Back

ABA Journal

Home

ABA Journal

Should this toy be saved?

May 17, 2013, 06:18 pm CDT

Comments

I generally support the mission of the CPSC, but the Buckyballs case is ridiculous. There is regulation capable of helping parents that are stupid enough to give their children small magnets to eat for dinner.

By Island Attorney on 2013 05 02, 5:22 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Kaelan Rampton on 2013 05 04, 4:57 am CDT

BuckyBalls should not have been targeted in the way they were.  I own several sets of balls and cubes myself and the packaging makes it very clear that these are to be kept away from children.  The label even warns of the dangers to the intestines if swallowed.

No adult should be excused from either failing to read the label or at least having the common sense to know that giving strong little magnets to kids (who like to eat things!) is not a good idea.

In spite of the company’s efforts to enhance the warning labels even more than they are now, the CPSC apparently did not want to work with the company.  They just wanted the products off the market.

There is a real difference between an unsafe product and an misused product.  In cases where a child was allowed to eat a few magnets, I would argue the product was misused and an adult was negligent.

By Paul E. Jones on 2013 05 08, 1:34 am CDT

I work with numerous product developers, including some in the science/technology demonstration community. If every product, regardless of the targeted consumers, is required to be child-safe. Innovation will be greatly stifled. It is already difficult enough to successfully bring a new product to market.

However, the adult magnet toys are a special case. Their characteristics make them especially attractive to small children, possibly bringing them under a form of attractive nuisance doctrine in tort. Yet, there are many dangerous yet necessary products attractive to children (e.g. construction equipment). As a policy matter, should that fact that these toys have mere amusement value rather than vital necessity be a factor in the decision to outright ban them? Is a balancing test even appropriate?

By William Able on 2013 05 17, 8:15 pm CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.
Features

Should this toy be saved?

May 1, 2013, 05:10 am CDT

Comments

I generally support the mission of the CPSC, but the Buckyballs case is ridiculous. There is regulation capable of helping parents that are stupid enough to give their children small magnets to eat for dinner.

By Island Attorney on 2013 05 02, 5:22 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Kaelan Rampton on 2013 05 04, 4:57 am CDT

BuckyBalls should not have been targeted in the way they were.  I own several sets of balls and cubes myself and the packaging makes it very clear that these are to be kept away from children.  The label even warns of the dangers to the intestines if swallowed.

No adult should be excused from either failing to read the label or at least having the common sense to know that giving strong little magnets to kids (who like to eat things!) is not a good idea.

In spite of the company’s efforts to enhance the warning labels even more than they are now, the CPSC apparently did not want to work with the company.  They just wanted the products off the market.

There is a real difference between an unsafe product and an misused product.  In cases where a child was allowed to eat a few magnets, I would argue the product was misused and an adult was negligent.

By Paul E. Jones on 2013 05 08, 1:34 am CDT

I work with numerous product developers, including some in the science/technology demonstration community. If every product, regardless of the targeted consumers, is required to be child-safe. Innovation will be greatly stifled. It is already difficult enough to successfully bring a new product to market.

However, the adult magnet toys are a special case. Their characteristics make them especially attractive to small children, possibly bringing them under a form of attractive nuisance doctrine in tort. Yet, there are many dangerous yet necessary products attractive to children (e.g. construction equipment). As a policy matter, should that fact that these toys have mere amusement value rather than vital necessity be a factor in the decision to outright ban them? Is a balancing test even appropriate?

By William Able on 2013 05 17, 8:15 pm CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.