Well, here’s a textbook lesson in how to spin a story, a very negative story.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, lobbying for tort reform and against frivolous lawsuits, picked out Blitz USA as its poster child for injustice. That Oklahoma company, which manufactured gas containers, closed this summer, putting 117 workers out on the street.
Blitz USA blamed its demise on the cost of litigating lawsuits that alleged its red plastic containers were dangerous. The chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform used Blitz USA in a commercial it produced about the evils of litigation.
In its story Friday on this battle, “Two Sides of Product Liability,” The New York Times noted that the commercial failed to mention one little factor: That dozens of people allege they were hurt, some killed, when the gas cans exploded.
The phenomenon, according to The Times, is called “flashback,” when gas fumes “outside the cans ignited and followed the vapor trail back to the container.” Blitz could have easily put an end to such explosions, by simply putting a device called a flame arrester at the opening of its gas containers. A flame arrester is wire mesh that stops fire from entering the opening of a gas container.
Instead, Blitz apparently preferred being sued. And it has been, 62 times since 1994, according to The Times. Blitz argues that of the 14 million cans it’s sold in the past 10 years, there have only been two reported incidents for each million cans sold. Blitz blames the victims for misusing its cans, by doing things such as pouring gas on an open fire, according to The Times.
This is probably little solace to Chad Funchess, a South Carolina firefighter who had burns over half his body after a explosion with a Blitz gas can. He was putting gasoline in a chain saw when it exploded. He is suing Blitz, which has filed for bankruptcy, The Times reported.
And Blitz’s excuses, and even a $4 million jury award, were probably little solace to the father of a 2-year-old girl who died when a gas can exploded, according to The Times. Blitz claims that the father was stupid, and liable, because he poured gasoline directly on the flame of a gas-burning stove. The father claimed that Blitz’s can should have had a flame arrester, The Times reported.
The headline on the newspaper’s story was two sides of liability. In this case, there’s only one side: Blitz isn’t the victim of unwarranted litigation. It should have taken steps to make its red gasoline containers safe.