3M Faces Potentially Billions in Liabilities Over $7.63 Earplugs

June 27, 2022, 07:48 PM

4MUL8R

I can imagine how a competent attorney might create reasonable doubt that the plaintiff did not use the products as instructed, as required, as often as needed, etc. I can imagine how the attorney would also bring normal aging and degradation of hearing from tinnitus occurs to people without exposure to military sounds. I cannot see how a reasonable jury would conclude that the provider of plugs did anything with malice aforethought, or intentionally harmed a serviceman by creating a defective product.

And, as a person who lives with those having hearing loss, and who treasures his hearing, I have complete sympathy for the injured. I just can't see how a supplier is held accountable for the use of a product that is tested and signed off by the US government. If the government takes delivery of a product, and it is made to the specifications of the contract, and the government certifies it for use, issues that product, gives the instructions in how to use it, verifies that the service member uses it properly, how in the world can 3M be sued?

I understand the basics of the legal system, believe me. I know anyone can sue for anything. I'm just thinking analytically.

June 27, 2022, 07:58 PM

ruger357

I believe the allegations and possible evidence is that 3m knew they were defective from the start. If that’s the case, who else should be on the hook?

June 28, 2022, 02:04 PM

jhe888

quote:
Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
I can imagine how a competent attorney might create reasonable doubt that the plaintiff did not use the products as instructed, as required, as often as needed, etc. I can imagine how the attorney would also bring normal aging and degradation of hearing from tinnitus occurs to people without exposure to military sounds. I cannot see how a reasonable jury would conclude that the provider of plugs did anything with malice aforethought, or intentionally harmed a serviceman by creating a defective product.

And, as a person who lives with those having hearing loss, and who treasures his hearing, I have complete sympathy for the injured. I just can't see how a supplier is held accountable for the use of a product that is tested and signed off by the US government. If the government takes delivery of a product, and it is made to the specifications of the contract, and the government certifies it for use, issues that product, gives the instructions in how to use it, verifies that the service member uses it properly, how in the world can 3M be sued?

I understand the basics of the legal system, believe me. I know anyone can sue for anything. I'm just thinking analytically.

Malice and intentional acts have no application here. Those concepts have no place in this case.

I assume this is class action, defective product suit. Negligent design may also be alleged, and/or negligent labeling (no appropriate warnings about how or when to use these). Negligence means that a party didn't act with the care that an entity similarly situated would have used. Intent and malice are not relevant

I doubt the government designed these, so this is a 3M design. It may be relevant IF the government tested these and accepted them, but maybe not, as servicemen can't sue the government for this because it is the government. It may fall entirely on 3M because of governmental immunity.

June 28, 2022, 02:18 PM

trapper189

What?

June 28, 2022, 04:05 PM

snidera

quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
I can imagine how a competent attorney might create reasonable doubt that the plaintiff did not use the products as instructed, as required, as often as needed, etc. I can imagine how the attorney would also bring normal aging and degradation of hearing from tinnitus occurs to people without exposure to military sounds. I cannot see how a reasonable jury would conclude that the provider of plugs did anything with malice aforethought, or intentionally harmed a serviceman by creating a defective product.

And, as a person who lives with those having hearing loss, and who treasures his hearing, I have complete sympathy for the injured. I just can't see how a supplier is held accountable for the use of a product that is tested and signed off by the US government. If the government takes delivery of a product, and it is made to the specifications of the contract, and the government certifies it for use, issues that product, gives the instructions in how to use it, verifies that the service member uses it properly, how in the world can 3M be sued?

I understand the basics of the legal system, believe me. I know anyone can sue for anything. I'm just thinking analytically.

Malice and intentional acts have no application here. Those concepts have no place in this case.

I assume this is class action, defective product suit. Negligent design may also be alleged, and/or negligent labeling (no appropriate warnings about how or when to use these). Negligence means that a party didn't act with the care that an entity similarly situated would have used. Intent and malice are not relevant

I doubt the government designed these, so this is a 3M design. It may be relevant IF the government tested these and accepted them, but maybe not, as servicemen can't sue the government for this because it is the government. It may fall entirely on 3M because of governmental immunity.

Would Gov't/Mil accepting or requiring use of the product matter? Ineffective <> defective. I doubt the RFQ was for an earplug that guaranteed no hearing injury/loss. If they faked the NRR testing, or found out later it didn't work as advertised & hid that, then that's another story.
Google is plugged up with news about the lawsuit, I can't find ads/specs for the plugs. Not sifting through lawyer ads disguised as news stories

June 28, 2022, 04:52 PM

jhe888

quote:
Originally posted by snidera:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
I can imagine how a competent attorney might create reasonable doubt that the plaintiff did not use the products as instructed, as required, as often as needed, etc. I can imagine how the attorney would also bring normal aging and degradation of hearing from tinnitus occurs to people without exposure to military sounds. I cannot see how a reasonable jury would conclude that the provider of plugs did anything with malice aforethought, or intentionally harmed a serviceman by creating a defective product.

And, as a person who lives with those having hearing loss, and who treasures his hearing, I have complete sympathy for the injured. I just can't see how a supplier is held accountable for the use of a product that is tested and signed off by the US government. If the government takes delivery of a product, and it is made to the specifications of the contract, and the government certifies it for use, issues that product, gives the instructions in how to use it, verifies that the service member uses it properly, how in the world can 3M be sued?

I understand the basics of the legal system, believe me. I know anyone can sue for anything. I'm just thinking analytically.

Malice and intentional acts have no application here. Those concepts have no place in this case.

I assume this is class action, defective product suit. Negligent design may also be alleged, and/or negligent labeling (no appropriate warnings about how or when to use these). Negligence means that a party didn't act with the care that an entity similarly situated would have used. Intent and malice are not relevant

I doubt the government designed these, so this is a 3M design. It may be relevant IF the government tested these and accepted them, but maybe not, as servicemen can't sue the government for this because it is the government. It may fall entirely on 3M because of governmental immunity.

Would Gov't/Mil accepting or requiring use of the product matter? Ineffective <> defective. I doubt the RFQ was for an earplug that guaranteed no hearing injury/loss. If they faked the NRR testing, or found out later it didn't work as advertised & hid that, then that's another story.
Google is plugged up with news about the lawsuit, I can't find ads/specs for the plugs. Not sifting through lawyer ads disguised as news stories

If the earplugs were defective, that the government chose and bought these plugs will not save 3M. I don't know in what way they were defective, but it is probably a fair guess they were, or they wouldn't have caved in. They probably didn't meet the claims of noise reduction that 3M made, or something along those lines.

June 28, 2022, 10:13 PM

YooperSigs

Not only are the earplugs being litigated, so is the water at Camp Lejeune.
"If you were damp at all at Camp Lejeune from the invention of dirt until 10 seconds ago, you may be eligible for significant compensation"!

June 29, 2022, 08:01 AM

MikeinNC

^ but the water supply on base at LeJune is full of cancer, ‘cause of jet fuel and other tasty things.

June 29, 2022, 12:08 PM

10X-Shooter

quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^
I would suggest an appeal of the original decision. Your MOS plus the results of the audiometric exam are what counts.

This! I got the same result on an exam for a kidney loss due to service connection. 0% but service connected. Upon appeal, they said they made a giant mistake in that decision and awarded me 40%. Appeals can be very much worth the effort sometimes. Maybe not during Joe Bidet’s p-residency though, might ask your local veteran service officer. Oddly, I got 10% tinnitus for my permanent mortar ringgggggggggggggg on the first pass.

June 29, 2022, 04:05 PM

ZSMICHAEL

quote:
but the water supply on base at LeJune is full of cancer, ‘cause of jet fuel and other tasty things.

^^^^^^^^^
If you were in the USMC and spent significant time there a number of conditions presumptively qualify. Parkinsons Disease is one. You do not need an attorney just apply through the VA.

June 29, 2022, 08:02 PM

ZSMICHAEL

quote:
Not only are the earplugs being litigated, so is the water at Camp Lejeune.
"If you were damp at all at Camp Lejeune from the invention of dirt until 10 seconds ago, you may be eligible for significant compensation"!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These stupid ads grossly distort the facts. These ambulance chasing lawyers need to go. Those marines stationed there and there families drank severely contaminated water from the wells. A number developed neurological condtions and had children with birth defects. They deserve compensation and treatment from the VA. These ads suggest if you drove by the Marine base you are eligible. Remember, the more people they sign up in a class action suit the more they make. I am curious if those signing up with these law firms give up their claim against the Marine Corps.