“折叠前取出孩子”是贴在一款婴儿车上的一条警告标语，显然如果没有这样的警告，父母也许会夹伤他们的孩子并因此而起诉婴儿车公司生产有缺陷的产品。多年以来，密歇根诉讼滥用监察组织(M-LAW)每年都举办“愚蠢警告标语”大赛。去年的获胜者是一种洁厕毛刷的警告标语，警告使用者“请勿用于个人卫生”。如果产品制造商没有警告公众“儿童踏板车在使用时会移动”或者胡椒粉喷雾器“可能会刺激眼睛”，这个社会将走向何方？
　　
　　In 1997, Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch (M-LAW) began a contest to expose how frivolous1) lawsuits, and a concern about potential frivolous lawsuits, have led to a new cultural phenomenon: the wacky warning label.
　　You have probably heard about the lawsuit over a spilled cup of coffee. However, there are many other silly lawsuits involving products that have received far less attention. For example, did you know a man received $50,000 when he sued a small company that makes basketball nets because he claimed the company was responsible when he caught his teeth in a net while dunking2) a ball? People who make products hear about these outrageous lawsuits, and they often decide to slap common sense warnings on their product... “just in case.”
　　Over the years, M-LAW has received hundreds of warning labels from people around the world. M-LAW verifies the authenticity of each label and selects the “Top 5” for each year. Then, a radio audience selects the top three winners. The past four years, listeners of the award-winning Dick Purtan show on WOMC in Detroit have selected the winners. The first place winner receives $500, second place gets $250 and third place receives $100.
　　Following is a list of some of the best labels from the first eight contests:
　　●A label on a baby stroller3) warns: “Remove child before folding.”
　　●A brass fishing lure with a three-pronged hook on the end warns: “Harmful if swallowed.”
　　●A popular scooter for children warns: “This product moves when used.”
　　●A nine-by three-inch bag of air used as packing material cautions: “Do not use this product as a toy, pillow, or flotation device.”
　　●A flushable toilet brush warns: “Do not use for personal hygiene.”
　　●The label on an electric hand blender promoted for use in “blending, whipping, chopping and dicing,” warns: “Never remove food or other items from the blades4) while the product is operating.”
　　●A digital thermometer that can be used to take a person’s temperature several different ways warns: “Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally.”
　　●A household iron warns users: “Never iron clothes while they are being worn.”
　　●A label on a hair dryer reads, “Never use hair dryer while sleeping.”
　　●A warning on an electric drill made for carpenters cautions: “This product not intended for use as a dental drill.”
　　●The label on a bottle of drain cleaner warns: “If you do not understand, or cannot read, all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product.”
　　●A smoke detector warns: “Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire.”
　　●A massage5) chair warns: “DO NOT use massage chair without clothing... and, Never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving.”
　　●A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns, “Do not drive with sunshield in place.”
●An “Aim-n-Flame” fireplace lighter cautions, “Do not use near fire, flame or sparks.”
　　●A label on a hand-held massager advises consumers not to use “while sleeping or unconscious.”
　　●A 12-inch rack for storing compact disks warns: “Do not use as a ladder.”
　　●A cartridge for a laser printer warns, “Do not eat toner.”
　　●A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow warns: “Not intended for highway use.”
　　●A can of self-defense pepper spray warns users: “May irritate eyes.”
　　●A warning on a pair of shin6) guards manufactured for bicyclists says: “Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.”
　　●A snowblower warns: “Do not use snowthrower on roof.”
　　●A dishwasher carries this warning: “Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher.”
　　●A popular manufactured fireplace log warns: “Caution — Risk of Fire”
　　●A box of birthday cake candles says: “DO NOT use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity.”
　　
　　Did You Know: Loony7) Lawsuits
　　
　　Arsonists Sue For Insurance Benefits After Being Denied Coverage For Damages They Caused To Neighboring Building
　　Two Alpena, Michigan men set an arson8) fire in their store with the hope of collecting insurance money. They admitted that they intended to simply have a small, smokey fire that would damage their inventory9), which apparently wasn’t selling very well, so they could collect on their insurance policy. However, when the fire spilled over into the adjoining store, the men sued the insurance company. They argued that they set the fire in their own store, but that the fire next door was accidental and therefore they should receive coverage for the damage to the other building. A panel of the state Court of Appeals amazingly reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss this ridiculous case, but the Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, eventually reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled that the fire “cannot be characterized as an accident.”
　　
　　Drunken Partier Sues Police for not Arresting Her
　　
　　After a police officer decided not to take an intoxicated woman into custody, she sued him. She admitted that she could not remember most of the events that night, only that she was too drunk to drive (she also admitted that she was too drunk to rely on any promises possibly made by the officer). This case was dismissed by a lower court, and the Appeals Court agreed, ruling that the police officer had no duty to place her in protective custody.
　　
　　Inmate Blames State for His Flatulence, Then Sues
　　
　　According to a Michigan Assistant Attorney General testifying before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee, frivolous prisoner lawsuits are overburdening state and federal courts. In Case No. 9650302, a prisoner sued the state blaming the food in prison for his flatulence10) problem. The Attorney General’s Office estimates the annual cost of defending the state against frivolous prisoner lawsuits to be several million dollars, all paid for by the state taxpayer.
Spilled Coffee Leads to Lawsuit Against Popular Michigan Travel Stop
　　
　　Oasis Truck Stop, a popular travel stop located at the intersection of M59 and US23 in Hartland, was sued by a customer who spilled coffee on herself. The makers of the coffee machine and coffee mug were also sued. The customer’s lawyer claimed the coffee was too hot, yet the temperature of the coffee was shown to be exactly what it should have been according to accepted industry standards. Amazingly, a panel of “objective” mediators appointed by the court suggested a settlement that would have rewarded the customer with $62,500. Later, a jury found the defendants not guilty of any negligence and awarded zero dollars, but only after considerable cost to the defendants.
　　
　　Homeowner Sues Saying: his Dust Is Trespassing!?A Michigan couple sued the owners of a nearby business claiming that dust, noise and vibrations invaded their property and therefore were trespassing. A jury actually found in their favor, but a Court of Appeals panel overturned the jury’s verdict. The Appeals court stated that noise, vibrations and dust are intangible objects and can not be considered as trespassers.
　　
　　Homeowners Sued by Cleaning Lady Who Mistakes Firecracker for a Candle
　　
　　A woman from Grand Haven, Michigan filed a lawsuit for more than $25,000 after she was injured by a firecracker she took from a condominium11) that she had cleaned. While dining later with friends at a restaurant, the woman lit the firecracker claiming that she mistakenly thought it was a decorative candle. The explosion resulted in severe injuries to the woman. She sued the owners of the condo for leaving the firecracker behind without a warning on it. The condo owners said that they had placed the device, which looks like a “huge firecracker,” in a cupboard to keep it away from the children after someone left it at their house after a party.
　　
　　Basketball Player Trips on Rocks, Sues Homeowner
　　
　　During a pickup12) basketball game, a man tripped and fell over decorative rocks along a driveway where the basketball net was located. He then sued the homeowner. The injured man’s friend testified that he had not only noticed the rocks but also pointed them out. The man denied seeing the rocks but admitted that if he had looked up he would have seen them. The trial court judge found that the property owner was not at fault since the rocks were open and obvious. The Court of Appeals agreed.
　　
　　Trespasser Tripped up in Court
　　
　　When a man let his two dogs out of his house, they began chasing something and ran across neighbor’s property. When the dog owner chased his dogs over the neighbor’s property, he injured himself when he stepped into a snow-covered fence post hole and fell. He sued the property owner for negligence. The Appeals Court agreed with the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case saying that since the man was trespassing, the owner of the property was not required to make sure his property was safe from people falling in the snow-covered hole.
翻译见下页

[1] [2] 下一页