What say you?

[Conrad]

https://wrex.com/2021/02/08/family-of-illinois-woman-who-drank-sanitizer-sues-firm-that-made-it/

Family of Illinois woman who drank sanitizer sues firm that made it

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The family of an Illinois woman who died last year after drinking hand sanitizer contaminated with methanol is suing the company that made the product.

The federal lawsuit filed Friday in St. Louis says the St. Louis County Medical examiner determined that Kayla Stagner’s death was caused by acute methanol intoxication, and a bottle of Blumen Advanced Instate Sanitizer that was tested in connection with the autopsy contained dangerous levels of methanol.

Stagner died last May at a St. Louis area hospital.

The company that made the sanitizer, 4e Brands North America, didn't respond immediately to questions about the lawsuit.


Of course methanol has no business being in hand sanitizer but you're not supposed to drink it either.

In my opinion, the law suit should be dismissed.

[m in sc]

Darwinism in action.

I agree, should be dismissed.

[Eupher]

Methanol is a weak antiseptic, which puzzles me as to why it was included in a hand sanitizer. Even isopropyl alcohol is fairly weak against many bacteria and thus is not the be-all, end-all antiseptic in clean room operations (a subject I am fairly well versed in). Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) and hydrogen peroxide (especially in the form of a mist or gas) are far more effective.

Remains to be seen how 4E Brands will answer the inevitable question in court:

"Why did you select a known exceptionally weak antiseptic to use in your hand sanitizer?"

That said, you just can't fix stupid.

But some attorney - I can see it now - will convince a jury that 4E Brands should have put a warning label on its product, i.e., "Do Not Drink" with all the skulls and crossbones they could conceivably cram onto it.

In all likelihood, the company will settle out of court and award the family a few million for their "inconvenience."

There is no such thing as personal accountability any more.

[maxtog]

Darwinism in action.

I agree, should be dismissed.

Absolutely.
In fact, I think she should be liable for the defendant's legal fees, as well, since it is frivolous and stupid.

[George R. Young]

Was there, by any chance, a Televised recommendation from a very high government official to try drinking it? Or was that something else?

[VirginiaJim]

In this case, I don't think so.  She was an alcoholic according to what I've read and was probably looking for a quick pick me up and didn't care that it was hand sanitizer.  Now with that being said, the sanitizer was not supposed to have methanol in it and it shouldn't have killed her under normal circumstances.  That sanitizer was recalled for having methanol in it.  I think the family has a case here.  Sounds stupid I know, but IMHO as a non-lawyer who hasn't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately, I agree with the suit.

[maxtog]

Was there, by any chance, a Televised recommendation from a very high government official to try drinking it?

The "news" does like to try to stretch such narratives.

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."  "It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."

Strange?  Indeed.  Recommendation?  No.  Drinking?  No. 

[maxtog]

In this case, I don't think so.  She was an alcoholic according to what I've read and was probably looking for a quick pick me up and didn't care that it was hand sanitizer.  Now with that being said, the sanitizer was not supposed to have methanol in it and it shouldn't have killed her under normal circumstances.  That sanitizer was recalled for having methanol in it.  I think the family has a case here.  Sounds stupid I know, but IMHO as a non-lawyer who hasn't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately, I agree with the suit.

That does help to re-frame the situation, somewhat.  But hand sanitizers can and do contain all kinds of other chemicals in them- emollients, perfumes, moisturizers, polymers, etc.  Many of which are dangerous or toxic if ingested.  I just checked the label of three different ones I have, all three say:

"For external use only"
"If swallowed, seek medical treatment or contact a poison control center immediately"

[Conrad]

The "news" does like to try to stretch such narratives.

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."  "It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."

Strange?  Indeed.  Recommendation?  No.  Drinking?  No.

I don't believe that any 'stretching' of this narrative is required. The previous POtuS and stable genius laid it all out for us right there on his own.

[Boomer]

Lets reframe that slightly.
Alcoholic dies from drinking gasoline.
He/she drank it because it contains 10% Ethanol.
Now who is at fault?

Hand Sanitiser is not to be ingested and is labelled "For External use only".
If some idiot drinks it and gets ill or dies, why should the manufacturer be sued for the blatant stupidity of the idiot?

By all means prosecute the manufacturer for having a misleading ingredients label or if they somehow left off the safety labelling.
Also prosecute if someone has a reaction to putting methanol on their skin. I believe they already have several suits pending for that.

But if an idiot dies because they did something blatantly stupid, then good.
Hopefully they did it before they procreated.

[VirginiaJim]

Probably a bit late for that...she was 32.  The bottle was tested and had a deadly amount of Methanol.  If a company is stupid enough to add, clearly, the wrong ingredients (deadly) they should be put out of business any way possible even if they have warnings about not drinking it.  A law suit is one such method regardless of how it was brought about.  The courts will decide if it has merit or not.  This also begs the question is drinking 'normal' hand sanitizer enough to kill you?  I think it would taste pretty bad, though. 

[m in sc]

its pretty stupid to sue a company for using an item for its non intended use. 

I've had threats of litigation at the company I work at for people using products in ways we don't spec them for. that usually goes about 1 phone call after i get a hold of them.  For example: relief valve used in a vacuum application.. not what its designed for. But you can bet I've had people try it. and cause a LOT of damage.

[Nosmo]

Ethyl alcohol is the stuff made for drinkin'.  It is also poisonous in large quantities.  What if you drink enough of it to kill you ( as many people do every year).  Should you then be able to sue the distiller for making something that toxic, with the understanding that you are supposed to drink it?

And what about this idiot gal who put Gorilla Glue in her HAIR?  Too stupid to live, in my opinion.....

https://www.newsweek.com/gorilla-glue-very-sorry-hear-about-woman-put-adhesive-hair-1567785

Drinking too much water can kill you.  Perhaps I should sue the local municipal water supplier for piping  "TOXIC/DANGEROUS" substance into my house?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619#water-intoxication

If I ever seriously crash my Connie, and hurt myself, you can bet I'll sue the pants off Kawasaki for making such an obviously, unreasonably dangerous machine.

https://peellawfirm.com/motorcycles-are-still-dangerous-update/

[Boomer]

+1 on ^^^ what Nosmo said ^^^
We need to stop defending stupid and start educating people about Personal Responsibility.

[turbojoe78]

+2  (one for Nosmo and one for Boomer)

[gPink]

All good arguments for liability protection laws.

[VirginiaJim]

I agree for frivolous lawsuits.

[George R. Young]

Pool liability example:

Had a house with backyard pool in Ottawa, ON, Canada. The entire yard around the pool was fenced with a gate. There is a garage beside the house with a rear door leading to the backyard and the pool.

The pool gendarmes came for a visit and 'suggested' some 'improvements'.

The gate had to be locked at all times. The gate had to self-close for when it wasn't locked.

The door from the garage to the pool had to be locked from the inside in case the front garage door was left open and somebody sneaked into the garage, then the backyard and the pool and drowned.

None of these things made sense to me from either the personal liability viewpoint or probability of occurrence, but I implemented them, and demonstrated them to the gendarmes. It should be noted that said gendarmes are too lazy to check up on these things regularly, so these 'improvements' were not religiously followed.

[Strawboss]

God ensures stupid animals die, liability lawyers protect stupid humans, but, could she read? If not.......

[Nosmo]

God ensures stupid animals die, liability lawyers protect stupid humans, but, could she read? If not.......

That's a good point.  MANY people can't read nor comprehend WHAT they read. 

I work in a factory where a large percentage of the employees are non-English-speaking foreign nationals.  That's OK, they are good people and do good work, but it causes many problems, of which management is aware.  But the company owners choose to take the risk, and suffer the consequences because they can pay them minimum wage and get away with it.  It's cheaper than paying higher wages to more people with better communication skills.  Those jobs are reserved for people like me who are gooder Englishers.   Some day someone is going to get injured and sue the company because they could not read nor comprehend the warnings and operating instructions on a machine.  I've had several discussions with my supervisors about this, and the bottom line is.........well, the bottom line.  It's cheaper to pay minimum wage and get minimally qualified workers, take the risk and make more profits to pay the lawyers/settlements if needed.  I've been there almost four years and no one has been badly hurt, so maybe they're right.