What you *can* get away with (now) and what you *could* get away
with (then) have changed immensely.
I can recall taking great pains to refer to my "wire wrap GUN"
as a "wire wrapping tool" whenever airport security stumbled
onto it in my luggage.
Our industry uses a pneumatic piston operated venturi to blow material
into a mold. It has commonly been referred to as a "fill gun" for
decades. After a shipment got held up in customs for a while everyone
began calling them "fill injectors" on paperwork.
Reminds me, I need to weatherize my trailer before
winter. I'll get some tubes of caulk, and a caulking
And then put the plastic on my windows, using my
Arrow staple tacker.
Ah, the life of paranoid weapon phobic weenies.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 11:01:46 PM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Any time one poses the question "Are there really people this stupid?"
the answer is invariably Yes, no matter what circumstances prompted
Yes, there really are people this stupid. Read some of the reports compiled in the
Woodworking Accident Survey
Example: *nine* reports of hand/finger injuries caused by using a biscuit joiner while holding
the workpiece by hand instead of using clamps.
My favorite is this one:
A few years ago I got curious about whether a lawsuit was filed in this
matter, and how it came out. I posted a question about it on a legal
newsgroup and the eventual answer was this:
Number 037453/2005, a suit by Barbara Squicciarini vs. Conopco, Inc.
(which I guess is the parent company or successor of Unilever, the
maker of AquaNet), in which she is represented by David I. Schoen, as
indicated in the NY Post article.
Under "case status", the courts website lists the matter as
"disposed", not "active", so the other poster who said the case is
still active is apparently mistaken. Interestingly, Barbara
Squicciarini is also listed as a plaintiff in 3 other suits filed in
Brooklyn Supreme Court, in all of which she was represented by a
different law firm, Monaco & Monaco LLP, all of them personal injury
cases apparently involving injury to Barbara herself, two of those
being car crashes, and one of those cases is still active, which may
be the one the other poster was referring to.
In hopes of putting inquiring minds at rest, I clicked on the case
number, which conveniently brought up a summary of status, indicating
the date of disposition was 1/3/2007. A motion to dismiss that was
filed on 1/3/2006 was denied by a short form order on 1/25/06. Since
that was just a month after the case was filed (on 12/16/05), my guess
is the judge just felt it was too early to dispose of the case since
the pleadings apparently at least alleged a proper cause of action,
and that factual discovery would be needed to flesh it out and see
whether it needed to go to trial.
There is no other indication of the nature of the final disposition on
1/3/2007. Maybe someone more versed in reading the NY Courts website
can help out here, but my guess is that means it was simply settled
off the record in a confidential settlement between the parties and
removed from the docket. That is not uncommon in a product liability
suit that challenges the safety of the design or labeling of a
company's entire line of products; the company often will want the
present case to be settled to get it off the docket and cap their risk
of large losses, but they do not want any public record of it so that
it cannot encourage or be used a precedent by any other claimants. In
this particular case, of course, I have no idea whether that is what
occurred, it is just rank speculation. But if it is what happened,
it's not surprising that there have been no further news reports about
the outcome, since neither side would be making statements to the
media in case of a confidential settlement.
I hope that is enough to satisfy everybody and kill this thread.
While I sympathize with the family and agree the woman suffered horribly...
"...Dec. 14, 2003, one day after she tried to apply Aquanet to her hair
as she did daily. When the can's nozzle became clogged after she had
sprayed on some of the product, Squicciarini picked up a can opener from
a kitchen drawer, according to court papers filed in the Brooklyn
Supreme Court suit. "With the can opener, Lorraine Squicciarini opened a
hole in the bottom of the Aquanet can in an attempt to clear the nozzle,"
Are you kidding me? Can opener to clear a nozzle FROM THE BOTTOM the
can? In what alternate universe?
"Do NOT puncture" is an inadequate warning? Apparently it was in this
case, but for any person with an IQ above room temperature it should be
more than sufficient.
At some point society must let Darwin run wild and improve the breed.
Entertaining asinine claims such as this just harms us all overall.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.