NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm no Walmart fan. I think them and teh other big box stores have done a very efficient job of destroying the American manufacturing economy and we're gonna have to rebuild that as fossil fuels become more and more scarce, but man I hope they win this suit. People who are this stupidly litigeous can just... nevermind.

http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=B3577A64-89C9-44BB-A165-15C2A010C9EA

A Pennsylvania man is suing Wal-Mart for selling a SpongeBob SquarePants shirt that allegedly caught fire and burned his son.

Mark Dershem of Harmony, Pa., said he is also suing the MTV-Nickelodeon, home of the popular cartoon.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports Dershem's 9-year-old son was stoking the embers in a fire at his grandmother's house when the SpongeBob logo on the shirt suddenly ignited.



:confused: Sounds like a failure in parenting to me.

Umm, clothes make very good fire conductor. The son is an idiot for playing with the fire. The dad is a bigger idiot for letting his son play with the fire.

Get too close to a fire and it Will burn you. It might be nobody's fault (how could a 9 year old tell? And this is something children learn of), but it's certainly not Walmarts fault.

There are plenty of things that can self-ignite if dry enough and given adequate warmth.

They should be sueing the fire, not Walmart.

Oh, and always have water near a fire, any fire, because that's just standard safety procedure. Also make sure you know what you're doing and that you're not drunk.

Walmart has done nothing to damage our manufacturing base; if anything, it's been a great help to low income consumers by providing a large variety of low cost products...they have done more good than harm in that respect. Honestly, the purchasing power of the average consumer would be considerably lower without the low-cost goods provided by Wal-Mart and others like it.

Get too close to a fire and it Will burn you. It might be nobody's fault (how could a 9 year old tell? And this is something children learn of), but it's certainly not Walmarts fault.

There are plenty of things that can self-ignite if dry enough and given adequate warmth.

They should be sueing the fire, not Walmart.

Oh, and always have water near a fire, any fire, because that's just standard safety procedure. Also make sure you know what you're doing and that you're not drunk.

Eh you don't have to have water. You could just shut off the oxygen flow.

I stoked fires as a nine year old-I don't know what baby-bumper cages you all lived in. I've also gotten embers on my clothing-none of it burst into flames. If clothing burst into flames from a fire ember, then that's not an article of clothing that should have been sold, much less to children.

There really should be a place for people that stupid.

I stoked fires as a nine year old-I don't know what baby-bumper cages you all lived in. I've also gotten embers on my clothing-none of it burst into flames. If clothing burst into flames from a fire ember, then that's not an article of clothing that should have been sold, much less to children.
I kinda have to agree with this though I don't think the article gives enough info.

Well, I'm not a fan of the American Suing Disease, but the story doesn't say "his shirt caught fire", but "the SpongeBob logo on the shirt suddenly ignited".

Textiles come in different grades of fire retardation, and while your average T-shirt can easily be burned if you throw it in a camp fire, it's also a fact that it doesn't tend to catch fire when some sparks from embers get caught on it - all that happens is you have a tiny little hole burned into the fabric.

So when I hear that the logo on the shirt (a children's shirt, to boot) suddenly ignited (with what seem to have been considerable flames) I think it's pretty safe to say that the shirt was not safe to wear.

I stoked fires as a nine year old-I don't know what baby-bumper cages you all lived in. I've also gotten embers on my clothing-none of it burst into flames. If clothing burst into flames from a fire ember, then that's not an article of clothing that should have been sold, much less to children.
Um, yeah, beat me to it by many, many minutes. That's what happens when you get distracted while typing out your reply. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm not a fan of the American Suing Disease, but the story doesn't say "his shirt caught fire", but "the SpongeBob logo on the shirt suddenly ignited".

Textiles come in different grades of fire retardation, and while your average T-shirt can easily be burned if you throw it in a camp fire, it's also a fact that it doesn't tend to catch fire when some sparks from embers get caught on it - all that happens is you have a tiny little hole burned into the fabric.

So when I hear that the logo on the shirt (a children's shirt, to boot) suddenly ignited (with what seem to have been considerable flames) I think it's pretty safe to say that the shirt was not safe to wear.
Does it really matter? The father was negligent for letting his child play with the fire in the first place.

If the past tells us anything, the dad will win.

Well, I'm not a fan of the American Suing Disease, but the story doesn't say "his shirt caught fire", but "the SpongeBob logo on the shirt suddenly ignited".

Textiles come in different grades of fire retardation, and while your average T-shirt can easily be burned if you throw it in a camp fire, it's also a fact that it doesn't tend to catch fire when some sparks from embers get caught on it - all that happens is you have a tiny little hole burned into the fabric.

So when I hear that the logo on the shirt (a children's shirt, to boot) suddenly ignited (with what seem to have been considerable flames) I think it's pretty safe to say that the shirt was not safe to wear.

If the fabric passed fire safety tests, then Walmart may have stocked and sold it thinking it was safe. I'm not sure, but the logo on a shirt may not have been tested.

Does it really matter? The father was negligent for letting his child play with the fire in the first place.
The kid was nine. And he was stoking embers in a fireplace, not juggling flaming logs in a papier mache castle.

I agree with those who say that Wal-Mart probably deserves the lawsuit. I get the feeling that the article is more than a little biased (almost all articles are) and isn't telling the whole story, much less a scientific approach to it.

After all, stupid lawsuits make news, real safety concerns make notices. So, the people who made the article turned (from what I can tell) a real safety concern into a stupid lawsuit through the power of suggestion.

And he was stoking embers in a fireplace, not juggling flaming logs in a papier mache castle.

Are you suggesting that my parents were negligent because they let me do that? Next I suppose you'll tell me that the wall candy I ate that was peeling off the side of our house wasn't good for me... :rolleyes:

If the fabric passed fire safety tests, then Walmart may have stocked and sold it thinking it was safe. I'm not sure, but the logo on a shirt may not have been tested.
Yeah, very likely not. Which shouldn't have happened. Especially since it's kind of self-evident that the logos might pose the greatest risk, seeing how they're often made of all kinds of shiny, foamy, plastic-y material, whereas the T-shirts themselves are usually still made of cotton.

I'm not sure, but the logo on a shirt may not have been tested.

Which is, of course, where the problem lies.

Well, I'm not a fan of the American Suing Disease, but the story doesn't say "his shirt caught fire", but "the SpongeBob logo on the shirt suddenly ignited".

Textiles come in different grades of fire retardation, and while your average T-shirt can easily be burned if you throw it in a camp fire, it's also a fact that it doesn't tend to catch fire when some sparks from embers get caught on it - all that happens is you have a tiny little hole burned into the fabric.

So when I hear that the logo on the shirt (a children's shirt, to boot) suddenly ignited (with what seem to have been considerable flames) I think it's pretty safe to say that the shirt was not safe to wear.
that's an interesting point but I used to rpint shirts all teh time with both silkcreen and iron on patches and while I've never actually thrown one into a fire I don't think they just ignite like that. I think the more likely explanation is that the shirt was cotton, got some actual flame on it which could make a cotton shirt go up and the dad wants to blame it on teh logo because it makes him sound less negligent. Hold on...


...yep, I just took a lighter to a few shirts I have with logos that range from iron on to screens and none of them shot up in flame.

that's an interesting point but I used to rpint shirts all teh time with both silkcreen and iron on patches and while I've never actually thrown one into a fire I don't think they just ignite like that. I think the more likely explanation is that the shirt was cotton, got some actual flame on it which could make a cotton shirt go up and the dad wants to blame it on teh logo because it makes him sound less negligent. Hold on...


...yep, I just took a lighter to a few shirts I have with logos that range from iron on to screens and none of them shot up in flame.
This last bit gives credence to the father's case, as even a lighter on your clothing did not send it up in flames, so the father could act on the reasonable assumption that his son wasn't wearing kindling clothing when he allowed him to stoke a dying fire.

that's an interesting point but I used to rpint shirts all teh time with both silkcreen and iron on patches and while I've never actually thrown one into a fire I don't think they just ignite like that. I think the more likely explanation is that the shirt was cotton, got some actual flame on it which could make a cotton shirt go up and the dad wants to blame it on teh logo because it makes him sound less negligent. Hold on...


...yep, I just took a lighter to a few shirts I have with logos that range from iron on to screens and none of them shot up in flame.
All that shows is that logos shouldn't go up in flame easily not that this one didn't, which only serves the argument that the logo was defective.

I'm not sure, but the logo on a shirt may not have been tested.I doubt it, too, because I'm sure whatever the logo was made from has been tested a billion times, unless the shirt was made of some very uncommon chemical, but I doubt it. I'm sure it was made with the same inks or plastics that every other patch or print or logo is made from.

All that shows is that logos shouldn't go up in flame easily not that this one didn't, which only serves the argument that the logo was defective.
Unless the father's lying or actually doesn't really know. Another thing that just occured to me is that if he was close enough to see what actually happened then he was close enough to put it out before it hurt his son. If he was a ways away then he has no idea how the shirt actually caught on fire.

This last bit gives credence to the father's case, as even a lighter on your clothing did not send it up in flames, so the father could act on the reasonable assumption that his son wasn't wearing kindling clothing when he allowed him to stoke a dying fire.
I didn't expose them to a flame for long enough to burn my shirts. I like my shirts. I just wanted to see if any of them suddenly caught on fire with a small exposure. The way it's described you'd think the logo was made of gasoline.

I didn't expose them to a flame for long enough to burn my shirts. I like my shirts. I just wanted to see if any of them suddenly caught on fire with a small exposure. The way it's described you'd think the logo was made of gasoline.
Unless the child layed down in the fire place and waited it out, the clothing shouldn't have caught fire. Your lighter test backs that up.

Hmm...

Think: Kid gets burnt, tells dad his shirt suddenly ignited, although in fact it was a huge ass ember or he got way too close. Dad obviously believes kid, draws logical conclusion that fabric doesn't tend to burn, but that the logo might.

Or

Logo is faulty in some way (heck, it doesn't even have to be Walmarts fault, there could have been some oil spilt on it by the kid itself) and actually Does ignite in flames.

So the question is, how are they going to prove it? I think they have to test other similar shirts and if they don't ignite, then no guilt, if they do, then yes guilt.

Eh you don't have to have water. You could just shut off the oxygen flow.

I know, but having a bucket of water next to a fireplace is the easiest thing to get.

That, and putting earth on it Does Not Work! why? because the heat is still there and if you move the earth a bit, bam, you've got embers burning again. This causes forest fires.

Unless the child layed down in the fire place and waited it out, the clothing shouldn't have caught fire. Your lighter test backs that up.
Or the kid was playing with the embers as the bottom of his shirt caught because it was hanging over the fire. I really think this is the most likely scenario. The shirt was probably cotton or mostly cotton. It doesn't take that much to light cotton.

Or the kid was playing with the embers as the bottom of his shirt caught because it was hanging over the fire. I really think this is the most likely scenario. The shirt was probably cotton or mostly cotton. It doesn't take that much to light cotton.
Seeing as the average 9 year old is 4 1/2 feet tall and the average fireplace opening is @ 2 feet, this doesn't seem like a likely scenario at all. I have a hard time buying a nine year old kid crawling into a fireplace.

Does it really matter? The father was negligent for letting his child play with the fire in the first place.

Then perhaps the child should sue them both.

Walmart has done nothing to damage our manufacturing base; if anything, it's been a great help to low income consumers by providing a large variety of low cost products...they have done more good than harm in that respect. Honestly, the purchasing power of the average consumer would be considerably lower without the low-cost goods provided by Wal-Mart and others like it.
Low prices mean nothing if you lose your shop because of a nearby walmart.

suing Walmart is the most patriotic thing anyone can do--this carnivorous parasite exists in contempt of every value known to man (except the most evilest ones) and this scourge to humanity must be driven into bankruptcy before it totally devours our countries economic well being--I would rather DIE a thousand deaths before ever stepping foot inside a Walmart