This lawsuit takes the cake

Honestly I'm suprised that hasn't happened already!

Best one I've heard was just south of where I live. About 10 years ago some idiot decided to jump off a jetty at low tide. Now jumping off of jettys/piers is illegal here. He successfully sued the local council for not having signs warning of the dangers of jumping off after he broke both ankles due to hitting the bottom because of the low tide. Not only did he pocket $680k out of it, his wife was awarded $55k in damages too because he couldn't perform in the bedroom with both legs in plaster!!!

And we wonder why insurance is becoming so expensive lol
 
J. R. Menard will spend every penny he has to bury these lawyers. They're screwing with the wrong guy.

Tom

 
LooseSox said:
Honestly I'm suprised that hasn't happened already!
...
... his wife was awarded $55k in damages too because he couldn't perform in the bedroom with both legs in plaster!!!
...
Click to expand...

[eek]
 
I am not surprised because of course it was a California judge that handed over the 1.6 million in the lowes case.

This is on Menard's, the day the Loews case became public knowledge Menard's should of relabeled. 3 years this has been known and they do nothing? This is NOT Menard's being blindsided and someone will be fired at Menard's.

As much as I disagree with this entire suit once the Loews case happened it became a dumb mislabeling mistake by Menard's. Menard's most likely will just pay.
http://www.hbsdealer.com/article/lowes-ordered-pay-2x4-settlement
 
thought 2 x 4 meant before drying.

Like buying a steak at a restaurant, its 12 oz before we throw it on the grill but its 9 oz when it gets to the table.
 
You what is funny about this case is that just yesterday I noticed a sign next the 2x4's noting the lumbers actual size. I thought it was odd and I had never noticed it before. It must have just been placed there within the last two weeks.

It is cases like this that benefit no one except the lawyers representing the class action "victims". This could all be solved if there were penalties in place for the losing side. The "victims" will get a voucher to spend money at Home Depot and the shareholders and customers eat the cost of the litigation and penalty all for some schmucks that don't know the sizes are nominal.

The next wave will be having to mark every single piece, because from bundle to bundle there can be slight variations in width, especially at the larger widths.

A recent Supreme Court Ruling has made it much more difficult to "court shop", which should curtail some of the class action suits. I know there is a small town in Texas where a lot of class action suits are filed.
 
zapdafish said:
thought 2 x 4 meant before drying.

Like buying a steak at a restaurant, its 12 oz before we throw it on the grill but its 9 oz when it gets to the table.
Click to expand...

I think that is this guys next suit. He's gathering clients now. Watch out McDonalds, Burger King, et al.
 
JimH2 said:
This could all be solved if there were penalties in place for the losing side.
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, make corporations even more powerful. They'll look out for you, they promise.
 
I could see a case being made that these stores often sell lumber that does not meet ALSC sizing or grading rules that they are sold as. That seems like a bigger problem to me. The mills supplying the lumber may have some part in that too.

I've seen many 2x4s (1-1/2" x 3-1/2" actual size) that are easily 1/8" undersized in both directions from the big stores, 1" lumber (3/4" actual size) that is less than 11/16", and boards sold with oversized knots, splits, or other major defects as a grade above what they actually are.
 
Although this case really is all about labeling below is a pdf link of the  history.

It is more complicated as the PDF describes, but basically the full wood sizes started as a rough size after initial milling that did shrink after drying, that still does not get the wood to nominal sizing though, planing does. It was actually the machines that were improved to do milling all the way down to S4S(surface 4 sides) before shipping that created the nominal sizing. This saved in material transportation costs, even 1/8" per piece thickness over time made a huge impact in weight and packing and therefore cost. Labor costs were also reduced,  before this improvement tradesmen individually fit the material parts on site which was no longer needed due to the lumber now all being the same. The first sizing nomenclature stuck as it was simpler communicating the lumber sizes. Do we really want to  communicate please hand me that 3/4" x 7 1/4" piece or just say hand me the 1"x8"?  Communication played a large part  in coming up with the standards we now use as well. No longer did the local carpenters have to customize everything, as we spread out we needed to make talking about the wood sizing simpler. I guess it's not so simple for the people suing.
https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf

 
Meh, not sure about the money involved but really its just not rocket science to give final sizes instead of ex stock sizes and its a lot more useful.
I don't expect it to be absolutely exact and I'm a carpenter by trade so know what to expect but ex stock (Nominal) sizing is a bit naughty my opinion.

Just because its always been that way doesn't make it right.
 
ummm. This story reminds me of why we should measure twice and cut once!  [big grin]
 
ChuckM said:
ummm. This story reminds me of why we should measure twice and cut once!  [big grin]
Click to expand...

I am still on the 55$k for 6 weeks of bed work.
 
demographic said:
Meh, not sure about the money involved but really its just not rocket science to give final sizes instead of ex stock sizes and its a lot more useful.
I don't expect it to be absolutely exact and I'm a carpenter by trade so know what to expect but ex stock (Nominal) sizing is a bit naughty my opinion.

Just because its always been that way doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

First, everything is always about the money, in this case it's historical fact.

Calling out the lumber they way we have for 150 years is right. By saying it's wrong there seems to me to be an implication of fraud in some way. As this lawsuit maintains.

2x4 is simply a definition society approved and personally I want to see stay. An apprentice better not be asking me for a 3/4" x 9 1/4" because Ill toss 5 -1x10's in his face.

Definition - Red of a color at the end of the spectrum next to orange and opposite violet, as of blood, fire, or rubies.

2x4 -Common size of dimensional lumber named for its unprocessed dimensions,measuring 1½ × 3½ inches in practice.

Its nothing more than an accepted nomenclature for sizing. I dont see why the defense would lose a court case. Simply submit the Webster definition, it is what it is. If I were a juror that would be enough for me. I get the proper labeling, but since it's an accepted definition 2x4 should be enough. Isn't it up to the consumer to look up the word, phrase or nomenclature and understand it?

On another note I just went to  Menard's, possibly stores are different, but the sign says 2x4. It doesn't state nor imply it measures 2"x4". Actually, there is a big sign right next to the lumber that states all the nominal sizes with the actual measurements. I don't see how Menard's can lose,  at least not this store. The sign is pretty big that shows the actual sizes.
 
American's growing ignorance and stupidity will be our downfall.

The price of those 2x4's is pretty much a commodity.  I could perhaps see my way to a discussion of unfair pricing on wood sold by the board foot. In those instances I am being charged for that missing 1/4" in thickness and missing 1/2 " of width.  Sort of.

However , the price is the price is the price.  So whether I'm charged $7 for a board foot of walnut that is really only 99.1875 cubic inches instead of 144    - or -

the list price of walnut is really $9.25 / BF and then some real accurate math is commenced and I'm rung up @ $7 for the 3/4" x 11 1/2" x 11 1/2" board of walnut I take home ................my end cost is still the same for that board. 

This seems like a suit based on ignorance.  And we don't tolerate that as a defense. So.................
 
Oh, and perhaps successful suit will result in the country going to the metric system. 

::) Then we can all buy 381 x 889's and there will be absolutely no confusion or pricing flim flams.  ::)

yea , right !

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top