I was thoroughly amused by my classmate’s blog post regarding Warning labels on products. Deborah’s blog post mentioned how ridiculous some of these labels could be, stating the most obvious things to warn their consumers. 
Evidentially, they use it for legal reasons, to prevent people from hurting themselves, but how obvious IS too obvious? The example of a chain saw warning, may seem amusingly obvious to some, but in reality there are probably people who have injured themselves from it (due to their own stupidity) and seek to earn financial compensation for it by suing the company.
This brings me to the plethora of ridiculous law suits that people have argued for, and in many cases won. The term ‘frivolous lawsuits’ are labeled to claims that have no real legal merit, and are similar to the case that Deborah brought up about McDonald’s hot coffee.
Other examples include:
In 1999, a 27 year old man wanted to carry out his dream of swimming with whales, so he decided one day to climb into the tank of Tillikum, a resident Killer Whale at Sea World. As you may have expected, the man was attacked and unfortunately succumbed to his injuries. His parents then proceeded to sue Sea world for their apparent lack of warnings.
“For a while in the 1990s, Anheuser-Busch, the producers of Budweiser, ran a series of ads in which two beautiful women come to life in front of two truck drivers. A Michigan man bought a case of the beer, drank it, and failed to see two women materialize. Cue the lawsuit. He sued the company for false advertising, asking for a sum in excess of $10,000. Thankfully the court dismissed the suit and the man remained penniless and dateless.”
These 2 examples are ridiculous in nature, but Companies must realize the possibility of such frivolous lawsuits. What would be the best way to prevent these? Perhaps obvious warning labels, or I’d say, a superior team of lawyers.