Case closed in Fort Plain liquid nicotine death

[skoony]

From the Times Union article...



This may have some Relevance as to the Win-ability of a Product Liability Lawsuit.

Because the 1st Rule of CRP is that Child Resistant Caps do Not Work when they are Not Attached to the Container.

And it is Hard to Hold a OEM/Retailer responsible for Damages when provided CRP is Removed and or Not Replaced/Used.

What might be of Much More Importance is if the Original Container was Labeled with a Warning that the Contents could cause Harm or even Death if Swallowed.

if the CRP requirements are met or exceeded heartladvapor is off the hook.
the CRP regulations do not require 100% child safety.the regulations also
do not guarantee complete child safety and as such are not actionable
for any legal challenge as it pertains to any entities that meet the current requirement.
children die from aspirin poisoning almost every day.

mike

 

[zoiDman]

if the CRP requirements are met or exceeded heartladvapor is off the hook.
the CRP regulations do not require 100% child safety.the regulations also
do not guarantee complete child safety and as such are not actionable
for any legal challenge as it pertains to any entities that meet the current requirement.
children die from aspirin poisoning almost every day.

mike

Just Curious.

But which CRP Requirements are you referring to?

I am Unaware of Any Requirements for the Packaging of e-liquids or Nicotine Base at the Time the Accident Occurred. Either on the State or Federal Level.

 

[KattMamma]

Just Curious.

But which CRP Requirements are you referring to?

I am Unaware of Any Requirements for the Packaging of e-liquids or Nicotine Base at the Time the Accident Occurred. Either on the State or Federal Level.

Whether there was an official requirement in place or not, if the package was sold with CRP as defined for hazardous substances, HV should have no liability.

I contend that they shouldn't have liability either way, because this stuff isn't sold as candy, it's nicotine FGS!
AND - the cap was left off and the open bottle was left in a place where the child could easily get to it. Case closed IMO.

But that's not how it will be spun...

 

[Rossum]

Whether there was an official requirement in place or not, if the package was sold with CRP as defined for hazardous substances, HV should have no liability.

I contend that they shouldn't have liability either way, because this stuff isn't sold as candy, it's nicotine FGS!
AND - the cap was left off and the open bottle was left in a place where the child could easily get to it. Case closed IMO.

But that's not how it will be spun...

And the saddest part is, a jury will accept thats spin as reality because anyone who believes in personal responsibility will never be empaneled.

 

[zoiDman]

Whether there was an official requirement in place or not, if the package was sold with CRP as defined for hazardous substances, HV should have no liability.

I contend that they shouldn't have liability either way, because this stuff isn't sold as candy, it's nicotine FGS!
AND - the cap was left off and the open bottle was left in a place where the child could easily get to it. Case closed IMO.

But that's not how it will be spun...

I was just Curious if skoony knew of some Regulations that I was Unaware of. I know He/She has followed the unfolding events of what happened Very Closely.

This Accident is very Convoluted because Very Little Factual information has been Released.

 

[zoiDman]

And the saddest part is, a jury will accept thats spin as reality because anyone who believes in personal responsibility will never be empaneled.

Very Strange things have been known to happen in Courtrooms.

 

[QU1T]

Case closed in Fort Plain liquid nicotine death - Times Union

"The bottle Eli consumed contained a mixture of liquid nicotine and diluting liquids, which Belinda Hotaling had bought online and combined to use in her electronic cigarette, according to the police investigation.
It was labelled Heartland Vapes, 100 milligrams, police said. The company, based out of Oklahoma City, is a distributor and manufacturer of eliquids and ingredients. On the company's website, childproof caps for brown, glass bottles like the one described by police are available for sale separately from the ingredients and containers.
The cap from Belinda Hotaling's bottle was never found, police said. According to the family it was not childproof."

Shocking and so tragic, what an adorable looking toddler,
I rly don't care about the nic and circumstances, just the life lost.

 

[skoony]

Just Curious.

But which CRP Requirements are you referring to?

I am Unaware of Any Requirements for the Packaging of e-Liquids or Nicotine Base at the Time the Accident Occurred. Either on the State or Federal Level.

they do not have to be required for them to be used.
i can't think of anything right off the top of my head
but, i am sure that there are many products that
use CRP as a mater of course for liability issues
alone.
what i mean if the CRP caps they used met current
standards whether required by law or not they should
be ok from a law suite point of view.
CRP was never intended to prevent 100% of all
accidents just reduce them. whether or not
your product is required to use them or not,
when used implies due diligence.
then again i'm no lawyer regards
mike

 

[skoony]

I was just Curious if skoony knew of some Regulations that I was Unaware of. I know He/She has followed the unfolding events of what happened Very Closely.

This Accident is very Convoluted because Very Little Factual information has been Released.

i am not aware of any regulations other than what every one else knows.
this story has me befuddled too.
i a going to do a little background checking on some side issues.
one of my concerns is aside from the city of New York the office
of coroner is an elected position.in earlier efforts in trying to
track down specific information i found out almost all coroners in
out state New York are also in the funeral business.none are
required to have any medical training nor,did i find any that did.
my main worry is i am not sure an autopsy was done or even
required.the same goes for toxicology reports. being that
the coroners there haven't the ability to perform an autopsy
or, are qualified to order toxicology reports.unless the coroners
and police investigation turns up something that indicates otherwise
it is what it is. perhaps some one here has some definitive info
on the subject. i know the laws vary widely from state to
state on this subject.
regards
mike

 

[DaveP]

This is a sad story and the ejuice isn't so much the point as is the responsibility factor of adults supervising children. Chances are the relatives who were keeping the kids had no idea that the bottle contained something that could kill the child. I'd say that the liquid was transferred from the 100mg bottle to the brown bottle that had a dropper just to make it easier to fill an ecig.

My opinion is that the liquid in the brown bottle probably wasn't 100mg/ml, but was a lower nic mix made to the strength that the parent normally vapes and was put into the brown bottle for ease of use. But, what do I know? I only read the article and it wasn't clear as to what was actually in the bottle on the table.

We all need to secure our supplies. It's almost unbelievable that the child drank much of the liquid. That stuff burns like fire when it hits mucous membranes. Anyone ever rub your eye after filling your tank?

 

[zoiDman]

i am not aware of any regulations other than what every one else knows.
this story has me befuddled too.
i a going to do a little background checking on some side issues.
one of my concerns is aside from the city of New York the office
of coroner is an elected position.in earlier efforts in trying to
track down specific information i found out almost all coroners in
out state New York are also in the funeral business.none are
required to have any medical training nor,did i find any that did.
my main worry is i am not sure an autopsy was done or even
required.the same goes for toxicology reports. being that
the coroners there haven't the ability to perform an autopsy
or, are qualified to order toxicology reports.unless the coroners
and police investigation turns up something that indicates otherwise
it is what it is. perhaps some one here has some definitive info
on the subject. i know the laws vary widely from state to
state on this subject.
regards
mike

I am with you. It seems about the Only Fact that I know for sure about all this is that a Child has Died.

It would seem Very Unusual to me if a Child Died while not in the care of His/Her Parent and the Cause of Death was not Adequately determined. Especially if the cause of death was believed to be from Ingesting an e-Liquid or Nicotine Base. Seeing how High Profile e-Cigarettes have become.

 

[skoony]

I am with you. It seems about the Only Fact that I know for sure about all this is that a Child has Died.

It would seem Very Unusual to me if a Child Died while not in the care of His/Her Parent and the Cause of Death was not Adequately determined. Especially if the cause of death was believed to be from Ingesting an e-Liquid or Nicotine Base. Seeing how High Profile e-Cigarettes have become.

agreed. i have already found out the coroners report is confidential
between the coroner and next of kin there. even the police have
to go through procedures to get one unless something is obvious
such as a car accident or gun shot.
regards
mike

 

[twgbonehead]

One of the sad truths about civil suits in the US is that "You can sue anyone, at any time, for anything". You can't always win, but you can almost always cause enough FUD that the defendant would be crazy to try to fight it in court, and would settle instead.

HV had a very strong disclaimer on their site (and if they were smart, had an "I agree" button that the purchaser had to click before completing the order (as many do). But it doesn't really help them much unless they actually get into court, and if it goes that far, they might not wind up being "winners" even if the plaintiff loses the case. Many settlement agreements are made without any consideration of the merits of the case, the plaintiff (and their lawyers) can figure out how much it will cost the defendant to get into court in the first place, and will happily settle for an amount less than that. (And the plaintiff's lawyers can up the ante with lots of pre-trial disclosures and findings, many of which have the sole purpose of costing the defendant more money).

Seems pretty clear from the info that the liquid (whatever it was) was NOT in the original container from HV. So whether the original container had child-resistant packaging is irrelevant. And, I don't know why their isn't a bigger outcry for more investigation into the behavior of the child's caretakers. Is HHS looking into the incident? (They can't say even if they are, but if they aren't this would be an important thing to know). It's clearly negligence, clearly child endangerment. If it was a bottle of everclear, there would be a public outcry.

It's also highly suspicious. Methinks that unless the police know a LOT about what happened that they're not telling, "Case Closed" would be a very questionable determination.

 

[skoony]

One of the sad truths about civil suits in the US is that "You can sue anyone, at any time, for anything". You can't always win, but you can almost always cause enough FUD that the defendant would be crazy to try to fight it in court, and would settle instead.

HV had a very strong disclaimer on their site (and if they were smart, had an "I agree" button that the purchaser had to click before completing the order (as many do). But it doesn't really help them much unless they actually get into court, and if it goes that far, they might not wind up being "winners" even if the plaintiff loses the case. Many settlement agreements are made without any consideration of the merits of the case, the plaintiff (and their lawyers) can figure out how much it will cost the defendant to get into court in the first place, and will happily settle for an amount less than that. (And the plaintiff's lawyers can up the ante with lots of pre-trial disclosures and findings, many of which have the sole purpose of costing the defendant more money).

Seems pretty clear from the info that the liquid (whatever it was) was NOT in the original container from HV. So whether the original container had child-resistant packaging is irrelevant. And, I don't know why their isn't a bigger outcry for more investigation into the behavior of the child's caretakers. Is HHS looking into the incident? (They can't say even if they are, but if they aren't this would be an important thing to know). It's clearly negligence, clearly child endangerment. If it was a bottle of everclear, there would be a public outcry.

It's also highly suspicious. Methinks that unless the police know a LOT about what happened that they're not telling, "Case Closed" would be a very questionable determination.

one can not sue anyone for anything, there have to be merits to the case.
i know it seams like that's the case these days.
i think this case is a no go from the start. HV sells there base in white
plastic containers with child safety caps only. that's is one level of due
diligence. some one had to transfer the liquid into the brown bottle.
clearly it wasn't HV. it was stated the brown bottle had a child safety
cap but none was ever found.i am not clear on when and where it was lost.
HV didn't lose it. the label on the brown bottle said HV 100mg. clearly
HV didn't label the bottle. so the label had to be hand written as i
am more than certain removing the label from the original would be
impossible to prevent its use on an unauthorized container and
might even be illegal.
of course anything can happen but,its highly improbable.
either way this could get interesting.

regards
mike

 

[Scottitude]

one can not sue anyone for anything, there have to be merits to the case...

Not true. All that's needed is a lawyer willing to file and argue. Merit may affect the outcome but people can and do sue for the most frivolously ridiculous unfounded things you can imagine.

As others have said, more often than not, the threat of, or potential for, litigation is enough to make many "defendants" to write a check even though the suit may be winnable.

 

[skoony]

Not true. All that's needed is a lawyer willing to file and argue. Merit may affect the outcome but people can and do sue for the most frivolously ridiculous unfounded things you can imagine.

As others have said, more often than not, the threat of, or potential for, litigation is enough to make many "defendants" to write a check even though the suit may be winnable.

its totally true. it differs from state to state but there are rules
governing the courts in whats allowable and what is not.
lawyers turn down legitimate cases every day because the
merits of the case are not provable.

regards
mike

 

[zoiDman]

one can not sue anyone for anything, there have to be merits to the case.
i know it seams like that's the case these days.
i think this case is a no go from the start. HV sells there base in white
plastic containers with child safety caps only. that's is one level of due
diligence. some one had to transfer the liquid into the brown bottle.
clearly it wasn't HV. it was stated the brown bottle had a child safety
cap but none was ever found.i am not clear on when and where it was lost.
HV didn't lose it. the label on the brown bottle said HV 100mg. clearly
HV didn't label the bottle. so the label had to be hand written as i
am more than certain removing the label from the original would be
impossible to prevent its use on an unauthorized container and
might even be illegal.
of course anything can happen but,its highly improbable.
either way this could get interesting.

regards
mike

The Last 2 orders I did from HV for Nicotine Base came in a Brown Containers with a White Child Resistant Cap.

But those were 1L containers.

 

[skoony]

The Last 2 orders I did from HV for Nicotine Base came in a Brown Containers with a White Child Resistant Cap.

But those were 1L containers.

tanks for the info.
now we wait.
regards
mike

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Slightly OT:

I've been on the wrong side of that, we worked on a car that had some serious wiring problems that the customer turned down repairs on among which was a positive battery cable that the insulation was falling off of in a dangerous place. Two days later we get a call, the car had caught on fire sitting in front of his house and was on the way in on a tow truck. Called insurance company and they sent out a fire inspector/adjuster and his report was not our fault and we had the pictures and correct signed documentation to back it up. A month later I get a call from my insurance company letting me know that they are going to pay him for the car as his wife was a lawyer and had filed a lawsuit and it would be cheaper to pay the claim than fight it in court.

This game would go away if they would pass loser pays legislation requiring the loser to pay litigation cost for both sides but that won't happen with the number of lawyers in congress and the amount of political contributions made by law firms and lawyers.

 

[zoiDman]

tanks for the info.
now we wait.
regards
mike

Yeah... Waiting seems to be the Word of the Day when it comes to Accident.

BTW - Thank you for you Diligence on researching what went on. And in keeping this Tragic Accident something on peoples mind.