What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
144 Comments
- ryan83189, on 04/10/2009, -6/+137A victory in this case sets the kind of precedent that literally shuts down an entire industry overnight. Nobody is going to donate or sell genetic material if a defect can cause a lawsuit, regardless of safety procedures involved. Nobody is genetically perfect, it isn't the company's fault and detection is never going to catch every single thing wrong with a donor's genetics. It is absurd that there is any sort of liability after extensive testing (not saying that is the case in this trial).
- inactive, on 04/09/2009, -8/+101Perhaps they should take the product back, kill it and give a new one.
- Hrodrik, on 04/10/2009, -1/+74I don't agree with this at all. How can they screen each individual spermatozoa? The judge is a moron that knows nothing about biology or ethics.
- salop, on 04/10/2009, -1/+68We can do store credit if that works for you?
- diggdong, on 04/10/2009, -9/+72That's weird her mom should of tasted it first.
- ridestp, on 04/10/2009, -2/+60With that description I thought the source was going to be The Onion.
- FXNGLAS, on 04/10/2009, -1/+54So can kids sue their parents if they're born with a genetic disorder? This is absurd.
- merreborn, on 04/10/2009, -3/+44All products sold AS IS. You pays your money, you takes your chances.
- pauldy, on 04/10/2009, -2/+41So if they are a defective product then the judgment should be that they are recalled and the company forced to destroy the product?
- reuscel, on 04/10/2009, -0/+32I really don't like the legal precedent this is setting.
- DrHoliday, on 04/10/2009, -0/+30Um... alrighty then. Howabout we kill you and try again?
Be happy that sperm was there, you *****, otherwise there would have been another person being called your name and standing in your shoes. If that sperm was different you wouldn't exist. - umdigger, on 04/10/2009, -0/+30I'm suing my parents for not making me genetically superior to everyone else on the planet.
- drmangrum, on 04/10/2009, -1/+30This is really ***** stupid. Any Judge trying to draw a comparison of car breaks and genetics needs to be disbarred and removed from that position. Being a Judge means having advanced decision making skills. This one has none.
- pintocat, on 04/10/2009, -3/+30There's no way for a sperm bank to test every single one of millions of sperm per sample.
Does this then mean that a kid can sue their parents for making them depressed, asthmatic, blind, etc? It's the same thing... suing someone who had no control over something.
If it can't be controlled for, how will suing help future people? You can't mandate them to test every sperm....
Oh wait, I forgot. People don't sue to make things right. They sue because they're greedy and/or lazy. - norman619, on 04/10/2009, -2/+28It's an insult to call sperm a manufactured product. Maybe the judge should ask to see the manufacturing process?
- emmeron, on 04/10/2009, -2/+27I have a bunch of thoughts:
1) contracts need to be more binding -- and a sale is a contract.
2) people need to take responsibility for themselves when entering a contract.
3) I'm disgusted with how judges have shifted all responsibility off mothers. The doctor who gave a bj, then impregnated herself was able to get child support (Judge ruled sperm was a gift...) is another such case.
At this rate, why not sue Condom companies when you get an un-planned pregnancy via a condom break?
I know that's not what this case is about, but it's the principle involved: people need to accept everything comes with chances, and sometimes we all pay the price for what we do. It hurts "society" as a "whole" less if each person bears the responsibility for themselves than if we all must pay (at hugely inflated rates) for the failures of others (someone is paying this judge, too, even though the case should have been thrown out). - QuitoPR, on 04/10/2009, -4/+26I would like to know who are the three retards who've dugg you down.
- norman619, on 04/10/2009, -2/+24Make things "right?" You serious? Having a child is ALWAYS a gamble. There is NEVER a guaranty of having a flawless child.
FTA:
"She is now suing the sperm bank, Idant Laboratories of New York, under a product liability law more commonly associated with manufacturing defects, such as faulty car brakes."
Sorry but sperm is not a product they manufactured. She paid them to impregnate her with sperm in their bank. Sperm for carefully screened doners. Screening does not ensure the sperm is free of genetic flaws. They did their part. They impregnated her with screened sperm. She's a victim of chance. Let her sue God or the Fates or whoever is in control of this. This is a complete joke and perversion of a law designed to protect consumers from faulty MANUFACTURED goods. - wthulhu, on 08/29/2009, -2/+22Maybe her egg was scrambled before the sperm got there.
- Remelox, on 04/10/2009, -0/+19I think it's more along the line of suing the bed or car manufacturer where a kid was conceived. Or an office desk. Or whatever surface.
How about we sue people who make lingerie or KY. - fraggal, on 04/10/2009, -5/+23What a dumb bitch.
- inactive, on 04/10/2009, -2/+19Agreed. If she is a "product", refund that bitch.
- smashblu, on 04/10/2009, -1/+18You've got to be ***** kidding me. I don't even know where to start ranting, so I guess I'll leave it at that.
- dagr8tim, on 04/10/2009, -3/+19My favorite part is if you can sue in the state that it went down in, you just sue in another state.
I'm betting this case gets thrown out in appeal. But I'd be curious who appointed the federal judge, or under what administration.
EDIT: Figures it was Regan. - Jonjonr6, on 04/10/2009, -1/+15Let's sue God in a class action suit.
Either religious people will have to admit that there's no one to sue, or we'll make a point that some things are just out of the control of human beings. - Silentnite85, on 04/10/2009, -4/+17I believe the proper response here is:
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
Also, I don't know who the mother was, but she should have requested a taste test. - dman24752, on 04/10/2009, -2/+15Sure, but the question is did they take reasonable precautions to prevent someone with genetic defects from donating. If there is a belief that they didn't, then I say sue away.
- cl2yp71c, on 04/10/2009, -2/+15The proper term is 'retarded'.
- inactive, on 04/10/2009, -0/+12Obviously she doesnt listen to Collective Soul
♫♪Dont scream about
Dont think aloud
Turn your head now baby
Just spit me out
Dont worry about
Dont speak of doubt
Tourn your head now baby
Just spit me out♫♪♫♪ - Briankh3, on 04/10/2009, -1/+12Product recall. Off with her head!!!
- Lonandubh, on 04/10/2009, -0/+11I think Hrodrik is right. Doesn't this set a precedent that a child could sue their mother or father for not picking a genetically fit spouse?
- Hrodrik, on 04/10/2009, -1/+12How do you extract DNA from each sperm cell to test it and put it back? Unless you know of a new way to analyse genetic material without destroying it.
- dman24752, on 04/10/2009, -0/+11No, the question is did they screen the donor for genetic disorders. I still question the ethics of this as well, but there should be a requirement that potential parents at least know that there is a chance that their child could have a genetic disorder. If the parents had no clue and the clinic didn't do any screening, then I would agree that there's grounds for a lawsuit in there.
- vuke69, on 04/10/2009, -2/+13Your father must be clinically depressed then.
- Developing, on 04/10/2009, -3/+13what 13yo mentally retarded person has a lawyer anyways? another fine day in the USA...
if you are a lawyer, please explain the ethics in searching out a mentally retarded child to steal money - economic crisis? yeah, here's another example of how it only takes a few people ruin a society.
please start giving interviews for law school admission... - xsecretfiles, on 04/10/2009, -1/+11If you outlaw sperm, only outlaws will have sperms!!!
- r0ckH0pp3r, on 04/10/2009, -1/+9Caveat emptor
- litkaj, on 04/10/2009, -0/+8Seriously, I know. It's one thing to allow a lawsuit if they can prove negligence, but this is just ridiculous.
"Donovan does not have to show that Idant was negligent, only that the sperm it provided was unsafe and caused injury. "It doesn't matter how much care was taken."" - Amlethus, on 04/10/2009, -0/+8I like the way you think, Remelox. Dugg thoroughly.
- smemily, on 04/10/2009, -0/+7It also seems to say that people with developmental disabilities are "defective" and makes one wonder if they might have grounds to sue their own parents if conceived through conventional methods.
- mamertov, on 04/10/2009, -0/+7You have it backwards. Women are XX and men are XY
- pardonmedoug, on 04/10/2009, -0/+7It's called "santorum"
- twitchster, on 04/10/2009, -0/+7GATTACA here we come.
- inactive, on 04/10/2009, -2/+9The judges who DON'T rule in the favor of common sense need to be assassinated.
- Ramble, on 04/10/2009, -1/+7I think whatever was growing on the hooker's arse would kill you first.
- manjas8, on 04/10/2009, -0/+6The kid should just be happy to even be around.
- user500, on 04/10/2009, -1/+6I like the part were the judge rules that the law were the issue occurred isn't were they have to have the trial, rather they can have it were they have the laws in there favor.
Example: doing 70mph in a truck on a IL expressway, simply move the trial to KY were its legal. Problem solved. - DarknessGP, on 04/10/2009, -1/+6"Product Liability"?
The judge compares it to brakes, but who buys USED brakes. Cause that's what her mom bought. - cyrusuncc, on 04/10/2009, -6/+11What a load of crap
- WalkerTXclocker, on 04/10/2009, -0/+5Already been done...
http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is