John Stossel Fights Frivolous Lawsuits On A Go-Cart

video

by Frances Martel | 3:41 pm, July 7th, 2010

» 15 comments

John Stossel‘s libertarian fury has landed today on frivolous warning labels– things like “do not eat” on printer cartridges and warnings on go-carts that, when turned on, they may move. Most of these ridiculous labels are the product of frivolous lawsuits that, according to Stossel, our government is too lenient with. To prove this point, of course, Stossel presented the most important piece of evidence in the story backing his claim: a go-cart.

On his regular visit to America Live, Stossel brought a pre-taped package of him wandering the streets of New York in his go-cart rather slowly, and asking passers-by about the warning labels on it. The go-cart was essential to making this point, you see. While he didn’t ride it into the studio, unfortunately, he did lend it to someone else to ride around the show while he and Megyn Kelly debated. Kelly found herself in a fairly awkward position as a lawyer, given that the entire premise of Stossel’s argument was that lawyers were hurting America, or, in other words: “We need you lawyers the way we need nuclear missiles. Because we want lawyers to keep us safe, but we avoid using our missiles.”

Kelly countered with various examples of lawsuits that were completely legitimate, especially when people are injured by the negligence of a person or company with more economic power than they have. Stossel conceded this point, admitting that he did think lawsuits were sometimes useful, like when “I sued when I got beat up by a wrestler.” Then the man in the go-cart zipped by Kelly and Stossel once again.

Which brings up a much more interesting question than how much money lawyers have cost the nation in frivolous lawsuits: How much money has John Stossel cost News Corp in frivolous props? There was the green phone, the ball and chain, this motorcycle, the”tiny carp” for the “fish pedicure“– oh, and let’s not forget the free golf carts from the government! And he’s only been there for less than a year!

Video from today’s America Live below:

frivolous lawsuits, go-carts, John Stossel, libertarians, Megyn Kelly

Liberty Banned

“Which brings up a much more interesting question than how much money lawyers have cost the nation in frivolous lawsuits: How much money has John Stossel cost News Corp in frivolous props?”

Which brings me wonder, how much oxygen has Francis Martel wasted attacking libertarians. Has Mediaite wasted money on a “writer’ that appears, at least from this article, to be unable to come up with a more appealing story or article.
notsofast

My favorite is the warning on some microwave popcorn.

“Don’t heat, open bag and place bag on face.”
MichelleF

LB, if I could’ve given you 5 thumbs up, I would have. I don’t recall Frances being this concerned when Stossel did his piece a month or two back about how he got a $6000 golf cart for FREE on the tax payers dime. Thousands of people got them. Absolutetely ridiculous!
notsofast

Another: warnings on irons.

“Don’t iron clothes while wearing them.”
Liberty Banned

It’s clear that Francis does not like people who think outside the box. To Francis, such labels are very needed, I wonder why.
MichelleF

Thanks notsofast, I really needed the laughs today!
felixw

Biggest donors to the Democrat party = trial lawyers

Biggest source of income for trial lawyers = tort laws created by Democrat politicians

Anyone who thinks that this situation has anything to do with protecting consumers is hopelessly naive. In many class action suits, the consumers on the “winning side” receive enough money to buy a cup of coffee, while the lawyers walk away with millions.
lazzzlo

Frances,

if you write about every clown act this guy does, you can probably set up a template.
It would make your job easier.
lazzzlo

lol, I believe he is a skank!
Moderate

“For external use only!” — On a curling iron.

How was the person using it to generate that lawsuit.
Pablo

If you don’t know, Moderate, you don’t want to know. I could tell you a story about such a thing, but I’ll gladly refrain.
ordinary

It is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to be a law maker. They should not be allowed to be legislators.

Another example of absurdity driven by law suits are “safety” interlocks and systems that make many an implement almost non-functional. Law suits have forced companies to make things idiot proof.

Also, the nanny state cars are loathsome. Always on lights, doors that lock automatically, traction control you can’t turn off so that you can’t rock back and forth out of a soft spot, etc.
nrgetick

MAYYYYBBBBEEEE…. the enron lawsuit had merit….

what a fuckin tool. i wonder how many bankers you can fit in stossels ass.

oh and hes a fuckin hypocrit
nrgetick

what a nice piece of propaganda there by faux news. clearly ridiculous/fraudulent lawsuits are complimentary to those against entities like enron.

Its all the same thing: mcdonalds putting Caution: HOT CONTENTS on their coffee cups & wallstreet creating and selling you toxic assets while betting on the side, they will fail, further creating a 600 trillion dollar ticking time bomb in our stock market .

We dont need no stinking consumer protection agency…oh wait that amendment is under consideration in congress right now…..hmmmmm better call your reps and say enough with the stupid labels and vote NO on consumer protections!!! yiipeeee were safe from annoying labels

wow havent had koolaid that strong since 2008!!!
TheRagingModerate

What is up with the contrived outrage over stupid warning labels and other “precautions” that various companies have put in place as a result of frivolous lawsuits (or in many cases, stupid or petulant applications of lessons learned from legitimate lawsuits)? I know several conservatives — sorry, “libertarians” — who get bent out of shape over these silly anomalies as if they’re somehow bringing down our capitalist system? The truth is, they’re just a stupid sideshow, with no impact on the real world apart from the cost of the ink used to print them on the box or instruction manual and the amount of entertainment value they generate for “news” stories like this one.

So some lawyer (probably a very bad and/or excessively cautious one) advised some corporate decision-maker (probably a dimwitted one) that the company’s product needs to have a warning on it that any loser can tell is unnecessary — and the dimwitted or afraid-of-his-own-shadow executive agreed to it. Or perhaps the company (the lawyer or the executive, or both) was using the opportunity to make a point, sarcastically, about the senseless burdens imposed on business as a result of what they deem frivolous lawsuits? Either way, SO WHAT?

The existence of these moronic (or resentfully tongue-in-cheek) product warnings does not actually say anything about our legal system. The way our tort system works, liability comes down to what a REASONABLE person under the circumstances would do. Any product warning as overtly stupid and pointless as the ones Stossel spends his time hunting down and sensationalizing is almost certainly the result of inept lawyering or corp decision-making and would be viewed by a judge or a jury as being just as pointless or idiotic as the tv audience sees it. As I see it, these warnings are not required by law, good business judgment or common sense, BUT THEY ALSO don’t do any harm, which is probably why they appear as weirdly often as they do. On the other hand, some people DO stand to gain from them: John Stossel, for one; tort reform crusaders (corporate malfeasance defenders) looking for contrived ways to push voters’ “outrage” buttons for another.