Lawsuit: iPods may cause ... eh?

[Ravenseye]

So a man is sueing Apple because if you listen to your ipod with the volume turned all the way up it can cause hearing damage, and there weren't enough warnings on the label...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/01/ipod.suit.ap/index.html

In other news I'm going to sue Craftsman because there is no warning on the hammer not to strike my own head with it. I'm SICK of people ruining things because of these exploitative lawsuits. Warm coffee instead of Hot coffee. iPods that I can't get loud enough when i'm riding the bus or on a plane.

I want to be able to do what I want to my body (spill hot coffee on my genitals, damage my eardrums, smoke pot) without some jerk preventing me because he's unable to use whatever item it is responsibly or in moderation.

GAAAAAAA!!!!!

[trotsky]

1. It's cases like these

that totally undermine the legitimate lawsuits (like the McDonald's coffee incident - you'd be surprised at just how valid that lawsuit was), and give strength to the corporate stooges seeking tort "reform."

[Ravenseye]

7. Exactly

Cases like this will be used to screw people who actually suffered from use. Sueing because your ipod is loud enough to be heard on the New York Subway, takes away from people who sue because...oh say the crib holding their infant collapses because it's been improperly designed.

I wasn't aware that the coffee incident was valid. I'll have to look into that. I thought it was a case of someone in a drive through getting blisteringly hot coffee and putting it in their crotch to hold....My memory must be fuzzy.

[trotsky]

8. Here ya go:

A pretty good rundown of the facts of the case.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[Craig3410]

25. Geez; learn something new everyday.

The plaintiff was 81 AND the coffee was much hotter than normal coffee AND they never consulted a burn expert?

Geez, it's amazing what gets left out of the summary "Somebody spilled McDonalds coffee on their lap and sued them!"

And who in the hell makes coffee at 185 frickin degrees?

[trotsky]

28. And all she had initially wanted was something like $20,000

for her medical bills! McDonald's refusal to even consider that was truly a sign of their corporate arrogance. Still, even the initial award the jury granted represented only like a tenth of a percent of their daily coffee sales or something like that. Not like they really suffered any serious financial penalty - especially once the award was reduced.

[annabanana]

9. THANK you!

These cases will be highlighted as reasons to keep people from being able to sue drug companies for bringing dangerous, under-tested, heavily advertised drugs to market. People will no longer have recourse to fight companies who continually cut corners that save a few cents and endanger our lives.
Jane Doe will no longer be able to join with similarly injured John, Jim, Sally and Joachim Doe to press for class action suits that will carry penalties STIFF ENOUGH to deter these mega-corp CRIMINALS from considering them anything but "the cost of doing business".

And the cry of "frivolous lawsuit" will be echoed throughout the right wing noise machine until the guy who runs the newsstand on the corner will believe that a litigious customer will ruin him for a paper cut.

[trotsky]

12. One of the scariest proposals: damage caps.

Imagine how easy it will be for the fuckers to sit down in the boardroom with the numbers, and say, "We'll, we're pretty sure we'll have about 10,000 fatalities with this latest product of ours, but with damage caps, the max it will cost us is far, far less than we're making from annual sales, so fuck 'em!"

[Ravenseye]

14. Car companies already do that

They have an equation about whether to do a recall or not. I forget the actual equation but it's something like (# of cars) x (% chance of accident) x (damage payout), and if that is greater than the cost of a recall, they do a recall. Otherwise they dont' say anything and people die.

Damage caps are the worst thing I can imagine.

[trotsky]

15. Yikes.

I shudder just thinking about that.

[Ravenseye]

17. Whenever I hear damage caps that's what I think of

The damage cap essentially becomes the equivalent of 'cost of recall' and more and more companies will just calculate..

items x %failure x $100,000

Heck some can even save money on their legal department and just payout the max damage without even going to court.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. They actually do that? Thought that was just a Fight Club throwaway line

:wow:

[Ravenseye]

23. No that's totally real

Luckily most defects are normally pretty widespread, and warrant recalls. If your seatbelt malfunctions it's a good chance that most seatbelts in similiar cars do as well, thanks to assembly line manufacturing. A problem in one car, often is a problem in all.

Still. It's a scary thought.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Asshole should be told to go play hide and go fuck yourself,

and be denied any medical coverage for his hearing loss.

Everyone of those ear-blasting assholes, forcing other people to listen to their music, should have all medical coverage related to hearing loss taken away from them, and they should have to wear a large "DBIAAA" on their clothing, "Deaf because I am an asshole".

Fucking assholes.

[Ravenseye]

5. Well I wouldn't go that far :)

I just think that there are plenty of devices that depend on people using them responsibly, and if you can't do that, it doesn't mean you get to sue the manufacturer because you didn't realize that the sound was loud enough to hurt your ears.

The sound level being discussed is the equivalent level of standing next to a loud car horn, just a little louder than being inside the NY Subway. We're not talking Jet Engine noise level here.

Anyway the point is that we don't need warning labels on everything. If I hit myself on the head with a hammer I should still get medical care, I just shouldn't be able to sue the guy who made the hammer.

[seriousstan]

3. I am suing GM for all my speeding tickets.

[wakeme2008]

4. .

seriousstan:spank: :)

[seriousstan]

6. Hey, my Ipod volume control goes to 11.

......Warning, previous references may be more obscure than they appear.

[dogday]

10. Maybe someone should also inform this guy

if he sticks his IPOD up his ass, there will be no refund either....

[Mel]

11. I see your point

but the thing with the McDonalds coffee it was third degree burns eight weeks in the hospital with skin grafts. McDonalds had been warned/sued numerous times 700 I believe. The lady started out only wanting her bills payed for.
Check this story out I know it's insane that the guy is suing for what he is but the thing is a few dumb asses should not be allowed to convince us to buy into the conservatives bs 'tort reform' the courts will not allow this case to trial if it's frivolous.



http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=53
Lowering the Bar
The conservative movement's well-funded attacks on trial lawyers

We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled hot coffee from a fast food joint in her lap, then sued the restaurant, and was subsequently awarded a huge sum of money for a seemingly stupid act. This is only one of many supposed examples of "out-of-control" lawsuits and outrageous damage awards that are causing our legal system to collapse, our businesses to fold, and our insurance rates to skyrocket. Right?
Maybe not. It turns out that these popular stories about lawsuits and their effects are almost always misleading, distorted, or outright lies. Our legal system is not collapsing, lawsuits are not causing businesses to fold, and damage awards are not why insurance rates are rising. </snip>

http://www.corpreform.com/corpreform/2003/10/the_myth_of_the.html
<snip>What tort reformers don’t tell you is that the legal system already has three safety mechanisms in place to prevent, dismiss, and correct frivolous lawsuits. The first mechanism, the contingent-fee agreement prevents frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.</snip>

[Ravenseye]

16. Read a few things now about the coffee

I wasn't aware of the time she spent in the hospital. I think the problem there was that McDonald's is a typical asshole company. If they had just given her 10 grand it wouldn't have been an issue (that's what she asked for to cover her medical expenses).

Yet at the same time I understand the other side of it. The problem wasn't just the heat level of the coffee but the fact that she spilled it on her cotton pants, which retained the heat, stuck to her legs, and proceeded to transfer the heat. She left the pants on for I think 90+ seconds. It had to hurt, why didn't she take the pants off immediately? I"ve been burned before in a simliar way...

I was about 4 I think, and my mom put some hot soup in front of me. I proceeded to pull the soup towards me and it spilled on my chest, and onto my shirt. It was practically boiling but what made it worse was that my mother was already in the other room and it took maybe 10 seconds before she ripped the shirt off of me. That's what did the damage. (I think my mom still feels guilty about that...I had 3rd degree burns on my chest and can still to this day feel the outline of where the burn is though you can't see the scar anymore)

Anyway, I agree the Mcdonald's case is a close one, and I can see that passing a 'review board' for these types of cases, but at the same time I think the woman has to be held partly responsible. It's the kind of thing where I think she did feel that way, but just wanted McDonalds to pay for her medical expenses, and when they didn't, that's when she sued them....A situation which would have played out much more radically different in a nation with national health care.

[BushOut06]

26. Honestly, why should McDonald's have given her a penny?

Not trying to sound heartless or defend McDonald's (after watching Supersize Me, I've cut down my trips there considerably), but how are they responsible for some woman spilling hot coffee on her lap? Coffee is supposed to be hot! Honestly, I would never even attempt to drink coffee out of one of those styrofoam cups while driving, but that's just me and my paranoia - and a little common sense.

I agree with you 100% about the national health care issue, however. The fact that people can't afford medical treatment is simply horrific.

[DelawareValleyDem]

27. Why?

Here's why. You're laboring under some misconceptions about the case. For one, she WASN'T driving. Read this.

http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

[Ravenseye]

31. Here's what makes me waver

The coffee at McDonalds' definately was determined by the company to be at a certain temperature (which theyr'e not alone at. Starbucks brews and distributes their coffee at simliar temperatures and has also been sued). The car wasn't moving, and she had the coffee balanced between her knees and trying to open teh coffee to put in her cream and sugar it spilt on her lap.

I'm sure she's not alone there.

The problem was that she was wearing a type of pant that absorbed that heat and transfered it to the legs. She left the pants on as they scalded her legs for over a minute. That's where the damage occured, and that's why McDonald's probably refused to pay. They felt that while the coffee was hot, that she wouldn't have incurred the damages she had by simply spilling the coffee on her skin. It took the prolonged exposure to the heat to actually cause the damage.

Sort of like, if McDonald's were to sell you coffee that hot, and you were to put your finger in the coffee and leave it in the scalding coffee for 90 seconds, requiring medical treatment, would Mcdonald's be responsible for paying that? An argument can be made that coffee is best made, stored, and served at a higher temperature than you can drink, and that part of the process of getting coffee is to get it and wait for a few minutes as it cools. Additionaly you could argue that placing a styrofoam cup between your knees does not constitute safe use for any liquid, and that by not removing the pants once they became soaked with the hot liquid, you were responsible for anything past initial exposure.

Again though. If I were McDonalds I would have paid for her medical expenses just because it's the nice thing to do, not out of a feeling that it was 'our fault'. Additionally, this is a problem that only exists because we dont' have National Health Care as the woman simply wanted her medical bills covered.

[BushOut06]

33. Thanks - I can see the points

Even though I still disagree that McDonald's was responsible, I do agree that it would have been a nice good-faith gesture.

[DelawareValleyDem]

34. A few things also worth noting.

She was not held blameless. The compensatory damages were reduced by 20 percent to $160,000 because of her actions.

Also, there was expert testimony that liquids at that temperature would cause full thickness burns within eight seconds.

Finally, the court reduced the punitive award to three times compensatory damages, much less than what the jury awarded. The parties eventually reached a post verdict settlement whose terms were not disclosed, but presumably were less than what the court awarded. A large settlement, but much less than the inital jury award of nearly three million dollars which is most often mentioned.

[BushOut06]

13. I'm going to sue the makers of the Ginsu knives

Because there's the potential that I could be running around the house with one, trip, and stab myself in the heart and die.

[Ravenseye]

18. It'll cut through you as easily as cutting through a tin can!

Yikes.

[mod mom]

19. The ipod shuffle does not equalize song volume so if you are listening to

a song at an appropriate level, the next song may be much louder. I got one when they first came out, unaware of this problem. I now have constant ringing in my ears. Of course, I am not sueing, but I do think this should be better explained. I do not allow my children (8 + 9) to use ipods because a one time incident can result in lifetime damage. I use my husband as an example of just what can happen-dancing by an amp at a cramps concert in the 70's resulted in significant hearing loss.

[kedrys]

20. Can't hear you...Got my earbuds screwed in tight right now.

With the volume control at, well, 11. :D

But it's 100% my fault.

On edit: added responsibility disclaimer.

[derby378]

22. HUH?

Can't hear a damn thing you're saying. I'm borrowing my wife's iPod and listening to Industrial Fucking Strength 3 REAL LOUD!

And you're interrupting the DJ Narotic vs. UVC set, to boot...

[stop the bleeding]

24. hot coffee from McDaonalds anyone - jeez when will people learn n/t

[napi21]

29. Clark Howard discussed this ipod thing on his radio show

several months ago. He was relating a study that was done on almost across the board hearing damage being done to many ipod users because the sound is actually INSIDE the ear canal, which apparently causes more damage, and quicker than noise outside the ear.

What he said was really true. As the day goes on, we all tend to turn the radio up, and by the end of the day it's REALLY LOUD!

I know this is true, not from an ipod, but from my car radio. Almost EVERY morning, I'd hop in my car, start it up, and WOW, the radio was just blasting! I'd say, geesh, was it really that loud last night on the way home?

Even Clard said his daughter has the volume of her ipod up so high, HE can hear the sound from the other side of the kitchen.

Clark's suggestion was to put a limiter on the max sound so that these kids aren't really sorry when they're 35 that they were so stupid when they were 16.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'd hate to see a whole generation of people be partially deaf when they reached middle age!

[Ravenseye]

32. The earbuds are definately part of the problem

I remember the first ones that came out for htose in the early eighties and people even back then said they were worse for the ears. That it was better to wear headphones that surrounded the ears, rather than place the noise directly into the canal, much as the ipod earbuds do.

You're right though. I find the same thing with the television. At night I think i have the volume low soas not to wake my daughter upstairs, but then when I turn it on in the morning to watch the Daily Show on the DVR it is LOUD. I think everyone has had to turn the television down on a cold grey Saturday morning.

Daily noise exposure causes damage to pretty much everyone. Even working in a relatively hustle and bustle noisy office can cause damage given constant exposure of 8 hours. At the full blast of the Ipod though at 115 decibels or whatever the damage just happens much earlier.

Though anyone who has been to a rock concert has incurred probably more damage.

I think the answer is to put an equilizer on these devices. A friend of mine has a reciever for his home theater/stereo system that can be done by decibels. Instead of obsure numbers where one channel is louder than another, or this song is louder than that, and the volume stays at '21' it produces it by decibel. You can set it at 20db or 50 db or 150 db. and whatever you listen to is equilized to be at that same level. It's great, and it's somethign that should definately be in those types of devices, with instructions in the user manual about what levels cause damage, though allowing people to turn the volume up if they so choose.

I just dont' think this guy really needs to sue for this to happen, nor do I think it's his actual purpose.

[Armstead]

30. It deswerves to be in court -- But he doesn;t deserve to get money

I think the guy does have a point that at least deserves to be ruled on by the courts. If the point of his suit to ensure that the product clearly warns of potential hearing loss at high volumes, then a judge and jury should decide on the merits of that.

He shouldn't get a lot of money for it though. That would seperate a legitimate use of the courts from a "frivolous" lawsuit that is merely someone trying to opportunistically cash in.

We should be able to have a legal system that addresses such issues, while at the same time preventing abuses of the court system.

[No Exit]

35. Let 'em sue--doesn't mean they'll win.

People only hear about the beginning of these things. The media never, ever covers the end of the great majority of these things. Even the big jury verdicts usually get clipped down to nothing after the appeals. And if they don't, the corporations have plenty of asset-protection devices which usually prevent the plaintiffs from recovering any actual money.

The Republican congress, as well as Republican appeals and state supreme court justices handpicked by Karl Rove (I'm not kidding--he handpicked some of them in MY state, which isn't even a major population center), have churned out more than ample protection for corporations and manufacturers to make and sell ANYTHING they want, ANY WAY they want.

Next time you buy a car, look at the contract. You'll find an ARBITRATION CLAUSE in it. This is a clause which is designed to keep you OUT OF COURT--to keep you from ever even reaching a court to sue, in case there turns out to be something seriously wrong with your NEW car.

Please don't buy into the fearmongering about "lawsuit abuse". It's a purely REPUBLICAN ploy. It has been sold well to the American public. Why? Because most plaintiffs' attorneys (that's the attorneys who represent the LITTLE GUYS) happen to be contributors to the DEMOCRATIC party. Ask John Edwards.

The fearmongering about "lawsuit abuse" and "it costs all of us" (that's just an out-and-out lie) is comparable to the fearmongering about "terror". In the terror fearmongering, you are cajoled into giving up civil liberty after civil liberty, because of fear of an unknown, allegedly omnipotent, enemy, from whom ONLY Republicans such as George W. Bush are capable of protecting you.

In the " lawsuit abuse" fearmongering, you are cajoled into accepting any product, no matter how harmful, because of fear that someone is "trying to tell you what to do" or "trying to coddle you" or "trying to be a nanny state". Oh, I'm not saying a loud i-Pod is really harmful to those who elect to use it--I'm just saying that tempests-in-teapots like this are being used to get everyone to accept that "you can't expect the corporation to have to pay for the damage--after all, that person CHOSE to (fill in the blank... smoke those cigarettes, play with that gasoline, use that space heater, drive that Pinto, etc.)"

What do you think of John Edwards, by the way?

[No Exit]

36. The truth about personal injury lawsuits and the McDonald's case

"APPEALING THE DECISION:

The majority of cases where a jury awards millions of dollars are appealed, and many times, those verdicts are reduced or overturned on appeal. For example, in the Igen case that was discussed earlier, the appellate court reduced the $505 million dollar verdict down to $19 million dollars– a $486 million dollar reduction.

While some verdicts are reduced, others are overturned entirely by appellate courts. It’s important to realize that the judges in appellate courts aren’t overly emotional jurors, but are seasoned judges who place far more weight upon the legal issues in a case then on the emotional issues. As such, incredibly large jury verdicts are rarely upheld by the many appellate courts in our country.

Despite what tort reformers claim, large jury verdicts are the exception, and not the rule. When juries do return large verdicts, the plaintiffs usually settle for less than verdict or see the verdict reduced or overturned by an appellate court.

Our justice system is a system of checks and balances. Before someone can even bring a case, they have to convince an attorney that their case is worth gambling time and money on. The contingent-fee agreement weeds out countless cases that have no merit. Once an attorney accepts the case, a judge will most likely scrutinize the facts and law applicable to the case through a summary judgment. If the judge decides that the case has merit, then the case will be presented to an impartial jury of twelve men and women. If those twelve men and women are convinced that the plaintiff has proven his or her case, the jury will then rule in favor of the plaintiff, and award compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge has an opportunity to modify, reduce, or set aside the jury’s verdict. Then, the defendant has an opportunity to appeal his case to higher courts, and even more experienced judges can then modify, reduce, or set aside a jury’s verdict.

The burden of proof in any case is always on the plaintiff; the deck is stacked in favor of the defendants in both civil and criminal cases. Multimillion-dollar jury verdicts rarely survive the appeals process. Yet tort reformers continue to argue that we need more barriers to file lawsuits, and statutory limitations on how much money can be awarded in the lawsuits we’re able to file. The reason is that the big corporations who push for tort reform don’t want the bad press and public scrutiny that accompanies trials where people are severely injured or killed. Instead, they prefer to enter into confidential settlements that the public never knows about.

Tort reform isn’t about fixing a “broken” justice system; it’s about protecting the public image and bottom lines of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. Tort reform isn’t about protecting doctors from high insurance rates; it’s about protecting their insurers from having to pay large judgments. Tort reform isn’t about keeping “greedy lawyers” from filing frivolous lawsuits; it’s about keeping those who are severely injured out of the court system and away from the public eye."

Lots more at the website, including all the details about the McDonald's case.

http://www.corpreform.com/indepth_articles/index.html

[No Exit]

37. "He's paying for a product that's defective, and the law is pretty clear

that if someone sold you a defective product they have a duty to repair it."

WTF is wrong with that?

Before a lawsuit is filed, the initiating party is REQUIRED to make a request for what they want the defending party to do. A REQUEST. That's a LETTER. The plaintiff's lawyer sends a letter to Apple and its lawyers asking them to remedy the problem.

If they had remedied the problem, this matter wouldn't be a lawsuit and CNN wouldn't be publishing their fearmongering article about it.

And those guys in Tuskeegee have no one but themselves to blame for having died of syphilis. They took part in that study voluntarily. Nobody MADE them go to those doctors!

[lectrobyte]

38. I've got a good case against Electrolux. They should have known

what would happen if a teenaged boy was left alone in the house with a powerful vacuum cleaner. Who knew the fan was that close to the inlet opening?