Bang Energy Lawsuit


The bang energy lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Swasey by his son, Michael Swasey. According to the lawsuit, Michael Swasey suffered burns on his hands and feet from an “explosive” device known as a blowtorch. In fact, the lawsuit says that he was using the blowtorch on his father’s chicken coop when it accidentally went off, leaving behind a small hole. While this is almost certainly true, Michael Swasey did have permission to use the device, which would explain why his father found the hole. There were other people in the area at the time who saw the explosion, and one of them, Michael Swasey’s uncle, told the police officers that he believed the device had exploded. This story seems to corroborate the police officers’ claim that the explosion was caused by the bang energy.

So Michael Swasey took his father’s henchman, Jody Hobble, to court. They claimed that Michael had caused damage to their equipment by neglecting to buy an appropriate air compressor for his equipment or a hard seltzer to clean up the used oil and debris after the bang energy event. The court case was ongoing at the time and went to trial. There are four main witnesses. Two of them took the stand, and one was an owl (which was a very popular pet at that time). The other witnesses were two geologists who found some evidence at the scene, as well as a former employee of the defendants who took the testimony of one of the scientists.

One of the experts was George Seltzer. Mr. Seltzer is described as a member of the California Academy of Botany. In his testimony he explained how the two and vpx hard seltzer were supposed to fit into each other. At the trial the jury failed to view this testimony as conclusive evidence that the two machines were meant to work together. It was concluded that the two machines were not designed to be used in combination.

During the trial the defendant’s lawyers tried to cast doubt on the testimony of the witnesses. One of their expert witnesses called by the plaintiffs, Mr. George Seltzer Jr., a former employee of defendant Massey-Harris Energy Company, was unable to provide any evidence to prove that the machines were designed to be used in conjunction with each other. The trial judge in favor of the plaintiffs discounted Seltzer’s testimony as unreliable, but the court was not disheartened. It was still found that there was substantial evidence that the machines were intended to be operated together.

The plaintiffs also claimed that the design of the owoc was wrong, and that they were not meant to be used in tandem with each other. They maintained that they had bought the hard seltzer for approximately thirty dollars and the two for fifty dollars, and were using the hard seltzer for the majority of the cleaning up. During cross examination, the defendant’s attorney tried to portray to the jury that the plaintiffs did not have the right to use the machine in tandem with the owoc. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. (The jury verdict was later overturned.)

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for injuries they sustained when they fell from the hard to reach machine. The jury awarded compensation for those injuries. Mr. Seltzer was also found liable for failing to provide proper training for his employees. This was a costly lesson for him and other manufacturers, who were also found liable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *