HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So Is Anybody In Flint Go...

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 06:57 PM

So Is Anybody In Flint Going To Sue The....

lead pipe manufacturers?

14 replies, 1236 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply So Is Anybody In Flint Going To Sue The.... (Original post)
global1 Mar 2016 OP
Make7 Mar 2016 #1
JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #2
ReasonableToo Mar 2016 #3
global1 Mar 2016 #7
lame54 Mar 2016 #8
Takket Mar 2016 #9
lame54 Mar 2016 #12
global1 Mar 2016 #13
ReasonableToo Mar 2016 #14
jberryhill Mar 2016 #4
etherealtruth Mar 2016 #5
Takket Mar 2016 #10
1939 Mar 2016 #6
NutmegYankee Mar 2016 #11

Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 06:59 PM

1. No. ( n/t )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:00 PM

2. Is there a statute of limitations?

Those lead pipes were probably installed 50-100 years ago.

They performed ok until acidic water was pushed through them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:01 PM

3. I see what you did there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReasonableToo (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 09:33 PM

7. You're On To Me...

I was wondering if someone would get what I was going for. Why don't you let the others know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:11 PM

8. I don't see what you did there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:13 PM

9. its an attempted comparison to calls to sue gun manufacturers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:55 PM

12. I gotcha...

And agree with your premise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:42 PM

13. You Got It....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:15 AM

14. His explanation made sense to me

when he was first called on it weeks/months ago. Unless the gun explodes in someone's hands like the Saturday night specials, there is not much ground to sue makers.

Unless you want to LOOK like you are going to "get things done" without actually putting a viable plan on the table. Then, by all means, talk about suing gun manufacturers on the campaign trail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:06 PM

4. Only if technology was readily available to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm

Merely selling something that performs its function is not the end of the story on potential product liability.

Additionally, even if a product conforms to all applicable safety regulations, it can be that the regulations themselves are inadequate to address foreseeable risks of harm. It can be the case that the regulations are not adequate.

For example, if we were talking about something like a situation where a person bought a gun, a criminal stole the gun, and then shot someone with it, a valid question might be whether there is readily available technology which prevents a gun from being fired by a person other than the owner and whether guns are frequently stolen enough that failure to use that technology renders the product defective.

But I am sure there are simple minded people on the internet who think they know something about law who would make a stupid and inapplicable analogy out of something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:12 PM

5. They were believed to be safe at the time they were manufactured and installed in the ground ...

knowing what we do now .... if those same pipes are sold or installed now .... they sure as hell should be sued.

anyone involved with current transactions with these pipes should be held liable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:14 PM

10. ^^This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:24 PM

6. Since we have 20-20 hindsight

Why didn't the city building code forbid the use of lead pipe in home plumbing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:44 PM

11. We Should!

I mean, I'm 100% positive the case would fail based on 250 years of product law, but if we sue them enough we can bankrupt them. How dare they provide the standard water piping material for 2 millennia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread