Foam supplier says Nightclub owner, Michael Derderian, bought non-fire retardant soundproofing

The Providence journal ^ | 02/28/2003 | By TOM MOONEY

[Japedo]

I think it is reprehensible that they are now bringing a neighbor into this story who had complained about the noise, as if that was the cause of their choosing to buy NON-flame retardant foam and hence the place burning down. It comes across as if they are even trying to cast some shadow of blame on that man.

Any one but ME excuse. Neighbors have the right to complain, I don't see why this should be investigated IMO

To me it is the owners who are pointing fingers at EVERYONE else but themselves. I'm sure they will bring in delivery people, customers, ect to blame, we'll hafta stay tuned!

[radioman]

I think everyone is overlooking the real culprit here, corruption.

Owners of dives will always try to go the cheapest route. That's why we pay people to inspect these places.

Somebody had their palm greased to issue a permit to a dive that did not comply with public safety laws.

That somebody should be charged with negligent homicide.

[Alberta's Child]

It's actually starting to appear that the band's "contribution" to the fire is much smaller than most of us would have expected. In fact, the fireworks themselves played a smaller role than most people think. Sure, the fireworks were the source of the ignition -- but the real culprit here is the building. There's no way a building constructed in North America after 1900 should ever become engulfed in flames in a matter of minutes, so the real issue here is that the building would have gone up in flames even if the source of ignition had been a stray cigarette butt or some faulty wiring.

[FreeTally]

Neither does dumping hot McDonald's coffee in your own lap.

I originally thought that to be one of the most ridiculous findings by a jury I had ever seen. But, a freeper brought to my attention how fast skin scalds at certain temperatures. At reasonable "hotness", a person would not be badly burned. Micky D's coffee is so hot it is nearly impossible to drink for the first 30 minutes you get it unless you put ice in it. I think the chart posted showed that at the temperature the coffee was, a person would receive thrid degree burns within five seconds of exposure. It was in deed negligent to have coffee that hot. they are lucky no one got morer seriously injured before that incident.

[bribriagain]

did the foam go at such a velocity as to damage the left wing?

oops, wrong thread.

[f.Christian]

I think the finger is beginning to point to the fire inspectors and the building owner .

That receipt for non fire proof (( cheap )) soundproofing is a smoking gun !

[Japedo]

People lie all the time and it appears that the club owners lied.

So Dane, If they Lie to a Fire Inspector, what makes you think they were Honest with a band? What makes you think they will be Honest with anyone? They out right lied to CYA to an INSPECTOR. All the more reason to believe they are lying now to CYA.

The point stills stand that the fire inspector is not negligent since a permit for pyro's was not filed. The club owners and the band are.

How does that point stand? It's not the duty of Inspectors to Question, it is their duty to Inspect, which it's clear they didn't. They will be held liable, no doubt in my mind.

[Dane]

Plenty of people have been sued because they used improper materials in the construction or repair of buildings or homes. The material maker or retailer has no control over how you use a product made for a specific purpose. It would be like suing Ford because the car I bought didn't operate as an airplane when I drove it off a cliff.

That doesn't mean they won't try. A reletive of mine sold a lawn mower and the buyer used the lawn mower while high on pot and sliced his toe off. He found a slimy lawyer and sued. It was thrown out, but still caused anguish for my reletive.

We did get a laugh that the loss of of a toe meant that he lost "consortium" as said in the suit, though.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It was in deed negligent to have coffee that hot. they are lucky no one got morer seriously injured before that incident.

I bet you believe that morons who smoke cigarettes should get to sue tobacco companies when they get lung cancer, too.

[FreeTally]

Somebody had their palm greased to issue a permit to a dive that did not comply with public safety laws.

Its interesting to note that before the owners spoke, before the band spoke and before the owner of the Stone Pony spoke, the fire inspector was claiming the place passed all inspections and met code. In hindsight, the City/State were the first to go defensive and say, "Hey, not our fault".

Makes you wonder......

[1Old Pro]

I think the bigger problem here was the stage. There was no stage, they set-up near a wall with incredibly low ceilings which appear to be only 9 feet high.

Pyrotechnics should NEVER had been allowed in that club by anyone, including the band, owners, or patrons.

 

[IYAS9YAS]

You haven't heard about the vacuum cleaner company that lost a suit because little Johnny (pun intended) whacked his wee-wee off by inserting it into the sucking hole on said company's product. Mangled wee-wee, company loses.

Reason? Fan that caused suction was able to be reached by fingers (as well as boys' wee-wees).

This was a liability issue that the company should have looked in to and therefore little mangled wee-wee boy's family wins big. Vacuum was not used for its intended purpose, company still lost because they "should have known" someone could lose a finger (or a wee-wee).

I'll see if I can track it down over the next few days and give you a link.

[FreeTally]

I bet you believe that morons who smoke cigarettes should get to sue tobacco companies when they get lung cancer, too.

No, because nobody has a legitimate claim that they didn't know smoking was harmful.

One does have a reasonable expectation that a product purchased for bodily consumption would not cause third degree burns within mere seconds of exposure. Totally different situations.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Yes, but I'm thinking E. Pluribus Unum was being sarcastic.

Not sarcastic, but cynical. There is a difference. Sarcasm means you know the thing you are saying preprosterous. Cynical means you know the thing you are saying is preposterous, but you also know it is going to happen anyway.

Trial lawyers are not in the justice business. They are in the extortion business.

The manufacturer will be sued and will settle out of court, because going to trial will cost more money even if they win.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

One does have a reasonable expectation that a product purchased for bodily consumption would not cause third degree burns within mere seconds of exposure.

I must have missed the "apply liberally to lap" instructions on the McDonald's coffee cup.

I will have to look for it next time, not that I ever go to Mickey D's.

[Dane]

How does that point stand? It's not the duty of Inspectors to Question, it is their duty to Inspect, which it's clear they didn't. They will be held liable, no doubt in my mind.

Sure they were inspecting and asked the question, "Do you use pyro's", and the club owner's say no. The impetus is still left with the club owner's who never asked for a permit to use pyro's and the band who used pyro's without a permit.

You may not like it but the band and club owners broke the law by not filing a permit for pyro's and basically the fire inspector is left off the hook because of the negligence of the club owners and band's negligence in filing for a permit.

[Revolting cat!]

You just wait for Perry to get the case. The band started the fire, but he'll prove that some evil businessman is at fault, as always in Hollywood! Is there a priest somewhere to blame, by the way?

[Shermy]

Ping.

[AmusedBystander]

The timber industry is obviously the culprit.

No. That would be Anheuser-Busch who supplied the beer that they were consuming in the club.