-art" product liability defense or argue that it complied with government regulations for the manufacture of gas cans. A sympathetic jury found millions of dollars of damages, and blamed Blitz USA to the tune of 70% of the damages. So Blitz USA, which used to employ 117 people at a factory in Oklahoma to manufacture about 75% of the gas cans sold in the US, is liquidating in bankruptcy, and Americans will have to get their gas cans from Chinese manufacturers—or resort to even more unsafe containers like milk jugs if there is a gas-can shortage during this year's hurricane season. So trial lawyer greed and a trial-lawyer-friendly judicial appointment has cost jobs, made Americans less safe, and increased carbon emissions from the need to import bulky gas cans from overseas. (Tulsa World via@billchilds;Calder v. Blitz USA 10th Circuit brief)

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:01 am

Found this

A federal jury ordered gas can-maker Blitz USA, an Oklahoma company, to pay $6.1 million to the family of a 2-year-old girl who died from burn injuries following a gas can explosion and fire in 2005.

While Hailey's family was victorious at trial, jurors did hold her father, David Calder, partially responsible for the burn accident. Calder acknowledges that he's partly to blame. He and his children were set ablaze by the gas can. Calder was burned on 30 percent of his body and spent two months in the University of Utah hospital's burn unit. A son also suffered burn injuries.

The family was in a mobile home in December 2005 when Calder tried to add gasoline to a wood-burning stove fire. The flames got into the gas can, causing an explosion.

"I poured just a teeny bit on there and it went right into the can, and it exploded. It blew up," said Calder, adding that he patted flames off his daughter who sat nearby. "I was engulfed in flames myself, and it was very painful."

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the child's family tried to settle for $80,000 but the company refused. During the legal proceedings, Blitz allegedly acknowledged that its own research shows a substantial number of its customers use gas cans to pour gasoline as a fire accelerant.

Jurors sided with the victim's family. Family attorneys argued that a flame arrester would have prevented flames from shooting into the gas can, and that such devices cost about 5 cents and are present on non-Blitz cans. Sadly, this is not Blitz USA's first or last legal problem related to this gas can. As recently as last year, in 2009, a similar lawsuit was filed in Texas for work-related burn injuries suffered at the hands of a Blitz gas can without a flame arrester.

These gas cans are unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed. Without a flame arrester, flashback of flames into the gas can is probable and obviously very harmful. This is an inexpensive safety fix gor Blitz USA, and the arresters have been commonly used for this purpose for many years.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:16 pm

I don't know of any flame arrester that protects you from your own stupidity.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:43 pm

I'm with you on that. Guess they should have settled for $80k.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:36 am

This might be worse than the McDonald's hot coffee law suit.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:16 am

It's a similar suit as best as my non lawyer ass can tell, they are arguing that they didn't do what is industry standard (McDonald's kept their coffee hotter that "normal" and thus was liable) and are liable. It's almost exactly the same type of suit and thus they should have probably settled for $80k.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:59 am

Problem is that they're 75% of the gas can industry, with almost everything else being from China. If anything is the industry standard, it's Blitz.

Don't get me wrong, I think flame arrestors are probably a good thing but 99% of the fault lies with the person throwing gasoline on the fire. Shit, it's even a common expression for creating a clusterfuck out of nothing: throwing gasoline on the fire.

And don't get me started on McDonald's hot coffee.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:52 pm

I'm with you Doc. The dude should have burned to death for his stupidity. I really wonder what kind of fucktards the Blitz lawyers were because you'd think that it would be difficult to find a jury that wouldn't have at least one person that did think that it was this morons fault.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:27 pm

Here is another one:

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012 ... -csx-train

I knew Richard Zelenka a little in HS, knew his sister more but not that well, nudge nudge. Woman I work with knows the family of the kid killed that the article talks about. Again, I really can't believe a jury would say that someone trespassing is not at fault.