Forum - View topicNEWS: Bandai Ordered to Pay for Child's Choking on Toy Capsule
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MeggieMay
 Posts: 607 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Good question. I'm also wondering if there is anything like a warning label on the toys like there is in the U.S. Many people in this thread are assuming that because it would be one way in the U.S. it would be the same in Japan. It is more likely it isn't. The U.S. is a notoriously litigious country and that's what lead to all these rules and everyone hearing about this and that with child safety. Most countries don't care about this type of thing until after something happens and then they still may not care.
Also, the reason Bandai got sued is because this was the sub unit of the company that made the toy. Bandai is a multinational conglomerate and does more than just make Anime. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
hikaru004
 Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Well this is how Banpresto makes it's living by getting people to spend money in hopes of getting that cute toy they see in the machine. Banpresto is in the prize machine business. The more toys on display the more chance that someone will play the game or put the coin in. There is less incentive to make the container larger as fewer selections will be in the machine then.
An explanation of the Gashapon vending machine is here. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
tygerchickchibi
 Posts: 1473 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
....
Well, all I can say about this is that lawsuits seem to "solve" everything. I do feel sorry for that child. Personally, they should throw the capsule away before giving it to a kid. Then again, who knows how the child did that... Anyway, I feel that, no matter how much you may change the law, there will always be a situation where it's going to be inconvenient for the next person. Better luck next time. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Looking over this gashapon list, it does make you wonder if the gashapon in question was the 2yo's property.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Gingy
Posts: 57 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Well such a ridiculous choking accident hasn't happened until now, and how long was the company in business? So the safety standard is pretty good already. And also...safer toys means big round non chunky toys...and non-oval, which is a recognized feature of gashapon(being in a round capsule). Why change it just because one kid got injured(not killed) and some bad parents are complaining. Companies also have to take into consideration that their toys look good too.
Try telling that to a 3 year old...they probably even think that antifreeze is edible, they probably think hamsters, and giant chunks of logs are edible. They'll eat anything, its the parents job to watch them 24/7, how hard is it to NOT let the kid eat something dangerous.
Bandai isnt the only company that makes toys. Anyways, this is starting to remind me of that incident where some kid choked himself to death by trying to capture himself with a pokeball toy in Mcdonals happy meals...just let it be. Also, how will suing a company of it's money even HELP the parents anyways? Will they hire a voodoo priest or something to bring the kid back to normal? edit:changed death normal, but you get the point. Last edited by Gingy on Thu May 22, 2008 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
testorschoice
Posts: 468 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
The fact that a problem hasn't been taken to court before is not a sign that it should not be fixed or improved. The "it's always worked before" premise is a logical fallacy, and it is not verifiable (argument from silence) on top of that.
Given a choice between maintaining the superficial image of round gashapon...and making the actual children's item safer for children, one would seem to be the higher priority. Saying the kid "got injured" underplays the point that the child received permanent, irreversible brain damage. Permanent disabilities are not arguably as critical as deaths, but they do exact their own harsh toll.
The thing is, your initial comparison was not to antifreeze, but to chocolate to imply the opposing argument was ludicrous. That's where the invalid comparison was made. In any case, neither chocolate nor a plastic toy capsule for children should be dangerous in the first place.
No, but since the safety standards were drafted by the industry at large, any changes made to the safety standards will affect all the toy companies in the association.
Wait, a toy, intended for children, that has a potentially fatal design flaw, should not be removed from the shelves and redesigned? Incidentally, there were two deaths before Burger King (not McDonald's) took action on the Pokeballs. If one death is not enough for some people, how about two deaths? Or is that still not enough?
There was no public lawsuit in the Burger King incident, and the child didn't die in the Gashapon incident, so your last statements seem to be about an irrelevant or non-existent case. Anyways, the idea is that companies view product liability as a cost-benefit analysis. If it's cheaper to ignore a potentially dangerous feature in an item, too many companies will take that risk. Court-imposed restitution like these remind companies that product liability's costs are felt by more than just the company itself, and also force company's cost-benefit analysis to include the "hidden" human cost. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||||||||||
No, I imagine that would be ineffective. Voodoo or even a method that works would likely not bring back to life someone who isn't actually dead. As it says in the article, the child is still alive but suffered brain damage. I can't say anything specific without details but there can be numerous expenses in the form of medical bills or special needs costs involved in raising a child with brain damage. So that right there is a very valid reason for them to sue. Furthermore, if they suffered and incurred mental anguish and it was the fault of another party as was decided here, they are entitled to be compensated. It may not undo the incident but it will make their lives easier which will hopefully help make up for their suffering. Thats the way it works in this kind of legal system. If you don't like it you shouldn't blame them. It's not them you have issue with but the way the system works. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
BleuVII
 Posts: 672 Location: Tokorozawa, Japan |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Some people need to learn it. Hint: bringing up Voodoo necromancy is generally considered "untactful", being a combination of the prefix "un-" (not), the root word "tact" (see above), and the suffix "-ful" (containing), meaning "not containing tact." Now, I'd also like to point out that Banpresto was not simply meeting the minimum requirements. The minimum requirements were for a 3.1 centimeter capsule, and theirs was larger by .9 centimeters, which is a little less than a quarter of an inch (edit: a little more than a third of an inch). When talking about the size of children's windpipes, .9 cm is actually a significant number. Also, not putting holes in the capsule presumably makes it easier for the Heimlich maneuver to be performed. The Heimlich maneuver, for those who haven't had first aid training, is generally considered the most effective emergency first-aid tool in existence, as it almost always works. Now, I'm not placing any blame on the parents, because I work with pre-schoolers and I know how much they endanger themselves on a daily basis, but if any of you are parents, or are expecting to be parents soon, it would be wise to enroll in a first-aid class. I don't know the details of the situation in this story, but immediately administering correct first aid in situations like this can save lives. Anyway, the only thing I would fault Banpresto for is making the capsule round. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Porcupine
 Posts: 1033 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Just for the record, my thoughts on this, if it weren't clear from my first post, are that Bandai got off very light. But there was a reason for this, namely that they did meet some sort of safety standards (but not federal, as someone earlier pointed out) so that helps them to look a bit better in the courts.
But regardless of whether you meet safety standards or not, even if the standards were established by the government, a company might still be somewhat liable if its products injure or kill someone. I'm no lawyer though so I might be wrong on that. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
skyechan
 Posts: 152 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
I personally can't side with either Bandai or the parents but I think we can all agree that this was a very unfortunate accident. :/
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
LeoKnight25
 Posts: 319 Location: Puyallup, WA |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Not to downplay this extremely unfortunate incident, but this actually reminds me of an episode of the "Area 88" OVA series. The main antagonist Kanzaki is now heading up Yamato Airlines and makes a decision to use cheaper parts for their airlines. The cheaper parts end up being hazardous and cause a plane to crash killing hundreds. Now, some of your guys' responses on here remind me of companies complying to standards only nominally just to skate by without too much trouble to them or their wallets. I think if there was a federal standard for this type of thing then the companies would have to follow it to the letter. Allowing the companies to govern their own safety standards seems to me like asking for trouble, as you know capitalistic corporations will do just about anything to save on money, regardless of the human cost. I feel extremely sorry for the parents and the child. But, on one hand, I believe the parents to be responsible for their child and should have been more careful with something that small. On the other hand, I think that Bandai/Banpresto should be forced to pay for the child's medical expenses because the standard size of the capsule still wasn't enough to prevent this unfortunate accident.
Besides, even if it were up to standard, the company will really have to save face within the public eye so, the money being paid is a given. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group