NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/03/toilet.lawsuit.ap/index.html

"Hi, I'm an idiot. I don't know any better than to walk into a port-a-potty and light a cigarette. Will you please give me money??"

That's got to be embarassing--and smelly. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/03/toilet.lawsuit.ap/index.html

"Hi, I'm an idiot. I don't know any better than to walk into a port-a-potty and light a cigarette. Will you please give me money??"

Well did it warn him not to smoke?

If he is correct that the company's equipment caused a methane gas leak, then I would figure he has a reasonable case. 10 million dollars is a ridiculous amount, however, and he can't have much dignity left after suing over this.

Well did it warn him not to smoke?
he works as a "methane power plant operator." doesnt he know not to smoke anywhere around a methane power plant? are people like this seriously responsible for keeping our electricity running?

If he is correct that the company's equipment caused a methane gas leak, then I would figure he has a reasonable case. 10 million dollars is a ridiculous amount, however, and he can't have much dignity left after suing over this.

Well you always want to exaggerate the damages in the complaint becuase some states won't let you ask for more than in the original pleadings. So as a matter of course you always ask for far more than you can get.

It's SOP.

he works as a "methane power plant operator." doesnt he know not to smoke anywhere around a methane power plant? are people like this seriously responsible for keeping our electricity running?

Well, personally, I have always been against allowing potentially explosive gas mixtures into the atmosphere. But that's just me.

At any rate, it doesn't matter if he lit it up becuase he chose to smoke. Would you be so hard hearted if the ignition was from another cause?

Frankly, I think that before we all cast judgment here, we shoulod at least know whether or not smoking was prohibited in the toilet, and what type of negligence offsets the relevant law requires. But that's just me. I am sure it is probably easier to be quick to condemn people who smoke.

hey, while he's at it, why don't he sue the lighter industry for making lighters with fires? i mean this is ridulous! he should've known better. the company should sue him for damages.

Smokers should refrain from smoking at work when they are exposed to explosive chemicals. Gas pipes have to leak at some time, so smoking around gas is just sheer folly. I would not work in a gas plant personally.

All right. This kind of thing pisses me off.

The media loves to take a handful of facts from a complaint and bandy it about as another "ridiculous" lawsuit.

First, realize that all that has happened is a complaint was filed. That is it. Not a big deal.

Second, realize that you know next to nothing about the facts of the case -- and most of you got the few facts we do know wrong.

1) According to the lawsuit, the portable toilet's explosion had nothing to do with the toilet itself or its natural contents. Portable toilets don't generally explode -- even if you flick a lighter in them.

2) The explosion was caused by methane gas leaking from a pipe underneath the portable toilet. The underground pipes were not supposed to be leaking -- of course. The allegation is that the general contractor was negligent in running over the pipelines with heavy equipment and causing the leak. Hence, the lawsuit based on negligence.

3) FWIW, the lawsuit also says there was no sign on the portable toilet warning that smoking, matches and open flames were forbidden.

4) Mr. Jenkins had severe burns on his face, neck, arms, torso and legs. He is permanently disfigured. Is his fate still funny?

This case may or may not have merit. Neither you nor I know enough about it judge.

Frankly, I think that before we all cast judgment here, we shoulod at least know whether or not smoking was prohibited in the toilet, and what type of negligence offsets the relevant law requires. But that's just me. I am sure it is probably easier to be quick to condemn people who smoke.

I really find it funny that everything that is common sense has to be specifically prohibited. Anyone with a brain knows that lighting up in a port-a-potty is probably a bad idea. Will it usually cause a problem? No. However, pipe or not, you can get plenty of methane in a potty without any external source.

I really find it funny that everything that is common sense has to be specifically prohibited. Anyone with a brain knows that lighting up in a port-a-potty is probably a bad idea. Will it usually cause a problem? No. However, pipe or not, you can get plenty of methane in a potty without any external source.
Um...no. Generally, they are emptied enough to prevent a major buildup of methane. Portable restrooms don't explode if you flick a lighter in them. They do happen to explode when they are sitting upon a methane pipe that was cracked by the negligence of a company brilliantly deciding to treat that site as if it was a highway and had no pipes under it.

The company in question is clearly the one lacking in common sense, as you DON'T DRIVE HEAVY MACHINERY OVER METHANE PIPELINES AND THEN NOT CHECK TO SEE IF YOU'VE DAMAGED THEM.

I really find it funny that everything that is common sense has to be specifically prohibited. Anyone with a brain knows that lighting up in a port-a-potty is probably a bad idea.

Well, maybe I don't have any common sense, but being inexperienced with port-a-potties and a non-smoker, I would assume it to be the same as smoking in normal toilets, which people tend to not be harmed by any more than smoking normally. Common sense is to put a non-smoking sign near flammable stuff.