You can't stop innovation (http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Office-WM-01-Laptop-Steering/dp/B000IZGIA8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258404654&sr=8)
New York Times comment (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/crowdsourcing-comedy-on-amazon-reviews/)
he,he :D
One comment I like:
Quote
* "Here in Massachusetts, they have some law that learner drivers can't drive without a licensed passenger. With the Laptop Steering Wheel Desk, my daughter is now able to sit her MacBook right there in front, and I can supervise her driving over Skype, from the comfort of my couch!"
Supervising a teenager learning to drive is like staring at Satan in the pit.
Quote from: viper37
he,he :D
One comment I like:
Quote
* "Here in Massachusetts, they have some law that learner drivers can't drive without a licensed passenger. With the Laptop Steering Wheel Desk, my daughter is now able to sit her MacBook right there in front, and I can supervise her driving over Skype, from the comfort of my couch!"
That is funny stuff. Actually sounds more dangerous as the kid tries to cope with the laptop and making sure that Skype is connected, etc. :huh:
Surely that can't be legal.
Quote from: Josephus on November 20, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
Surely that can't be legal.
I'm sure there is some kind of disclaimer stating that it is not to be used while driving, which clears the company from liability.
Quote from: sbr on November 20, 2009, 05:19:58 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 20, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
Surely that can't be legal.
I'm sure there is some kind of disclaimer stating that it is not to be used while driving, which clears the company from liability.
I'm no lawyer, of which there are plenty of here; but I"m not sure that a disclaimer clears a company from any liability.
Quote from: Josephus on November 20, 2009, 05:21:18 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 20, 2009, 05:19:58 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 20, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
Surely that can't be legal.
I'm sure there is some kind of disclaimer stating that it is not to be used while driving, which clears the company from liability.
I'm no lawyer, of which there are plenty of here; but I"m not sure that a disclaimer clears a company from any liability.
I am not either, but why should a company be held liable if their product was used in a way it was not "intended"?
Should the maker of my cast iron frying pan be held responsible if I use it to beat a hobo to death?
Quote from: sbr on November 20, 2009, 05:27:38 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 20, 2009, 05:21:18 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 20, 2009, 05:19:58 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 20, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
Surely that can't be legal.
I'm sure there is some kind of disclaimer stating that it is not to be used while driving, which clears the company from liability.
But the frying pan is not called a hobo basher. Their product description clearly indicates what its meant to do.
I'm no lawyer, of which there are plenty of here; but I"m not sure that a disclaimer clears a company from any liability.
I am not either, but why should a company be held liable if their product was used in a way it was not "intended"?
Should the maker of my cast iron frying pan be held responsible if I use it to beat a hobo to death?
EDIT: MY POST MESSED UP. LET'S TRY AGAIN.
Hmmm...What I meant to say was:
No. The frying pan is not called a Hobo Beater.
The company is clearly marketing this device to use while driving.
Quote from: sbr on November 20, 2009, 05:27:38 PM
I am not either, but why should a company be held liable if their product was used in a way it was not "intended"?
Should the maker of my cast iron frying pan be held responsible if I use it to beat a hobo to death?
Generally speaking(I just studied products liability for the first time in the past few weeks), a company needs to warn against foreseeable misues of a product, and the warning should specify the risks of misuse. Eg- "Using this tray will while vehicle is in motion can result in serious injury or death." I don't think that the manufacturer actually has to design against misuse, for the most part, though in many cases they actually do. For example, certain in-car GPS models actually prevent you from using them while the car is in motion. And every time you activate the unit, they show you a standard warning.
Returning to foreseeable product misues, the general rule is: "Warnings must be provided for inherent risks that reasonably foreseeable product users and consumers would reasonably deem material or significant in deciding whether to use or consumer the product." That means that foreseeable product misues have to be warned against.
For example, a cologne manufacturer was held to be liable for an incident in which two teenage girls puredthe cologne over a candle in order to "scent" the candle, and the two girls ended up with serious injuries when the alcohol in the fragrance ignited and burned them. Why? Because the manufacturer should have mentioned flammability, presumably. Manufacturers do not have to warn against open or obvious dangers though.
The reason why you have to warn against reasonable foreseeable misues is that the information costs of such warnings are low relative to the dangers of misuse. There are limits to this, as mentioned above.
Generally, if a product can only be designed one way(ie it impossible to design it such that it won't be used in motion), and there are no defects otherwise(design or manufacturing) with the product, and there are no informational(ie warning) defects, liability will not be imposed on the manufacturer even if there are injuries associated with its use. A good example would be pharmaceutical products- there are going to be certain side effects that simply can't be designed out of drugs.
However, certain products could be judged to have manifestly unreasonable designs, even if there is no reasonable alternative design- these are products that are so unreasonably dangerous, and with corresponding low social value, that a court will impose liability for injuries flowing from its use. The common examples for this category are things like prank exploding cigars. I don't know if the driving tray would qualify, but it might- seems to have a very low social utility combined with high unreasonable risks.
Finally, a manufacturer could offer a defense of either assumption of risk or contributory/comparative negligence, depending on the jurisdiction of a potential suit. This would either bar, or reduce any potential damages.
So to answer your question, the frying pan manufacturer would not be liable for your beating a hobo to death(unforeseeable misuse), but the driving tray manufacturer could definitely be in for some trouble.
The DIY version is far superior.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthereifixedit.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Farcan3-carlaptop.jpg&hash=c1ea4f84617d17de33bf83741f01de155dc899d5)