Thanks to my Swiss friend for this link to a variety of wacky warning signs in Switzerland. The Swiss are very safe people, no doubt about it. Look closely at what this monstrous, overdone barrier and warning contraption is protecting: what looks to be about a four-inch deep road excavation.
Compare the Swiss approach to how we handle this type of hazard in good old Memphis.
–Thanks to Pat Crowell.
A Zurich friend sent along this sign in Kleinbasler in Basel, intended to alert sex workers of new “tolerance zones,” designed to impose more control over prostitution, which is legal in Switzerland.
According to this article, “there has been a high turnover of prostitutes recently, mainly from EU countries in Eastern Europe, who are increasing competition, creating price falls and making it hard to convey the rules.”
The competition led to demands by locals for more restrictions. There are currently 800 sex workers in Basel. Police made 120 arrests last year for working outside of designated zones.
Thanks to Pat Crowell.
Don’t point space heaters at cans of gasoline five inches away.
Well, it’s not quite that bad, but this warning in a package of instructions for a small space heater (maybe 10 by 12 inches)seems almost as obvious. Not faulting the manufacturer. No doubt fires, probably a lot of them, have started because consumers unwisely placed heaters next to each of the listed flammable materials, probably including cans of gasoline.
U.S. products liability law does not require warnings against “obvious dangers.” But what’s obvious? If people regularly suffer harm using a product in a dangerous way is it because the danger isn’t obvious or because product users frequently willfully or negligently overlook known dangers.
Manufacturers often get sued for failing to warn of obvious dangers. They don’t usually lose the lawsuits, but you can’t blame them for erring on the side of over-warning. An unintended cost is the “dilution effect” of too many warnings. When instruction booklets are dominated by warnings, which they are, many of them repeated, it’s less likely consumers will read the warnings at all, or pay attention to the ones they really need to know.
But in this case, I’d agree the danger is both obvious and should be warned about because of the foreseeable grave risk.
Not surprisingly, the product warnings accompanying smoke detectors are extensive. Smoke detector manufacturers have been held liable in lawsuits when the detector failed to work properly and harm resulted to residents. (This short article on a law firm website provides a few details.)
I bought a replacement smoke detector last week at Home Depot and, as always, enjoyed reading the product warnings and instructions.
They provided a lot of good advice, but surely the first item of “WHAT TO DO WHEN THE ALARM SOUNDS” could have been worded better:
Alert small children in the home.
Maybe I’m quibbling, but I have three issues with this instruction.
First, the word “Alert” seems too unemphatic. “Hey kids, the house is on fire. Just wanted to let you know.”
Second, why alert only small children? Don’t all children deserve to be alerted that the house may be on fire?
Third, why limit the alerting to children at all? I picture the homeowner whispering: “Kids, the house is on fire. Shhh. Don’t wake Grandma.”
I suggest the following substitute:
WHAT TO DO WHEN THE ALARM SOUNDS
• Scream “Everyone run for your lives!”
Just kidding. Here’s my free, serious expert products liability/linguistics legal suggestion:
Immediately inform all persons in the house.
Grains such as barley and wheat used to make beer contain gluten (although gluten-free beer can be made from grains such as sorghum, buckwheat, rice, and millet).
Can gluten be removed from traditional beer grains? During the middle of our products liability coverage in first-year Torts, a student sent this photo of a beer carton boasting in bold capital letters “CRAFTED TO REMOVE GLUTEN.”
The beer was of interest to the student, who suffers from celiac disease. Persons with celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder, cannot consume gluten because their bodies will mistakenly react to gluten as if it were a poison.
But then she came to the fine print at the bottom of the box, which says:
* Product fermented from grains containing gluten and crafted to remove gluten. The gluten content of this product cannot be verified, and this product may contain gluten.
As the student commented, “I have no clue what the manufacturer is even trying to say.” Given the danger gluten presents to some consumers, surely the disclaimer deserves more prominent billing on the label.
Needless to say, the student passed on buying the beer.
This sign warning “Do Not Feed Hallucinogens to Alligators” would be amusing if it were real, but it’s not.
Complicating life at Lawhaha.com, where we love to post interesting warning labels and signs, is the proliferation of fake, Photoshopped samples.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell. University of Memphis first-year law student George Scoville sent me the alligators picture. It looked a bit sketchy. Research led to a Reddit post detailing indicators that the picture is fake, including, for example, a Shutterstock watermark on the mushroom.
But George had also sent a second similar photo: “Do Not Give the Bison Psychoactive Substances.” This one looked real.
Determined not to be fooled twice, George, applying good legal research skills, wrote to the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (the bison are in Golden Gate Park), receiving a reply that explained:
“That sign was put up as a prank. We took it down as soon as we became aware of it.”
So the sign is (was) actually real. Diabolical! On the other hand, it is Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, home of “Hippie Hill” and neighboring Haight-Ashbury, so it’s possible a sincerely motivated animal-lover posted the sign.
Before posting anything on Facebook or otherwise, take a minute to check it out. A quick check over at SNOPES will usually expose widely disseminated fake news, such as the recent viral Facebook post that Mark Zuckerberg was giving away $4.5 million to Facebook users who shared a thank you message.
In the meantime, signs or not, it’s not a good idea to give psychedelics to animals.
I guess we’ll have to take this one lying down because no standing or sitting is allowed. From a former student comes this sign at a baseball field in Burns Park, North Little Rock, Arkansas.
What is the sign really trying to convey? No loitering in this area? No people in this area? Under a strict construction, could you lie down in the area and be in compliance with the sign’s directive?
–Thanks for Shayne Smith.
Low-clearance warnings can help avert unintentional head-banging (as opposed to purposeful head-banging to, say, Metallica).
In the U.S., we shout these warnings (Danger! Watch Your Head!) like we shout everything. But the Brits take a more proper, refined approach, as shown by the sign on the right, taken in a London pub.
The only thing missing is an “Old Chap” at the end, as in “Please Do Mind Your Head, Old Chap.”
Thanks to Pat Crowell.
[Great News. The Torts Museum accepted my invitation. My lawn darts will be safely displayed in the museum’s “Dangerous Toys” section.]
When I first heard the news about Ralph Nader’s new American Museum of Tort Law, my first thought was, “Awesome! A Torts Museum.” My second thought was, “My lawn darts! They belong there.”
In case you missed the news, the Torts Museum opened last month in Nader’s home town in Winsted, CN. The museum offers a history of American tort law, with exhibits covering everything from the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case to the even more infamous Ford Pinto exploding gas tank fiasco.
I bought my lawn darts about twenty years ago at a garage sale. Never used. No dirt or even bloodstains. Pristine. I knew it would be selfish for me to keep enjoying them, like hiding a Rembrandt in a private studio.
Lawn darts were banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1988 on the basis that their risk outweighed their social usefulness. The Commission reported three deaths associated with lawn darts from 1970-1988 and an estimated 700 annual emergency room cases. Then-Commissioner Anne Graham explained the Commission’s risk-utility analysis (which my current first-year students will recognize as Judge Hand’s famous formula for negligence):
What limited recreational value lawn darts may have is far outweighed by the number of serious injuries and unnecessary deaths. This week another child was severely injured by a lawn dart. She is now in critical condition. There are numerous alternatives to lawn darts, and I would urge adults who have lawn darts to throw them away now.
The most amazing aspect of my set of Jarts is that the packaging doesn’t include a single warning.
To the contrary, it touts lawn darts as “The Most Exciting Outdoor Game Today.” No doubt. Nothing like a screaming ambulance to liven up the neighborhood.
Best of all, it was a game for the whole family, except … oops, that missile on the cover appears headed straight for mom!
Here’s the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s original notice of the ban, which “urges consumers to discard or destroy all lawn darts immediately” and instructs them to call the Commission’s hotline if they find any still for sale.
I’ve seen pictures like this on Facebook that were Photoshopped jokes, but this sign warning “Danger: Do Not Touch, This Sign Has Sharp Edges” is the real deal, straight from Auckland, New Zealand.
The friend who captured this image reports that she is not sure whether the sign is a joke or not because it’s attached to another large normal sign. Weird stuff.
Thanks to Lina Lim.
Free parenting advice – “Get rid of children”
What to do with the kids? It’s an eternal problem for parents.
Who knew the answer would be so simple and come, not from a parenting book, but from a product warning label on a Power Bank charger for electronic devices:
Get rid of children
We also see that it is unlikely the language of this warning will make it into the next edition of Strunk & White, Elements of Style:
Do not break,dismantling, into the fire or placed in …
With all the money the goes into R & D for a new product, it’s astonishing that manufacturers do not cough up a few extra bucks to hire competent people to write their warnings. Manufacturers, call me.
One last funny part about this whole thing is that the Power Bank chargers containing this warning were given out by the Arkansas Bar Association to every lawyer at their annual convention.
–Thanks to former student George Carder for this beaut.
Yes, it may be hard to believe, but it’s true.
This trail at the Razorback Regional Greenway in Northwest Arkansas–along with every other trail in the world–is dangerous when underwater.
Trails are also dangerous when covered with poisonous snakes, loose sticks of dynamite, large rusty spikes, and giant spiders from the planet Xenon.
Where are the warnings for those dangers?
But maybe you’re unsure whether this warning is accurate. Maybe the trail is safe when underwater. Maybe the sign is exaggerating, prompting unnecessary fear and caution. Is it possible?
Nope, guess not.
–Thanks to Bill Putman.
So sorry to see my friend and colleague move to Switzerland, but on the upside, Lawhaha.com has a great new source of pictorial instructional and warnings signs, which we love (as shown by a few examples here, here, here, here, here, here). Remember that the goal of a pictorial warning is to advise of risks or deliver instructions to persons who cannot read or understand the written warning.
Here we have a sign at a swimming beach for dogs and horses. That’s the first thing to note: Switzerland actually has swimming beaches for dogs and horses. A recent worldwide survey showed the Swiss are the happiest people in the world. The dogs and horses must be absolutely beside themselves.
As for the substance of the sign, it is instructing that dogs swim to the left and horses to the right. For non-Swiss readers, would you have known that is what the sign is attempting to convey?
–Thanks to Pat Crowell.
Went for a wonderful hike over the weekend with a friend in a state park. It’s a really nice park with well-maintained, well-used hiking trails.
And it was comforting to note that they take visitor safety seriously, as shown by this sign at the trail head:
NO HUNTING WITHIN 100 FEET OF TRAIL
Surely one hundred feet is a more than adequate safety margin for hunting around hikers. After all, how far could a bullet possibly travel?
Well, that’s where there might be a problem. A bullet fired from an average deer-hunting rifle, say a 30-06, has a maximum range of 5,675 yards–or 3.22 miles.
We love pictorial warnings at Lawhaha.com, as shown here, here, here, here, here, here, and several other places. Remember that the goal of a pictorial warning is to advise of risks or deliver instructions to persons who cannot read or understand the written warning. So in trying to figure them out, you have to set aside the textual versions that usually accompany pictorial warnings.
Europe, with free travel among so many people of different cultures and languages, relies more heavily on pictorial warnings than the United States.
Here we have a sign from Italy with six pictorial warnings/instructions. Which ones can you figure out without consulting the accompanying text?
Me? Going left to right starting at the top row, I’d say:
1. The first (no dumping trash on the ground) is reasonably clear.
2. The second (no camping) is not clear. Maybe it could be used for “No public sex,” as it looks kind of like one person lying on top of another. Just don’t see the camping angle.
3. The third (no eating near monuments) may work, but it raises the question, “Why can’t you eat near monuments?” Probably because: go back to number one. Eaters leave trash. But dilution of impact results with the proliferation of warnings and instructions. The more there are, the less likely people pay attention to any of them.
4. They could have done a better job with the fourth one (do not smear or deface). The figure could be spraying bug repellant or air freshener or anything. But more important, picture a person with a can of spray paint prepared to tag monuments. He sees the sign. Is it really going to change his mind? “Oh, I didn’t know you weren’t allowed to deface the monuments with spray paint. I came all the way out here for nothing.”
5. In the fifth one (no bathing in fountains), I can’t get past laughing at the little doggie in the picture. He’s really cute, but what is he doing there? And the guy looks like he’s taking an actual bath. The canine is probably there to indicate no dog-bathing in fountains, but it still cracks me up.
6. The sixth one (do not go bare-chested in public) does not compute because the diagonal “do not ever this”-slash covers the entire image, which includes one person wearing a bathing suit top. Looks more like “No hand-holding” or “No couples.”
So, maybe three out of six would be my scoring. What do you think?
–Thanks to Pat Crowell.
From Texas comes this warning sign that:
A farm animal professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant in farm animal activities resulting from the inherent risk of farm animal activities.
First, we notice the evolution of the term “professional” in modern society. Originally, there were only three professions: clergy, lawyers, and doctors. Over time, the number of groups laying claim to the title of a “professional” has expanded to include architects, engineers, pharmacists, et cetera. Add to that list “farm animal professionals.”
Not sure of the history of the referenced statute, but it would be interesting to see if the dangerous “farm animal activities” that relieve farm animal professionals from death or injury is defined. Logically, those activities would include things like mules kicking, horses rearing, bulls charging, and the like.
But what if the farm animal professional has notice of the animal’s dangerous propensity? Does this change the result under the statute? (It might. I haven’t looked at it.) Or what if, following in Gary Larson’s Far Side footsteps, the farm animals band together and decide to participate in more dangerous activities, such as racing all-terrain vehicles or shooting off fireworks?
–Thanks to Peter Dawson.
The highlighted warning in this image sounds like a joke, but it’s part of a real set of FAQs on a pacemaker information site.
Overall, it’s good news. You can use a lawn mower and other power tools with a pacemaker, but not chainsaws:
Can I use a chainsaw?
Chainsaws are hard to operate at a safe distance from your chest pacemaker. They should be avoided altogether.
Hard to argue with the factual assertion. The user would either: (1) have to rip the pacemaker out of his chest and leave it in the house; (2) set the chainsaw up in the backyard, start it, and run like hell; or (3) tap in to Rubber Man’s secret.
So I’m taking a pleasant walk along a Florida beachfront park and encounter this sign warning that it is a crime, punishable by up to one year in prison, to abandon cats in the park. I’m thinking, “That’s weird.”
Then I get to a second sign warning it is unlawful to feed or abandon cats or other animals. Unlawful to feed a cat? Wait a minute.
At this point, I’m thinking, “Aren’t we engaging in some serious overkill on the cat issue?”
But then I come to a third sign and go, “Uh-oh.” Did Tuggers run away to join the other cats?
Poor Tuggers. Hope he is found. In the meantime, if you are at the beach and come across an Orange Domestic Shorthair sunbathing or shell collecting, be felonious (or it is feline-ious) and feed the poor thing.
Meanwhile, anyone who would abandon a cat deserves a bad fate.
From a golf course in Florida, comes this pair of signs.
The first one features a seemingly contented (despite having a decapitated head) golf-cart driver cruising along above a warning to “Share the Road.”
Twenty yards farther along we get a much more ominous sign. Same cart, but the driver has been “disappeared.” Did he fail to share the road?
An investigation is underway.
We love pictorial warnings at Lawhaha.com, as shown by the samples here, here, here, here, and here. These are supposedly universal warnings designed to be understood by everyone. As in these warnings on the outside of a dehumidifier box, they are often accompanied by written warnings. But not everyone can read the written warnings, either because of language barriers or simply an inability to read.
So how do these pictorial warnings rate? When I look at the first one, all I can think of is the David Bowie song, “Let’s Dance.” What is it trying to convey? That you need two people to pick the thing up. I think that one probably works, assuming for the sake of argument that people need a warning not to pick up large heavy objects without assistance.
These next three warnings on the same box are a mixed bag. No idea what “4” stands for. Assuming it’s something on a scale, but “4” out of what? And what is it measuring? Please send word. The second one might be a warning to not put your wine glass on the dehumidifier, but, on the outside packaging, it’s probably a warning that the contents are breakable. The third one? Who knows? Don’t stomp on it? Don’t kick it? Hmm, maybe don’t stand on it, which I could see, but if that’s the case, shouldn’t they have a box under the boot?
We like to have fun with these, but let’s face it, the real problem is that it’s almost impossible to meaningfully convey most product warnings via a symbol.
And a whole lot of other undesirable results.
The World Health Organization (WHO) directs, in Article 11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, that parties to the convention “implement large, rotating health warnings on all tobacco product packaging and labelling.”
The WHO website shows twenty countries (and their mandated warnings) currently participating, including Brazil, which is where the Florida International University law student who gave me this pack of Marlboros purchased it.
Some of the warnings are much more graphic. Speaking of warnings, here is fair warning: DO NOT LOOK at this larynx warning from Malaysia unless you have a strong stomach.
Other countries mandate pictorial warnings without belonging to the WHO convention. In the United States, graphic pictorial warnings on cigarette packages were torpedoed by a lawsuit in which the tobacco industry successfully argued before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA that requiring them to put pictorial warnings on “the top 50 percent of the front and rear panels of cigarette packages and 20 percent of the area of each cigarette advertisement” violated their First Amendment rights.
The warnings were authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 1989, which directed the U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services to adopt regulations requiring cigarettes to bear “color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.”
The Obama Administration backed away from the requirements after the decision.
The data is mixed as to whether pictorial cigarette warnings change smoking behavior. A study of 4000 smokers in Malaysia and Thailand found the warnings had an effect in Thailand, but not Malaysia.
Okay, this warning label, sent along by lawyer comic and insurance expert Randy Maniloff, does not actually cover turkey roasting, but maybe that’s because there wasn’t any room left after warning people not to toast their “Danish, Muffin [or] Cake” in the toaster.
But wait, what’s up with the warning to not put “Bread” in the toaster?
–Thanks to Randy Maniloff.
… at least that’s what these two signs seem to be indicating.
–Thanks to Gary Golden.
A while back I posted a picture of a coffee cup, reportedly from Canada, that made fun of U.S. tort law and, indirectly, poor Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in the infamous McDonald’s coffee spill.
Now Chris Fergus, a professor in Australia, sends along this photo showing another coffee cup maker having a grand old time with the case by including a warning on its cups stating, “Avoid Pouring on Crotch Area.” I don’t speak French, but can guess the French version amounts to something like “Don’t Pour It on Your Oolala.” Chris said he received the photo from one of his students and is unsure where it originated.
Hilarious, unless you happen to end up like Ms. Liebeck. Sorry for the graphic pic, but this is actually one of the milder pictures of her burn injuries:
And so here we are more than a decade later continuing to distort the American tort system with a case in which dangerously hot coffee sold through a drive-thru window caused third-degree burns to a 79-year-old woman who accidentally spilled it while a passenger in a stopped vehicle trying to add cream and sugar. Consult the original post for links to some eye-opening information about what really happened in the McDonald’s coffee spill case.
–Thanks to Chris Fergus
A student sent me this. Not sure where it was taken, but gotta love it. A much better attention-getter than the usual caution cones.
It raises the larger question of “Do people really slip on banana peels?” Yes. While slipping on a banana peel is a comedic cliché, it happens.
The famous Prosser, Wade & Schwartz Torts casebook contains a trilogy of cases involving plaintiffs who slipped on banana peels. In keeping with the comedic tradition, our discussion of the cases ends with this question: “Before we move on, what do the three banana cases all have in common?” Pause, bewildered looks. “They all went up on … a peel.” Drum roll.
Mythbusters found there’s nothing particularly slippery about banana peels, but Googling the issue brings up several recent instances of people falling on them. In December 2013, a Staten Island man slipped on a banana peel and fell onto the subway tracks.
All guitar players have been painfully poked more than once by the sharp ends of the strings where they wrap around the tuners. In the 1930s, Kluson marketed “SafeTiString” tuner posts where the string ends could be neatly tucked away in a slot in the posts to “banish the peril of injured, cut or bruised fingers.”
Neat invention, but apparently too late to save the poor woman pictured in this advertisement reprinted in Vintage Guitar magazine in the Feb. 2013 issue. She appears to be bleeding to death.
Click to enlarge the thumbnail to appreciate her plight.
Curious warning sign at the Beale Street Landing on the Mississippi River in downtown Memphis. It says:
Caution grass slopes may exceed 8%
Is “8%” meaningful information? Would it not be better to say “Caution: Steep Hill”?
Also, this is a multi-million dollar new development. Couldn’t they come up with a more professional sign. Maybe someone texted the sign maker:
btw, we need some signage for the slope, something like Caution grass slopes may exceed 8%. Why 8%? To mess with them! LOL
A recent graduate sent me this warning from a bar: “USE CAUTION! SPILLS HAPPEN … DON’T BLAME US … keep yours [your phone] CLEAR OF THE BEER.”
Nice! Makes nuclear power plant warnings pale in comparison. But then, those only involve radiation poisoning. We’re talking phone deprivation here.
–Thanks to Sarah Atkinson.
This very large sign in a Tennessee restaurant contends with the Tokyo Subway warning for The World’s Largest Warning, but it’s more interesting than that.
In the Southern United States, and perhaps in other parts of the country, it is popular for some restaurants to serve peanuts and encourage customers to throw the shells on the floor. Forget that it’s an unreasonable risk for a business invitor to have debris or other objects on the floor where customers are known to walk, or that slip and fall cases rank in the double digits percentage-wise among all tort lawsuits. It’s FUN to throw trash on the floor!
The fact that customers are on notice that peanut shells litter the floor– and it would be hard to content otherwise given this enormous sign, give them credit for that–probably is not sufficient to protect a business from liability if someone slips and gets injured. The fact that a danger is obvious is a defense only if the danger can be navigated safely with knowledge of the risk which, I would argue, is not true of a shell-strewn floor, which is probably dark and traveled on frequently by customers consuming alcohol.
As for the “Loud Music” warning, this could be an attempt at humor, as the entire sign could be, or it could be a legitimate warning that the music played in the establishment is loud enough to cause hearing damage. It raises an interesting question I have long wondered about: Is a music venue negligent if it plays music at a level that causes hearing damage or is that a risk music fans assume? Even though I sing and play in loud rock bands, I assert it is negligent to play music the venue owner reasonably knows or should know is above the decibel-level known to cause hearing damage.
One year when I was teaching at a law school in San Francisco, I was at a Fillmore show. I forget who the band was but the music was so loud that it felt literally deafening. My ears ached and I could see my clothes flatten with every bass note. I went to the soundman and tried to explain it was too loud. He couldn’t hear what I was saying, of course. I shouted louder and when he figured it out, he looked at me like I was crazy.
Any cases on this? Let me know.
–Thanks to Terry Van Eaton
Is this the World’s Largest Risk Warning?
Persons and entities with a duty to warn of risks under tort law are often accused of hiding the warnings in the fine print or otherwise not making them sufficiently conspicuous. But the administrators of the Tokyo subway could never be accused of that, as shown in this mural-size slip and fall warning.
If there’s a Guinness Book of World Records entry for the largest risk warning, this one might contend. Good job, Tokyo subway.
Comparative Law Tangent: Many Americans think personal injury lawsuits are common only in the United States and attributable to far out U.S. tort law principles. Actually, basic tort law principles are remarkably similarly throughout much of the world. I learned this co-authoring Practical Global Tort Litigation: United States, Germany and Argentina with Adem Koyuncu and Luis Sprovieri.
Oversimplified, the principal tort law and litigation differences between the United States and many countries can be reduced to five:
1. Higher noneconomic damages (e.g., damages for intangible injuries such as physical and mental pain and suffering, disability and disfigurement) in the United States .
2. The fact that most developed countries have public health care with the result that injured tort victims do not have to sue to recover large medical expense obligations (lifetime medical expenses in the United States for catastrophic injury cases such as quadriplegia can exceed $20 million).
3. The availability of civil punitive damages in the United States to punish and deter particularly egregious wrongdoers, which are not available in most other countries (but other countries may be more willing to criminally prosecute and fine offenders who endanger public safety).
4. The “loser pays” rule that applies in most countries, but generally not in the United States. The loser pays rule requires the losing party to bear not only their own attorney fees and litigation costs, but their opponent’s. In the United States, each side generally bears its own legal fees, win or lose.
5. The wider availability of discovery in the United States. Discovery is a process by which each side gets access to the facts in the possession of the other side, with the goal that all relevant facts will be presented at trial and the case will be decided on those facts.
But I got carried away. The point of this post is that this is one huge warning!
As a hobby, I sing and play in Memphis rock cover bands. At the Young Avenue Deli in the Cooper-Young neighborhood of Memphis, the sound guy has a sign posted warning bands: “$20 Fine for Playing Brown-Eyed Girl or Mustang Sally.”
If you’re a music fan, you might be thinking, “Why? Those are both great songs.” They definitely are, which is why 90 percent of cover bands play them, which in turn is why sound guys hate them.
We encounter a similar phenomenon with guitar players. Every guitar player learns or tries to learn certain fundmental songs and riffs, including Stairway to Heaven (first song I ever learned back in college), Smoke On the Water, and Sweet Child O’ Mine.
In response we get this admonishment from a music store that:
ABSOLUTELY, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE AT ALL ARE CUSTOMERS ALLOWED TO PLAY STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, SWEET CHILD OF MINE OR SMOKE ON THE WATER WHILE TRYING OUT GUITARS. THANK YOU.
–Thanks to my bandmate Ron Lefkowitz for this one.
In Torts, we were talking about product warning defects and, particularly, the warnings found on most plastic bags. These are warnings to adults to keep plastic bags away from babies, cribs, etc. because they present a suffication hazard. Using various bags as examples, we talked about the efficacy of such warnings in terms of size, placement and whether they needed to be in multiple languages. (We also discussed whether the risk is obvious, in which case there would be no duty to warn of it.)
This week a student brought me a plastic bag that attempted to solve the efficacy problems by omitting written warnings and relying solely on pictorial warnings. Did they succeed? You be the judge.
First, we have this one. Here’s your test.
Question. This pictorial warning is intended to convey the following risk information:
(a) Keep plastic bags away from babies to prevent suffocation.
(b) Impressions of Edvard Munch’s The Scream are prohibited.
(c) Do not place large adult mitts around babies’ throats.
(d) This haz-mat suit does not work properly.
A is the correct answer.
This next one was on the same bag.
Question. This pictorial warning is intended to convey the following risk information:
(a) Keep plastic bags away from babies to prevent suffocation.
(b) Diapers required.
(c) Do not press pieces of toast against baby’s head.
(d) No balloon animals.
A is the correct answer.
When you were a kid, or maybe still, did you ever wonder why, no matter how hard you tried, you couldn’t reproduce the product results with your toys similar to those represented in the advertising? These failures caused massive wounds to self-esteem to millions of children. The examples are too many too count. Legos, Erector Sets, Lincoln Logs. How were we supposed to build that 10,000-piece castle on the box with fifty pieces?
At least one modern manufacturer is paying attention to protecting the egos of today’s youth via product warnings. Play-Doh warns kids, at least the ones who read product warnings, to not get their artistic hopes up because:
Reading this made me feel much better about myself because I recently attempted to replicate this delightful bug on the same packaging:
But ended up with this:
Can you interpret this pictorial warning?
The entertainment lawyer who sent it along thought maybe her landlord was warning tenants not to practice their parcours on the trash dumpster. “That stick figure is having far too much fun,” she wrote. “Look at his exuberant arms!
He definitely does appear to be celebrating a “Ta-Da!” kind of moment.
Remember: In evaluating a pictorial warning, you have to imagine you can’t read the textual warnings, either because you can’t read at all or can’t read English or other language the verbal warning is printed in.
This one rates only a 1.0 on Lawhaha.com’s proprietary 4.0 “Pictorial Warning Clarity” scale.
For more pictorical warning fun, see here here, here and here.
–Thanks to Nicole Jurkowski.
Slow down. The Incredible Hulk’s offspring may be playing in your neighborhood.
Hmm, maybe kids really are getting bigger. First, we had the titan-tyke falling from the diaper-changing station and now we have, courtesy of a first-year law student at the University of Memphis, this sign cautioning that children are at play. Very large children. Children who, judging by the picture, could contend in the decathlon at the Olympics.
–Thanks to Rob Clapper.
It’s always fun, fun, and more fun deciphering pictorial warnings.
Here’s a warning, along with a request, from a restaurant restroom in Naples, Florida: be careful not to let your baby fall off of the changing station, and also, don’t forget to throw away the dirty diaper! A good warning and reasonable request.
Remember, to interpret pictorial warnings, you have to imagine you can’t read the textual warnings below the symbols, either because you can’t read at all or can’t read English or other language the verbal warning is printed in. That’s the purpose of a pictorial warning: to convey a danger or instruction to persons for whom verbal warnings are inadequate.
The first picture–the falling baby–does a pretty good job of communicating the risk, although that is one huge baby. His feet are way above the changing table while his head is already touching the floor. Recommended height for a wall-mounted baby changing station is 45.5 inches. At that height, this baby would be approximately six-feet tall judging by the picture.
Because the child is portrayed as a giant, the flecks flying up around his head look like they could be pieces of floor tile. Maybe the intended warning is: “Do Not Damage Floor with Falling Objects.” Or: “No Sumo Wrestlers on Changing Table.”
But the poor “little guy” is resilient. The second picture shows him cleaning up afterwards, and good news! He looks fit as a fiddle.
These accidents do happen and are terrible to imagine. The risk is obvious, but maybe a picture serves a useful reminding function.
On the 4.0 point “Pictorial Product Symbol Clarity” rating system recently developed at secret Lawhaha.com laboratories, I would give these pictorial symbols a 3.5. What do you think?
Like any heat-generating electrical device, toasters can be very dangerous.
Here’s the main warning page from a set of instructions for a new toaster (click pic to expand).
Most of these are good warnings, even if they sound silly. For example, “do not insert fingers … into slots when toaster is plugged in” sounds obvious, but how many toaster-users among us could swear under oath we haven’t fished stuff out of a plugged-in toaster with bare hands? One of the most common types of toaster injuries is burned fingers from trying to get Pop-Tarts out.
And on reading “Do not operate or place the toaster … in a heated oven or microwave oven,” your first reaction might be to laugh, but this kind of warning is there because real live, or at least formerly so, consumers have engaged in exactly that activity.
So these are mostly good warnings, but two quibbles applicable to many product warnings:
–First, it’s annoying when product warnings direct consumers to do things the manufacturer knows 100 percent they are not going to do, such as “Unplug toaster from outlet when not in use.” Maybe I lead an overly risky life, but I do not unplug all electrical products (many of which include the same warning) between usage. Repeated plugging and unplugging strikes me as being potentially even more dangerous when it comes to toasters because water is frequently running nearby and fingers may be wet or slippery from various cooking ingredients.
–Second, it would be great if we could ditch the generic warnings that clearly do not apply to the particular product. They simply dilute the impact of (and already small likelihood consumers will actually read) the important warnings. Example here: “Do not use attachments that are not recommended by the manufacturer.” I have no doubt consumers misuse products in varied and imaginative ways, but I can’t picture what kinds of attachments they would use for a toaster.
Post script: An insurance defense lawyer-turned-judge friend wrote in response to this post:
Gulp. Will you still be my friend if I confess that I actually DO unplug the toaster between uses? It’s the old insurance defense lawyer in me. I don’t walk over grates in the sidewalk or manhole covers in the street. I don’t talk on the phone or shower when there is lightning outside. I inanely tell loved ones departing in cars: “Drive safely!” (In response, my former husband once told me, “Good thing you said that. Had you not, I would have driven like a maniac.”) In my defense, experts actually do advise unplugging small appliances like toasters. Here’s one explanation why.
Two points. First, you can see what being immersed in tort law does to people’s psyches. We become very safe people. Second, I’m still not convinced. If electric appliances present a significant risk of physical harm to persons or property (other than harm to only the product) simply from being plugged in, I would argue that the failure to incorporate failsafe technology from electrical surges is a defective design.
It’s hard to tell in this warning if Apple was serious or trying to be amusing in admonishing consumers “Do not eat iPod shuffle.”
It seems jokey, especially because it follows the jokey tone of the instructions above, where it says that syncing the device will be “a piece of cake. Cupcake, even.”
No doubt Apple has a galaxy of outstanding legal advisors, so it’s surprising no one pointed out: “Never, ever make jokes in product warnings.”
Let’s assume hypothetically that the product seriously injured someone in a different way that should have been, but wasn’t, warned about, say, because the battery could explode. Picture the cross-examination:
“So you didn’t warn consumers about the danger of exploding batteries, is that true?”
“But you did warn them not to eat their iPod shuffle, is that correct?”
“Yes, but we were just joking about that.”
“Sir, my client is blind in one eye because of your failure to warn. Does Apple consider product warnings to be a joke?”
On the other hand, it’s possible that it is intended as a real warning to not eat iPod shuffles, which would be unnecessary. Manufacturers do not have a legal duty to warn consumers not to eat electronic devices. The exception, of course, would be if the object was small enough to present a choking hazard to children. That doesn’t appear to be the case with an iPod shuffle. But even if that is a risk, the warning should not say “Do not eat iPod shuffle,” but like, “Choking hazard–Keep away from small children.”
During a Torts class last semester, we were discussing various applications of Judge Learned Hand’s formula for negligence, when a student asked, “Why isn’t it negligent to hold pinata parties?” To which I replied, “It probably is!”
Judge Hand’s formula, explained in a famous case called United States v. Carroll Towing Co., is that if the burden of avoiding a risk is less than than probability of the risk resulting in harm multiplied by the potential severity of the harm, it is negligent to engage in the conduct.
As applied to pinata parties, the only burden to avoiding the risk is to choose a different, safer game to entertain kids at a party, compared to the risk that a blindfolded kid swinging a bat could whack some other kid in the head and cause serious injury.
Some students thought I was just being, as usual, overly cautious Tortman, but then I came across this sign at a picnic area while bike-riding in Shelby Farms. Vindicated.
But wait, what is up with that prohibition on metal detecting?
If you come here often, you know we love pictorial product warnings. Pictorial warnings are intended to explain product dangers in a universal symbol or picture that can be universally understood even by people who cannot read or who speak and read a different language.
Here we have a pictorial product announcement on the back of a rug indicating the company uses no child labor. Very commendable.
The test for a pictorial symbol is whether it communicates its intended message without textual explanation. So take away the “No Child Labor” words and what do you see? A “No Happy Children” warning.
Not quite sure why the manufacturer felt it necessary to include a pictorial symbol in the first place, unless universal pictorial warnings have been transmuted into marketing tools–which will further dilute their already limited uility as product-risk warnings.
Or, maybe the manufacturer really is warning consumers not to use child labor. I can see some kid whose allowance includes vacuuming balking to mom and dad, “You’re violating this warning! I’m calling the labor department!”
Okay, that’s probably not the original message of this crosswalk sign, found on the University of Florida campus, but a sense of urgency was added when someone doctored the sign by adding a can of Red Bull … and angel wings?
One of the milder pictures of Stella Liebeck’s coffee burn injuries.
Any mention of lawsuits and hot coffee invariably invokes the grossly misunderstood “McDonald’s coffee spill” case of Stella Liebeck, a 79-old-woman who suffered third-degree burns after spilling a stryrofoam, takeout cup of McDonald’s coffee on her legs.
I apologize for the gruesome picture, but a large part of the misunderstanding of this case comes from people not appreciating that Ms. Liebeck suffered extremely severe injuries. There are much worse pictures of her injuries available on the internet. There is also a ton of information, and misinformation, out there about the McDonald’s case. Here (scroll down to “Public Perceptions: The McDonald’s Coffee Spill”) and here are a couple accounts of the facts. You might also want to check out the movie, Hot Coffee, which explores the McDonald’s case and, more generally, the tort reform movement.
Sideways on purpose. Click to expand.
At least one Canadian coffee seller found the idea of warning consumers about hot coffee to be amusing:
“If this was another country, we’d have to tell you this coffee may be hot. Good thing this is Canada!”
Pictorial warnings are intended to explain product dangers in a universal symbol or picture that can be universally understood even by people who cannot read or who speak and read a different language.
Unfortunately, coherently explaining product risks usually is hard to do in a single image. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but product warnings can be better explained in words (unfortunately, many litigation risk-averse product makers insist on using the full thousand or more, but that’s a different issue).
Here we have a pictorial warning about hair rubberbands. As the written part of the pictured warning shows (all thumbnails are expandable), they can present a choking hazard to young children. But what if one can’t read the printed warning? That’s where the symbol warning against use by children under three comes in.
But wouldn’t it be easy to do and more effective to create a symbol that looked more like a child and less like a melancholy pumpkin?
Getting in the Halloween spirit, I was in a drug store reading warning labels for Halloween products and came across this Grease Makeup. Looks like fun stuff, right?
Not as fun as you might think. First, don’t expect to end up looking like this clown.
Why? Because–Bozo warning alert–the instructions on the back of this one quarter-inch thick transparent package clearly state: “COSTUMES AND ACCESSORIES SHOWN IN PHOTO NOT INCLUDED.”
But things get worse. Ready to have some fun applying your grease makeup? Like the thought of sporting red or maybe yellow eyes at the costume party? Forget about it. How about pink or purple? Scratch those too. Maybe green? Orange? No, No. All of those colors are banned from eye-area application. And don’t even think about going with blue, green or purple lips:
Have a happy, complicated Halloween with your grease makeup!
One of my colleagues was amused and bemused by this warning sticker inside the shower stall of her hotel room during a vacation to Norway:
The bathtub can be slippery. Anti-slip mats are available at our housekeeper.
Please dial 7000.
Hmm, if the bathtubs are slippery, shouldn’t they already have mats in them? And isn’t it a bit too late to be dialing up the housekeeper for a mat once you’re already in the bath?
Courtesy of a rising 2L at the University of Memphis law school, we have another failed attempt at conveying warnings and instructions via pictorial symbols.
In evaluating pictorial warnings, remember that the principal purpose of pictorial warnings is to convey warnings to people who can’t read or read in a different language. If people could read the warnings, we wouldn’t need the pictures.
Thus, interpreting only the pictures, here’s what a non-English speaking park visitor might take away from these four frames of a sign warning about how to handle mountain lion attacks:
1. Top left: “After lion has bitten off your right hand, run AWAY from the lion. Follow the arrow. Never run toward a mountain lion.”
2. Top right: “Once you realize you can’t outrun a mountain lion and are handless, say the hell with it and give up.”
3. Bottom left: “If accompanied by children, offer them to the lion.”
4. Bottom right: “Don’t know. Can’t read it. That’s why I needed the pictures!”
When manufacturers overwarn, it dilutes the impact of warnings that consumers really need to know about. Over-warning is a serious problem — not to be confused with global-warming, which is also really bad.
Given some of the silly and dangerous ways consumers misuse products, one can have sympathy for manufacturers that don’t want to take chances. I’ve done consulting work writing product warnings and instructions for manufacturers and confess that I advise erring on the side of giving too many warnings.
But to waste space and, more importantly, short consumer attention span on worthless warnings that lead with telling consumers to:
1. Read these instructions.
2. Keep these instructions.
3. Heed all warnings.
4. Follow all instructions
… is just stupid. The most important warnings should come first. Even diligent consumers are going to tune out quickly reading these warnings (which led to the headline, a reversal of the famous line from Jerry McGuire, “You had me at hello”). No manufacturer has been or ever will be held liable for failing to warn consumers to read and keep their warnings and instructions.
Meanwhile, the list of warnings for this apparently incredibly dangerous alarm clock went on much longer, but I cut it off.
A Facebook friend posted this picture of a candy wrapper, featuring the warning:
MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUTS AND HUMAN FLESH
Not sure where he got it or if it’s real. It doesn’t look Photoshopped (but it’s hard to tell sometimes).
Human tissue does sometimes end up in food products during the manufacturing process, probably more often than we would want to know.
My favorite “flesh in food” cases is a 94-year-old Mississippi Supreme Court case where the plaintiff found a human toe in a plug of chewing tobacco. That’s one way to “kick” the habit. Har, har.
The plaintiff couldn’t prove how the toe got there, so he invoked res ipsa loquitur. For non-legals, res ipsa loquitur is a procedural device that allows a tort plaintiff to get his case to a jury despite a lack of specific evidence that the defendant was negligent if: (1) the injury-causing event is of a nature that ordinarily would not happen unless someone was negligent; and (2) the defendant had control of the instrumentality at the time the negligence most likely occurred.
I have always loved the Mississippi court’s terse analysis of the first element: “We can imagine no reason why, with ordinary care, human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found in chewing tobacco, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless.” Pillars v. R.J. Reynolds, 78 So. 365 (1918).
But is human flesh getting into food really such an extensive problem that manufactuters feel obligated to warn about it? This is either a fishy warning or our food supply and worker safety programs are in worse shape than believed. Or, a third possibility is that California passed a law.
The goal in crafting a pictorial product warning is to come up with a picture that can be universally understood, even by people who speak different languages or are illiterate. But it’s darned difficult to capture most warnings in the form of a simple drawing.
Case in point: this warning on a 3M paint-fumes mask. You’ve seen or used these before. They are paper masks held to one’s face with rubber bands that go behind the head.
But what is this pictorial warning trying to say? The accompanying text helps, but, again, the whole idea of pictorial warnings is that they are supposed to be understandable even by people who can’t read the written warning.
So just concentrate on the picture itself and ask, “What is it saying?
Here are possibilities that come to mind:
— “Smoking Area”
— “Help, My Lungs Recently Exploded”
— “Totally Awesome Bong”
— “Short Pants Are Caused By Clouds”
And what’s up with the limitation in the written warning that the respirator helps keep “non-harmful dusts and certain particles out of your nose, mouth and lungs”? Isn’t the whole point of buying them to keep out harmful dust and particles?
iTunes software is good stuff for downloading the latest crappola that the recording industry is outputting (editorial comment courtesy of a music lover still stuck in the 60s and 70s), but just remember that iTunes software is:
[N]ot intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control systems, life support machines or other equipment in which the failure of the Apple software system could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.
Here’s an interesting warning, from a former student at Florida International University College of Law.
The warning is on the outside of a toilet compartment on a recreational boat. I think I know what it means, but surely they could have worded it better.
Law student and boyfriend holding hands on romantic date night reading product warning labels at Walmart.
Covering products liability in Torts and made a point of explaining what utter fun reading product warning labels can be, saying:
“In fact, if you’re looking for a really great night out, take your date to Walmart. Hold hands and spend the evening strolling the aisles reading product warning labels. It’s a guaranteed good time!”
One student and her boyfriend took me up on the idea. She sent along this great PowerPoint presentation of their romantic Walmart Product Warning Label Date.
What kind of a consumer would voluntarily ingest a hot sauce so dangerous they must first sign a disclaimer/waiver acknowledging “serious injury can be caused if applied to skin, eyes or and exposed body parts,” and waiving their legal rights in the event of injury, while also certifying they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of signing? (Click on thumbnail to expand.)
Answer: The only answers coming readily to mind are an unreasonable consumer or one with an asbestos-lined stomach. If this product–a hot sauce manufactured by a burrito company and called, among other names, Smack My Ass and Call Me Sally–is dangerous enough to require a disclaimer before consumption, should it be marketed at all?
The sauce is reportedly 700 times hotter than tobasco sauce and 300 times hotter than a jalapeno. Looking forward to trying it before my next emergency colon surgery.
But believe it or not, there are much hotter sauces available! The heat of hot sauces is measured in Scoville units. Smack My Ass and Call Me Sally rates at 1.5 million Scoville units. The hottest sauce, according to a site that tracks these things, is Blair’s 16 Million Reserve, which rates 16 million Scoville units, or 3200 times hotter than a jalapeno.
Is there any other consumable product for which buyers must sign a disclaimer/waiver?
The waiver of rights may or may not be valid depending on the accuracy of the risk information in the disclaimer. If hot sauces of this nature were determined to be “unreasonably dangerous,” the waiver would not be upheld. Every product carries a warranty of merchantability that the product is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are used; here, human consumption.
But since several different brands of super-hot sauces exist, maybe they really aren’t dangerous. Maybe the disclaimer is even part of a marketing plan, since boasting the hottest of hot sauces appears to be a selling point.
Professor and editor of the Torts Prof blog, Bill Childs, posted this picture of a warning sign at the new Harry Potter attraction at the Islands of Adventures theme park in Orlando. He noted that he particularly enjoyed that even the warnings are themed, as this one comes from the “Department of Magical Transportation.”
See my ABA Journal column on Hogwarts Torts, suggesting that no student in the history of education has been subjected to as many torts as poor Harry Potter.
Glittery makeup is good stuff, for Halloween, your next glam band, or just for fun. And you can see how much fun this woman on the packaging is having with it. Go ahead and click on the image to expand it, so you can get the full realization of what an awesome opportunity this stuff presents to have a good time.
But wait, what’s that warning in small print on the back of the packaging?
Do not place glitter near the eye area.
Longtime Lawhaha.com supporter Lihwei Lin sent this picture of a sticker inside a taxicab operating in the Pacific Rim.
Customers in these cabs must have been especially happy to reach their destinations. How could they not be? On entering the vehicle they are warned (italics added):
SAFETY-FIRST Please put on your seatbelt prepare for accident.
Out and about? Thirsty? Stop. Find a convenience store or a restaurant or even a liquor store. But don’t stoop (har har) to drinking out of the toilet. In case you forget, just read the warning sticker:
RECYCLED FLUSH WATER
UNSAFE FOR DRINKING
This warning makes sense because a plug-in night-light is, after all an electrical device that could be dangerous. But it still sounds funny to have a warning on a Mickey Mouse product that says:
CAUTION: THIS IS NOT A TOY and is not intended for use by children.
Here’s a great product to grow aragonite crystals just by adding white distilled vinegar. It’s hard to imagine a consumer product with greater social utility.
The packaging contains a seemingly silly warning that:
WARNING: Eating rocks may lead to broken teeth!
Maybe the rocks resemble candy, in which case it wouldn’t be such a silly warning. On the other hand, anyone who would mistake the rocks for candy probably wouldn’t be old enough to read the warning.
… or any other part of the body they do not cover.
Okay, there are unusual warnings and just plain stupid ones:
Shin pads can not protect any part of the body they do not cover.
Have a dog? How’s he feeling? If he’s down in the dumps, maybe he’d enjoy a nice outdoor session chasing a Frisbee Flexible Flying Disc for Dogs.
But don’t expect it to change his mood completely by making the common consumer mistake that a plastic disc is a therapeutic device. As the manufacturer cautions across the top in all capital letters:
THIS IS A DOG TOY … IT IS NOT A THERAPEUTIC DEVICE
Lower down it warns:
DO NOT THROW IT DIRECTLY AT YOUR DOG
Why? Because he’s like to experience feelings of rejection and anxiety and require therapy, but as they just told you, it’s not a therapeutic device.
Rowenta felt the need to caution purchasers of its irons to:
Never iron clothes while they are being worn.
Sounds crazy, right? But when I asked my first-year law school class, filled with exceptionally intelligent people, if any of them had tried to iron clothes while wearing them, a lot of them nodded affirmatively.
Silly Putty! What a great product. It’s may be the most successful product ever invented that lacks virtually any social utility. True, you can bend it around and pick up newsprint on it, but is it actually useful for anything?
Hey, I know, how about using it for ear plugs?
Nope, that’s no good. The packaging warns:
Not intended for use as ear plugs.
This warning for a Slinky is mildly amusing because Slinkys just don’t seem very dangerous, but it’s the instructions that crack me up.
First, the warning:
CAUTION: Do not use in moving vehicle. Do not throw coils out any window. Keep Slinky away from face and eyes.
Now the instructions, and pay attention because they are complicated:
TO BOUNCE SLINKY UP AND DOWN: Hold a few coils tightly in one hand, allowing rest of Slinky to hang down. Now in a bouncing motion, move hand slowly up and down.
So that’s how you do it. I never could figure that out. I was always holding it up. Duh.
Here’s a nice wood library ladder from the Eddie Bauer Home website. It appears to be a high quality ladder, as long as you remember that it is:
Not for use as a ladder
This is my favorite wacky warning of all time. Usually, if you ponder a warning, you can figure out why it’s there, even seemingly ridiculous warnings. So, for example, a warning on a heavy-duty power drill to not use it as a dental drill is probably there because some wayward consumer actually attempted to use it that way.
But I’ve never been able to conceive of a reason–even an unreasonable fear of lawsuits-based reason–why this manufacturer of home carbon monoxide detectors felt compelled to warn purchasers that the product is not a substitute for life insurance. If you have any ideas, send them along. Here’s the warning:
Carbon Monoxide detectors are not a substitute for life insurance. Though these detectors warn against increasing CO levels, we do not warrant or imply in any way that they will protect lives from CO poisoning. Homeowners and rents must still insure their lives.
There’s another issue with this warning. Why would any consumer want to buy a carbon monoxide detector that the manufacturer is not willing to warrant, or even “imply in any way,” will protect them from CO poisoning (the advertised purpose and utility of the product).
Shoot, I read this instruction on a new blender too late:
DO NOT expect your Blender to replace all of your kitchen appliances.
I had already put my stove, microwave, dishwasher and fridge on Craigslist before I saw it.
- Don’t jump in front of the train. On second thought, just do it.
A funny juxtaposition of a warning in a Hong Kong subway, directly above a Nike ad.
The translated warning at the top says (yellow highlighting):
DANGER! JUMPING INTO THE TUNNEL IS FORBIDDEN
The Nike ad below suggests one reconsider.
Here are the warnings from a dust-mist-fumes respirator mask from a home improvement store. It’s a good product, but just be aware that:
This respirator does not supply oxygen.
Use only in atmospheres with adequate oxygen to sustain human life.
Another close call, saved by a product warning. Do not bother packing this mask for your upcoming trip through the solar system.
(All photos are expandable thumbnails.)
Here’s a warning for a power drill, the kind you buy at Home Depot for the purpose of making holes in wood, metal and concrete.
But read up before using, people, because:
This product is not intended for use as a dental drill or in medical applications.
That last part threw me because I have this pain in my side and also this really nice 18-volt hammer drill. I was thinking, why not see what’s going on it there? I’m glad I read the warning first.
Most people enjoy this warning for the seemingly silly dental drill caution, but I also like this part:
Do not allow familiarity gained from frequent use of your rotary tool to become commonplace.
I know what they’re trying to say, and they do clear it up in the unbolded sentence that follows. It’s an issue worthy of addressing in product warnings because tons of “cognitive failure” research shows that humans are prone to mental slips when performing tasks, and, perhaps counterintuitively, that the more expert a person becomes in performing a task, the more likely he or she is to commit a mental slip. Familiarity and confidence breed inattention.
So it’s a well-intended warning, but the bolded sentence doesn’t say what it means. Essentially, it says don’t let familiarity with the tool become commonplace, which is a non-sequitur.
In my Products Liability course, we have “Stupid Warning Day,” where each student is required to bring in an unusual warning label. When I was teaching at a law school in San Francisco, a student brought in this warning for a set of “Lock Up Your Lover Furry Handcuffs.”
It’s actually a pretty good warning though:
WARNING: Place an extra key in a safe place to avoid unnecessary discomfort, embarrassment and any need to call a locksmith or a police officer.
Sounds like a warning one might expect to find on one of the Weasley twins’ products in the Harry Potter franchise, but this disclaimer on a pack of incense comes from the Muggle world.
First, the incense promises a magical world of mystic knowledge and ecstasy, but the small print at the bottom takes it all back:
Sold as curio only, no magical effects are guaranteed.
To which they might want to add:
If you’re experiencing magical effects, it’s probably not from the incense, but from that other product you’re using the incense to cover up.
Law students learn to avoid risk, in part because of what is known as the “availability heuristic”–a mental shortcut people use to unreliably evaluate the probability of risks based on whether they can remember the event ever happening before.
Law students and lawyers tend to over-estimate risk because they can always imagine a situation (an availability) in every context of life where things went wrong. In all the cases they read, things went wrong, which is why they became cases. Their constant exposure to Murphy’s Law causes them to become very adept at (even obsessive about) spotting and avoiding risks in their own lives.
Here a careful student of mine studying in the law library with her laptop took the extra-prudent precaution of posting a warning sign near to the cord and plug to avoid a tripping injury risk.
One of my favorite types of silly warnings is the kind that can’t possibly be followed. This is a great example, “borrowed” from the seat-back pocket of Boeing B-727 airliner:
If you are sitting in an exit row and you can not read this card, … please tell a crew member.
Imagine what airlines would write if they really thought we couldn’t read any of it:
“Meanwhile, while you’re sitting there unable to read this card hoping we’ll come by with the drink cart before you pass out, let us tell you how much we enjoy treating you like cattle, bossing you around, losing your luggage, starving you into submission, and, when we can, smashing your heads against the overhead compartment, accidental like. Customer service? Ha, haa. That’s a good one. Too bad you can’t read this, SUCKERS!”
Much products liability litigation is directed at whether a product warning was reasonably clear in explaining the actual risk of the product. A subsidiary argument involves pictorial warnings. Pictorial warnings have the benefit of being understood by persons who read in different languages or who are illiterate. Their downside is that they often are unclear because it is difficult to capture most product warnings in a simple picture or symbol.
But I think everyone would agree that the graphic pictorial warning on this vehicle with a rotating-shaft device clearly indicates this is a risk a reasonable person would avoid.
Just one question: Is it okay to use the stairs?
Not surprisingly, since they are full of law professors and law students, law schools are pretty safe places. Be hard to overlook these warnings at the University of Memphis law school.
Wait, what is that in the background? Looks like a dead body. Maybe just a tired 1L.
From what I hear, Viagra is a high-quality product, but like all prescription products, it’s not for everyone. Specifically, Viagra is NOT FOR NEWBORNS.
This is the kind of warning people read and think “Those crazy [fill in the blank: lawyers, consumers, manufacturers …].” Who needs to be told that Viagra is not for newborns?
Healthcare providers. That’s right. Turns out that sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, has been found to be useful in preventing “rebound pulmonary hypertension” in infants.
But since it’s not FDA-approved for such a use, one can understand why Pfizer, the manufacturer, might feel a need to warn against this foreseeable use or misuse of the product.
(Since I posted this, I found out my 93-year-old mom is feeding Viagra to her female dog on her veterinarian’s instructions for some kind of pulmonary condition. This comes out in a phone conversation where the topic thread started like this: “Have you heard about this product they have for … oh, what’s it called? I forget, but it’s for men so they can keep having sex forever.” “Uh, yeah, mom, I’ve heard of it.”)