you are a logical person. Let's explore the various branches of the logic tree

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[/quote]
Already covered:

 

S2020. your logic tree is sound sir.

 

Thanks.

 

Hard to see how this is her fault. Her doctor's fault, perhaps. Nobody's fault, possibly. Her fault? How can it be her fault if she didn't know? (Unless you're postulating that she should have known. But how could you know that?) I disagree with your conclusion here.

That's one flaw in the tree. Are there others?

 

So, earlier you were willing to blame the parents uncategorically, but now support an analysis in which the parents may not be at fault.

Interesting.

 

fine. No one is at fault. However, warning label was there - "not recommended for children". She ignored it and drank 2 large cans. If blame absolutely has to be placed, it's her.
Can we assume that she knew how to read or are we going to have this under unknowns also?
The phrase "everything in moderation" is said often enough that I would think she knew it. She didn't do it in moderation.
Certainly not the fault of Monster Inc (not to be confused with Monsters Inc).
since this is about whether Monster is responsible for her death and is therefore must compensate, option three still holds Monster blameless.
If no one is to blame, no one has to pay. It's one of those unfortunate death without a party being responsible.


edited for grammar (again - can't discuss with Magician and have bad English. Don't want to eat shoots leaves)

 

I think he meant to say Monster is not at fault. This is not the same as the parents are at fault.

 

fine. No one's fault. However, warning label was there - "not recommended for children". She ignored it and drank 2 large cans. If blame has to be placed, it's her.
The phrase "everything in moderation" is said often enough that I would think she knows it. She didn't do it in moderation.
Certainly not the fault of Monster Inc (not to be confused with Monsters Inc).[/quote]
No disagreement. Though one might quibble about the definition of "children": do adolescents qualify as "children"? I don't know.

I have no idea what "moderation" is. I've been sitting here, working on questions for the Level II CFA exam, checking the internet, responding to e-mail, and sipping a 10-year-old Laphroaig single malt scotch. Have I been doing that in moderation, or to excess? I think the former, but reasonable people might argue that it was the latter. Who, ultimately, knows? (It would be easier to tell with the Aberlour A'bunadh that I had gotten in Charlotte: a cask-strength single malt at 120 proof. That's sippin' whisky.)

All that aside, the question remains: are there circumstances extant that you and I have missed? I don't know. I submit that you, also, don't know.

 

I think he meant to say Monster is not at fault. This is not the same as the parents are at fault.[/quote]
Maybe he did. He'll likely chime in with a clarification.

 

The parents are the one doing the suing. My point is THEY want to blame Monster and they do not want to take any responsibilty. Instead they want a FAT CHECK. Thats WRONG and unjust. The court system is not in place to find ways to PAY stupid people for their mistakes.

Since we know the child had a caffine medical condition, then the parents had to have known. UNLESS they can determine such factors during an autopsy and it was a big surprise. That is informaiton yet to be determined. Either way, it is still not monster's fault the parents didnt care enough to have proper checkups on their child. The parents should have taken better care and attention to their child and they should take responsibilty. Even if they didnt know about the caffine issue and the daughter didnt know. It still says right on the can. HEY dont drink more than XXX. She ignored it and blew right past the limit. It is still the parents responsibilty to educate their child about the basics of nutrtion and to read and know what is in the products they consume. If the parents didnt care enough to do that then its still their fault. If they did, and they did everything they could to tell they child about and she did it anyway. Well then they raised an idiot. Which is still not monsters fault.

Want to blame someone else? Go ahead. That's just the character of a coward who isnt man enough to accept responsbilty for their actions.