What parent would allow their child (teen or not) to drink nothing but an energy drink?
People need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they did, insurance costs would be much lower due to reduced defense costs and payouts.
Now if the mfg put rat poison in a few cans, it is a justified suit.
You forgot that nobody is responsible for their own actions. I mean, if a cigarette manufacturer can be liable for the death of someone who smokes (and there IS a warning lable on that), why should anyone be reasonably expected to exercise any restraint or common sense?
I agree to a point. But cigarettes didn’t always have labels on them when the risk for disease and death was known to them. They were forced to put labels on them.
Nicotine is one of the most highly addictive substances on the planet, so quitting once you’re hooked is very, very difficult. I think the allegation was, we started smoking before there were warnings (it was considered very chic back in the day) and by the time we found out, you had us hooked.
Except the people who started after the warnings were added and are still blaming manufacturers. But that’s beside the point. My point is, warning labels (spelled it right) don’t mean much.
SMH – Mom should be ashamed of herself ~ people have to learn that there is such a thing as personal responsibility and if our judicial system keeps allowing these kind of lawsuits that waste our dwindling resources, it will never be learned ! Sorry for mom’s loss but I have vote for case to be thrown out of court !!
This reminds me of my years in the military. I was stationed at RAF Lakenheath with a supervisor who drank Pepsi incessantly. He had a six-pack in his tote bag every day @ work. One day I asked him about that and he said he’d been drinking Pepsis on a daily basis for years, which led to a bad dermitilogical (is that a word?) reaction. I guess the 19 yr old had developed an addiction to the Monster drink like my old supervisor did. If the mother’s lawsuit addresses that aspect of the situation, she may yet prevail…
Thank you Fed Up for saying it better than I could. Questionning seems to be totally consumed with the idea that all corporations are evil and their dangerous products and services need to be controlled by government trolls. Questionning may want to consider moving to North Korea where diet is rigidly controlled by Beloved Leader.
For the most part, I agree with you & Fed Up, but it’s not always true in many cases. You also can’t cure everything with “good parenting” unless you control who is allowed to become a parent. The fact is people are free to become parents at will not all will be good parents. Also, food companies’ primary objective is not the well-being of the consumer.
As with most everything you have to have a healthy balance and try to find an equilibrium.
Nobody seems to be recognizing that this “kid” was 19 and a legal ADULT. What does “mommy” have to do with this case in the first place?
Also, as with many of these cases, it will likely be determined that this kid had other health issues or other types of chemicals in his bloodstream that really resulted in his death and the case will be tossed. That won’t make a headline though…
“Mommy” is the plantiff in this case, so I guess she has quite a bit to do with it. Especially since she claims that he was drinking 2 cans a day for years, which suggests she allowed him to do so BEFORE he was 18.
Sounds as though her contention is that the CUMULATIVE effect resulted in the death. You would have a point if the kid one day drank 2 drinks and keeled over dead. but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. (Although I believe there are others where that was the case.)
I now longer believe that all people are fundamentally good, but being a parent, my 1st inclination is to believe that she is trying to “punish” rather than being greedy. (and possibly to highlight this for others to think about this, because she clearly didn’t).
Now, as for her lawyer, he does have to bump the demaand to at least 7 figures in order to justify the 6 figure fee he is sure to charge, yes?
A couple of years ago my son was drinking Monster in place of coffee/Coke. He is now 24. Recently he came to our house with coffee in his hand. I asked him what happened to the Monster? “Mom, it was making my heart hurt so I don’t drink it anymore.” Scary.
Warning labels = the substitute for common sense.
Lawsuits = the replacement for good parenting.
Warning Labels = Responsible Product Marketing
Lawsuits = Only way to balance a corporations greed with the poison of their product.
What parent would allow their child (teen or not) to drink nothing but an energy drink?
People need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they did, insurance costs would be much lower due to reduced defense costs and payouts.
Now if the mfg put rat poison in a few cans, it is a justified suit.
What responsible parent allows their children to drink so much energy drink?
People need to take responsibility for their own actions. It’s not like there was rat poison in the drink.
Seriously, Questioning? You don’t think the mother – or her 19 year old ADULT son – are responsible enough?
You forgot that nobody is responsible for their own actions. I mean, if a cigarette manufacturer can be liable for the death of someone who smokes (and there IS a warning lable on that), why should anyone be reasonably expected to exercise any restraint or common sense?
dang it, I spelled label wrong.
I agree to a point. But cigarettes didn’t always have labels on them when the risk for disease and death was known to them. They were forced to put labels on them.
Nicotine is one of the most highly addictive substances on the planet, so quitting once you’re hooked is very, very difficult. I think the allegation was, we started smoking before there were warnings (it was considered very chic back in the day) and by the time we found out, you had us hooked.
Just sayin.
Geeze Libby, I was trying not to think about it – now I’m craving!
Didn’t mean to capitalize the e.
Except the people who started after the warnings were added and are still blaming manufacturers. But that’s beside the point. My point is, warning labels (spelled it right) don’t mean much.
Agreed.
SMH – Mom should be ashamed of herself ~ people have to learn that there is such a thing as personal responsibility and if our judicial system keeps allowing these kind of lawsuits that waste our dwindling resources, it will never be learned ! Sorry for mom’s loss but I have vote for case to be thrown out of court !!
This reminds me of my years in the military. I was stationed at RAF Lakenheath with a supervisor who drank Pepsi incessantly. He had a six-pack in his tote bag every day @ work. One day I asked him about that and he said he’d been drinking Pepsis on a daily basis for years, which led to a bad dermitilogical (is that a word?) reaction. I guess the 19 yr old had developed an addiction to the Monster drink like my old supervisor did. If the mother’s lawsuit addresses that aspect of the situation, she may yet prevail…
2 drinks a day for 3 years? I bet the kid never slept and his body just wore out.
Starting at 16, 2 cans a day equals how much coffee? And why is that Monster’s responsibility?
Thank you Fed Up for saying it better than I could. Questionning seems to be totally consumed with the idea that all corporations are evil and their dangerous products and services need to be controlled by government trolls. Questionning may want to consider moving to North Korea where diet is rigidly controlled by Beloved Leader.
For the most part, I agree with you & Fed Up, but it’s not always true in many cases. You also can’t cure everything with “good parenting” unless you control who is allowed to become a parent. The fact is people are free to become parents at will not all will be good parents. Also, food companies’ primary objective is not the well-being of the consumer.
As with most everything you have to have a healthy balance and try to find an equilibrium.
Nobody seems to be recognizing that this “kid” was 19 and a legal ADULT. What does “mommy” have to do with this case in the first place?
Also, as with many of these cases, it will likely be determined that this kid had other health issues or other types of chemicals in his bloodstream that really resulted in his death and the case will be tossed. That won’t make a headline though…
“Mommy” is the plantiff in this case, so I guess she has quite a bit to do with it. Especially since she claims that he was drinking 2 cans a day for years, which suggests she allowed him to do so BEFORE he was 18.
Sounds as though her contention is that the CUMULATIVE effect resulted in the death. You would have a point if the kid one day drank 2 drinks and keeled over dead. but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. (Although I believe there are others where that was the case.)
Maybe “Mommy” should be suing herself for endangering the well-being of her child (prior to him turning 18).
Does anyone think it’s kind of greedy that mom is trying to make a profit off her child’s death?
Also, I’m curious to know how often mom drinks the stuff.
I now longer believe that all people are fundamentally good, but being a parent, my 1st inclination is to believe that she is trying to “punish” rather than being greedy. (and possibly to highlight this for others to think about this, because she clearly didn’t).
Now, as for her lawyer, he does have to bump the demaand to at least 7 figures in order to justify the 6 figure fee he is sure to charge, yes?
Nah, that’s not what she’s thinking.
A couple of years ago my son was drinking Monster in place of coffee/Coke. He is now 24. Recently he came to our house with coffee in his hand. I asked him what happened to the Monster? “Mom, it was making my heart hurt so I don’t drink it anymore.” Scary.