Opportunist sues Nalgene

[Nalgene Ninja]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/n.../hl_nm/nalgene_lawsuit_dc

[Chris]

Right, there were no damages to her children or any other children I've heard of so she has no basis to sue them.

[Magic City Matt]

I wonder how many other BPA laden products she used though.The worst one is saran wrap. That stuff is in a lot of things.

[Chris]

I dunno. Has anyone ever heard of a Nalgene bottle related death?

[Magic City Matt]

I dunno. Has anyone ever heard of a Nalgene bottle related death?

Not likely. We are only now starting to understand the effects of this stuff. I doubt this woman or anyone else will have a leg to stand on when it all comes down because there was no way they could have known that the chemical was not permanently fixed into the plastic until just recently. They have done the right thing and started removing the product lines from the market. They may very well end up recalling them if the FDA steps in.
We all understand that our government is largely supported by private industry. You don't see Johnson & Johnson removing saran from the market do you? Nalgene is not a bad company but they are fairly large and therefore it takes time for them to react. I personally applaud them for taking early action and not waiting until the FDA say's "You have to".
This whole situation has the potential to make waves in a lot of markets. Ours is just one. Imagine how many tupperware and baby sippy cups and bottles are going to end up being recalled and taken off the market because of this.
The way I see it though BPA will end up being the asbestos of this century.

[Joshua Szulecki]

Opportunist sues Nalgene

Right, there were no damages to her children or any other children I've heard of so she has no basis to sue them.

I'd refrain from making statements like that until we hear a little more on the subject. I'd like to get my hands on a copy of the complaint, but I'm busy studying for finals right now (in fact, one class is Toxic Torts...) so I may not get a chance to look around. Unspecified damages could mean a whole lot of things...

Food for thought, the plaintiff isn't exactly broke, as she made a sizable donation to Tom Vilsacks gubernatorial campaign. She could be a lawyer herself, she could be genuinely concerned, etc...
http://fundrace.huffingto...me&lname=Felix-Lozano

I was able to pull up some docket information... Keep in mind that the figure requested usually doesn't mean much.
http://dockets.justia.com...08cv00854/case_id-175212/

Here's the lawyers website (SLOOOOOOW): http://www.hewell-law.com/index.html

**Note: I checked around for the complaint. Doesn't look like it has been made public yet.

Just my opinion on a relevant hiking subject, not  to be viewed as legal advice.

[Chris]

If they are pulling the dangerous chemical out of their product what reason is there to continue the lawsuit?

[Joshua Szulecki]

Chris,

For any number of reasons. My reading of it suggested that there is fraud alleged in the complaint. My guess is that they are going to go after the company for indicating that the product was safe when they allegedly knew it wasn't. They could just be looking for money, they could be looking to teach the company a lesson, they could be looking to establish precendent regarding the substance, etc...

Just because the product is off the market doesn't mean the damage might not already be done. At this point we don't know much, and it is possible that they could prove some sort of damages. The point is, we don't know much, so it is really hard to say if the lawsuit should or should not continue. Personally, I'm betting she is out for money, or just to stick it to Nalgene, but I'm trying to withhold forming an opinion until I more of the facts.

Just my opinion on a relevant hiking subject, not  to be viewed as legal advice.

[Chris]

Ah, well that is understandable.