The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Have you read anything about the shutting down of Blitz USA, America’s largest plastic gas can maker? If you read any of the stories, you may think that it was a sad story of a company that was sued out of business. Well that may be true, but not for the reasons they are claiming.

The story they are pushing is that they have been put out of business because they have been forced to pay baggillion dollar verdicts after people checked gas levels in their gas cans with lit matches. Now if that were true , I would be wondering how is that possible?

It isn't, because it's not the truth. The lawsuits have come from the more than 75 people who were horribly burned by Blitz gas cans and many of those were children. All because the company failed to install a simple flame arrestor which experts say would have cost less than $1. Other manufacturers use it. Blitz did not.

It was bad, unsafe business practices that put them out of business. They were injuring children and it should have been prevented.

Other articles worth reading here at the legal examiner:

Wall Street Journal's Gas Can Job Loss Claim is Short Sighted, Michael Monheit | August 09, 2012 3:08 PM

Do you have an exploding plastic gas can?, Wayne Parsons | August 07, 2011 5:26 PM

Mother Files Wrongful Death Action Against Manufacturer of Exploding Gasoline Container, Amy Rothschild | September 04, 2007 11:58 AM

Overall, there have been 14 deaths, of which 6 were children. The real stories are of children who knocked the containers over or were just walking by when the cans exploded. These aren't jokes or reasons to feel bad for a short sighted company.

Juries don't ever just give money away. It is important when you hear these kinds of stories to ask, "Does that make sense"? Also look at who is bringing you the message and see what interest they have in attacking the civil justice system.

19 Comments

  1. Gravatar for ExBlitzEmployee

    Oh yeah, really informative. Now, myself and over 100 other people are out of a job because of retards that chose to either pour gas on a fire or leave a container too close to a fire and blew their children's faces off. You sir are as idiotic as the burn victims that have ruined my life.

  2. I am sorry to hear , if you were indeed the group of people that lost jobs. I personally never like to see that and hope that the hardship is a short event.

    While I find your comment interesting it doesn't seem to meet with the facts. Do you know why the flame arrestors weren't installed?

    Also were you told that the suits were the reason that you were let go or was it the company moving and the mismanagement?

    I do wish you the best. Mike

  3. Gravatar for Suzanne

    You have got to be kidding. I can sure see that this article was written by an attorney. Amazing what they will use and say. Vapors are flammable, always will be and always have been. It's a shame that there are still people out in our world that don't understand that. If you leave the lid off of any container that holds gasoline, you are releasing vapors in to the air. The container does not even need to be close to an open flame. The vapors themselves can catch fire and cause a flash of fire that will burn anyone around the area. A flame arrestor will not protect you from misuse of any gas can. If you are out there advocating flame arrestors can keep gasoline vapors from exploding, you should be sued when someone believes such a thing and believes they can pour fuel on a fire or leave the lid off of a container anywhere near a fire. After all, any flame arrestor is IN THE LID. Gasoline is gasoline and it is flammable. It is terrible that anyone doesn't protect themselves and their loved ones when using gasoline for any purpose. Static can cause gasoline vapors to ignite just as we have all seen with people pumping gas in to their vehicles at a fuel station, using their cell phones as they pump the gas or stand there and smoke. Static can also ignite vapors and has in cases like this, which fyi, those nozzles do not have flame arrestors and your filler neck on your car does not either. It is not the fuel pumps that cause the disasters, it is the person holding the nozzle. They go in to their cars and charge themselves with static and then pump their gas. What results is an explosion. Blitz containers have so many warnings on them that are legible and complete. If we do not heed warnings when it comes to any product, we are misusing that product.

    One of the cases you are referring to where a young child was killed was not the fault of Blitz. The father and 2 of his children were in their trailer when the father decided his wood burning stove was not hot enough. He brought his gas can in to his trailer, leaving the lid outside on his front porch and proceeded to pour gasoline on the fire. First of all, you never bring a gasoline container in to your house. Also, the lid was left outside so even if it was proven that a flame arrestor would have prevented this tragedy, it would not have since it would have been in the lid which was not on the container. As this man brought the can in to his house, vapors were leaking out in to the air. When he dumped gas on to the fire, he ignited those vapors causing a flash fire. Now the can is exposed to fire and continuing to release vapors. The can did not blow up and cause this. The father ran out of the house and down to a nearby river hoping to ease his pain. He left his children in the house. When he returned for them, his little girl did not make it. There is not a person on earth who does not hurt for this child. It was an accident that did not need to happen and this innocent child lost her life because of her father's mistake. Not because of the gas can manufacturer.

    All incidents you are referring to were caused by misuse. Including the young man who removed the lid, and walked across the yard with an open container. Static is what caused the vapors to ignite and then the young man dropped the gas can splashing gasoline on himself and around him. The lid is on there for a reason and people need to know to leave it on and teach their children how to handle fuel containers or better yet, do not allow them to handle them. When you fill ANY gas can, you need to leave it on the ground and not hold it in your hands to fill it with gas and never walk with a fuel container that does not have the lid on it. This is in any fuel container on the face of the earth. The magic word here when referring to fuel containers in the word container. Not only is a gas container, it is a vapor container. Vapors are more flammable than the gas itself. Vapors, static and open flames cause these incidents and each and every incident was due to this misuse. A man filling his tractor while the tractor was running was another incident. Vapors and spark from the tractor caused his injuries. When I read your account here and try to understand your logic, it is not possible to do so. You have absolutely no idea what happened in these cases.

    What these lawsuits are doing is closing American businesses, causing loss of jobs and health insurance for the American people. It is the lawyers that are getting rich over foolish and abusive lawsuits. It is amazing that American courts allow such suits and abuse. People need to take blame for what they do and in these cases they would rather pass the blame on to the manufacturing companies or the product itself. Something has got to change and we need to quit linning the pockets of these lawyers and fight with all we have in us to protect our American manufacturing companies before none of us have a place to work and they all end up in China.

  4. Gravatar for Roy

    I would like to give a little science education on the subject of volatile liquid containment. Gasoline is one of the top volatile liquids that is handled by the common public. The fumes of gasoline are many times more dangerous than the liquid itself. The gas can or portable fuel container, is designed to transport and "contain" the liquid and the fumes produced by this liquid. This being said, when the lid is removed, the only thing being contained is the liquid. The fumes are a gas which travel quickly through the air which can cover a large area and remain hoovering in the area for a period of time. They also are oxygenated by the air itself, which in turn makes them more dangerous and susceptible to the environment around them. No spark arrestor screen will contain gasoline vapors in any circumstance which are the precursor of all gasoline fire injuries. The fumes are ignited by spark or flame and especially in an enclosed environment such as in your house, your car, your boat, your garage or any other confined area where these combustible fumes can concentrate, will compound this greatly. On the other hand if you are out doors, with the lid off of your container, the vapors are no longer contained and the vapors lie low and build at ground level. If a spark or flame should occur, these fumes can spontaneously ignite causing injury to anyone or thing in the immediate area. Proper fuel containment including the vapors, requires the lid or cap be correctly in place. No screen is a cap. For instance, your bathroom at home possibly has one or more other highly volatile liquids such as isopropyl alcohol or finger nail polish remover (acetone). If left open , lid off, vapors will escape and concentrate in this confined space. Should you turn on your blow dryer or light a cigarette or be near any other souse of spark or flame, your likely to go up in flames. It is not the containers fault in this scenario either. There is no flame arrestor on these items either nor would it help if there was. The same conditions could happen if the pilot went out on your stove and natural gas vapors leak in to your home. Any spark such as turning on your light switch could cause the vapors to light and an explosion could occur. Those warnings on products and containers that say flammable, keep away from spark or flame, mean just that! They are dangerous. Handle with caution and should say use your brain and common sense and you won't get hurt.

    I feel terrible for all the injured people and children that have been hurt or worse in gasoline accidents but all the money in the world won't heal their pain when a death is involved. Nor correct the mistake which was the cause. However these attorneys bring these cases to court, advertise to try and bring in as many people as they can, not for the cause of the injured, but for the cause of their own greed. They themselves receive most of the money and they are being paid for nothing more than making an accident from the result of misuse, out to be a fault of product manufacturing. Their tactics are try to use pity and terror in their photos, and also using misunderstanding to convey to a jury to say it's ok to punish the manufacture because they have lots of money. It won't hurt the manufactures to give these people money to help them ease their pain and suffering. When in actuality, it does hurt the manufacture. Millions of dollars are used per case to fight these law suits and when these attorneys decide to pounce on any one company, they can bring them down as in the case of Blitz USA. Blitz usa is a long standing (46 year plus) manufacture of gasoline containers. They have sold millions of fuel containers through out the world including to the military. This attorney above is astounded that a handful of people have been injured or killed while misusing gasoline when the other millons of people over the last 46 years who do not misuse fuel, have not had any problems. Their gas cans for some unknown reason, have not injured themselves or others. These fuel containers are not "exploding" when someone walks by as he would like to convey here. In every instance that I read, it was misuse. This is the case with any product around. You can mishandle anything and injury or even death can occur. That's why warning labels are used. It is not only for teaching the correct use of any product, but is is also there for people who lack common sense. Do not run with a knife in your hand. If you do and fall on the knife, you could be injured or even killed. It is not the manufacturer of the knife that caused the problem. You can fall of a building, or even a bike and hurt or kill yourself. It is not the buildings fault or the bikes fault. All of you out there can think of many many scenarios where a product can hurt or kill you. Common sense should tell us to head warnings and teach our children correct ways to handle anything. We must put a stop to these abusive lawsuits and greedy lawyers!

  5. Gravatar for Roy

    and then there are people who do things like this and teach others how to do it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcnwdIYEfI&feature=related

  6. Gravatar for Guest

    That's awesome. I was expecting an explosion at the end, but instead it showed me how to make gas can better. Thanks, Roy!

  7. Gravatar for Roy

    No problem. Just when you do something this dumb, and end up injuring yourself or a someone else, don't sue the gas can manufacturer or Exxon. Sue the moron on youtube who is teaching people to modify these cans.

  8. Sorry didn't have a chance to get back til now, or would have commented earlier. It's my understanding that a couple of the "different names" are from the same IP address so looks like we may have more behind the protests than simple unbiased opinions.

    I do appreciate each of the comments even if they are from one person.

    Let's see:

    "Suzanne" you are wrong about the description of "all of the cases" I cited. But it is the company line. I heard the move was to another county other than China.

    "Roy" You also seem to be reading from the company bible and while you may be correct about the gas part, your slanted view on the legal system is poorly misguided. Thanks for the video, but it really has nothing to do with the point involved here.

    Guest, thanks for stopping by and the comment.

    Responsibility talk is always interesting when it is blind to the responsibility involved in making safe products. I am positive that Blitz has fought these cases without any concern about that responsibility. I also wonder if the one or two people responding think there has ever been a case that Blitz was responsible for? The Jury that looked at the Calder case found Blitz 70 percent liable and Calder 30 percent at fault. It is also my understanding that Blitz claimed there was never an explosion. Odd considering your post says differently. Are the facts being rewritten to fit the protest?

    Take care

  9. Gravatar for Suzanne

    First of all, we are not the same person. We are on the same network. There is a difference there so again, your assumptions are incorrect. Assumptions are what causes many lawyers to bring these frivolous lawsuits in the first place. Again you are incorrect when you say that either of us said there "was" an explosion of any gas can. You are defining lawyers very well sir, and showing many just like you try to twist or add words in to statements that are simply not there. Not once did I or the letter by Suzanne say that any of the Blitz gas cans or any other gas can manufacture cans exploded or caused an explosion. Do not add anything to my statement. In all instances I referred to air born vapors. You are obviously one of those money hungry greedy lawyers who enjoy making cases out of just about anything. In this case you are trying to do the same here. One thing however is everyone can read what I and Suzanne said and you can not make up contents included in the statements even though you are trying to do so. You do not intimidate me one iota, so if that is what this is all about, you might as well remove your blog all together.

    What are you talking about stating "you heard the move" was to another country? Do you have any idea as to what your talking about? Something you would like to share with the public? Blitz USA did not move anywhere. They went out of business all together. Another misconception on your part once again. Not much of a know it all after all I see. As I stated before, you have no idea about the cases and were not involved in any of them. You are nothing but running your mouth and evidently have no knowledge of the cases other than what some other lawyer has told you. Have you ever heard the term "don't believe everything someone tells you" especially if it's a lawyer? As for a company Bible, I see once again that you are assuming. You evidently assume I worked for the company and have access to their business practices. What I am is a member of the community of Miami Oklahoma. I know many of the good people who worked there and are now out of a job. Not because of a gas can that they worked to manufacture but because of greedy, heartless lawyers who just can't get enough. I have read on the Calder case. I also understand how the lawyers worked this case. Using pictures of the deceased child to bring out sympathy. Who wouldn't have sympathy when they see this tragedy through photos of a child who lost her life. Anyone who hears what this man did to bring about the death of his child understands that the gas can manufacturer was not at fault. Of course you will fight for the lawyers point of view. You are a lawyer. Let me ask you this, would you bring an open fuel container in to your house and pour gasoline on to an open flame? If you did, would you then blame the manufacturer of the gas can? Do you yourself understand that gasoline vapors ignite? Would you sue the makers of the gas can or how about go bigger and sue the big gas companies instead. Do you teach your children to take responsibility for their own actions or do you teach them to do as they please and find someone to blame afterward? Do you teach them to pay no attention to warning or danger signs? You can argue til your blue in the face with me, with anyone else who comments on your ridiculous assumptions all you want. If that is what makes you believe in what you believe in, go ahead and argue that the grass is not green the sky is not blue and it's someone else's fault no matter what. If you were to take a flying leap from lets say a roof top, and hit the concrete below, go ahead and argue that someone needs to be sued for your injury because that concrete was just too hard. Your arguing only makes you and your kind look worse than you are, if that is even possible. The difference between you and me, is I know the difference between right and wrong. I know gasoline is dangerous, and I have taught my children to read warning labels and take heed to them. the biggest difference between you and I is the fact that I can sleep at night because my conscience is clear.

  10. Oh "Suzanne" with the same IP address,(your either I or the letter by Suzanne kind of makes things confusing- aren't you Suzanne?) You want to attack me for something I didn't start. Sorry, but it's sad when someone loses perspective.

    The jury in the Calder case did hear all of the evidence. So the idea that anyone that knows what happen would decide a certain way is just wrong. You know Blitz fought that case with everything they could, so it's not simple tricks that won the day.

    You many protests not withstanding, do you believe there has never been a legitimate case against Blitz? There are many independent reviewers that have looked and disagree.

    Your comments are clear how personal you take this and I doubt that it is simply as a member of the community, but as I said before I see responsibility as a two way street. We here at the legal examiner write more about safety and the ways to protect yourself then most anything else. I really don't want to see you or anyone hurt. Take care and save your company speeches for the US Chamber or groups who duck responsibility and believe that profits over people are the way to go.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest