# 162,000 women's robes recalled after 6 deaths



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31265312/

Quote:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Blair LLC, based in Warren, Pa., on Thursday said they were issuing the second recall notice in two months after receiving reports of six deaths due to the robes catching on fire. In five of the six cases, the victims were women who were cooking at the time; three of the victims were in their 80s. The recall applied to 162,000 robes.

Wow, just scarey.


----------



## Whistler (Jan 30, 2009)

You're kidding me right? Because people couldn't keep their bathrobe out of a burner and it caught fire?

Now it's the robe's fault????


----------



## PaulaJoAnne (Oct 18, 2008)

sigh.....why do we have to use "stuff" as an excuse for not being responsible?
I feel bad for those that have suffered, but please, we are breeding common sense right out of the human race!


----------



## Mommy2Austin (Oct 10, 2006)

This is why you don't cook in things that have anything other than fitted sleeves... Big flowy robe sleeves are just to likely to catch on fire.


----------



## treehugginhippie (Nov 29, 2004)

Let me guess...next step will be that some sort of law will go into effect and all new robes will be required to be treated with some sort of toxic fire retardant (just like mattresses & some PJ's) because of this


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommy2Austin* 
This is why you don't cook in things that have anything other than fitted sleeves...

my chef jacket has big sleeves, they make great pot holders!

this is why you don't lay your clothing over fire. I can't believe this is the robes fault.


----------



## JamesMama (Jun 1, 2005)

Yeah, I'm not quite seeing why it's the robes fault...

Sheesh, next they'll be coating EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE of clothing and blankets and everything else in that nasty flame proof junk...ewwwwww

I agree with a PP...we're breeding common sense right out of the human race.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Are other materials such as 100% cotton less flameable than the chenile these robes were made of?


----------



## Mommy2Austin (Oct 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
my chef jacket has big sleeves, they make great pot holders!

this is why you don't lay your clothing over fire. I can't believe this is the robes fault.

But as a chef you are also a lot more careful of where your clothing is in regards to the burners of a stove.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

I dont think the article gave enough info for me to judge that this wasnt "the robes fault"...to me, its kind of like how people laughed off that court case about mcD's and hot coffee, saying "well of course coffee is hot, just be careful!"...but IMO, coffee shouldnt be soooo hot that it causes 3rd degree burns if you spill a little on you in the drive thru. To me, that IS negligent. I suspect there was some sort of problem in the manufacturing of these robes if they *so easily* caught on fire...i think its *perfectly reasonable* to expect someone might wear their bathrobe while they are scrambling eggs. Since most of the victims were elderly though i wonder how much a lack of reaction time might have impacted their deaths. but its possible that with a better robe, the sleeve might have started burning a little, but would give you time to react, but that with *these* robes they immediately just spread the flames. I dont know. its possible there was some chemical in the fabric that caused an unexpected fire hazard.

I just dont think its fair to blame the victims when the article did not even give too many details about the circumstances of their deaths. If the company is going to all the trouble and expense of a recall, i imagine that there may be a very good reason why, and not just because some old ladies made bad decisions.

Katherine


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

That's what I would guess too. It's probably an abnormally flammable material for a garment. It doesn't warrant fireproofing chemicals, it warrants less flammable material, like many natural materials probably; manmade stuff is pretty fast burning I think.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
I dont think the article gave enough info for me to judge that this wasnt "the robes fault"...to me, its kind of like how people laughed off that court case about mcD's and hot coffee, saying "well of course coffee is hot, just be careful!"...but IMO, coffee shouldnt be soooo hot that it causes 3rd degree burns if you spill a little on you in the drive thru. To me, that IS negligent. I suspect there was some sort of problem in the manufacturing of these robes if they *so easily* caught on fire...i think its *perfectly reasonable* to expect someone might wear their bathrobe while they are scrambling eggs. Since most of the victims were elderly though i wonder how much a lack of reaction time might have impacted their deaths. but its possible that with a better robe, the sleeve might have started burning a little, but would give you time to react, but that with *these* robes they immediately just spread the flames. I dont know. its possible there was some chemical in the fabric that caused an unexpected fire hazard.

I just dont think its fair to blame the victims when the article did not even give too many details about the circumstances of their deaths. If the company is going to all the trouble and expense of a recall, i imagine that there may be a very good reason why, and not just because some old ladies made bad decisions.

Katherine


Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 









That's what I would guess too. It's probably an abnormally flammable material for a garment. It doesn't warrant fireproofing chemicals, it warrants less flammable material, like many natural materials probably; manmade stuff is pretty fast burning I think.

I agree. I don't think this is a blame the victim product. I think it has to do with the materials used to make this robe.


----------



## cristeen (Jan 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
I dont think the article gave enough info for me to judge that this wasnt "the robes fault"...to me, its kind of like how people laughed off that court case about mcD's and hot coffee, saying "well of course coffee is hot, just be careful!"...but IMO, coffee shouldnt be soooo hot that it causes 3rd degree burns if you spill a little on you in the drive thru. To me, that IS negligent.









:

Water boils at 212 degrees F. Coffee is made by pouring boiling water over ground coffee beans. The only way that coffee is not "that hot" is if it has been allowed to cool too long - at which point it becomes breeding ground for bacteria, the health department says it must be dumped, and even a mildly discerning customer is going to complain about it. When I worked at McD's, we had to make a new pot every X minutes, by policy, to meet with health dept standards. Blaming the company for complying with the health dept's requirements is right back to breeding common sense out of the human race. If you don't want your coffee hot, ask that they put ice (or milk) in it - we did it all the time for people coming through the drive thru.

I have a friend who as a child was given a cup of hot cocoa by her mother who thought it was cool enough for her. When she spilled it on her leg she wound up with a massive scar that persists to this day (well into adulthood) because of the 3rd degree burns she received. It doesn't require that the temperature be all *that* hot to create severe burns.

From National Burn Victim Foundation (these numbers are for adults - children and elderly burn quicker):

Quote:

If the temperature is 160 degrees fahrenheit, it would take 1 second [to cause a third degree burn];
If the temperature is 149 degrees fahrenheit [common home boiler setting], it would take 2 seconds;
If the temperature is 140 degrees, it would take 5 seconds;
If the temperature is 133 degrees, it would take 16 seconds;
If the temperature is 130 degrees [recommended setting], it would take 35 seconds;
If the temperature is 127 degrees, it would take 1 minute;
If the temperature is 125 degrees, it would take 2 minutes;
If the temperature is 124 degrees, it would take 3 minutes;
If the temperature is 120 degrees, it would take 10 minutes.
As for the robes, chenille is polyester - which usually burns slower than cotton - which is why polyester kids PJs don't have to be treated with flame retardant chemicals, yet cotton ones do. I find it interesting that they "went up in flames" so quickly - and like others would question if slowed reflexes/lowered sensory perception played part in the equation.


----------



## aran (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cristeen* 







:

Water boils at 212 degrees F. Coffee is made by pouring boiling water over ground coffee beans. The only way that coffee is not "that hot" is if it has been allowed to cool too long - at which point it becomes breeding ground for bacteria, the health department says it must be dumped, and even a mildly discerning customer is going to complain about it. When I worked at McD's, we had to make a new pot every X minutes, by policy, to meet with health dept standards. Blaming the company for complying with the health dept's requirements is right back to breeding common sense out of the human race. If you don't want your coffee hot, ask that they put ice (or milk) in it - we did it all the time for people coming through the drive thru.

And the McD's coffee was held between 180-190 F after brewing. Way hotter than any health dept. stds. could require and what other area restaurants were serving. I have often found that when a seemingly senseless decision was made, if you learn the details of the situation, the decision makes more sense. Did you know the burn victim required skin grafts? She needed two _years_ of rehab? From a small coffee. And the jury in the McD's case reduced the award to the burn victim, because they found her to be partially culpable for the spill and resulting burns.

I doubt the CPSC would recall a product if its flammability characteristics were not out of the ordinary.


----------



## aran (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cristeen* 
As for the robes, chenille is polyester - which usually burns slower than cotton - which is why polyester kids PJs don't have to be treated with flame retardant chemicals, yet cotton ones do. I find it interesting that they "went up in flames" so quickly - and like others would question if slowed reflexes/lowered sensory perception played part in the equation.

Wikipedia (I know - not always the best source of info) says:

"Chenille can appear iridescent without actually using iridescent fibers. The yarn is commonly manufactured from cotton, but can also be made using acrylic, rayon and olefin."

No mention of polyester here, at least.


----------



## cristeen (Jan 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aran* 
Wikipedia (I know - not always the best source of info) says:

"Chenille can appear iridescent without actually using iridescent fibers. The yarn is commonly manufactured from cotton, but can also be made using acrylic, rayon and olefin."

No mention of polyester here, at least.

Acrylic is a polymer, and while technically may not fall under the "correct" definition of polyester, is still lumped with it by most fiber freaks. All of the chenille I've seen is synthetic - I'd be happy as a clam if I could find cotton chenille.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Polyester is identifiable in burn tests because it forms a gooey plasticy ball of flame. And someone thought this was a good idea in sleep wear??

As for the McD's thing, if she'd gotten the 3rd degree burns in her throat from sipping the coffee, would people be so judgmental about it?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aran* 
And the McD's coffee was held between 180-190 F after brewing. Way hotter than any health dept. stds. could require and what other area restaurants were serving. I have often found that when a seemingly senseless decision was made, if you learn the details of the situation, the decision makes more sense. Did you know the burn victim required skin grafts? She needed two _years_ of rehab? From a small coffee. And the jury in the McD's case reduced the award to the burn victim, because they found her to be partially culpable for the spill and resulting burns.

Well they kept the coffee at a higher than recommended temperature because they anticipated the coffee being transported THEN drank. Like you get the coffee and then drink it at work. They wanted to coffee to still be hot.

There had been repeated instances of burns and scaldings before the lawsuit.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Polyester is identifiable in burn tests because it forms a gooey plasticy ball of flame. And someone thought this was a good idea in sleep wear??

As for the McD's thing, if she'd gotten the 3rd degree burns in her throat from sipping the coffee, would people be so judgmental about it?

That happened to me drinking coffee I made at home! (well, I don't know what degree the burns were, but my tongue and throat were burned bad enough that I could hardly eat for a week!) I just figured that's what I get for being ADD enough to take a huge gulp of coffee I'd JUST poured (I thought I'd poured i earlier and forgot I had JUST refilled.)

Sorry, off-topic!


----------



## aran (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
Well they kept the coffee at a higher than recommended temperature because they anticipated the coffee being transported THEN drank. Like you get the coffee and then drink it at work. They wanted to coffee to still be hot.

There had been repeated instances of burns and scaldings before the lawsuit.

That's what McD's people said their thinking was, but evidently they had a bunch of market research showing that people didn't do that - they wanted to drink it immediately. I know I always do - as do the people I know. I don't buy coffee to cart around while it cools.


----------



## Cheshire (Dec 14, 2004)

Quote:

Water boils at 212 degrees F. Coffee is made by pouring boiling water over ground coffee beans. The only way that coffee is not "that hot" is if it has been allowed to cool too long - at which point it becomes breeding ground for bacteria, the health department says it must be dumped, and even a mildly discerning customer is going to complain about it. When I worked at McD's, we had to make a new pot every X minutes, by policy, to meet with health dept standards. Blaming the company for complying with the health dept's requirements is right back to breeding common sense out of the human race. If you don't want your coffee hot, ask that they put ice (or milk) in it - we did it all the time for people coming through the drive thru.
That particular McDs had been cited by the health department a number of times for keeping their coffee too hot. They chose to ignore the warnings. They did not lower the temperature on their coffee pots to fit within the health department's requirements. The woman didn't "spill" the coffee - when it was handed to her it was too hot for her to hold onto and she dropped it in her lap. It proceeded to pool in her lap and she couldn't get moved fast enough before it caused terrible damage. She required numerous surgeries, her labia was burned off, she had serious infections set in - would you want any amount of money for that? Could any amount of money compensate you for that type of injury?

The McDs was negligent, had plenty of opportunities to follow the law and ignored it. The jury saw her injuries, her suffering and sent a message to the McDs and other restaurants that they can't repeatedly ignore warnings and get away with it when something happens they could have prevented.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

holy crap. It always amazes me how you need to hear the details before just making assumptions on something like this. I would assume there are many relevant details in the robe cases as well that we don't know. I wonder if they were the type that has those huge sleeves where they get really wide at the wrist. I always hated those- I felt like I was going to knock my coffee cup over.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

regarding the coffee. i worked at mcd and i always heard she put it between her legs to hold it.

not where i keep my coffee.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cristeen* 
As for the robes, chenille is polyester - which usually burns slower than cotton - which is why polyester kids PJs don't have to be treated with flame retardant chemicals, yet cotton ones do. I find it interesting that they "went up in flames" so quickly - and like others would question if slowed reflexes/lowered sensory perception played part in the equation.

My understanding is that polyester kind of melts onto the skin causing more severe burns than cotton. IDK, dh likes our kids to wear tight fitting cotton PJs for fire-safety-sake.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
regarding the coffee. i worked at mcd and i always heard she put it between her legs to hold it.

not where i keep my coffee.

She wasnt keeping her coffee there. According to what i read, the driver pulled ahead to stop, the car was still, she (who was a passenger) took the lid off to add cream/sugar, holding the cup between her knees...the entire cup spilled onto her lap. I might not choose to "keep my coffee" between my legs either, but if you are trying to remove a lid, hold the cup, and open packets to add....its not a totally unreasonable thing to do.

I wonder if that is one reason why McDs now pushes the "let us add your cream and sugar!" thing at the drive through, rather than giving you cream/sugar packets.

Katherine


----------

