Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Warning: Falling out of a bunk bed will not win you $179,001!

What I don't get is, why did it take an appeal to the New Jersey appellate court to decide that the makers of a loft bed were not negligent in failing to warn a 19-year old that if you fall six feet out of the top bunk, you might get hurt?

But, that's only one question. More important questions are, who was this lower court judge? Who was the jury? And, most importantly of all, can I be a New Jersey judge? Because apparently any idiot can be on the NJ bench, and I'm any idiot.

The best part is of the opinion is:

Plaintiff resumed sleeping in the loft bed, but subsequently positioned himself "all the way against the wall," as far as possible from the open edge of the bed, because he "didn't want to fall off the bed again." There were no warning labels on the bed, and it had never "cross[ed his] mind" or "occurred to" plaintiff that he could fall or that the bed was dangerous in any way. He testified that had he seen a warning, he would have been "aware of the hazard that was present" and slept closer to the wall, as he had done after the accident.
Does this mean that "you get nothing because you're stupid" is now precedent?

1 comment:

SmoothB said...

Another question: if you put a warning label on your product reading "Not intended for use by idiots," would it be up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that he is not, in fact, an idiot?