It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stupid, silly or facepalm instructions. Time for some stress relief!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Hefficide

I got married. Twice.

This is what happens when you don't read the warning labels!

Read the warning labels!


posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:23 AM
Thanks the thread. It is a shame that there are these types of warnings on labels, like we are lacking some serious common sense.

But then we read of cases such as the following

Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.(E.D.Mich.)

Facts. Susan and Frank Ferlito were invited to a Halloween party. They decided to
attend as Mary (Mrs. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr. Ferlito). Mrs. Ferlito constructed a
lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by Johnson &
Johnson Products, Inc. (JJP) to a suit of long underwear. She used the same cotton batting
to fashion a headpiece, complete with ears. The costume covered Mr. Ferlito from his
head to his ankles, except for his face and hands, which were blackened with paint. At the
party, Mr. Ferlito attempted to light a cigarette with a butane lighter. The flame passed
close to his left arm, and the cotton batting ignited. He suffered burns over one third of his
body. The Ferlitos sued JJP to recover damages, alleging that JJP failed to warn them of
the ignitability of cotton batting. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Ferlito in the amount
of $555,000 and for Mrs. Ferlito in the amount of $70,000. JJP filed
a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.).

Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.

And I guess people didn’t learn the lesson. In 2010 this happened

Rabindranath v. Wallace (2010)

Peter Wallace, 24, was returning on a train with fellow Hiberinian soccer fans in England — many dressed in costumes (which the English call “fancy dress.”) One man was dressed as a sheep and Wallace thought it was funny to constantly flick his lighter near the cotton balls covering his body — until he burst into flames. Friends then made the matter worse by trying to douse the flames but throwing alcohol on the flaming man- sheep. Even worse, the victim Aberdeen supporter Arjuna Rabindranath, 24, is an Aberdeen soccer fan. Rabindranath’s costume was composed of a white tracksuit and cotton wool.

Outcome: Wallace is the heir to a large farm estate and agreed to pay damages to the victim, who experienced extensive burns.

What is fascinating is the causation issue. Here, Wallace clearly caused the initial injury which was then made worse by the world’ most dim-witted rescue attempt in the use of alcohol to douse a fire. In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues. Indeed, he is liable for injured rescuers. The rescuers can also be sued in most states. However, many areas of Europe have good samaritan laws protecting such rescuers. Notably, Wallace had a previous football-related conviction which was dealt with by a fine. In this latest case, he agreed to pay 25,000 in compensation.

The conclusion is that to protect themselves, companies place these warnings on labels. The sad thing is that the ridiculous ones we have seen can probably be linked to an attempted lawsuit.

Now I am just taking a guess here, but the “Do Not Use Hair Dryer While Sleeping” could have been from someone who did this while sleepwalking……You never know

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

Yes, that is why the warnings are there. I agree 100%. For most of the world, being an idiot means being an idiot and does not give you the right to sue some poor manufacturer that never thought of someone gluing cotton buds all over their body.

I have a firmly held belief that these types of lawsuits are the result of 'someone other than me has to be responsible for my stupidity.' I am not a great fan of this approach. Thankfully it is largely restricted to the US.


posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:58 AM
The Chevrolet "Aveo" is being advertized with a commercial depicting the car doing stunts more commonly seen practiced by skate boarders.
After seeing the add a few times, I noticed they added a disclaimer to the add.
It reads: "This car is not a skateboard, do not attempt".

When I first saw the add, I wondered how long till GM got sued by some one attempting the stunts seen in the add with their new Aveo.

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:28 AM

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:59 AM
You folks better appreciate these, I spent over an hour at my work looking them up for this thread.

My favorite:

They should have this one posted in Congress:

So true...

Hey, its a Philly thing.

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Star for you! Thank you, they were great!


posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Rodinus
Oh no....

Not the IDF again, the last time they raided my place it was a complete carnage...

The proof is below :

Kindest respects

edit on 21-4-2013 by Rodinus because: Crap spelling mistake

Can't have been my boys Rod
No whisky


posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:31 AM
It is a pity that all of the images do not work.

Was a fun thread


<< 1   >>

log in