My previous can was the worst. It had a plastic flexible spout, which you had to turn around and store inside the can to put the lid on. Thus, gas sloshed all over the spout, inside & out, and every time you wanted to use the can, you had no choice but to get gas on your hands. Fill the mower, wash my hands, mow half the yard, fill the mower, wash my hands... Worst. Design. Ever.

The problem is, should the company have designed and or manufactured the product to prevent explosion if exposed to a direct heat source.

Which is an absurd premise - the lawsuit should be dismissed immediately.

Which is an absurd premise - the lawsuit should be dismissed immediately.

I think it is quite an important premise. If a company wants to make gasoline containers, one valid concern should be exposure to direct heat source. The last thing I would want is for a product I make to blow up because somebody got too close to fire or a heater or a running engine. Companies SHARE responsibility with the users of their products. If it turns out that nothing could have been done with reasonable investment in product compared to the risk, then the company will prevail.

I'm pretty sure there's a warning on it not to store it or expose to flame and excessive heat.

I'm pretty sure there's a warning on it not to store it or expose to flame and excessive heat.

Yes, that's good. But there are three elements to Strict Products Liability. 1) Warning 2) Design 3) Manufacture. Any one of those 3 elements can be defective in order to have a cause of action.

It's called personal responsibility and using your brain. Two concepts Americans are increasingly lacking in. Pouring gas into a tank is its intended purpose. A gas can will not explode while pouring gas into a tank. If you use a product for purposes other than it was designed for that are extremely dangerous, it's your own stupid fault if something goes wrong.

If I hold a cigarette lighter to a gas pump at the station while gas is coming out and explodes, its not the gas station's fault I'm an idiot. They didn't design it be safe to pour gas on an open flame either.

It's called personal responsibility and using your brain. Two concepts Americans are increasingly lacking in. Pouring gas into a tank is its intended purpose. A gas can will not explode while pouring gas into a tank. If you use a product for purposes other than it was designed for that are extremely dangerous, it's your own stupid fault if something goes wrong.

If I hold a cigarette lighter to a gas pump at the station while gas is coming out and explodes, its not the gas station's fault I'm an idiot. They didn't design it be safe to pour gas on an open flame either.'

Exactly. This is not a design flaw in any way, shape or form. Gas tanks have warning labels telling the user to keep away from open flame, ignition sources, and make sure that the unit is kept in ventilated areas. They also mention to keep the unit away from children. The one in my garage even mentions that gasoline vapors can travel and ignite. Oh, and right from Blitz' website:

- NEVER USE GAS TO START A FIRE. May cause severe injury or death.

The design isn't bad, it's just not good, and it's been remedied. But before flame arrestors, most people did fine fueling their vehicles and equipment because they had common sense.

So the parents neglected their child, and neglected all the warnings that would be on the can. If the warnings somehow came off, then they still should have had the common sense to NOT let a SIX YEAR OLD POUR GAS ON A FIRE.

I feel bad for the kid, but his retard parents did not exercise parental responsibility.

It's called personal responsibility and using your brain. Two concepts Americans are increasingly lacking in. Pouring gas into a tank is its intended purpose. A gas can will not explode while pouring gas into a tank. If you use a product for purposes other than it was designed for that are extremely dangerous, it's your own stupid fault if something goes wrong.

If I hold a cigarette lighter to a gas pump at the station while gas is coming out and explodes, its not the gas station's fault I'm an idiot. They didn't design it be safe to pour gas on an open flame either.

Agreed, however, we are not just talking about idiots here. We are also discussing if manufacturers should make their gas cans hold up to exposure to a direct heat source.

Every set of facts are different. In the case of the kid blowing himself up by pouring gas on a fire is different than say having the gas can 30 ft away from a running generator and it exploding. For example.

Agreed, however, we are not just talking about idiots here. We are also discussing if manufacturers should make their gas cans hold up to exposure to a direct heat source.

A manufacturer could make a jerry can lined with lead, depleted uranium and have it coated in dark matter that magically absorbs the heat and transfers it to Saturn, and some numbskull will still catch themselves on fire and sue the company.

Agreed, however, we are not just talking about idiots here. We are also discussing if manufacturers should make their gas cans hold up to exposure to a direct heat source.

Every set of facts are different. In the case of the kid blowing himself up by pouring gas on a fire is different than say having the gas can 30 ft away from a running generator and it exploding. For example.

Which hasn't happened.

What did happen is the tragic injury of a child due to parental negligence - period.

The suit is pure BS.

A manufacturer could make a jerry can lined with lead, depleted uranium and have it coated in dark matter that magically absorbs the heat and transfers it to Saturn, and some numbskull will still catch themselves on fire and sue the company.

Exactly. This is like a moron suing a car manufacturer because they flew through the window in an accident because they weren't wearing a seat belt, but that's the manufacturer's fault.

I don't think enough is being done to keep my kid from plugging a power cord and his finger into the electrical socket at the same time. Every device should be redesigned and is responsible for my kid sticking his finger into the socket with the power cord. We need to redesign the power outlets with combination locks and have 4 levels of security on the ends of power cords.

It's a design flaw and shared responsibility, the people who make the power cords are responsible for my kid plugging the power cord into the readily available socket. As he pours water on it, they are responsible to make sure he doesn't pour water onto it too.

Edited January 29, 201115 yr by regfootball

All of the examples here are clearly not what strict liability was designed for. A clear example of strict liability is a situation where an easy fix to a safety issue can be made at little cost in design or manufacture. An example would be the clutch on a self propelled mower for when you release the handle, it stops moving. Or a kill switch cord on personal watercraft.

You do realize what you're saying is that the vapors should be vented out the back. Which means we might as well go back to the old style ones. Screw the environment, save the people unintelligent enough to know not to start fires with gas cans!

No, I'm not saying that the lawsuit by the parents of the burned child are in the right. I think their lawsuit is pretty frivolous. A 6 year old child should not be handling a gasoline container period. It is not reasonable for a company to have to design a gas can for use by 6 year olds when they cant operate anything that uses gasoline as a fuel.

You do realize what you're saying is that the vapors should be vented out the back. Which means we might as well go back to the old style ones. Screw the environment, save the people unintelligent enough to know not to start fires with gas cans!

Venting is an important requirement, and is on virtually every other container of dangerous liquid or gas that might explode.

Old style fuel containers had vents, but they also had little caps to close the vents... these caps could pop off to let out pressure. Is it a perfect system? Probably not.

So back to our scenerio... since you can't stop stupid, you have 6 year old pouring gas on a fire... somehow the flames make its way to the inside of the gas container. Whats worse... 1) On the old vented gas container, flames shoot briefly out the spout and vent like a flamethrower... luckily, there is not much fuel and in a few seconds it burns out before the plastic melts completely... or 2) constricted or blocked vent and smaller spout prevent gas container from venting quickly building pressure and the container ruptures in a fireball of igniting gasoline, setting everything within 10 feet on fire.

You like the new style gas container? Great... it should have some type of vent that bleeds off pressure before the container ruptures... but the CARB people seem to have insisted against it.

As far as gasoline vapors go... sure, they aren't good for the environment. But if you think that these gas containers are even making a dent in the environmental situation, I have a bridge to sell you. Before gasoline got used in the automobile, ALL gasoline used to be purposely vented to the atmosphere. It was a waste product, dumped into ponds and streams to evaporate. Then we had 80 years of vented gas tanks and containers. Now its a big push to stop gasoline vapors when it will take decades before every lawnmower, weedwacker, chainsaw, etc. is unvented somehow. Meanwhile, big industry continues to buy pollution credits so they can pollute as always... and when they can't... they'll move more of the pollution to the third world... where it will go into the same air and water we eventually use.