Friday, May 22, 2009
The Poison Hunters in Accra
They flip the top of each soda they buy, hankering hungrily, but not after the fizz and flavour. They fish for harlequin hints of paddling particles, damning drops of detergent or some alien allergy in the bottle. First, they’ll blackmail and menace the manufacturer. If that ship sinks, they curse and sue for devious damages. They can rent false injury at twenty Cedis per devil-dealing doctor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Man, you excellent with alliterations!
ReplyDeleteI loved the point too. Had to read it a couple of times to really get it but now I do. There's a lot of poison hunters all around us NY..
Yay! I'm glad you got it, because when I finished editing this one, I felt it may have been a little over the top.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad how the level people will descend to to because of poverty or greed. Buying loads of soda simply to find a speck in it on which to claim damages.
Mrs Donoghue won in the end, didn't she?
ReplyDeleteYes, Savvy, but the facts do not say she went hunting for contaminated soda.
ReplyDeleteThis culture of hunting for a speck for abominable gain is so not right!
ReplyDeleteAs a devil advocate though, I realise the need for service providers to do a decent work for the cash they get.
Never realised that that American culture is now part of Accra's enterpreneurship!
Overhere because the government provides social grant for HIV+ with a CD4 count< 200, I am told, some people intentionally 'hunt' for the virus and then refrain from taking ARVs so that they can get a monthly 'salary'.
See the extension of the perversion?
Deliberately getting HIV? Yes, I see the extension of the perversion!
ReplyDeleteI had no idea this is what people are resorting to these days.
ReplyDeleteHave you had any personal experience(s) with this issue?
Raine, I only just came back from court on one such case! I have, now, quite a few cases.
ReplyDeleteAh, but Nana, you can never tell. Its not everything we plead is it? Anyway, think of it this way, if the drink makers did right, they would have nothing to worry about, would they?
ReplyDeleteSavvy, I try not to live out my other life here, but you've forced it now. Remember that the "Neighbour Principle" in negligence and product liability is not to take ALL CARE that nothing happens to your neighbour. It says to take REASONABLE CARE. If 10 bottles out of 1000 are contaminated, I think it is all right. In the human world, you cannot have zero defect.
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying the 10 people who would be injured from the 'poison' do not matter? What is reasonable for a manufacturer with a stated capital running in billions and annual profits with 6 zeroes? How much money would it take to double check? What about the chapter 5 rights of the drinkers? Doesn't it govern everything we do?
ReplyDeleteHow could I say people do not matter? I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that once humans are involved, there will be no zero defect. The law recognises this in the ubiquitous standard of the reasonable man! Mark that the standard is "reasonable" not "perfect" or "infallible"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we are going to bore other readers to sleep if we continue. I will call you on this one for my reply.;-)
ReplyDeleteIs it safe to say that:
ReplyDeleteIts not necessarily about how many bottles are tainted, but rather, how well (and quickly) these companies are able to inform and warn the general public or issue recalls about defective products. ??
I don't know, I could be wrong.
Dear Raine,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. The response of the company is the most important in these matters, I think.
cool blog entries, nana yaw! keep them coming. i miss you all. :)
ReplyDeletesounds like one of those 'school' pranks that is being executed on a serious level.
ReplyDeleteis it a question of survival really?? or must man just make the extra bucks no matter how!
i'm all for responsibility on the part of the companies anyway! their response is important indeed!
It's as though i,m having a lecture on the duty of care all over again, lol!
ReplyDeleteHonesly for some reason, i believed the above doesn't happen in GH but i guess times ve changed.
Savvy, Donoghue alias M'Lister (A pauper) technically did not win the case cos the facts were never established. Their Lordships were answering a hypothetical question.
ReplyDeleteNana, reasonable care does not indeed imply zero defect but it surely does include not injuring the product user even if it is just one contaminated bottle in a zillion. Savvy methinks u r not a lover of big corporations.
Savvy, let's agree and let the Professor have the last word, no?
ReplyDelete