Parents Sue Monster Energy
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,149
Likes: 17
From: Raleigh, NC
I would be willing to bet the Parents didn't tell her. Probably blowing it off as not a big deal. Caffine sensitivty? PPSSSHH she'll be FINE. Either way the parents failed to communicate the severity of her condition to her AND to themselves and their child died because of it. THEY are responsible.
What is absurd is that people try and follow the legal route and blame the company who creates the product. This girl could have died from overdose of ANY caffinated product so long as she took in excessive amounts.
That is like Blaming God because someone drowned in river and there wasnt a sign to warn them that attempting to breath under water could cause death. Its common sense which apparetly everyone in the court of law lacks. I am sorry out legal system is a laughing stock.
What is absurd is that people try and follow the legal route and blame the company who creates the product. This girl could have died from overdose of ANY caffinated product so long as she took in excessive amounts.
That is like Blaming God because someone drowned in river and there wasnt a sign to warn them that attempting to breath under water could cause death. Its common sense which apparetly everyone in the court of law lacks. I am sorry out legal system is a laughing stock.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Which isn't the same as knowing it's a fact. People are willing to make stupid bets all the time.
Mere speculation.
No possibility that they did communicate the severity of her condition to her and she blew it off? Fourteen-year-old girls aren't known for their willingness to follow parental advice/proscriptions.
Personally, I don't suspect that Monster shares any responsibility for the girl's death, which is a tragedy no matter whose fault it is (and even if it's nobody's fault). But at least I'm willing to allow that I don't know all of the facts; maybe there's something here - as in the McDonald's coffee case - that makes this case more profound than it seems on the surface. I wonder why others here aren't willing to allow for that possibility. Maybe that situation contributes to our legal system being a laughingstock.
Mere speculation.
Personally, I don't suspect that Monster shares any responsibility for the girl's death, which is a tragedy no matter whose fault it is (and even if it's nobody's fault). But at least I'm willing to allow that I don't know all of the facts; maybe there's something here - as in the McDonald's coffee case - that makes this case more profound than it seems on the surface. I wonder why others here aren't willing to allow for that possibility. Maybe that situation contributes to our legal system being a laughingstock.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 7
From: Tampa
Originally Posted by whiteflash' timestamp='1351521096' post='22115205
Don't see the logic in the suit.
Regular can of monster:
[img]...[/img]
8oz x 3 = 24oz.
Girl drank 24x2=48oz.
She double the suggested limit, as a female teen.
Do the cans need biometric security to open to make sure your your blood can handle its contents?
Regular can of monster:
[img]...[/img]
8oz x 3 = 24oz.
Girl drank 24x2=48oz.
She double the suggested limit, as a female teen.
Do the cans need biometric security to open to make sure your your blood can handle its contents?
Don't see "Drinking Monster can cause death" anywhere on that can the warning.
On the one side we have a multi-national corporation marketing a beverage that presents a potentially serious health threat when consumed in ignorance. On the other we have a teen girl who died in part from the consumption of a beverage that is very heavily marketed to her. Maybe I'm old school, but I've always believed you are responsible for how your behavior impacts others. But according to you and some other posters, the only people with responsibility are consumers - marketers and manufacturers are free from all responsibility for their behavior.
Interesting point of view. Does the CEO of Monster only become responsible for his actions when he's not at work? I don't think people acting as a group automatically are exempt from personal responsibility. I believe it goes the other way - throwing a rock through a window is petty vandalism unless you are participating in a riot.
My only point is that ultimately, the company that sells the beverage has ultimate responsibility for any damage. It's part of the risk of selling products for human consumption. I'm certainly not going to endorse a view that says you can bottle a mixture of sugar and poison, market it heavily, then claim immunity from the fallout when people purchase and consume your product.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 7
From: Tampa
This is absurd, if the girl had a heart problem she should have no business drinking those drinks. I would hold the parents responsible for not forewarning her about those drinks with her heart condition. Whats next? Will someone down a bottle of Jack and drive into a restaurant and file a lawsuit against Jacdk Daniels for not drinking "responsibly".
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 7
From: Tampa
THE PARENTS!!!!! THE PARENTS!!!! THE PARENTS!!!
Jesus Christ people are so f@#king stupid and so willing to blame someone else for their problems. Its called RESPONSIBITLY (which is apparently a huge problem in this country and the first thing we shrug off when something bad happens)
If you child has a medical condition with Caffine you tell her. HEY DONT DRINK LOTS OF CAFFINE> let me show you how to READ A LABEL and tell when something has TOO MUCH CAFFENE.
Just like if your child is allergic to peanuts you tell them. HEY DONT EAT PEANUTS. You dont go and sue JIFF because you were negligant and didnt inform your child of the risks.
AND NO. it is not Monster's responsibilty. A kid died because THE PARENTS didnt educate their child of the risks of her medical condition.
If you honestly believe Monster has the responsibilty, then maybe the child should learn everything from lables. Because clearly they cant think for themselves and use simple logic. "i have a caffine problem. maybe drinking a shit load of caffine is a good idea? lets check the label: gee this can doesnt say I'll die so it must be ok. I'll drink away! yay!"
Jesus Christ people are so f@#king stupid and so willing to blame someone else for their problems. Its called RESPONSIBITLY (which is apparently a huge problem in this country and the first thing we shrug off when something bad happens)
If you child has a medical condition with Caffine you tell her. HEY DONT DRINK LOTS OF CAFFINE> let me show you how to READ A LABEL and tell when something has TOO MUCH CAFFENE.
Just like if your child is allergic to peanuts you tell them. HEY DONT EAT PEANUTS. You dont go and sue JIFF because you were negligant and didnt inform your child of the risks.
AND NO. it is not Monster's responsibilty. A kid died because THE PARENTS didnt educate their child of the risks of her medical condition.
If you honestly believe Monster has the responsibilty, then maybe the child should learn everything from lables. Because clearly they cant think for themselves and use simple logic. "i have a caffine problem. maybe drinking a shit load of caffine is a good idea? lets check the label: gee this can doesnt say I'll die so it must be ok. I'll drink away! yay!"
Personal Responcability.. Nothing pisses me off more than someone that does not want to accept any blame for making a mistake.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 112,963
Likes: 150
From: Doh!!
1. Parents did tell her. She drank anyway. Her fault.
2. Parents didn't tell her (but they knew about her preexisting condition). She drank b/c she didn't know. Her parents fault.
3. Parents didn't know about her preexisting condition. She didn't know. Warning label ignored. Her fault.
4. There was no label - Monster drink maker's fault - not applicable here.
5. ____________________________- (If there is a scenario where Monster is at fault. Fill in blank) - e.g. Parents didn't know. Monster corporation deceived consumer about risk.
Let's look at this from a statistical point of view. According to Monster, 8billion units sold so far in its history. One death.
What are some other products that has had caused one death with 8billion units sold? I bet most of them are not in the generally accepted "dangerous" category.
Walking is pretty safe. I bet there are at least 10 deaths for every 8billion steps taken.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-fda-says.html
(edited for grammar - don't want to make grammar error in presence of Magician).
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,205
Likes: 1
From: MD
Originally Posted by Angerman' timestamp='1351481282' post='22114523
It's like that story of the simpleton spilling hot coffee on her lap and suing Mc Donalds...it's ridiculous
If you did, you might not make such a comment. I encourage you to get some facts before you characterize the woman who sued McDonald's as a simpleton and the suit as ridiculous. Neither is the case.
As for this suit, perhaps the same approach applies.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Originally Posted by magician' timestamp='1351498343' post='22114804
[quote name='Angerman' timestamp='1351481282' post='22114523']
It's like that story of the simpleton spilling hot coffee on her lap and suing Mc Donalds...it's ridiculous
It's like that story of the simpleton spilling hot coffee on her lap and suing Mc Donalds...it's ridiculous
If you did, you might not make such a comment. I encourage you to get some facts before you characterize the woman who sued McDonald's as a simpleton and the suit as ridiculous. Neither is the case.
As for this suit, perhaps the same approach applies.
Sorry for expecting an intelligent response. My mistake.