Silly Warning Labels

**Lemur** · 01-07-2007, 03:50

This is probably old news to some, but I just stumbled across MLaw's Stupid Warning Labels contest. Very good stuff. Here are some the winners:

The label on an electric hand blender promoted for use in "blending, whipping, chopping and dicing," warns: "Never remove food or other items from the blades while the product is operating."
A digital thermometer that can be used to take a person's temperature several different ways warns: "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."
A household iron warns users: “Never iron clothes while they are being worn”
A label on a hair dryer reads, “Never use hair dryer while sleeping”
A warning on an electric drill made for carpenters cautions: “This product not intended for use as a dental drill.”
The label on a bottle of drain cleaner warns: “If you do not understand, or cannot read, all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product.”
A smoke detector warns: “Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire.”
A massage chair warns: “DO NOT use massage chair without clothing... and, Never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving.”
A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns, “Do not drive with sunshield in place”
An “Aim-n-Flame” fireplace lighter cautions, “Do not use near fire, flame or sparks”
A label on a hand-held massager advises consumers not to use “while sleeping or unconscious”
A 12-inch rack for storing compact disks warns: “Do not use as a ladder.”
A cartridge for a laser printer warns, “Do not eat toner”
A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow warns: “Not intended for highway use”
A can of self-defense pepper spray warns users: “May irritate eyes”
A warning on a pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists says: “Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.”
A snowblower warns: “Do not use snowthrower on roof.”
A dishwasher carries this warning: “Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher.”
A popular manufactured fireplace log warns: “Caution - Risk of Fire”
A box of birthday cake candles says: “DO NOT use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity.”

**sapi** · 01-07-2007, 04:02

Seen some of them before but they're still fantastic

**Hepcat** · 01-07-2007, 05:55

Those are brilliant.

**sapi** · 01-07-2007, 08:18

While not strictly a warning label, i'd like to add that all those cds which ask you to read the cd-key off the disc (which is in the drive) are really, really stupid :P

**TB666** · 01-07-2007, 12:51

I actually wonder if people actually did this before the labels came up ??
Also my favorite is on a chainsaw where it is says "Warning, don't try to stop the chain with your penis"

**Hosakawa Tito** · 01-08-2007, 03:00

These labels are legal CYA, cover your arse, because some intellectually challenged individuals have won large monetary lawsuits in the past because there wasn't a warning label. Ever look at the label for a box of rat poison, yes, not for human consumption, oh really? Whodda thunk it?

Ever wonder why they have to post "NO SWIMMING" signs on the river just above Niagara Falls?

I say we let Darwinism take it's course.

**Rameusb5** · 01-11-2007, 21:13

Originally Posted by TB666

I actually wonder if people actually did this before the labels came up ??
Also my favorite is on a chainsaw where it is says "Warning, don't try to stop the chain with your penis"

I owned a chainsaw once and the manual had a billion or so warnings in the beginning. My favorite was:

"Never use this chainsaw if you are upset."

I can just see how that happened. Someone came home from work all ticked off and ran outside to use their chainsaw.

"Man, am I ticked off!"

*Vroooom!*
*whack whack whack*

"Ow! My face!"

**Conqueror** · 01-08-2007, 22:39

Originally Posted by Lemur

A massage chair warns: “DO NOT use massage chair without clothing... and, Never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving.”

...did somebody actually try this, and why?

**Lemur** · 01-08-2007, 22:42

Originally Posted by Conqueror

...did somebody actually try this, and why?

Do you have to ask? The scenario is almost too easy to imagine: Strange man owns massage chair. Man decides to wedge his most vulnerable dangly bit into the rollers to get stimulation. Rollers crush aforesaid dangly bit. Man sues. Warning label goes on.

I'm sure it's something along those lines ...

**GoreBag** · 01-09-2007, 10:20

Originally Posted by Conqueror

...did somebody actually try this, and why?

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

**naut** · 01-09-2007, 12:08

GAH! Hair-dryer whilst asleep!?

**English assassin** · 01-09-2007, 13:41

To award damages, the legal system should determine who is to blame right. In such stupid cases as these, the consumer (a.k.a. mr/mrs. retard) would carry the blame for the most part if not entirely. So why should (s)he get damages in such a huge amount?

Interesting point. The general rule is you must take your victim as you find him, (AKA the "eggshell skull" rule), and for good reason. It WOULD be rather offensive if I punched you in the chops for a laugh*, and then escaped paying out more than a few hundred pounds because you shouldn't have had such a puny, easily breakable jaw.

Stupidity seems to me to be as much a valid characteristic of a victim as a glass jaw. We might rename the rule the "empty skull" rule in this case. (Although to the person who thinks that turning off a fire alram extinguishes a fire I might be tempted to paraphrase an old judgement and say "stupidty is a misfortune, not a privilege")

I don't know very much about US tort law but from what I do know your rules on duty and breach don't seem unreasonable, its the exemplary/punitive damages coupled with no win no fee litigation that causes the trouble.

Oh, wait, this was a funny thread. OK then, how about the packets of peanuts with "may contain nuts" on them?

*No actual violence is being offered. All liability for mental trauma is hereby excluded. Thank you

**Peasant Phill** · 01-09-2007, 14:18

I'm aware of the "egg skull" rule as it is also in Belgian law (as probably in most countries). However, I don't believe it should apply to stupidity.
The rule refers to a state in which the victim is in and I don't regard stupidity as a state somebody could be in. One 'is stupid' because one does stupid things thus the action is stupid not the person. This is different from the glass jaw as the person will always have a glass jaw whatever action he takes, hence the emphasis on the state of the person.
And so we return to the normal or widespread use of objects vs. stupid use of objects.