spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Not for Medical Use

To: type79@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Not for Medical Use
From: Dan Dwelley <maine2me@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: HealeyRic2@aol.com, spridgets@autox.team.net, teamthicko@autox.team.net
Reply-to: Dan Dwelley <maine2me@yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-spridgets@autox.team.net
Jay,

I told the story as I heard it from one of my business
classes in college. The professor went into this long
disertation about this case. I don't remember what
brought up the subject. I have no idea were the info
came from...she seemed very familiar with the case. I
would guess that it would be somewhere...everything
else that goes on in this country is written down
somewhere. :o) Maybe the archives? There never was a
dollar amount mentioned...I would like to know just
how much was paid to these two idiots...Personaly, I
think they deserved to get injured...How brain dead do
you need to be to know that you shouldn't use a lawn
mower to trim a hedge!!! I think they should have been
clubed to death (along with their lawyer) for being so
stupid and wasting the tax payers money on such a
stupid lawsuit. 
Talk about contaminants in the Gene Pool! :o))

Dan

--- type79@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Dan,
> This is one of a number of "insurance underwriter's"
> stories that has
> floated around for decades. These underwriter's
> myths were outlined in
> an insurance industry publication a year of two ago
> and exposed as such.
> Included in that piece was the infamous
> lawn-mower-used-as-hedge-trimmer
> "lawsuit".
> 
> Since you include additional details, such as the
> defendant's name, Lawn
> Boy, do you have further additional information or
> source material
> relating to this story? Or, could you direct me to
> this material?
> 
> Since there are differing opinions on the validity
> of this story, I
> would be interested in any additional information
> you may have.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Jay Fishbein
> Independent Ins. Agent, CT
> 
> Dan Dwelley wrote:
> 
> > I would venture to guess CYA! They don't want to
> risk
> > being liable for someones misuse of a product. It
> > sounds stupid but there are actual lawsuits
> pending
> > and some that were won because there wasn't a
> warning
> > not to do something.
> >
> > The biggest one that comes to mind is Lawn Boy
> (the
> > lawn mower manufacturer) A couple of guys needed
> to
> > trim a hedge but forgot to bring the hedge
> trimmer.
> > one got the bright idea that they could use the
> lawn
> > mower if one held onto the front and the other
> held
> > onto the back one on each side of the hedge. Guess
> > what...one of them lost his grip and the other got
> > injured. They took Lawn Boy to court stating that
> > there wasn't any warnings in the paperwork stating
> > "Not for use to trim hedges".
> > Outcome...Lawn Boy lost the lawsuit and had to pay
> > some very big bucks to these two idiots.
> >
> > Dan Dwelley
> > 77 Midget
> > Alexandria, Va.
> >
> > --- HealeyRic2@aol.com wrote:
> > > Listers
> > >
> > > Received the latest Eastwood catalog yesterday
> and
> > > noticed the Portable,
> > > Illuminated,  Hawkeye Borescope that allows one
> to
> > > "inspect and diagnosis the
> > > interiors of blocks
> > > cylinder heads, rears, and "other hidden areas".
> by
> > > inserting a lighted
> > > probe.  Overlayed on the picture of the device
> > > probing a cylinder head
> > > through the spark plug hole is the legend "Not
> for
> > > Medical Use"  What are
> > > these guys thinking of?  A slow day in the shop
> with
> > > the words, "Charlie,
> > > haul your but over here, drop your drawers,I
> gotta
> > > check this bad boy out"?
> > > Or maybe its just concern that some
> > > Gastro-Intestinal specialist is going to
> > > bypass the med supply houses to pick up a deal
> on
> > > colonoscopy equipment?
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> >
> > =====
> 
> 


=====


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>