Her hair is fixed and that is a good thing

[TravelingChris]

10 hours ago, MissLemon said:

It's so weird how many white people have very strong opinions about what Black ladies do with their hair, and how vigorously those strong opinions are defended. 

Like, really, really weird. 

Also, there are more than a few stories in this here forum of people asking for help solving a self-inflicted problem. Other than poor Scarlett, who gets dragged on the regular, no one has their motivations questioned or gets attacked. 

That's weird, too. 

I have a problem with frivolous lawsuits, regardless of race.  Most of the time, I have absolutely no idea of the race.  In this case, the article showed a photo.

Also, the idea of spreading your face, whether having an issue or not, over social media in a way that is designed to get more hits--- private asking is fine- putting on twitter or public Instagram or public Facebook is asking for trouble.  And I see a whole lot reporting of white jerks on Social media then I do of similar behavior of blacks--- maybe they are less common as  'social influencers" or maybe less stories about the??  I have no idea- I am not interested in social influencers as I said upthread.  I have no idea about race proportions in so -called social influencers and others who are trying to get more likes, more clicks. etc. etc.

[lauraw4321]

44 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I have a problem with frivolous lawsuits, regardless of race.  Most of the time, I have absolutely no idea of the race.  In this case, the article showed a photo.

Also, the idea of spreading your face, whether having an issue or not, over social media in a way that is designed to get more hits--- private asking is fine- putting on twitter or public Instagram or public Facebook is asking for trouble.  And I see a whole lot reporting of white jerks on Social media then I do of similar behavior of blacks--- maybe they are less common as  'social influencers" or maybe less stories about the??  I have no idea- I am not interested in social influencers as I said upthread.  I have no idea about race proportions in so -called social influencers and others who are trying to get more likes, more clicks. etc. etc.

Res ipsa loquitur.

We are all burdened with unconscious bias. It is a side effect of being alive and a human. What anti-racists are trying to do is to make all of us conscious of that unconscious bias. 

This story has dog whistles all over it. The brand name juxtaposed with the picture of a Black woman. Language matters. Images matter. Spreading "outrage" that promotes racism is racist, whether we like to admit it or not.

[TravelingChris]

1 minute ago, lauraw4321 said:

Res ipsa loquitur.

We are all burdened with unconscious bias. It is a side effect of being alive and a human. What anti-racists are trying to do is to make all of us conscious of that unconscious bias. 

This story has dog whistles all over it. The brand name juxtaposed with the picture of a Black woman. Language matters. Images matter. Spreading "outrage" that promotes racism is racist, whether we like to admit it or not.

Well I actually thought it was particularly strange for her to use that product on her hair because no one who isn\t a racist would ever put a gorilla or monkey on a product meant specifically  or mostly for black people (again mostly women) who do glue extensions on their hair.  

My problem is frivolous lawsuits.  But you are free to believe that everyone is a racist if you want and I am free to believe that you are completely wrong.

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

 

My problem is frivolous lawsuits. 

Seems the problem is NOT frivolous lawsuits, as there is no lawsuit involved, but crappy media reporting. 

Not sure why you are still talking about lawsuits, when there is none, instead of poor journalism, which there was a ton of. Why is your ire at this woman, and not at the media?

[catz]

This is a line of hair products that exists and is available at my local Target.  
 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BV3OG0E?pf_rd_r=7ZSFCJJD64Z0J2AE1W2H&pf_rd_p=5ae2c7f8-e0c6-4f35-9071-dc3240e894a8&pd_rd_r=a79716cc-5a49-4e61-89ba-84763dff082f&pd_rd_w=SD5OH&pd_rd_wg=4GN7M&ref_=pd_gw_unk

 

this too

https://www.amazon.com/Slick-Gorilla-Lightwork-Hair-Styling/dp/B07ZVSLYKL/ref=sr_1_3?crid=RD1URTYLIEKN&dchild=1&keywords=slick+gorilla&qid=1613137994&s=beauty&sprefix=Slick+g%2Cbeauty%2C189&sr=1-3

[Sneezyone]

18 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Well I actually thought it was particularly strange for her to use that product on her hair because no one who isn\t a racist would ever put a gorilla or monkey on a product meant specifically  or mostly for black people (again mostly women) who do glue extensions on their hair.  

My problem is frivolous lawsuits.  But you are free to believe that everyone is a racist if you want and I am free to believe that you are completely wrong.

No, black women do not generally GLUE extensions in their hair. They are sewn, braided, or crocheted in. Hair glue or gel is used primarily to attach the edges of wigs and keep hair flat where desired but pray do tell ...what is it that black women do?

[Katy]

On 2/11/2021 at 4:17 AM, Laura Corin said:

The US has a concept of frivolous litigation, doesn't it?  Wouldn't that cover the case of someone doing something that a reasonable person would not?

I have no opinion about the topic, I haven’t looked into it. But frivolous litigation is highly dependent on which state you are in. This is how Trump got away with all of those ridiculous lawsuits about non-existent election fraud. Wisconsin is the only swing state that has laws about frivolous lawsuits, coincidentally it is the only state where the lawsuits were withdrawn well within the 60 day limits to not punish not only the lawyers involved, but their entire firms. 

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

No, black women do not generally GLUE extensions in their hair. They are sewn, braided, or crocheted in. Hair glue or gel is used primarily to attach the edges of wigs and keep hair flat where desired but pray do tell ...what is it that black women do?

I have seen court cases regarding glueing in hair extensions.  I do know about the other methods too.  As a white woman losing hair, I have been recommended to use hair extensions and so I have done a lot of reading.  

But not about wigs and attaching edges?? Can you tell me about that?  And I have a dd with super frizzy hair and glueing never comes in- why would you glue very frizzy hair?  I am actually asking out of wanting to understand.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I have seen court cases regarding glueing in hair extensions.  I do know about the other methods too.  As a white woman losing hair, I have been recommended to use hair extensions and so I have done a lot of reading.  

But not about wigs and attaching edges?? Can you tell me about that?  And I have a dd with super frizzy hair and glueing never comes in- why would you glue very frizzy hair?  I am actually asking out of wanting to understand.

‘Hair glue’ was marketed at one time, over two decades ago, as a way to achieve a ‘quick’ weave. This would allow women to have low-maintenance styling with the ease of a temporary glue that would dissolve when oils were applied. Well, it wasn’t quite so easy to remove, created a lot of permanent hair/scalp damage, and quickly fell out of favor. The glue is still sometimes used to make quick wigs by gluing rows/tracks of hair on nylon wig caps but it is not used directly on hair or scalp.
 

Since then, ‘glue’ has become a euphemism for stickiness and the degree of hold, not for the older hair glue product. Various hair ‘glues’ are used to attach the hairline portion of wigs to the natural hairline to hold them in place. Wig combs and pins hold the rest. Celebrities and regular people of all kinds use this method. Hair ‘glues’ are also used to slick back hair for a pony tail or other style where flyaways are undesirable, much like gel and hairspray for a ballerina bun. That is the style the woman in this case was going for.

Some Caucasian individuals use hair bonding methods that include clips of extension hair, attached to natural hair at the scalp in small sections. I’m not sure what these are called. Many also use methods popularized by black women to include sew-in weaves and crochet styles.

Extending the length, reducing the bulk, and breaking the natural curl pattern of black hair has been big business since emancipation. One of the first black millionaires was Madam CJ Walker who invented a lye-based hair straightener that allowed black women and men to achieve styles that were required by and seen as more palatable by the majority.

I was 11 years old when my hair fell out after going swimming with my classmates (I LOVED SWIMMING!) too soon after I’d had one of those chemical straightening treatments. My mom didn’t know how to care for my natural hair and had grown up being told/believing that my hair needed to be tamed for me to be accepted.

I remember my husband bought me a spa day experience with a hair stylist in Bremerton, WA for my birthday. We’d been married maybe 4 years and he didn’t understand that hair stylists are not required to learn how to work with all hair types. They nearly turned me away at the door when I showed up and my hair looked like shit when I left. I had to fix it before my DH came home b/c I didn’t want him to feel bad.

A college friend of mine from Mississippi didn’t even know how to care for her child’s natural hair, so ingrained was the message that kinky, coiled hair is too hard to manage and not respectable.

When I was in Bahrain, I made an appointment with a stylist after getting a recommendation. She too was a little surprised to see me. After washing my hair, she expressed shock that it was, in fact, soft and manageable despite the tighter curl pattern. She actually did a decent job. I still had to go home and tweak it.

To some of you, this story is just about a stupid black woman who, like all stupid black women, puts crazy stuff in her hair. To me, and probably to many others who donated to her cause, it’s about all of those moments that you neither see or care about and all of that history that you neither know or care to learn.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Dmmetler]

41 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

‘Hair glue’ was marketed at one time, over two decades ago, as a way to achieve a ‘quick’ weave. This would allow women to have low-maintenance styling with the ease of a temporary glue that would dissolve when oils were applied. Well, it wasn’t quite so easy to remove, created a lot of permanent hair/scalp damage, and quickly fell out of favor. The glue is still sometimes used to make quick wigs by gluing rows/tracks of hair on nylon wig caps but it is not used directly on hair or scalp.
 

Since then, ‘glue’ has become a euphemism for stickiness and the degree of hold, not for the older hair glue product. Various hair ‘glues’ are used to attach the hairline portion of wigs to the natural hairline to hold them in place. Wig combs and pins hold the rest. Celebrities and regular people of all kinds use this method. Hair ‘glues’ are also used to slick back hair for a pony tail or other style where flyaways are undesirable, much like gel and hairspray for a ballerina bun. That is the style the woman in this case was going for.

Some Caucasian individuals use hair bonding methods that include clips of extension hair, attached to natural hair at the scalp in small sections. I’m not sure what these are called. Many also use methods popularized by black women to include sew-in weaves and crochet styles.

Extending the length, reducing the bulk, and breaking the natural curl pattern of black hair has been big business since emancipation. One of the first black millionaires was Madam CJ Walker who invented a lye-based hair straighter that allowed black women and men to achieve styles that were required by and seen as more palatable by the majority.

I was 11 years old when my hair fell out after going swimming with my classmates (I LOVED SWIMMING!) too soon after I’d had one of those chemical straightening treatments. My mom didn’t know how to care for my natural hair and had grown up being told/believing that my hair needed to be tamed for me to be accepted.

I remember my husband bought me a spa day experience with a hair stylist in Bremerton, WA for my birthday. We’d been married maybe 4 years and he didn’t understand that hair stylists are not required to learn how to work with all hair types. They nearly turned me away at the door when I showed up and my hair looked like shit when I left. I had to fix it before my DH came home b/c I didn’t want him to feel bad.

A college friend of mine from Mississippi didn’t even know how to care for her child’s natural hair, so ingrained was the message that kinky, could hair is too hard and not respectable.

When I was in Bahrain, I made an appointment with a stylist after getting a recommendation. She too was a little surprised to see me. After washing my hair, she expressed shock that it was, in fact, soft and manageable despite the tighter curl pattern. She actually did a decent job. I still had to go homE and tweak it.

To some of you, this story is just about a stupid black woman who, like all stupid black women puts crazy stuff in her hair. To me, and probably to many others who donated to her cause, it’s about all of those moments that you neither see or care about and all of that history that you neither know or care to learn.

One of the most eye opening and humbling experiences I had as a teacher was in my first job out of college, where I was the one White person in the building. My preschoolers were very interested in hair, and with my assistant teacher taking the lead (because she knew what to do and I didn't), we set up a play area as a salon, etc. And, at my kids' encouragement, I eventually had my hair done by an older sister who braided hair professionally, who spend most of a day braiding my super fine, super long, stick straight hair. I could not believe how much it hurt (and how hard it was to stay still). The idea that this was a common part of life for my 3 yr olds was pretty amazing. And then, in turn, my kids couldn't believe how quickly my hair fell out of braids. 

I had never realized just how big of a part of life hair and hair care was for Black women until that point. And when you add the requirement that Black kids be well-turned out and neat for parents to be seen as being even competent (something I heard regularly in the school system), while White kids can look like an unmade bed, if not at the start of the day, certainly by the end of it, it really made a lot make sense to me. Because that neat, well turned out hair was a major effort (and expense, if you are paying someone to do it)  to obtain.  I've been fortunate to have been in a position to have been able to give input on dress/uniform codes a few times, and been able to advocate for acceptance of hair styles (no, cheer coach, all girls CANNOT do a high, straight ponytail day 1 and two Dutch braids day 2), where there often were no Black voices in the room. 

 

Personally, my response is to be glad that my clear acrylic sealer has never made it into the bathroom...because I could easily see grabbing the wrong similarly sized/colored container. And having used Got2beGlued for cheer hairstyles before, you wouldn't necessarily notice, because it does have a thick, sticky texture, similar to spray adhesive-because it is designed to keep curly hair straight, fine hair from having little wisps sticking out, and hairstyles that can survive a tornado-or a tumble pass, and still look good.  A "there but for the grace of God" feeling. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TravelingChris]

27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

‘Hair glue’ was marketed at one time, over two decades ago, as a way to achieve a ‘quick’ weave. This would allow women to have low-maintenance styling with the ease of a temporary glue that would dissolve when oils were applied. Well, it wasn’t quite so easy to remove, created a lot of permanent hair/scalp damage, and quickly fell out of favor. The glue is still sometimes used to make quick wigs by gluing rows/tracks of hair on nylon wig caps but it is not used directly on hair or scalp.
 

Since then, ‘glue’ has become a euphemism for stickiness and the degree of hold, not for the older hair glue product. Various hair ‘glues’ are used to attach the hairline portion of wigs to the natural hairline to hold them in place. Wig combs and pins hold the rest. Celebrities and regular people of all kinds use this method. Hair ‘glues’ are also used to slick back hair for a pony tail or other style where flyaways are undesirable, much like gel and hairspray for a ballerina bun. That is the style the woman in this case was going for.

Some Caucasian individuals use hair bonding methods that include clips of extension hair, attached to natural hair at the scalp in small sections. I’m not sure what these are called. Many also use methods popularized by black women to include sew-in weaves and crochet styles.

Extending the length, reducing the bulk, and breaking the natural curl pattern of black hair has been big business since emancipation. One of the first black millionaires was Madam CJ Walker who invented a lye-based hair straighter that allowed black women and men to achieve styles that were required by and seen as more palatable by the majority.

I was 11 years old when my hair fell out after going swimming with my classmates (I LOVED SWIMMING!) too soon after I’d had one of those chemical straightening treatments. My mom didn’t know how to care for my natural hair and had grown up being told/believing that my hair needed to be tamed for me to be accepted.

I remember my husband bought me a spa day experience with a hair stylist in Bremerton, WA for my birthday. We’d been married maybe 4 years and he didn’t understand that hair stylists are not required to learn how to work with all hair types. They nearly turned me away at the door when I showed up and my hair looked like shit when I left. I had to fix it before my DH came home b/c I didn’t want him to feel bad.

A college friend of mine from Mississippi didn’t even know how to care for her child’s natural hair, so ingrained was the message that kinky, could hair is too hard and not respectable.

When I was in Bahrain, I made an appointment with a stylist after getting a recommendation. She too was a little surprised to see me. After washing my hair, she expressed shock that it was, in fact, soft and manageable despite the tighter curl pattern. She actually did a decent job. I still had to go homE and tweak it.

To some of you, this story is just about a stupid black woman who, like all stupid black women puts crazy stuff in her hair. To me, and probably to many others who donated to her cause, it’s about all of those moments that you neither see or care about and all of that history that you neither know or care to learn.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.  And I am very sorry about how many awful hair experiences you have had.  

But as to dumb societal expectations, I hear you.  So called society has such dumb expectations of everyone that are wrong- like doing marathons or lots of running is good for you,  just eat this and you will be cured, you have to wear your hair straight or curly or whatever, you have to not age, etc.  And yes, I definitely think blacks are one of the very discriminated groups.  As are disabled people too- did you know that over 50% of physicians do not want a disabled person or complicated chronically ill one in their practice???  

And boy, do I get angry when people refuse to see their limitations and refuse to acknowledge them as several of the hair stylists in your stories did.  

Please continue to educate all of us on issues like this.  It is truly helpful.

[Amy in NH]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:06 PM, historically accurate said:

I read that her normal product is Got2B Glued Styling Glue. Looking at her normal product's labeling, it actually says spiking glue, not styling gel. It's extremely unfortunate she chose to substitute with Gorilla Glue, and I definitely wish her the best on removing it, but I can sort of see the jump to well, glue is what I use - it can't be that different to use actual glue. It'll just wash out like my water-resistant styling glue.

 

Got2B Glue: https://www.amazon.com/Got2B-Glued-Spiking-Styling-Original/dp/B000142OC2

We actually use a "hair glue" product here to set dd hair for dance performance.  It literally says "hair glue" on the product.

[marbel]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

A college friend of mine from Mississippi didn’t even know how to care for her child’s natural hair, so ingrained was the message that kinky, coiled hair is too hard to manage and not respectable.

This just makes me sick, and sad. The notion that a person's hair could be "not respectable." It just doesn't make sense. (I don't mean that as "I don't believe you" but more "I don't understand how this can be.") It's just incomprehensible to me, that hair can be such a source of, well, pain is the word that comes to mind. It just shouldn't be that way. It's hair, it's what we are born with. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by marbel

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, marbel said:

This just makes me sick, and sad. The notion that a person's hair could be "not respectable." It just doesn't make sense. (I don't mean that as "I don't believe you" but more "I don't understand how this can be.") It's just incomprehensible to me, that hair can be such a source of, well, pain is the word that comes to mind. It just shouldn't be that way. It's hair, it's what we are born with. 

Exactly.  I was trying to figure out this meme I just saw on The Mighty which depicts a little girl asking her mom what is normal and the mom replying that it is a setting on the washing machine.

As to braids, my mom braided my hair from about ages three to eight or so.  Yes, it hurt but it hurt even worse ( and still does) if my hair gets tangled and it tangles easily.   They were and probably still are a popular hair style fir girls in a number of parts if Northern parts of Europe.

 

[lauraw4321]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

 

Please continue to educate all of us on issues like this.  It is truly helpful.

That's not her job. 

[Amy in NH]

4 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

That's not her job. 

Agreed.  Expecting marginalized people to do the intellectual and emotional labor of educating the privileged is just another facet of racism.

[Roadrunner]

On 2/11/2021 at 3:02 AM, Quill said:

Yes, we do. It will be sorted out in court. It is always possible that the public is hearing the story circumstances differently from the reality, though it is also possible the suit is exactly as silly as it seems. 

So, for example, just to use a completely hypothetical situation, I recently just saw an add for a hair product that is called something like “hair treats” in “flavors” like watermelon. The packaging looks literally like a mini ice cream. What if, say, someone’s roommate bought one, left it sitting on the counter and then she came home from work late, got a spoon and started to eat some? Is she an idiot because she ate a hair product? Or is there a possibility the general public could make that mistake? 

The bar for what people “should realize” is actually pretty low. Not everybody is smart. Ill see if I can find a picture of the hair treat thing. 

Here it is: https://www.garnierusa.com/about-our-brands/fructis/fructis-treats?GeoRedirectOff=true&gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2bKk4dfh7gIVC9vACh30fAY1EAAYASAAEgLnbvD_BwE

Labels clearly say shampoo. Why would anybody be confused? 

[Tanaqui]

7 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Exactly.  I was trying to figure out this meme I just saw on The Mighty which depicts a little girl asking her mom what is normal and the mom replying that it is a setting on the washing machine.

As to braids, my mom braided my hair from about ages three to eight or so.  Yes, it hurt but it hurt even worse ( and still does) if my hair gets tangled and it tangles easily.   They were and probably still are a popular hair style fir girls in a number of parts if Northern parts of Europe.

 

 

There is a difference between the braided hairstyles that are normative and acceptable on white children and the ones that are considered neat and tidy on Black children.

Which I think you probably know if you have eyes, in the same way that literally everybody on this thread knows that when we say "tabloid" we no longer are referring to how the newspaper is physically formatted.

[Ausmumof3]

On 2/13/2021 at 11:20 AM, Roadrunner said:

Labels clearly say shampoo. Why would anybody be confused? 

I have a friend with a kid with autism who has this problem.  He sees hand soap with pictures of strawberries on it and tries to eat it.  Labelling wouldn’t help because he can’t read much yet. He also doesn’t seem to get disgusted by the taste like most people. Not that she’s suing anyone it just adds to the stress of watching him all the time.

[Ausmumof3]

I was giving this some thought and realised in my country this would likely be a non-issue.  People glue themselves with superglue or insert stupid things into stupid places and they just go to emergency and it gets sorted.  When you have universal health care no one needs to sue anyone.  

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I was giving this some thought and realised in my country this would likely be a non-issue.  People glue themselves with superglue or insert stupid things into stupid places and they just go to emergency and it gets sorted.  When you have universal health care no one needs to sue anyone.  

My mom (European) once asked me why flowers here have instructions. 
 

nobody has a monopoly on doing stupid things (my grandmother once put cement into soup thinking it was flour). 

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

My mom (European) once asked me why flowers here have instructions. 
 

nobody has a monopoly on doing stupid things (my grandmother once put cement into soup thinking it was flour). 

Lol yep my dh has put himself in ER unblocking drains even though the product stated on the warning label not to do the thing he did.  And who knows how many times I’ve put the wrong thing in baking because I didn’t pay attention.

[Tanaqui]

28 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I was giving this some thought and realised in my country this would likely be a non-issue.  People glue themselves with superglue or insert stupid things into stupid places and they just go to emergency and it gets sorted.  When you have universal health care no one needs to sue anyone.  

 

That is exactly it, and it gets more obvious when you did into most of these court cases and realize that it's almost always "My insurance is suing your insurance to figure out who has to pay more".

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

That is exactly it, and it gets more obvious when you did into most of these court cases and realize that it's almost always "My insurance is suing your insurance to figure out who has to pay more".

Liability is a big deal here though. I chopped pine trees down on my property because I didn’t like how they were leaning toward my neighbor’s house. Every time we had a windy day, I couldn’t sleep petrified of the consequences if they went down on them. Then one day a tree went down in front of my house and I had had enough. We just chopped down the poor trees, but I do sleep better. 🥲 My DH says I am paranoid,  but I am afraid I might not be. 

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

Liability is a big deal here though. I chopped pine trees down on my property because I didn’t like how they were leaning toward my neighbor’s house. Every time we had a windy day, I couldn’t sleep petrified of the consequences if they went down on them. Then one day a tree went down in front of my house and I had had enough. We just chopped down the poor trees, but I do sleep better. 🥲 My DH says I am paranoid,  but I am afraid I might not be. 

Interestingly we had the direct opposite experience.  We stayed in a caravan park with huge unmaintained gumtrees etc.  A storm came through and one fell on the back of the canvas fold out bed.  Thankfully we weren’t there at the time because if we had been dd would most likely have been killed.  The man in the tent behind us was incredibly lucky our van was where it was or he would have been killed.  Initially the park were very apologetic and were contacting their insurance to get it resolved.  They then found out that it was deemed an act of God and therefore they weren’t liable.  They instantly changed from helpful and apologetic to wanting to charge us for the van site we were parked on and the accomodation they’d offered us free even though we couldn’t remove our van because the tree was still on it.  Obviously there are genuine cases where storm damage etc couldn’t be predicted but this particular park has massive overgrown gumtrees which are known for dropping branches in the heat everywhere.  They are not maintained or checked by an arborist.  It is a matter of time before someone is killed there.  And because they have no financial liability under the state laws nothing will change.

 

I will delete this in a while for privacy reasons.

 

also in your case I’m wondering - are you worried about your trees because of liability or are you worried about them killing someone?  I mean if you have potentially dangerous trees surely the potential loss of life is more of a worry than the fact that you might have to pay damages?

Edited February 14, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

also in your case I’m wondering - are you worried about your trees because of liability or are you worried about them killing someone?  I mean if you have potentially dangerous trees surely the potential loss of life is more of a worry than the fact that you might have to pay damages?

I'm sure she's not worried about loss of life because it would be extraordinarily unusual for a tree to kill someone by crashing into a house. You're more likely to be killed by a strike of lightening (speaking about houses and America only).

If you live in the city or suburbs, any tree has the possibility of falling on a house if the weather is bad enough, so that doesn't make it dangerous in and of itself.  

She wouldn't be liable, though, for the same reason the park wasn't liable in your case: it's considered an act of God. Not even her insurance is liable: if my neighbor's tree crashes into my house or yard, me/my insurance is responsible for it. It's wherever the tree lands. 

[Ausmumof3]

23 minutes ago, katilac said:

I'm sure she's not worried about loss of life because it would be extraordinarily unusual for a tree to kill someone by crashing into a house. You're more likely to be killed by a strike of lightening (speaking about houses and America only).

If you live in the city or suburbs, any tree has the possibility of falling on a house if the weather is bad enough, so that doesn't make it dangerous in and of itself.  

She wouldn't be liable, though, for the same reason the park wasn't liable in your case: it's considered an act of God. Not even her insurance is liable: if my neighbor's tree crashes into my house or yard, me/my insurance is responsible for it. It's wherever the tree lands. 

Interestingly the laws vary by state here.  In my state the van park may have been liable as they are required to get trees checked by an arborist yearly.  On the other hand Australian gums self prune and do kill people, land on cars etc even in the absence of bad weather, so I imagine that may be different where you live. 
 

edited to add recent article from my state

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/death-of-man-hit-by-falling-tree-branch-prompts-concerned-calls-to-adelaide-council/ar-BB1bU18D

Edited February 14, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

And for more on the legal situation between neighbours 

https://insurancelaw.org.au/factsheets/when-a-tree-falls-in-a-storm-who-pays-for-its-removal-factsheet/

 

basically it depends if the tree was showing indications of danger or not.  If you have been advised that it’s a problem tree or it’s obviously a problem tree you might be liable for property damage.  If it looks like a perfectly healthy tree then you’re probably in the clear.

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Interestingly the laws vary by state here.  In my state the van park would have been liable.  On the other hand Australian gums self prune and do kill people, land on cars etc even in the absence of bad weather, so I imagine that may be different where you live. 

Certain insurance laws can vary by state here as well, but the tree and bad weather thing is pretty standard. Even with no bad weather, a branch falling off of a generally healthy tree and killing someone would usually be considered a freak accident. 

Self-pruning trees sound somewhat alarming. 

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

And for more on the legal situation between neighbours 

https://insurancelaw.org.au/factsheets/when-a-tree-falls-in-a-storm-who-pays-for-its-removal-factsheet/

 

basically it depends if the tree was showing indications of danger or not.  If you have been advised that it’s a problem tree or it’s obviously a problem tree you might be liable for property damage.  If it looks like a perfectly healthy tree then you’re probably in the clear.

Yep, same. 

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Certain insurance laws can vary by state here as well, but the tree and bad weather thing is pretty standard. Even with no bad weather, a branch falling off of a generally healthy tree and killing someone would usually be considered a freak accident. 

Self-pruning trees sound somewhat alarming. 

The stupid thing is I’ve grown up my whole life knowing not to camp or park under gum trees.  But because we were in a van park I didn’t give it a second thought because in my state there is requirements around tree maintenance.  Still incredibly thankful that we weren’t there at the time.  

[Roadrunner]

@Ausmumof3I didn’t know if they were dangerous. They were pines and my contractor once commended that they didn’t have deep roots and were somewhat tilted toward the neighbor. I know I didn’t want to take any chances and couldn’t get that comment out of my head. I am not a lawyer. So I went with an easy solution for chopping them down mostly because I didn’t know what pile of dung I could have potentially end up in - big, small, smelly.... I didn’t need a headache. 

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

@Ausmumof3I didn’t know if they were dangerous. They were pines and my contractor once commended that they didn’t have deep roots and were somewhat tilted toward the neighbor. I know I didn’t want to take any chances and couldn’t get that comment out of my head. I am not a lawyer. So I went with an easy solution for chopping them down mostly because I didn’t know what pile of dung I could have potentially end up in - big, small, smelly.... I didn’t need a headache. 

Sounds like you made the wise choice.  We removed all but one of our pine trees due to fire risk.  It was sad to see them go but worth it for peace of mind.  
 

also way off topic but apparently trees in van parks and car parks often have trouble because they’re planted in small areas between concrete drives etc and don’t have enough room to establish a proper root base.  Then the roots are being driven over and next to on the ground weakening the trees.  And many types of trees are adapted to growing in a forest where they support each other with their root systems.  But we plant them as single trees and they don’t have the needed support.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Melissa in Australia]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

Certain insurance laws can vary by state here as well, but the tree and bad weather thing is pretty standard. Even with no bad weather, a branch falling off of a generally healthy tree and killing someone would usually be considered a freak accident. 

Self-pruning trees sound somewhat alarming. 

Lots of people have been killed by them over the years. Always a very bad idea to put up a tent under a gumtree

[ktgrok]

I had no idea about the self pruning trees!

So it isn't just the snakes and such trying to kill you in Australia, it's the plants, too!

(says the Floridian, lol)

[TravelingChris]

10 hours ago, katilac said:

I'm sure she's not worried about loss of life because it would be extraordinarily unusual for a tree to kill someone by crashing into a house. You're more likely to be killed by a strike of lightening (speaking about houses and America only).

If you live in the city or suburbs, any tree has the possibility of falling on a house if the weather is bad enough, so that doesn't make it dangerous in and of itself.  

She wouldn't be liable, though, for the same reason the park wasn't liable in your case: it's considered an act of God. Not even her insurance is liable: if my neighbor's tree crashes into my house or yard, me/my insurance is responsible for it. It's wherever the tree lands. 

You are only liable if you were on notice that the tree would fall. Like a tree person told you or the tree was dead and starting to heave out of the ground type situations.

 

[Guest]

On 2/12/2021 at 7:50 PM, Roadrunner said:

Labels clearly say shampoo. Why would anybody be confused? 

The hair treatment label only has “TREAT” in large font. Also, I was thinking more about someone other than the purchaser mistaking it for food. Like a five-year old who sees it and thinks it’s Kefir or ice cream. Or someone living in the house of the purchaser who sees it on the counter and thinks it’s food. It sure does look from the packaging like food. I think that an accident waiting to happen. 

Also, people don’t necessarily read a label every time they pick up a product, as the brushing-teeth-with-cortizone stories attest. 

[Roadrunner]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

The hair treatment label only has “TREAT” in large font. Also, I was thinking more about someone other than the purchaser mistaking it for food. Like a five-year old who sees it and thinks it’s Kefir or ice cream. Or someone living in the house of the purchaser who sees it on the counter and thinks it’s food. It sure does look from the packaging like food. I think that an accident waiting to happen. 

Also, people don’t necessarily read a label every time they pick up a product, as the brushing-teeth-with-cortizone stories attest. 

You don’t mean that to be the standard of what could be a legal argument in the courtroom - it’s confusing, I drank it, their fault, give me money. 
Do you think it’s an accident waiting to happen or  a legal case? 

TREAT says hair mask right under. 
 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Roadrunner

[katilac]

11 hours ago, kand said:

This is getting way off topic, but I’m pretty sure this will vary widely depending where you live. 

Not really. There are typically fewer than 100 deaths per year for the entire country from falling trees and limbs, and the vast majority of those occur outside (and a significant number of those are people who were actively working on trees, as opposed to random occurrences or weather causes).

No matter where in the states you are, the chances of a tree crashing into your house and killing you are vanishingly small. +1 for building codes! 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

You don’t mean that to be the standard of what could be a legal argument in the courtroom - it’s confusing, I drank it, their fault, give me money. 
Do you think it’s an accident waiting to happen or  a legal case? 

TREAT says hair mask right under. 
 

I think a legal argument that could stand in a product liability court of law would be that the consumer thought it was food. Legal cases in product liability suits have been upheld for less. 

I think it is both an accident and a product liability suit waiting to happen. 

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I think a legal argument that could stand in a product liability court of law would be that the consumer thought it was food. Legal cases in product liability suits have been upheld for less. 

I think it is both an accident and a product liability suit waiting to happen. 

If so, I think it will be a frivolous lawsuit. 
We all do stupid things, but we aren’t entitled money for our stupidity. 
It clearly states what it is. It can’t get any more clear than that from a legal standpoint. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

If so, I think it will be a frivolous lawsuit. 
We all do stupid things, but we aren’t entitled money for our stupidity. 
It clearly states what it is. It can’t get any more clear than that from a legal standpoint. 

Corporations have a duty to not mislead people in product packaging. They also have a duty to make misuse of a product less likely. The law is more often on the side of the consumer because corporations have a duty to make it unambiguous what the purpose of a product is. 

If you get hurt and having gotten hurt costs you thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost wages, and the reason you were hurt was because a product’s use was unclear, you ARE entitled to financial reimbursement from the company via settlement/lawsuit. That isn’t frivolousness; it’s the system checking corporations from designing products poorly and having no duty to improve. That’s why we have things like child-proof caps on medicine bottles. You could argue all day that some mom was “stupid” when she put her blood-pressure medicine bottle in her purse and her toddler ate them, thinking they were TicTacs, but at the end of the day, this happened often enough that corporations realized they had better make it really difficult for that outcome to happen *even if* mom leaves the bottle where a toddler could get to it. 

 

[Roadrunner]

Just now, Quill said:

Corporations have a duty to not mislead people in product packaging. They also have a duty to make misuse of a product less likely. The law is more often on the side of the consumer because corporations have a duty to make it unambiguous what the purpose of a product is. 

If you get hurt and having gotten hurt costs you thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost wages, and the reason you were hurt was because a product’s use was unclear, you ARE entitled to financial reimbursement from the company via settlement/lawsuit. That isn’t frivolousness; it’s the system checking corporations from designing products poorly and having no duty to improve. That’s why we have things like child-proof caps on medicine bottles. You could argue all day that some mom was “stupid” when she put her blood-pressure medicine bottle in her purse and her toddler ate them, thinking they were TicTacs, but at the end of the day, this happened often enough that corporations realized they had better make it really difficult for that outcome to happen *even if* mom leaves the bottle where a toddler could get to it. 

 

I disagree that it’s any way misleading. Incant believe those are common sense standards now. 

[bibiche]

7 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I just read that she's donating $20k from that gofundme to the dr who helped her.  He has a charity that he runs to help those less fortunate get the medical help they need.  

That’s lovely. ❤️ 

So, how does everyone who was talking smack about her feel about this “ridiculous, sickening, uneducated, race card-playing scam artist” donating a significant amount of money to charity....?  

[TravelingChris]

13 hours ago, Quill said:

Corporations have a duty to not mislead people in product packaging. They also have a duty to make misuse of a product less likely. The law is more often on the side of the consumer because corporations have a duty to make it unambiguous what the purpose of a product is. 

If you get hurt and having gotten hurt costs you thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost wages, and the reason you were hurt was because a product’s use was unclear, you ARE entitled to financial reimbursement from the company via settlement/lawsuit. That isn’t frivolousness; it’s the system checking corporations from designing products poorly and having no duty to improve. That’s why we have things like child-proof caps on medicine bottles. You could argue all day that some mom was “stupid” when she put her blood-pressure medicine bottle in her purse and her toddler ate them, thinking they were TicTacs, but at the end of the day, this happened often enough that corporations realized they had better make it really difficult for that outcome to happen *even if* mom leaves the bottle where a toddler could get to it. 

 

ANd just a PSA, you can request non child-proof bottles which tend to be arthritis-proof too. 

[katilac]

10 hours ago, kand said:

It totally doesn’t matter to me enough to make a thing of it, as it’s still not likely to happen, but I do still say whether it’s more or less likely than being killed by lightening depends where you live. I live in a state with only 1 lightening fatality in a decade, yet I know from news reports we have fatalities every year from trees falling on houses in storms (and also cars—probably even more often). I personally know multiple people who have had large trees fall on their homes. It fell on one of the kid’s bedrooms in one case, but the kid wasn’t in it. Again, depends where you live. If you live in an area with big trees, but rarely lightening, like much of Oregon, the risk is different than if you live somewhere like Florida or Texas. 
 

But, this is silly because it doesn’t matter 😳😂 

Of course it matters! We have to know which freakish death possibility to worry about most 😄

And I actually misunderstood you anyway - I was reaffirming that the chances of being killed by a tree crashing into your house were quite rare in every location when you had (clearly) said you were talking about lightning strikes being less common in some places. 

Now we need to calculate the chances of being killed by a tree that fell over after being struck by lightning . . . 

[Sdel]

On 2/14/2021 at 11:18 AM, katilac said:

Not really. There are typically fewer than 100 deaths per year for the entire country from falling trees and limbs, and the vast majority of those occur outside (and a significant number of those are people who were actively working on trees, as opposed to random occurrences or weather causes).

No matter where in the states you are, the chances of a tree crashing into your house and killing you are vanishingly small. +1 for building codes! 

Well, I was in the room when our very large oak split in half and fell on it.  If we hadn’t had a metal roof it would have come completely through.  My grandparents lost their garage when a similarly large oak fell through it.  And I know someone who suffered a very bad concussion just last month when a snow heavy branch broke off and landed on her head....

I’m scared of the trees....they have it out for us.