If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Georgia Supreme Court to rule whether potato guns converted into pipe bombs are consistent with safe work environments   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 32
    More: Strange, Georgia Supreme Court, pipe bombs, material fact, due care  
•       •       •

1370 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2014 at 10:33 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 09:58:39 AM  
This is the kind of case that makes me want the contributory negligence doctrine back. Until around the mid-20th century in most states if two dumbasses blew each other up, that was their problem.
 
2014-04-17 10:01:20 AM  
One thing to note is that this is just an appeal from a reversal of summary judgement: the trial court said "you can't possibly have a case, bomb guy, GTFO. No trial for you." The appellate court reversed, saying, "now, wait a second, there may be a case here... This should go to trial."

Also:
Lawyers for the the company have problems with that reasoning.
"If the Boston Marathon bombers had constructed their bombs in their workplace using materials gathered there and with the knowledge of their foremen, and if one of them had been injured when the bombs exploded, then he could have sued his employer on account of his injuries," says their petition. "As a matter of law and public policy, will this Court allow the decision of the Court of Appeals to set precedent for such an absurd and troubling proposition?"


First, fark you for trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing as part of your slippery slope.
Second, if a bomber is making a bomb in your workplace,  with your knowledge and materials, then yeah, maybe you're a wee bit responsible, too.
 
2014-04-17 10:03:26 AM  

ZAZ: This is the kind of case that makes me want the contributory negligence doctrine back. Until around the mid-20th century in most states if two dumbasses blew each other up, that was their problem.


Contributory negligence also led to insurance companies saying that two people were  each 51% at fault for an accident, and therefore, the insurance companies had no responsibility to pay out their policies.
 
2014-04-17 10:47:00 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

What loud shots from a big spud gun might look like.
 
2014-04-17 10:47:21 AM  
Darwin should feel cheated on this one.... black powder and metal fragments in a schedule 40 plastic tube.... really?
 
2014-04-17 10:47:59 AM  

Theaetetus: One thing to note is that this is just an appeal from a reversal of summary judgement: the trial court said "you can't possibly have a case, bomb guy, GTFO. No trial for you." The appellate court reversed, saying, "now, wait a second, there may be a case here... This should go to trial."

Also:
Lawyers for the the company have problems with that reasoning.
"If the Boston Marathon bombers had constructed their bombs in their workplace using materials gathered there and with the knowledge of their foremen, and if one of them had been injured when the bombs exploded, then he could have sued his employer on account of his injuries," says their petition. "As a matter of law and public policy, will this Court allow the decision of the Court of Appeals to set precedent for such an absurd and troubling proposition?"

First, fark you for trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing as part of your slippery slope.
Second, if a bomber is making a bomb in your workplace,  with your knowledge and materials, then yeah, maybe you're a wee bit responsible, too.


No.
 
2014-04-17 10:55:36 AM  

mschwenk: Theaetetus: One thing to note is that this is just an appeal from a reversal of summary judgement: the trial court said "you can't possibly have a case, bomb guy, GTFO. No trial for you." The appellate court reversed, saying, "now, wait a second, there may be a case here... This should go to trial."

Also:
Lawyers for the the company have problems with that reasoning.
"If the Boston Marathon bombers had constructed their bombs in their workplace using materials gathered there and with the knowledge of their foremen, and if one of them had been injured when the bombs exploded, then he could have sued his employer on account of his injuries," says their petition. "As a matter of law and public policy, will this Court allow the decision of the Court of Appeals to set precedent for such an absurd and troubling proposition?"

First, fark you for trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing as part of your slippery slope.
Second, if a bomber is making a bomb in your workplace,  with your knowledge and materials, then yeah, maybe you're a wee bit responsible, too.

No.


Sound argument. I concede the point.
 
2014-04-17 11:04:01 AM  

mschwenk: Theaetetus: One thing to note is that this is just an appeal from a reversal of summary judgement: the trial court said "you can't possibly have a case, bomb guy, GTFO. No trial for you." The appellate court reversed, saying, "now, wait a second, there may be a case here... This should go to trial."

Also:
Lawyers for the the company have problems with that reasoning.
"If the Boston Marathon bombers had constructed their bombs in their workplace using materials gathered there and with the knowledge of their foremen, and if one of them had been injured when the bombs exploded, then he could have sued his employer on account of his injuries," says their petition. "As a matter of law and public policy, will this Court allow the decision of the Court of Appeals to set precedent for such an absurd and troubling proposition?"

First, fark you for trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing as part of your slippery slope.
Second, if a bomber is making a bomb in your workplace,  with your knowledge and materials, then yeah, maybe you're a wee bit responsible, too.

No.


Checkmate!
 
2014-04-17 11:07:33 AM  

Theaetetus: One thing to note is that this is just an appeal from a reversal of summary judgement: the trial court said "you can't possibly have a case, bomb guy, GTFO. No trial for you." The appellate court reversed, saying, "now, wait a second, there may be a case here... This should go to trial."

Also:
Lawyers for the the company have problems with that reasoning.
"If the Boston Marathon bombers had constructed their bombs in their workplace using materials gathered there and with the knowledge of their foremen, and if one of them had been injured when the bombs exploded, then he could have sued his employer on account of his injuries," says their petition. "As a matter of law and public policy, will this Court allow the decision of the Court of Appeals to set precedent for such an absurd and troubling proposition?"

First, fark you for trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing as part of your slippery slope.
Second, if a bomber is making a bomb in your workplace,  with your knowledge and materials, then yeah, maybe you're a wee bit responsible, too.


Knowledge, sure, but I'm not sure that the employer's materials should be relevant.  If somebody swipes paper clips and staples to use in a pipe bomb he's building in the janitor's closet, I don't really see how the employer could reasonably be at fault.  If actual explosive materials go missing from a construction site or the like, that might be different, but absent case-specific details, I don't know that materials should indicate employer liability as a general rule.
 
2014-04-17 11:07:47 AM  
all balls
 
2014-04-17 11:08:46 AM  

Theaetetus: ZAZ: This is the kind of case that makes me want the contributory negligence doctrine back. Until around the mid-20th century in most states if two dumbasses blew each other up, that was their problem.

Contributory negligence also led to insurance companies saying that two people were  each 51% at fault for an accident, and therefore, the insurance companies had no responsibility to pay out their policies.


Why 51%?  Contributory negligence only required a finding of any amount of negligence to deny the claim of a plaintiff.

Personally, I'd like to see a return of the last clear chance doctrine.
 
2014-04-17 11:14:00 AM  
Spuds, spuds, spuds, spuds,
Shooting potato guns.
The Georgia Supreme Court
Shooting potato guns.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-04-17 11:17:30 AM  

Theaetetus: One thing to note is that this is just an appeal from a reversal of summary judgement: the trial court said "you can't possibly have a case, bomb guy, GTFO. No trial for you." The appellate court reversed, saying, "now, wait a second, there may be a case here... This should go to trial."

Also:
Lawyers for the the company have problems with that reasoning.
"If the Boston Marathon bombers had constructed their bombs in their workplace using materials gathered there and with the knowledge of their foremen, and if one of them had been injured when the bombs exploded, then he could have sued his employer on account of his injuries," says their petition. "As a matter of law and public policy, will this Court allow the decision of the Court of Appeals to set precedent for such an absurd and troubling proposition?"

First, fark you for trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing as part of your slippery slope.
Second, if a bomber is making a bomb in your workplace,  with your knowledge and materials, then yeah, maybe you're a wee bit responsible, too.


If the injured person was an innocent third party, I'd agree with you.  But in this case the cannon/bomb maker is the one who wants compensation for his injuries.
 
2014-04-17 11:22:35 AM  
I built a spud cannon.  I've fired it hundreds of times with both potatoes and tennis balls.  What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.  I thought it was just common knowledge not to use anything else but hairspray.

After seeing a lot of these explosion stories I wrapped the whole thing in 3 layers of Gorilla tape so I think I'm good though.
 
2014-04-17 11:22:41 AM  
Another responsible spudgun owner.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 11:34:17 AM  
Cataholic

Last clear chance under that name only makes sense with contributory negligence. It is an exception to the general rule that people who share blame can't sue. With comparative negligence the general rule doesn't apply and there is no need to make an exception.
 
2014-04-17 11:45:04 AM  

CJHardin: What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.


There's more things you can use, I've seen propane used before, but it's better to be cautious.

As for the gorilla tape, I'd probably want to know what fibers they're using for the backing, but good idea.
 
2014-04-17 11:48:47 AM  
i2.kym-cdn.com

.. I don't know how, just following the dominant paradigm of the media matrix ..
 
2014-04-17 11:50:47 AM  
beefoe:If the injured person was an innocent third party, I'd agree with you.  But in this case the cannon/bomb maker is the one who wants compensation for his injuries.

That's exactly the dispute, actually. The state places liability on an employer when an employee injures an "other", even during their off-duty hours:
A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his
servant while acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent
him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as
to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them...


So, the question is whether another employee counts as an "other", or whether "other" specifically requires an innocent third party.
 
2014-04-17 12:06:50 PM  

Firethorn: CJHardin: What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.

There's more things you can use, I've seen propane used before, but it's better to be cautious.

As for the gorilla tape, I'd probably want to know what fibers they're using for the backing, but good idea.


I'm rather experienced with playing with propane.  I go to many of the Burning Man Regionals such as Transformus and Playa Del Fuego so I've designed and used my fair share of pyro devices.  When it comes to using propane, it's never safe to detonate it in a sealed container.  It has a substantial kick even if it's just detonating out the end of a steel pipe.

media.boingboing.net

Although it may be safe, it's always better to air on the side of caution.  Using black powder is just poking Darwin in the forehead and saying "You can't hit me, you can't hit me."
 
2014-04-17 12:07:18 PM  
So a bunch of morans on there own time. Steal scrap parts from there employer. Blow themselves up. This is the employers fault, how?
 
2014-04-17 12:28:48 PM  

Firethorn: CJHardin: What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.

There's more things you can use, I've seen propane used before, but it's better to be cautious.


I've never used propane, but I did try acetylene a couple times. It worked out ok, but I don't think it was a good idea.
 
2014-04-17 12:41:28 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Firethorn: CJHardin: What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.

There's more things you can use, I've seen propane used before, but it's better to be cautious.

I've never used propane, but I did try acetylene a couple times. It worked out ok, but I don't think it was a good idea.


I've always been curious about trying propane with an electric grill igniter just because it's easier than spraying the hair spray in the combustion chamber and having to screw the plug onto the back quickly.  It would also be much cleaner.  Then I saw a few Liveleak videos and decided against it.  I still have all my appendages so I think I made the right choice even though it may have worked out peachy.  Great success!
 
2014-04-17 12:42:26 PM  

CJHardin: Although it may be safe, it's always better to air on the side of caution. Using black powder is just poking Darwin in the forehead and saying "You can't hit me, you can't hit me."


No kidding.  I shoot BP, my rifle's barrel is at least 1/4" thick steel.  The amount of powder needed to propel a ball at lethal velocities out of that is smaller than the ball*.  The amount of powder to launch a spud properly out of something weaker?  I'd imagine that you'd have a hard time detonating it, the amount would be so low.

Using BP instead of hair spray or similar?  Bad idea.  Loading it with metal rather than potato?  You're cruising for a Darwin.

*Keeping it simple for others.
 
2014-04-17 12:48:30 PM  
I got to check out this neat little fire art array and although it is an amazing build, I was still a bit nervous.  I've been around a lot of pyro efx so I've gained a healthy respect for them.  Powder propellants are by far the most dangerous and finicky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=722ezVKaEiU#t=14
 
2014-04-17 01:24:10 PM  
O_0 the mental picture of bad teeth, moonshine, overalls and rebel flags comes to mind. You read stories like this and you say to yourself: no one can be this stupid. Then another one shows up. And what exactly was the end goal here if they were not attempting to make a bomb? Brings to mind a very bad joke I once heard. What is the last thing you hear a redneck say? Y'all watch this.
 
2014-04-17 02:01:11 PM  

CJHardin: Although it may be safe, it's always better to air err on the side of caution. Using black powder is just poking Darwin in the forehead and saying "You can't hit me, you can't hit me."


I fixed your airor.
 
2014-04-17 02:25:06 PM  

vingamm: And what exactly was the end goal here if they were not attempting to make a bomb? Brings to mind a very bad joke I once heard. What is the last thing you hear a redneck say? Y'all watch this.


I'm a guy, geek, etc...  I like explosions, fire, booms, etc...  So I get the 'Y'all watch this' idea.

But I also have enough experience(including some military, through not a combat role), to realize that you have to be careful with this stuff.  Accidental detonation.  Bigger than expected blasts.  Something blowing up when it's not supposed to.  Shrapnel.If I'm making something that I'm going to explode, that's my #1 thing to prevent.  It takes a lot of overpressure to kill you.  A piece of shrapnel the size and weight of a paperclip can kill you from a lot further out.
 
2014-04-17 04:10:45 PM  

CJHardin: Firethorn: CJHardin: What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.

There's more things you can use, I've seen propane used before, but it's better to be cautious.

As for the gorilla tape, I'd probably want to know what fibers they're using for the backing, but good idea.

I'm rather experienced with playing with propane.  I go to many of the Burning Man Regionals such as Transformus and Playa Del Fuego so I've designed and used my fair share of pyro devices.  When it comes to using propane, it's never safe to detonate it in a sealed container.  It has a substantial kick even if it's just detonating out the end of a steel pipe.

[media.boingboing.net image 600x452]

Although it may be safe, it's always better to air on the side of caution.  Using black powder is just poking Darwin in the forehead and saying "You can't hit me, you can't hit me."


You need a bigger expansion tank

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 04:14:11 PM  
But the trebuchet's still OK?

fourriverscharter.org

/more watermelons than po-tay-toes in Georgia
 
2014-04-17 04:18:55 PM  

SafetyThird: CJHardin: Firethorn: CJHardin: What I've never done is use anything but White Rain hairspray as the propellant/fuel.

There's more things you can use, I've seen propane used before, but it's better to be cautious.

As for the gorilla tape, I'd probably want to know what fibers they're using for the backing, but good idea.

I'm rather experienced with playing with propane.  I go to many of the Burning Man Regionals such as Transformus and Playa Del Fuego so I've designed and used my fair share of pyro devices.  When it comes to using propane, it's never safe to detonate it in a sealed container.  It has a substantial kick even if it's just detonating out the end of a steel pipe.

[media.boingboing.net image 600x452]

Although it may be safe, it's always better to air on the side of caution.  Using black powder is just poking Darwin in the forehead and saying "You can't hit me, you can't hit me."

You need a bigger expansion tank

[img.fark.net image 599x399]


Oh, that was a pic of someone else's poofer.  Mine are DMX initiated and use 10 pound tanks for accumulators. :-)

But yes, must have big expansion tanks for appropriate flame awesomeness.
 
2014-04-17 05:04:08 PM  
If potato guns are outlawed, only derpers will have potato guns.

/Potato
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report