This chip isn’t merely “very spicy food”, it is explicitly designed to be a challenge. One single chip costs $10 and the packaging is literally shaped like a coffin.
If such a reaction is remote, yet foreseeable to the manufacturer, the severity of the reaction (death) dictates a warning. It is a known, material risk, and the burden of warning is outweighedby the severity of the harm.
There’s no warning on the package that it could result in death. The maker could be used in products liability for negligent failure to warn.
There was a good case in Mass. against Tylenol. One possible reaction of Tylenol is that your skin could melt and fall off (not even really exaggerating). Very remote possibility, but so, so severe. Manufacture knew it was possible, didn’t warn because it was so remote. But such a serious injury makes the risk material to a consumer, and so there’s a duty to warn.
So I think this is the problem, the packaging says only for adults (these kids were obviously not adults), not for those sensitive to spicy food or with allergies to what I can assume are the main ingredients.
I know disclaimers are a bit woolly as to what can stand up in court, but what more should they have put:
Perhaps something like “this food may cause severe gastrointestinal distress or internal bleeding, which may contribute to pulmonary distress, which in some cases may lead to heart attack, stroke, or death.”
Maybe, just maybe we should put our pitchforks away until we know if the chip mentioned is responsible?
But… my pitchfork?
No. On the Internet, all human events occur in the 68% range.
Or you know we can use common sense and respect that there is simply no way the chip didn’t at least contribute.
Common sense is waiting for an official diagnosis from a certified professional investigating the actual body for the cause of death.
Not speculation from people on the internet that haven’t even seen the body.
Nah, mate. Knowing something you didn’t even bother to learn is the definition of common sense, which I made up myself.
You…yeah, I like you. You’re alright. Here, hold my pitchfork so I can light my torch.
Uh, I mean, you can die at any one time without anything directly causing it. So no, it’s not necessarily common sense.
And spicy foods, even very spicy ones, are consumed daily without too much medically bad happening… certainly not more than, say, eating peanuts.
This chip isn’t merely “very spicy food”, it is explicitly designed to be a challenge. One single chip costs $10 and the packaging is literally shaped like a coffin.
Is it the chip’s fault if this turns out to be an allergic reaction or something like that?
If such a reaction is remote, yet foreseeable to the manufacturer, the severity of the reaction (death) dictates a warning. It is a known, material risk, and the burden of warning is outweighedby the severity of the harm.
There’s no warning on the package that it could result in death. The maker could be used in products liability for negligent failure to warn.
There was a good case in Mass. against Tylenol. One possible reaction of Tylenol is that your skin could melt and fall off (not even really exaggerating). Very remote possibility, but so, so severe. Manufacture knew it was possible, didn’t warn because it was so remote. But such a serious injury makes the risk material to a consumer, and so there’s a duty to warn.
So I think this is the problem, the packaging says only for adults (these kids were obviously not adults), not for those sensitive to spicy food or with allergies to what I can assume are the main ingredients.
I know disclaimers are a bit woolly as to what can stand up in court, but what more should they have put:
Perhaps something like “this food may cause severe gastrointestinal distress or internal bleeding, which may contribute to pulmonary distress, which in some cases may lead to heart attack, stroke, or death.”
A warning would help sales too.