Indeed "toilet paper trial", its trial over its "quality"

An accident happened when the university side sued the manufacturer of toilet paper, assuming that the toilet paper used at the University of Colorado in the United States was "defective".

Although I feel that toilet paper is "single" or "double", or there is only difference in the presence or absence of a core, where was the element that became a trial?

The history of the toilet paper trial is as follows.CU: 'defective' toilet paper caused campus toilets to overflow - WJW

The toilet paper used at the University of Colorado in the United States was regarded as a "defective item", and the university side filed a lawsuit against two manufacturers supplying toilet paper.

At the University of Colorado the toilet clogging occurred around May 2009. After that, when I continued to use the same type of toilet paper for 2 years, an accident happened that the toilet was full of water, with 27 buildings together with the academic building and the research building.

The university side insisted that "The toilet that occurred frequently over the past two years is caused by the fact that the toilet paper was not easily dissolved in water". It also claimed that it costed 40 thousand dollars (about 3.21 million yen) to investigate the sewage pipe's condition, and it was said that they filed a lawsuit against two companies that produced and supplied toilet paper That's it.

According to the university official who actually used the toilet, it seems that the floor was submerged when going to the toilet, or it was in a state beyond it and it became useless.

However, the whole university does not agree with this lawsuit, and some students have questioned that toilet paper is not the cause of clogging. Among them are: "Some of the university buildings are considerably aged and I think that plumbing work is not enough," or "Toilet paper was a single type and clogged There seems to be some opinion that it was not an easy thing ".

The university requested two companies, "Royal Paper" and "Waxie", saying that the contract violation and the collateral prescribed by the law were negligent, requiring compensation equal to or more than the amount borne by the university when making a piping investigation It is. Although the two companies seem to make no comment on this matter, I do not know the company's assertion, but the trial on toilet paper has not been settled yet.