In California, Jason Starn has filed a lawsuit that could be a challenge before a jury. Starn would purchase nitrous oxide canisters, or Whip its, from a local head shop in Modesto. He was regularly using the “laughing gas” when he lost feeling below his rib cage. The numbness wore off eventually but he suffered a degeneration of his spinal cord related to his abuse of nitrous oxide. He now uses a walker and has sued three stores that sold him the gas. Starn, 35, was a schoolteacher in Modesto and a student attending the Humphreys College Laurence Drivon School of Law
Starn admits that he bought dozens of canisters from stores like Smoke Island, but not insists that stores should not have sold the gas to him. However, these canisters are also used by restaurants and others to whip creams. Yet, they are sold in head shops for obviously non-culinary purposes. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers are seeking purchase records to show such a pattern.
Starn used the product for over the next two months despite that fact that nitrous oxide depletes vitamin B-12 from the blood, which can lead to spinal cord problems. However, the dangers of such use is detailed on the Internet — raising the question of his own negligence and assumption of the risk. Moreover, the product is lawful to sell and is used by cafes, restaurants, and a variety of other businesses.
The question is whether head shops should be liable for the foreseeable misuse of a product of this kind. What do you think?
Starn is asking for an unspecified amount in general and punitive damages.
Source: SacBee
BarkenDog, He’s got a union. If he can get to the classroom he’s fit.
Bron, The demonstration to the jury would be the senior partner defending Whipit “shoveling” a new associate. It’s done figuratively daily. We may have come up w/ a new term. You’ve heard of “fisting.” Well..shoveling would be “extreme fisting.” MAN, this thread took a rather anal left turn.
This airhead is not fit to teach school either. Give him a job on Laugh In.
The California State Bar Association should take the misuse of drugs into consideration when he applies to be a member of the bar. We dont need a drug addict advising the public on matters of law and order. This person has a problem in that he is bound by his assertions in his lawsuit as to his own stupidity and addition to chemicals. He is “estopped to deny” these facts since he has pleaded them in his lawsuit. But then, California is a Pirate Territory and is likely to allow this person to practice law. No other state bar association would be dumb enough to admit him into the practice of law. I never heard of that law school before either. The name sounds like it was made up for a skit by Roseann Roseann ODanna on Saturday Night Live thirty years ago.
darren:
I dont know about you but watching a lawyer use a shovel as a suppository would make for good theatre.
Of all products that present a danger when misused, a shovel is certainly one of them, proctologicly speaking at least.
It would sure present a good example in courtroom theatrics i’d say.
It’s a colorful image, mespo, I must confess.
mespo:
thank you kindly for that bracing abstraction so early on this fine January morning.
How does he overcome the product misuse defense? He might as well have used a shovel for a suppository.
“How does he overcome the product misuse defense?”
He’ll have to make the case that the headshop was winking and nodding at the use of the product, just as they do when they sell bongs under the guise of being waterpipes for tobacco.
David Blauw contributed:
MTV channel at least has legal coverage for its BS reality shows.
I believe about 10 years ago they changed the “M” from music, to “M’ for Moron
🙂 I watched a lot of MTV back in the early to mid 1980′, then later, maybe 1990 (?) or so the videos were sidelined greatly. Ruining it in my view.
I used to lament to friends when we talked about it was “MTV’s first video was ‘Video Killed the Radio Star’, now MTV killed the Video Star.
Hmmm, vewy interesting. I wonder if a law suit against the history channel is plausible under these factors. People tune to its shows to watch (as advertised) History. Then they are exposed to ancient aliens, big foot, crop circles, and Noahs ark.
Is it the consumers fault, or networks fault for allowing this polluting of minds under the false label “History”.
MTV channel at least has legal coverage for its BS reality shows.
I believe about 10 years ago they changed the “M” from music, to “M’ for Moron.
Anyone using whipit for other than its intended purpose should not be able to recover in my opinion…… The contributory negligence in many jurisdictions would be a bar to recovery as well as the assumption of risk……
David – I don’t think it is anything like cigarettes as they only have the one use, nicotine delivery, while NO2 has legitimate uses.
Not being into this sort of thing I was unaware of the side affects. I could see a joint & several including the manufacturer if there is no warning. Ultimately though if you are going to use something ‘off label’ the consequences have to belong to you unless you can show the manufacturer or retailer encouraged your off label use (IM-no legal training just seems like common sense – O)
RWL if that was a serious question, you crack it into balloons, inhale it and get really, really euphorically high but only for about 60 seconds. That’s how you can go through so many. I had no idea about the spinal damage potential either!
I would say it might be a factor in the lawsuit if it could be shown the head shop offered the whip-its as for ingestion purposes. I believe that would convey some evidence to the plaintiff’s case.
If one of the employees told the plaintiff he could get a buzz from using the whip-it, it would then show the intention of the head shop was to sell it for ingestion purposes.
I don’t believe it is as widely known within the public forum that Nitrous Oxide depletes B12 from the blood and this can lead to nerve damage. Unlike the use of tobacco products where the knowledge is common. Furthermore, are there any warning labels on this product of the usage of it could case internal damage?
It could be argued to some degree that a consumer purchasing this if encouraged to ingest it and not given any warnings as to its use (of which in this example might not be common knowledge) the retailer might have some degree of liability because the consumer might have an expectation of being sold a non-threatening product. Booze, Smokes, fatty foods, and the others that people have mentioend above have commonly known risks, I am not sure the Nitrous would be one that is commonly known.
Slightly off topic but Nitrous Oxide and Xenon, which are not illegal to possess, are used as an anesthesia for medically recognized medical procedures. As such it can be regulated as to its administration into the body. They are not considered a food item or meant for human consumption. The administration of an anesthetic without proper credentials can be in most cases the crime of practicing medicine without a license. The trigger to its usage is if another person administers or causes to be administered an anesthesia for the purposes of initiating a hallucination or other biological change in the body. This does differ from examples such as sniffing glue which is not considered to be a medicine or anesthesia but might be regulated under differing laws.
next he can sue the college for giving him the law degree
Starn admits that he bought dozens of canisters
It’s not even a question….
I am puzzled, and someone please help me with this one. First Question: why was he using it? The laughing gas? Second Question: if he knew the laughing gas has potential side affects, then, he still used it? Should we file a lawsuit again Pepsi, Coke , and entire soda industry due to the high risk of pancreatic cancer if one consumes more than 16 oz in a week? What about the link between red meat and heart disease? Should we sue the beef and pork industry? I think this lawsuit should be thrown out!
Happy New Year everyone! Looks like an exciting year in US politics if one might use that term “exciting” ……
I personally wish someone over there and here in Australia would succeed with a case such as this.
Legally sold product being used in a way that creates social harm is a form of externality that everyone else bears the cost of eventually. Alcohol springs to mind.
For example; we tried to prevent our local liquor retailer selling to my alcoholic brother, telling them clearly that he had a health problem and they were contributing to his illness. They just laughed at me at the time, but when we brought a case against them they declined to sell to him. We also gave his picture to all retailers in the area. DO NOT SELL TO THIS MAN – was the caption.
At the same time we got him rehabilitation help, as obviously prohibition doesn’t work. He’s OK now.
Unfortunately, at the time, we were just interested in getting my brother healthy. Sometimes I regret dropping the action as it would have sent a message to liquor retailers that they must take their actions more seriously, especially if they are AWARE the purchaser is an alcoholic.
Isn’t this similar to taking on tobacco companies when people know smoking is dangerous?