John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I think OP is on to something. In the EU, evidently common sense does not have to be spelled out.

Tom H Loc: St. Louis, MO

I'd bet it is real. I once saw a ladder that had a warning tag that just said to read the other warning tags.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

And when you see the support for our pathetic group of presidential candidates you realize there is a lot of stupid out there.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Speaking as a lawyer myself with over 30 years of litigation experience, there are four major reasons there are so many lawyers in the US willing to sue anyone and everyone at the drop of a hat to get big bucks for their "victim" clients (and themselves): (1) no one is willing anymore to accept responsibility for their own actions and stupidity--the it's always somebody else's fault mentality; (2) judges who don't have the guts to throw out stupid, baseless lawsuits and who refuse to sanction (including disbarment) weasel lawyers who file such lawsuits; (3) juries who give such "victims" such astronomical awards (e.g., a couple of $million for getting burned by spilling hot coffee from McDonalds); and (4) hugely overpaid CEOs of large corporations who know their products have defects that are dangerous but who decide that it's cheaper and more profitable for their shareholders to pay off victims than to fix their defects (e.g., GM and its ignition switches). So, it's not just the lawyers (although many of them are a big factor), it's the victims, judges, corporate heads and others who have created such a litigious society, which has led to such ridiculous warning labels.

Violameister Loc: michigan

I agree with your points. But I would like to add an additional concept: The fact that we don't have a "loser pays" system, means there is little risk to bringing baseless lawsuits to either the lawyer or the plaintiff. And the potential for great gain is present given our often generous juries. I practiced medicine for over 30 years and watched many of my colleagues get sued by lawyers specializing and advertising in suing doctors. One well known attorney in our area 25 years ago filed an average of 2 or more lawsuits per day. He had "plants" in the records section of every hospital in town who reported to him all patients who were recently discharged. He then sent letters to those folks offering to "help with any dissatisfactions" from recent hospitalization. Malpractice insurance companies generally paid a nominal sum "without admitting guilt" (usually around $10000) just to avoid the cost of going to court, and the significant risk of a huge settlement. Do the math: 365X2.5X10000=$9,000,000. He kept half and the plaintiff got half. With essentially no real work. (he also won the occasional contested case for more big bucks.) This went on for some years, until somebody complained. He ultimately lost his license as the hospital records room part of the business was essentially illegal. But I am sure variants of this practice still exist, especially when you see the big signs advertising such services on the freeway.

The rest of the advanced world seems to use "loser pays" without greatly disadvantaging "poor" plaintiffs. After all, if a plaintiff has a good case, a lawyer should be happy to take the case on a contingency fee basis.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Although you are right that we don't have a "loser pays" system per se (except in breach of contract/warranty cases), in fact, we do by virtue of sanctions that judges can impose against both lawyers and plaintiffs for bringing frivolous lawsuits -- it's just that most judges don't have the guts to use that tool to curb such lawsuits. And, state legislatures aren't willing to beef up state laws that would put a damper on frivolous lawsuits, either, probably because most state legislators are lawyers themselves.

2Dragons Loc: The Back of Beyond

I have felt for years that lawyers running for public office should be banned, as it is a conflict of interests for them to be making laws which are, consciously or unconsciously, more beneficial to lawyers than to victims or plaintiffs.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

It's just another attribute of a society that values money and a chance to be in the limelight, even for a moment, over all else.

cinzart Loc: florida

My son has that on his phone's screen saver to mock the ridiculous pomposity. lol

jhkpilot

Not to quibble, but the word is "litigious". And yes: apparently parents in this country no longer have common sense.

Maybe they could sue to get it back.

jhkpilot

Not to quibble, but the word is "litigious". And yes: apparently parents in this country no longer have common sense.

Maybe they could sue to get it back.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

More than likely, yes, it's real. It's a program, inspired by attorneys, to help stupid people live long enough to reproduce.
--Bob

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Why do you think your reply was worth 2 shots? And "litigious" is what I said, so what's your problem?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I believe you have summed it up well.

But what to do about it?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

What the hell are you talking about?