Warning Labels

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.

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?”

“That’s correct.”

“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.”

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?

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:

Warning.

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!”