Army veteran awarded $8.2 million in fourth trial over 3M earplugs

[Ura-Ki]

they sold a product they said provided a level of protection it didn't and then lied about it. Earplugs are very effective against the things you listed... the vibration of these events is what also kills your hearing its not just the loud noise.

More then that, it's the concussions that do the most damage, something no foamy ear ugs would have prevented!

 

[Silver Fox]

I am part of that lawsuit.

There are 4 Vets that are not part of the class action lawsuit, I am pretty sure he is one of them.

SF-

 

[Hueco]

You think a bunch of Vets getting boned by 3M and the Government is not lawsuit worthy? interesting take. It was shown that 3M knew, and still distributed them. They test their products before they go out to meet standards osha etc... 3M had to know, they have made non faulty plugs before, after, and during that, saved some money on the government contract and probably charged double the regular cost. And who is Uncle Sam do you mean the Tax Payer, the Tax payer should fix the problem that 3M got paid for and made.

I said the lawsuit sounded frivolous.

If 3M created a product that passed initial muster and was sold and produced in good faith...that then happened to fail - then yes, I would consider this frivolous. If 3M created a product that did not pass initial tests, they lied about it, they sold it anyway - then the suit has merit, in my mind.

I don't believe in equipping our soldiers with junk. There is a long process for selecting equipment and processes do become corruptible...if such is the case, I would expect some military brass to be answering for those sins alongside 3M. But, like I said, if this was a product that passed those tests and later failed...who was anyone to know?

If you have the answers to those questions, do tell so that I can cement my more philosophical response into a more grounded opinion.

As for taking care of vets - yes, I mean the tax payer. Service is dangerous - many come back broken in more ways than one. The least we can do as a population is ensure that those tribulations are mended to the best of our ability. If there is hell to pay for 3M's actions - fine, so be it. That doesn't change my stance on solutions being paid for through tax revenue. Said another way: the vet's needs should be met as they are the priority; if payment is later recouped through 3M, cool.

 

[ThePostMan]

I said the lawsuit sounded frivolous.

If 3M created a product that passed initial muster and was sold and produced in good faith...that then happened to fail - then yes, I would consider this frivolous. If 3M created a product that did not pass initial tests, they lied about it, they sold it anyway - then the suit has merit, in my mind.

I don't believe in equipping our soldiers with junk. There is a long process for selecting equipment and processes do become corruptible...if such is the case, I would expect some military brass to be answering for those sins alongside 3M. But, like I said, if this was a product that passed those tests and later failed...who was anyone to know?

If you have the answers to those questions, do tell so that I can cement my more philosophical response into a more grounded opinion.

As for taking care of vets - yes, I mean the tax payer. Service is dangerous - many come back broken in more ways than one. The least we can do as a population is ensure that those tribulations are mended to the best of our ability. If there is hell to pay for 3M's actions - fine, so be it. That doesn't change my stance on solutions being paid for through tax revenue. Said another way: the vet's needs should be met as they are the priority; if payment is later recouped through 3M, cool.

I mean I agree with you on basically all these points I am just saying it has been shown that they did know they were defective.

other than that the Vets should get everything they need full stop. if a company caused damage better they pay all the money back and restitution than me paying more thats all...

 

[MichaelH]

The lawsuit is frivolous and dumb. Did 3M intentionally distribute faulty and ineffective gear or were their efforts in good faith and they just had a crap product?

That being said - Uncle Sam should be taking care of vets whose hearing is irreparably damaged...hearing aids, surgeries, sign language classes, vocational training...

The problem is if a company advertises that it has a product that will protect you so you use it, instead of some other product that will actually do the job, and then it's a crap product that doesn't protect you then the company's liable for your damages. Product liability litigation is the only reason our houses don't regularly burst into flames when using appliances and our vehicles are relatively safe. What I don't understand is why the DOD (or maybe the VA) doesn't have it's own lawsuit against 3M for damages it will incur treating these vets who used this product....frankly if the tax payer is footing the bill then that should happen.

It's been factually established that the earplugs didn't protect hearing when used in combat as effectively as 3M represented. I guess all these cases are about the Plaintiff proving his or her hearing loss is related to using the earplugs, not something else, and what the damages are worth. If I was a potential plaintiff I'd be trying to get to trial ASAP because if verdicts like that keep happening 3M is going to file for bankruptcy. Insurance may pick up a few settlements/ verdicts, but most coverage has limits over certain time periods.

 

[ThePostMan]

The problem is if a company advertises that it has a product that will protect you so you use it, instead of some other product that will actually do the job, and then it's a crap product that doesn't protect you then the company's liable for your damages. Product liability litigation is the only reason our houses don't regularly burst into flames when using appliances and our vehicles are relatively safe. What I don't understand is why the DOD (or maybe the VA) doesn't have it's own lawsuit against 3M for damages it will incur treating these vets who used this product....frankly if the tax payer is footing the bill then that should happen.

It's been factually established that the earplugs didn't protect hearing when used in combat as effectively as 3M represented. I guess all these cases are about the Plaintiff proving his or her hearing loss is related to using the earplugs and not something else and what the damages are worth. If I was a potential plaintiff I'd be trying to get to trial ASAP because if verdicts like that keep happening it's going to file for bankruptcy.

Spot on!

 

[Stomper]

The lawsuit is frivolous and dumb. Did 3M intentionally distribute faulty and ineffective gear or were their efforts in good faith and they just had a crap product?

That being said - Uncle Sam should be taking care of vets whose hearing is irreparably damaged...hearing aids, surgeries, sign language classes, vocational training...

THIS is the only sign language I require!


This one says, "morning covfefe".



This one says "LET'S GO BRANDON!!"

 

[Stomper]

So what happens to his $8M if this turns into a class action suit or similar? Just guessing but I don't think 3M will be able to pay everyone that much.

They won't, their insurance company will be paying any damages.

 

[po18guy]

I mean I agree with you on basically all these points I am just saying it has been shown that they did know they were defective.

other than that the Vets should get everything they need full stop. if a company caused damage better they pay all the money back and restitution than me paying more thats all...

If there is credible and substantial evidence (a preponderance) that the plugs were a typical screw-the-pooch government contract, then yes, they should pay.

 

[MichaelH]

If there is credible and substantial evidence (a preponderance) that the plugs were a typical screw-the-pooch government contract, then yes, they should pay.

He said "preponderance"....