Liquidation of US gas can manufacturer blamed on litigation

[BillyV]

Blitz USA manufactures 75% of the plastic gas cans on the market as well as exporting their products to other countries, but now they are forced to liquidate as a result of the costs of product liability insurance and a "storm" of lawsuits. Their Oklahoma plant will close at the end of July and 117 employees will be out of work.

The liability suits, 42 of them brought by the same three lawyers, "accused the company of making faulty cans that explode when used to pour gasoline onto fires." I don't know about you, but whenever I have a fire going, I reach for my trusty plastic gasoline can and pour some on the fire; doesn't everybody? I don't know all the details about this other than what is in the links below, but it would seem that these are frivolous charges made to enrich the lawyers and the result is another US company folding and more jobs lost. Is there no common sense left in this country?

Largest maker of gas cans going out of business | Marketplace.org

Plastics News - Beleaguered gas can manufacturer Blitz USA closing down

 

[Truthmatters]

did you look into the law suits or are you just jumping to conclusions?

 

[Truthmatters]

Explosion of lawsuits against gas can maker | Southeast Texas Record



Representing Blitz, Chuck Craig described the potential problems with the use of flame arresters. He said if not properly designed, the device could reduce the fill rate and result in fuel spills and gasoline impurities may eventually clog the flame arrester making the gasoline container useless.

According to records from the meeting, Craig told the commission that in occupational settings flame arresters have been used for many years, those containers are made of metal, thus grounding the flame arrester to the metal body of the container. Consumer gasoline containers are plastic and present the possibility of static charge building as the gasoline passes through the arrester and into the container, potentially creating a spark.

 

[Truthmatters]

In February in northeast Texas, Jonathon Green was burning brush in a barrel. He attempted to pour gas on to the brush, but the gas container exploded covering Jonathon in burning gasoline and flames. In an effort to save his life, Jonathon was airlifted from Texarkana's St. Michael's Hospital to Little Rock's Arkansas Children's Hospital. However, the burns were too severe. After 29 days of treatment, 20-year-old Jonathon died. Jonathon's mom, Rene Green, filed a wrongful death suit against Blitz, USA, Inc. on Aug 28.


now realise they were pouring gas arround NO flame.


static electricity started the ignition.




http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/205542-explosion-of-lawsuits-against-gas-can-maker

 

[Truthmatters]

see what happens when you accept crap from the robmoney campaign without looking into the real story

 

[uscitizen]

People are stupit to use gasoline to burn anything .

Use diesel or some slower burning accelerant.

btw the lawyer is a republican

 

[Truthmatters]

the cases dont involve pouring onto a lit fire.

they were people pouring gas on brush or logs BEFORE they lit the fire.


the ignition was static electricity due to the design of the can itsself.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

In February in northeast Texas, Jonathon Green was burning brush in a barrel. He attempted to pour gas on to the brush, but the gas container exploded covering Jonathon in burning gasoline and flames. In an effort to save his life, Jonathon was airlifted from Texarkana's St. Michael's Hospital to Little Rock's Arkansas Children's Hospital. However, the burns were too severe. After 29 days of treatment, 20-year-old Jonathon died. Jonathon's mom, Rene Green, filed a wrongful death suit against Blitz, USA, Inc. on Aug 28.


now realise they were pouring gas arround NO flame.


static electricity started the ignition.




Explosion of lawsuits against gas can maker | Southeast Texas Record

Your own link has failed you again...

According to court documents, the gasoline containers at issue lacked flame arresters. The plaintiffs describe the flames arrester as an "essential safety device" and state that it prevents flashback of flames using a perforated metal disc or woven wire mesh screen that is placed into the container's opening. The plaintiffs accuse the defendant of a conscious decision to endanger the safety of consumers by refusing to use this device in their portable gasoline containers.

Consumer gasoline containers are plastic and present the possibility of static charge building as the gasoline passes through the arrester and into the container, potentially creating a spark.

No flame arrester, no static build-up.

 

[uscitizen]

There is gonna be a gas can shortage, better stock up.

Serious stuff.

 

[eflatminor]

Loser pays. That's the way the rest of the world handles lawsuits. You bring a lawsuit and lose, you pay the other guy's legal expenses. I believe we should adopt such a common sense approach to tort law, which would not only keep more manufacturing (and jobs) here but would have a significant impact on reducing healthcare costs.

 

[Truthmatters]

According to records from the meeting, Craig told the commission that in occupational settings flame arresters have been used for many years, those containers are made of metal, thus grounding the flame arrester to the metal body of the container. Consumer gasoline containers are plastic and present the possibility of static charge building as the gasoline passes through the arrester and into the container, potentially creating a spark.

Also in the meeting's log, Craig describes concern that the inclusion of a flame arrester could "create a false sense of security and may encourage unsafe behaviors with gasoline." The working task group concluded with the decision to solicit proposals for independent and unbiased testing to better define the problem.

Within the complaints, the plaintiffs state the defendant was negligent through failure to request the task group to "consider a standard" to include flame arresters or explosion suppression material. The allegations also state Blitz did not provide adequate warnings of the potential danger of flashback with using or misusing the gasoline container and failure to provide post-sale warnings or remedial measures such as a product recall.

In addition, the plaintiffs state the defendant is negligent in failing to design or produce a reasonably safe container, failing to guard against flashback and failing to use explosion proofing material or an explosion suppression system in the container's design.

Further claims include breach of warranties and misrepresentation through the implication that the container was fit for use, safe, and without defect; violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act for failure to report defective and a potentially hazardous product; and failing to report settled or adjudicated lawsuits for death or grievous bodily injury.




http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/205542-explosion-of-lawsuits-against-gas-can-maker

 

[Truthmatters]

loser pays means the wealthy own the courts

 

[Rat in the Hat]

So how did the static build up if the cans were manufactured without flame arresters??

 

[Mad Scientist]

I have the same red gas can that I use to fill both my mowers and my chainsaw. I remember now that it had this device on the end of the fill tube that screwed up the normal process of filling anything. Basically you had to push the fill tube into the tank far enough to allow the gas to flow but it slowed the flow, was awkward to use and leaked like a sieve.

I remember thinking that it's typical how when something is designed for safety alone that it usually just screws up the entire function.

I replaced it with a regular cap and I just use a funnel now as my Dad did and his Dad before him.

 

[eflatminor]

loser pays means the wealthy own the courts

Bullshit. All those quasi-socialist countries you lefties love so much utilize the common sense rule that loser pays. What, all of sudden Scandinavia and the UK aren't the ideal we should be shooting for? Besides, the little guy that needs to sue can still do so...AND he'll have his attorney fees covered when he wins. Loser pays isn't about stopping the little guy from suing, it's about stopping the vulture lawyers from their unproductive, job killing abuse of our legal system.

Unfettered lawsuits are also increasing costs for consumers across the board. Only a Plaintiff's attorney would object...or someone so brainwashed by liberal Democrats supported by those attorneys that they can't think for themselves. Shocker, I know...

 

[BillyV]

see what happens when you accept crap from the robmoney campaign without looking into the real story

Seriously? National Public Radio is now part of the Romney campaign?

This has nothing to do with right/left politics; this is about a US company that produces a product which is adequately labeled for its intended use and includes a warning that it is not designed for use in starting or accelerating fires. It is built according to industry standards (from my link):

Fuel-can producers have adopted voluntarily standards developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials since the 1980s. The standards include container stability and heat resistance, openings and closings, filling and pouring, drop strength, permeability and cautionary labeling.

Labeling, for example, states that gasoline should never be used to start or accelerate a fire. Much litigation resulted from such misuse of the fuel in the containers.

As I said, there may be circumstances specific to the actual cases that I am unaware of; I didn't read them. And I understand that everyone wants somebody to be responsible for the horrible injuries sustained by these poor people. But if you're using something contrary to its intended use and you get injured as a result, should someone else always be responsible? How about this guy; should we be responsible for his unintended use of a lawn mower?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbK9eybE35E]lawnmower on a stick - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rshermr]

loser pays means the wealthy own the courts

Bullshit. All those quasi-socialist countries you lefties love so much utilize the common sense rule that loser pays. What, all of sudden Scandinavia and the UK aren't the ideal we should be shooting for? Besides, the little guy that needs to sue can still do so...AND he'll have his attorney fees covered when he wins. Loser pays isn't about stopping the little guy from suing, it's about stopping the vulture lawyers from their unproductive, job killing abuse of our legal system.

Unfettered lawsuits are also increasing costs for consumers across the board. Only a Plaintiff's attorney would object...or someone so brainwashed by liberal Democrats supported by those attorneys that they can't think for themselves. Shocker, I know...

I can think for myself fine, thank you very much. What I wonder is how much, as a percentage of any industry, that litigation costs.

The right wing is anti litigation. The left wants to leave litigation to the courts. So, the question is, what is litigation costing us. And, do you want someone who is harmed badly, costing his family, over time, hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to malfeasance of some company, to simply suck it up and let the poor company alone.

I suspect that this is simply more con dogma. Is there any proof that the overall costs are so great that we should be worrying. Or is it just more of the normal right effort to help the corporation without any documented reason??

 

[BillyV]

In February in northeast Texas, Jonathon Green was burning brush in a barrel. He attempted to pour gas on to the brush, but the gas container exploded covering Jonathon in burning gasoline and flames. In an effort to save his life, Jonathon was airlifted from Texarkana's St. Michael's Hospital to Little Rock's Arkansas Children's Hospital. However, the burns were too severe. After 29 days of treatment, 20-year-old Jonathon died. Jonathon's mom, Rene Green, filed a wrongful death suit against Blitz, USA, Inc. on Aug 28.


now realise they were pouring gas arround NO flame.


static electricity started the ignition.




Explosion of lawsuits against gas can maker | Southeast Texas Record

Nothing in what you quoted or in that article mentions static electricity was the cause; it says he was "burning brush". It isn't relevant to the suit, anyway. Here is another suit brought, not coincidentally, by the same attorneys where a cheerleader was injured because someone else poured gasoline on an existing fire:

The parents of a Texas high school cheerleader have filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of a gas storage can after she suffered third degree burns when a friend attempted to pour gasoline on a camp fire.


Lawsuit filed against gas can maker after Texas cheerleader burned at party | Southeast Texas Record

If anyone is at fault there, shouldn't it be the idiot who poured gas on a fire?

 

[eflatminor]

loser pays means the wealthy own the courts

Bullshit. All those quasi-socialist countries you lefties love so much utilize the common sense rule that loser pays. What, all of sudden Scandinavia and the UK aren't the ideal we should be shooting for? Besides, the little guy that needs to sue can still do so...AND he'll have his attorney fees covered when he wins. Loser pays isn't about stopping the little guy from suing, it's about stopping the vulture lawyers from their unproductive, job killing abuse of our legal system.

Unfettered lawsuits are also increasing costs for consumers across the board. Only a Plaintiff's attorney would object...or someone so brainwashed by liberal Democrats supported by those attorneys that they can't think for themselves. Shocker, I know...

I can think for myself fine, thank you very much.

That remains to be seen. We'll see.

What I wonder is how much, as a percentage of any industry, that litigation costs.

Very difficult to estimate as there is no central register totaling jury awards to plaintiffs, much less civil settlements. We do know that the United States struggles with a uniquely costly civil justice system. The direct costs of tort litigation reached $247 billion in 2006, or $825 per person in the United States.

The right wing is anti litigation.

Wrong. The right is against abuse of the civil court systems. Litigation is essential. The current system is untenable as just about every country outside the United States understands.

...do you want someone who is harmed badly, costing his family, over time, hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to malfeasance of some company, to simply suck it up and let the poor company alone.

No, not at all. If someone has been "harmed badly" then he certainly stands an excellent chance of winning in court....where he'll also have his attorney's fees paid. Yea little guy! The problem with winner pays is that sheer volume of unsubstantiated lawsuits that are levied without concern of merit. Without the specter of paying for the other guy's defense, there is little reason not to throw out as many lawsuits as possible to see what sticks.

I suspect that this is simply more con dogma

You suspect incorrectly.

Is there any proof that the overall costs are so great that we should be worrying.

Yes, there is. Tort costs in the U.S. as a percentage of gross domestic product are far higher than those in the rest of the developed world—double the cost in Germany and more than three times the cost in France or the United Kingdom.

In addition, there are proxy indications that civil awards are going up substantially. For example, although imperfect measures, relevant insurance rates are way up and everyone knows that medical malpractice insurance rates are soaring.

From a 2003 BusinessWeek article: "Lawsuits over product liability, negligence, and discrimination increased at a 15% annual rate in the late 1990s."

So, while loser pays may not be a perfect fix all for our civil litigation system in America, it's certainly a step in the right direction. Along with caps on recoverable fees, in order to eliminate the incentive that large litigants might have to attempt to "buy a verdict" under loser pays, we could see a drastic reduction in unproductive civil litigation. That means more jobs in this country, reduced costs for consumers and who knows, maybe warning labels that are actually reasonable to read!