Man Sues Apple Over Potential Hearing Loss
Feb 2, 2006 at 2:58 PM Post #31 of 63
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey
Absolutely. The guy can't even specify damages. Lol. Apple should make a motion for Rule 11 sanctions as well.


I was just about to say the same thing in response to the comment about wasting the court's time.
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 3:22 PM Post #32 of 63
I dont think any of these examples are more dumb than suing Apple over hearing loss. HONESTLY, it has to be atleast uncomfortable to cause noticeable damage, unless this guys' iPods been playing into his head for MONTHS on end, 24/7.


I'm going to sue my LCD monitor manufacturer because where i put my monitor has given me chronic neck problems. What? I didn't see any warnings when i unpacked and set up my monitor?

I'm going to sue NBC for making addictive television shows that made my GPA suck, thus not getting a good job. What? You've never heard of cliffhangers? You just HAVE to watch again!

I'm going to sue Bic because one of those mechanical pencils had too much lead come out,and when i pushed it back in it punctured my skin, resulting in multiple infections.


I'm going to sue...HeadFi for spending my wallent into oblivion. Sure you guys always apologize (Welcome to HeadFi, sorry about your wallet) but that's not adequate warning!!
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 4:50 PM Post #35 of 63
Quote:

Originally Posted by JahJahBinks
Isn't this similar to the hot coffee lawsuit, cruise control lawsuit and cigarette lawsuit?


coffee and cruise control mentioned above. If you're referring to the tobacco litigation, that's a very different animal.
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 4:55 PM Post #36 of 63
Actually, I think many people have a misperception of the McDonalds hot coffee case. Prior to the old lady's case, McDonalds had received numerous complaints that the coffee was too hot but basically ignored them all. The lady who was burned initially asked only that McDonald pay for her medical costs, which was somewhere around $20k, but McDonalds refused to settle. She then proceeded with the lawsuit and was awarded by the jury something like $200-300k for compensatory damages and nearly $3 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced significantly. The lady definitely was partly at fault for what happened to her, but it isn't like McDonalds was completely guilt free. McDonalds brewed that coffee at a temperature that would melt skin completely off in a few seconds and at a temperature that was too hot to consume at the time of sale, and as mentioned before, McDonalds received hundreds of complaints in the past and failed to ever warn of the extreme temperatures. I think people also fail to take into account the nature of punitive damages, which is to punish the wrongdoer. Punitive damages, if deemed appropriate to award, need to be significant enough to affect the wrongdoer's behavior. When you consider that there seems to be a McDonalds restaurant every block and that McDonalds probably sells like a gazillion cups of coffee everyday, that initial $3 million punitive damages awarded doesn't seem as excessive as newspapers made it out to be.

Oh yeah, just wanted to add that the lady's injuries weren't minor. She suffered 3rd degree burns to a significant portion of her body and had to get skin grafts and other medical attention.
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 8:02 PM Post #38 of 63
Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO
McDonalds brewed that coffee at a temperature that would melt skin completely off in a few seconds and at a temperature that was too hot to consume at the time of sale...


Uh... I hate to break it to you, but the hottest you could brew coffee is somewhere around 100C, and at that temperature, you would hardly "melt skin off in a few seconds." Good enough to get 2d degree burns, and that's it. Now, 2d degree burns are nothing to laugh at, but I don't see how you could rack up $20k in medical bills unless you have a pre-existing condition that renders you more vulerable to burn damage, but that shouldn't be the restaurant's responsibility. This is the same as suing a gun manufacturer for accidentally shooting a family member.

Anyway, the iPod case is, if anything, even more stupid than the McDonalds' case. And, it is poised to do some damage to the industry if it actually goes through.
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 10:29 PM Post #40 of 63
Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch
Uh... I hate to break it to you, but the hottest you could brew coffee is somewhere around 100C, and at that temperature, you would hardly "melt skin off in a few seconds." Good enough to get 2d degree burns, and that's it. Now, 2d degree burns are nothing to laugh at, but I don't see how you could rack up $20k in medical bills unless you have a pre-existing condition that renders you more vulerable to burn damage, but that shouldn't be the restaurant's responsibility. This is the same as suing a gun manufacturer for accidentally shooting a family member.

Anyway, the iPod case is, if anything, even more stupid than the McDonalds' case. And, it is poised to do some damage to the industry if it actually goes through.


I don't remember that actually temperature of the coffee, but I think the reason that the burns were so bad because she was in a car and spilled coffee on her pants so she couldn't get her pants off in time and it just kept burning.

I'll have to look up the McDonald's case sometime to see what really happened. Anyone remember the name of the lady?
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 10:33 PM Post #41 of 63
Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch
Uh... I hate to break it to you, but the hottest you could brew coffee is somewhere around 100C, and at that temperature, you would hardly "melt skin off in a few seconds." Good enough to get 2d degree burns, and that's it. Now, 2d degree burns are nothing to laugh at, but I don't see how you could rack up $20k in medical bills unless you have a pre-existing condition that renders you more vulerable to burn damage, but that shouldn't be the restaurant's responsibility. This is the same as suing a gun manufacturer for accidentally shooting a family member.


Hmm, I remember discussing this case in law school. I think this website sums up my recollection of the facts (though recall, the source is a plaintiff's attorney group). The key point we discussed was why McDonalds kept brewed coffee at higher temperatures than its competitors.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Best,

-Jason
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 10:34 PM Post #42 of 63
i want to sue whatever corporation came up with the human body. i mean, did they have to build the playground right next to the garbage dump?
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 10:40 PM Post #43 of 63
Yea, I actually muttered out loud when I read this story (was in a public place) haha.

They can't blame Apple for this. If Apple sold their player with extra restrictions then how many people do you think would buy the darn thing? I mean it'd get a reputation as a player with inferior sound quality and people would start looking at other products (from companies who havn't been sued yet). Lets face it john q public wants it to go loud! Apple can't be responsible for the fact that he chooses to do this. This guy has nothing.

On the bright side the headphone amp Manufacturers would get a huge spike in business from general consumers.
smily_headphones1.gif
wink.gif
 
Feb 2, 2006 at 11:37 PM Post #45 of 63
Another knife thrust to the heart of personal responsibility. Can I sue for upgraditis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top