Kellogg's loves your kids.

[CarryTheRock]

Laura Cervantes

Consumer Affairs Department

 

4LEC/cl

 

012429093A

 

Kellogg North America

PO Box CAMB

Battle Creek, MI 49016-1986

 

Dear Ms. Cervantes:

 

Thank you for writing that my concerns are important to you, my 4 year old son just choked down some Legos that weren't your cereal. You will be happy to know that they didn't get soggy in the milk even after his death.

 

Thank you.

 

Ouch...

[Fatman]

I simply can't believe this is real...

[alexgaddis]

Mr. Alex Gaddis,

 

Thank you for your comments regarding Kellogg's™ Lego® Fruit Flavored Snacks. Consumer opinion is important to us and we thank you for the time you took to contact us.

 

First I must solicit your confidence in this transaction.This is by virtue of its nature as being utterly confidential and top secret. We are top officials of the Federal Government Contract Review Panel who are interested in importation of goods into our country with funds which are presently trapped in Nigeria. In order to commence this business we solicit your assistance to enable us RECIEVE the said trapped funds ABROAD.

 

The source of this fund is as follows : During the regime of our late head of state, Gen. Sani Abacha, the government officials set up companies and awarded themselves contracts which were grossly over-invoiced in various Ministries. The NEW CIVILIAN Government set up a Contract Review Panel (C.R.P) and we have identified a lot of inflated contract funds which are presently floating in the Central Bank of Nigeria (C.B.N).

 

However, due to our position as civil servants and members of this panel, we cannot acquire this money in our names. I have therefore, been delegated as a matter of trust by my colleagues of the panel to look for an Overseas partner INTO whose ACCOUNT the sum of US$31,000,000.00 (Thirty one Million United States Dollars) WILL BE PAID BY TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER. Hence we are writing you this letter.We have agreed to share the money thus:

 

70% for us (the officials)

 

20% for the FOREIGN PARTNER (you)

 

10% to be used in settling taxation and all local and foreign expenses.

 

It is from this 70% that we wish to commence the importation business.

 

Please note that this transaction is 100% safe and we hope THAT THE FUNDS CAN ARRIVE YOUR ACCOUNT in latest ten (10) banking days from the date of reciept of the following information by TEL/FAX: 234-1-7747907: A SUITABLE NAME AND BANK ACCOUNT INTO WHICH THE FUNDS CAN BE PAID. PLEASE ENDEAVOUR TO RESPOND BY TELEPHONE OR FAX.

 

Sincerely,

 

Laura Cervantes

Consumer Affairs Department

 

4LEC/cl

 

012429093A

 

Kellogg North America

PO Box CAMB

Battle Creek, MI 49016-1986

[Squeegiebo]

gotta figure they have some sort of licensing agreement, where you could go after one, the other, or both.

 

 

Kid chokes on a Lego that Kellogg's had absolutely nothing to do with, and you think they'd be liable for it because they had an agreement to use the Lego name on some fruit snacks? I want you on my next jury.

[BillyBalata]

You can read in the newspaper on a weekly basis how some toy or another is being recalled because there is a small piece that might possibly fall off and could possibly be stuck in a kids mouth and he could choke.

 

But yet it's ok for a company to design a sell a small piece of candy that resembles a toy....

[TimC]

Mr. TimC,

 

Thank you for your comments regarding Kellogg's™ Lego® Fruit Flavored Snacks. Consumer opinion is important to us and we thank you for the time you took to contact us.

 

The Dallas Cowboys are indeed the greatest franchise in the history of sports. They will win at least 5 more Super Bowls in the next 10 years with Tony Romo at the helm. Maybe even more if he eats his Legos.

 

I look forward to our date. I can indeed make a good sammich and the 2nd best happy mouth time in the Confederacy. I am also a deaf mute with hugh ones.

 

We appreciate your comments and will share them with the appropriate company officials.

 

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts!

 

Sincerely,

 

Laura Cervantes

Consumer Affairs Department

[untateve]

Kid chokes on a Lego that Kellogg's had absolutely nothing to do with, and you think they'd be liable for it because they had an agreement to use the Lego name on some fruit snacks? I want you on my next jury.

 

 

I'm not a lawyer. However, if a food company creates a food snack that looks like legos and does so intentionally, and my child eats a lego because he thinks it's a delicious food snack, I would think that they may be held liable.

[Dutch Oven]

Kid chokes on a Lego that Kellogg's had absolutely nothing to do with, and you think they'd be liable for it because they had an agreement to use the Lego name on some fruit snacks? I want you on my next jury.

 

 

They're using the Lego name and you don't think there's a contractual relationship between Kellogg's and Lego allowing them to do that as well as giving Lego an interest in the profits?

[Azazello1313]

Kid chokes on a Lego that Kellogg's had absolutely nothing to do with, and you think they'd be liable for it because they had an agreement to use the Lego name on some fruit snacks? I want you on my next jury.

 

 

if it's kellogg's product that reasonably caused the kid to think legos were for eating, and the kid eats them and chokes, kellogg's could absolutely be held liable. come on, i don't have to explain this to you of all people. let's say the cartoon network puts on a kids show where little kids are french kissing electrical outlets....then a kid who saw it dies french kissing an electrical outlet. the cartoon network didn't build the house, or manufacture the wiring, or anything of the sort....but of course they can still be sued.

 

the joint marketing between legos and kelloggs only goes to demonstrate a mutual financial benefit, and a joint awareness and promotion of the similarity between the candy and the toy that so many little kids choke on and parents are warned so sternly to keep out of their mouths, which would definitely become a factor if either one of them WERE sued.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Azazello1313

[detlef]

See, you people are already conditioned, your first thoughts were of the lawyers... they have you trained.

 

Who didn't get a green wooden roof panel lincoln log stuck sideways in their mouth when they were kids?

 

That reminds me of a rather funny exchange I had with the guy at Costco who was checking my cart at the exit. The people in front of me had a bag of dried pig ears for their dog and the dude was telling them that they're great for giving to babies for teething. I was shocked because we don't even give those things to our dogs 'cause they're covered with formaldahide. If you read the packages, it always cautions you to wash your hands thoroughly after handling. And dude is giving them to his freaking baby. I decide to mention this fact and suggest that he re-think this practice. Dude looks me right in the face and tells me that his folks gave them to him when he was a kid and he's no worse for it.

 

Not that it is either funny or absolutely connected, but he was stuttering and crosseyed.

[Azazello1313]

That reminds me of a rather funny exchange I had with the guy at Costco who was checking my cart at the exit. The people in front of me had a bag of dried pig ears for their dog and the dude was telling them that they're great for giving to babies for teething. I was shocked because we don't even give those things to our dogs 'cause they're covered with formaldahide. If you read the packages, it always cautions you to wash your hands thoroughly after handling. And dude is giving them to his freaking baby. I decide to mention this fact and suggest that he re-think this practice. Dude looks me right in the face and tells me that his folks gave them to him when he was a kid and he's no worse for it.

 

Not that it is either funny or absolutely connected, but he was stuttering and crosseyed.

 

 

are you sure you were at costco in carolina, and not at h8tank's k-mart in oklahomo?

[tonorator]

french kissing electrical outlets

 

let's be clear ... this is not OK?

[untateve]

Dear untateve:

 

Thank you for your comments regarding Kellogg's Lego® Fruit Flavored Snacks.

 

Consumer opinion is important to us. We appreciate the time you took to contact our company. It is not our intention to cause confusion between our food product and an actual Lego® brick toy piece. We understand your concern and have forwarded your comments to the appropriate people in our company.

 

Again, thank you again for sharing your thoughts

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Yesenia Sanchez

Consumer Affairs Department

 

4YSX/cl

 

012429549A

 

Kellogg North America

PO Box CAMB

Battle Creek, MI 49016-1986

 

 

I guess Yesenia heard about my overwhelming blue eyes and wrote to me.

[Hugh B Tool]

When I was a kid I ate a Barbie doll and she left Ken

[spain]

Kid chokes on a Lego that Kellogg's had absolutely nothing to do with, and you think they'd be liable for it because they had an agreement to use the Lego name on some fruit snacks? I want you on my next jury.

 

I see ALOT more causation/liability there than I do with those spurious lawsuits where the plaintiff comes back 30 years later and claims that he might have worked on some brakes that might have had some asbestos on them that might be the source of where he got sick.

[Squeegiebo]

if it's kellogg's product that reasonably caused the kid to think legos were for eating, and the kid eats them and chokes, kellogg's could absolutely be held liable. come on, i don't have to explain this to you of all people. let's say the cartoon network puts on a kids show where little kids are french kissing electrical outlets....then a kid who saw it dies french kissing an electrical outlet. the cartoon network didn't build the house, or manufacture the wiring, or anything of the sort....but of course they can still be sued.

 

the joint marketing between legos and kelloggs only goes to demonstrate a mutual financial benefit, and a joint awareness and promotion of the similarity between the candy and the toy that so many little kids choke on and parents are warned so sternly to keep out of their mouths, which would definitely become a factor if either one of them WERE sued.

 

 

I want you on my next jury.

 

Edit: I'd be interested in seeing the case law that would support imposing a duty on Kellogg's re: a Lego product. You're obviously talking about a negligence claim, and there is no negligence unless the defendant owed some duty of care to the injured party, the breach of which was the proximate cause of the injury.

 

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Squeegiebo

[cre8tiff]

are you sure you were at costco in carolina, and not at h8tank's k-mart in oklahomo?

 

OK, I did a spit take on this one.

[cre8tiff]

I want you on my next jury.

 

Edit: I'd be interested in seeing the case law that would support imposing a duty on Kellogg's re: a Lego product. You're obviously talking about a negligence claim, and there is no negligence unless the defendant owed some duty of care to the injured party, the breach of which was the proximate cause of the injury.

 

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

 

 

I don't think parent's responsibility to teach this would hold water. It could be shredded by an argument like, "because parents didn't teach thier kids pit bulls can be dangerous, they share responsibility for the mauling." I just don't thinka jury would buy it as a defense.

[wiegie]

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

 

That's the whole freaking point--if a company chooses to make a food product that looks just like a toy, how in the hell are the kids supposed to tell the difference?

[Savage Beatings]

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

 

 

 

Doodie.

[untateve]

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

 

 

Here again, I'm not going to argue case law because that's your expertise, not mine. On the face of it, it appears to me that Kellog's is setting themselves up for liability issues. Certainly, it could become a public relations nightmare.

 

[No disrespect intended] However, the above quoted comment clearly demonstrates that you have not raised children. A 4-5 year old child can be told a million things about what should and shouldn't go in their mouth but in the moment, if it looks good, they may eat it. Particularly when they have been taught that there is a candy that looks pretty much like this lego he's holding in his hand. You can watch your children very closely but it literally only takes seconds for bad things to happen. I once left my son coloring nicely for a few minutes. I came back and he had eaten part of the crayon.

 

I guess my view on this is that a good parent would never purchase such a stupid f'n candy. Sadly, there are many parents who aren't that good.

[detlef]

I want you on my next jury.

 

Edit: I'd be interested in seeing the case law that would support imposing a duty on Kellogg's re: a Lego product. You're obviously talking about a negligence claim, and there is no negligence unless the defendant owed some duty of care to the injured party, the breach of which was the proximate cause of the injury.

 

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

 

So, I take it from your arguments that if someone marketed candy that looked like razor blades (as was jokingly suggested above) you'd be cool with this?

 

I am all about making parents do the parenting. I'm also all about discouraging companies from making that any harder than it already is.

 

If I walk with your kids to school each day and try to bribe them to smack rocks against their heads, wouldn't you tell me to leave your kids alone (I can think of plenty who would do worse)? Or would you simply say, "Well honey, we're just going to have to keep having those talks about not smacking rocks against their heads"

[Azazello1313]

I want you on my next jury.

 

Edit: I'd be interested in seeing the case law that would support imposing a duty on Kellogg's re: a Lego product. You're obviously talking about a negligence claim, and there is no negligence unless the defendant owed some duty of care to the injured party, the breach of which was the proximate cause of the injury.

 

Here's an idea: parents have aduty to teach their kids that food is for eating and toys are not.

 

 

it's not a duty re: the legos product, it's a duty re: the kelloggs product, which is teaching kids that little lego-shaped blocks are sweet, chewy objects to be sucked on and swallowed. i'm not saying it's a cause of action i personally support (i'd have to think about it more), but i feel pretty sure it's one the law could conceivably allow.

[Furd]

I have to agree with Az on this one.

 

(Did I just type that?)

 

I think that Kellogg's could face significant exposure. It may depend on the laws of the state in which the injury happened. Duty and forseeability are givens.

 

The case against the manufacturer of Legos would be more difficult. The issue there would be duty.

[evil_gop_liars]

I bought some Sesame Street colored bath tablets once. They look surprisingly like sweet tarts. I throw a couple in the bath tub and tell my daughter not to eat them, I turn around for about two seconds and when I turn back around my daughter has red coloring dripping out of her mouth and has a terrible look on her face in fact she started crying. I look on the label and the put a bittering agent in these tabs so kids don't eat them.

Like Untateve said it takes about a second for a kid to look at a real lego realize they had those for an afternoon snack yesterday, pop it in their mouth and swallow