Based on briefly browsing the original post and glancing over the comments, it appears that the girl died because she was much more sensitive to caffeine than the average person and because she consumed an excess amount of caffeine. On this basis, we may all agree that it was specifically the caffeine and the caffeine only that led to the girl's death. All the other ingredients from the drink might as well be set aside in this case as they had nothing to do with her cause of death. It is also an accepted fact that the girl consumed four pop cans worth of monster energy in a 24 hour hour period. In each 12 oz. of the monster energy drink she consumed, there was approximately 120 mg worth of caffeine, which is the equivalent to 3.5 cans of coca cola. Thus, she consumed as much caffeine as she would had she drank 14 12 oz. cans of regular coca-cola. This is an absolutely absurd amount of caffeine for any individual in one day, let alone a 14 year old girl who should not be drinking anywhere near 100 mg, or even anything over 50 milligrams of caffeine in any given day based on what I assume must have been her preexisting condition making her extra sensitive to caffeine. Monster Energy should not be held responsible for her death, as there are already warning labels already on their products as was pointed out in a previous post--children should not consume monster energy, and only so much should be drank within 24 hours, definitely not two 24 oz cans.

Both these warnings were ignored at once, which resulted in a very unfortunate fatality. If monster energy were directly held responsible for this death, then it may encourage an abundance of even more frivolous law suits in the near future, which I believe is the wrong direction for our judicial system and our country. With that said, there are always going to be frivolous law suits that will pop up, especially in the U.S., and we (more specifically the jury/judges) need to be able to address them with sympathy, but while hopefully making a fair, yet correct decision.

 

This is why raising kids can be a nightmare. The fault is the child's, but the responsibility is the parents'. I'd be curious to see if the case gets dropped, or (OR!) if Monster turns around counter-sues the shit out of them for a frivolous suit, based on what appears to possibly be negligence on the parents' part.

 

That would make more sense rather than the parents suing Monster, IMO

 

Yeah but it is a pretty big jump to blame monster. If she was given those drinks from one of those promo vans that hands them out then sure Monster could be at fault since they shouldn't give those to a minor. But its more likely she bought them at a store somewhere and they are at most partly responsible for selling her the drinks. She is still the one that drank both all in one sitting and if she was not capable of realizing she should not do this (even a perfectly healthy person should not do this) then her parents should have been with her and stopped it from happening. I'd also be curious if she takes any meds for her condition since that can have a serious effect on someone if taken with the wrong drink.

It won't go anywhere the parents are just trying to pass the blame.

 

The issue then, is, two-fold:
1. Was the warning on the back of the can to limit to 3 cans a day sufficient?
2. Was, as my favorite troll Nunco points out, the lack of a death warning insufficient?

Going back to the warning, it does say, "Not Recommended. . ." for people sensitive to caffeine. Was that sufficient prior notice AND was the girl sufficiently informed by her parents?

Assuming that issue #2 has any merit, their lawyer probably said, "Yeah, I got this. . . don't worry 'bout nothin'."

 

Whoa! Slow down there! Now it might be the lawyer who's trying to get rich off the girl's death?

C'mon, are you serious? Greedy lawyers? Next you're going to start suggesting that politicians lack scrupulous honesty.

Talk about your thin reeds.

 

I am serious. Serious as Pat Paulson's Presidential Campaigns (speaking of honest politicians).

 

Just last week I was telling my daughter about an episode of Get Smart with Pat Paulsen.

Max: But Adrian Listenger was 6'4"!

Listenger: I wore my hair in a pompadour.

 

Given the facts and generally accepted assumptions about the case, Monster can easily be seen as blameless by most non-corporation/capitalism condemners.

I'd like to clarify on the McDonald's coffee case a little bit more though for those who say McDonald's is 100% blameless. Assuming you've read the evidence presented in the case, you'd see the extraordinary number of burn claims, industry standard for coffee temperature, and most importantly, the temperature at which human skin almost immediately suffers third degree burns. Naysayers argue that the warning sign indicating the coffee is hot and common sense would suggest the consumer should be careful. This is a unique case though, as a warning sign indicating coffee is hot would actually be common sense to people that it's not a good idea to gulp it, but sipping will be okay. Why? Because it's a product made for immediate consumption into the body. So why would a reputable restaurant serve you something to eat/drink that, according to doctors, will cause you to require skin graft surgery should it be held on your skin for 2-7 seconds?

Let's create another scenario where the burn victim wasn't doing something most consider a bad idea. Let's say I'm inside the store. I get my coffee and take it to the condiments station to add cream. The cup is stable on the table but the lid was just a little tighter than usual, which caused me to exert a little too much force. I spill a tiny bit of coffee on my hand, and it takes me 4 seconds to get napkins and begin wiping because it's not in immediate reach. I'm certain that my hand will be a little red and tender to touch and will acknowledge it was my fault and go about my day, because I understood the coffee to be hot. Should I have gotten 1990s McDonald's coffee (unbeknownst to the general consumer at the time that it was health endangering hot) , the 4 seconds it took for me to wipe my hand would have resulted in me being hospitalized and being prepped for surgery that would cost me $20,000. Would the naysayers still deem me 100% at fault given the re-evaluation of common sense?

One more quick scenario. You order soup at a restaurant. The waitress brings the soup over and tells you to be careful because it's hot. That was your explicit warning. You nod to acknowledge. Using common sense, you scoop some into your spoon and blow on it and proceed to take a sip. This soup was served at a dangerous 200 degrees though, and blowing on it lowered it to 180, temperature able to cause third degree burns. By your logic, because you were told it was hot, it's totally your fault. Common sense works both ways.

btw, I'm not hating on McDonald's. McDonald's is my go-to restaurant when I don't have anything in particular I want to eat. I do try to eat in moderation though, as subjective as that may be, which actually shouldn't be. It should be based off dietary experts' consensus of average human tolerances. The only subjective part is the plus or minus on the average based on that particular consumer's physiology and experience with the product.

 

Your argument goes back to then asking why doesn't everything have a over consumption of this can cause death warning on it. You can OD on water. Sure it takes a lot of water to do so but it can and has been done. Again alcohol does not have a warning that I know of saying that over consumption can cause death so why would an energy drink need one when far fewer people have died from it.

As for the second one the girl must have seen a Dr for her condition otherwise how would they have known about it prior. I can see the negligence if this was not a known condition but the article says that they did know about it prior to. So that means the girl would have had to have seen a Dr about it and I would guess she has seen a Dr more than once about it. So in order for her to not know anything about her condition her parents and her Dr wouldn't have spoken to her about this? I still do not see how this is Monsters fault. The parents and to an extent the Dr have the responsibility to educate her about her condition. It is not Monster's responsibility to police everyone that buys their product. They put the warning on the can and if people willing choose to ignore that they get to deal with the consequence.

What about over the counter medication. It has a recommended dosage and it says not to exceed that but if someone downs 2 bottles of Dayquil and dies is it dayquil's fault? I say no. Like I said if she is completely incapable of deciding what to put in her body how the hell did she get these in the first place?