Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Potential Hearing Loss
freaktheclown writes "A man is suing Apple, claiming that the iPod can cause hearing loss for those who use it." From the article: "The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss,' according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana. The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer."
The world has enough proof that there is no intelligent life in the US.
If he gets Apple, then I'm calling iRiver for the damage they've done to my hearing.
Well too me this seems rather unfair on Apple.
/. for keeping me a wake all night to try and get first posts.
In short he had the volume control and it was in his power to change it to the correct level for him.
It sounds all too like the person who burgled and empty house and fell though the rotten floor boards. Then he sued.
He shouldn't have had the volume high enough to damage his hearing anyway.
It seems like saying I should sue
I'm sure if he wins many more will follow though.Could this be the demise of Apple?
Luckily the speakers used in Apple's PowerBooks and iBooks are specifically designed to not cause hearing loss, or they'd really be screwed.
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
This just shows how ignorant people can be... it's like suing the maker of a handgun because you were careless with it. Take responsibility for your actions people... if you listen to your iPod too loud then deal with the consequences of your stupidity.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
I had no Idea Stupidity was grounds for a law suit.
It has been known since before the dawn of portable audio that loud noises hurt your hearing.
Sticking headphones in your ears and putting it at full blast is obviously going to damage your hearing .
This is people trying to get rich off their own stupidity , which is hardly surprising as 90% of lawsuits are exactly the same.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Good idea!
I'll start suing the manufacturers of the various amplifiers, receivers, and speakers I've had over the past ~25 years of brutalizing my ears. And I'll name all the bands, especially Motorhead, who have given me pleasure in a separate suit!
My hearing probably isn't what it should be but the last thing I'd consider doing is suing the product makers.
written as the sweet sounds of Slayer fill my office...
Trolling is a art,
Stella Liebeck vs John Kiel Patterson can't be to far away.
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
...and how are iPods any different from any other headphone-capable audio device?
Nothing to see here, move along
There are at least a few problems here (all of which have been discussed over the months since the first of these ridiculous complaints):
First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.
Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.
There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...
"Stumble before you crawl"
Contents herein may be EXTREMELY LOUD!
i really think that in cases such as these, the state should sue the parents of the plaintiff for gross negligence in raising a child - anybody that unequipped to deal with the real world needs to be dealt with or put down.
like the mcdonald's coffee case. and countless others.
---- I was woken up this morning by a face full of fur. Damn cat thought my head made a good pillow.
huh hearing what?
Loud noises can damage your hearing! This was something I was taught in primary school, it doesn't require a genious to know these things.
You can sue McDonalds for hot coffee you spill on yourself, why not sue Apple for loud music you deafen yourelf with?
Or am I once again off my rocker?
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
So... don't turn the volume all the way up, moron?
Personal accountability is dead.
I am going to mail a large salami to the judge, in hopes that he will use it to smack the plaintiff.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
If he wins, we'll end up with the iMayCauseLossOfMyHearingBecauseIAmDumb on store shelves.... -Kurt
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
If the problem was related to a bug in the iPod software whereby the volume would jump, or max itself out then I think he'd have a case.
Me, I don't really want Apple to add a volume restriction like they have on the European ones. It doesn't analyze the signal volume, it simply restricts the maximum volume the user can select. Thereby limiting the amount you can hear on an otherwise quite recording (of Classical music for example).
This is the kind of guy who would sue because he stuck his tongue on a metal pole when it's significantly below freezing.
Sue the instrument manufacturers, musicians, and record labels too.
All the pairs of headphones and personal stereos I've gotten over the years have had warnings about hearing damage when listening at high volume for long periods of time. I hope this doesn't lead to devices which have a volume control that only goes to 2 (except cellphones... those damn things are loud as hell, and I mean other people's phones that broadcast the conversation everywhere).
You all know there has NEVER before in history existed a devise that resonates sound that you put on your ears.
OH CRAP! Ma Bell's in for it! There is _NO_ warning on my telephone that it may cause hearing loss!!!!
For that matter, where's my 1985 brick-lookin walkman! I bet there's no warning on it either!
What is this world coming to???
Next they'll have to put a warning on internet access devices
*Warning - the contents may cause humor, stress, loss of social live, or erections.*
I think he should sue every band he listened to, too. Most probably it was their fault to record loud music.
That's so stupid, it's only possible in the U.S.
Sir, you should not have had the volume up so loud. LALALALALALA I can't hear you!
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Boy, this sounds an awful lot like a plot line from Steve Martin's The Jerk. His character invents these cool grippy glasses and makes a million or two. Later he's sued because everyone gets crosseyed for wearing the glasses.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
A: Big Tobacco not only knowingly distributed a product that causes cancer without telling people, it supressed studies indicating that carcinogenic effect.
B: Prior to Apple's introduction of the iPod, the physics and biology of hearing loss due to loud sounds was well developed.
"Stumble before you crawl"
The result of this will be less choice for iPod buyers. The iPods will be artificially limited so you can't play them very loud.
Lawsuit reform anyone?
He's infringing my patent: US PAT 99846321-666 "A method for obtaining stupidly large amounts of financial compensation from commercial organisations by suing them because they failed to point out (rightly or otherwise) something mind-numbingly obvious about a potential (real or otherwise) hazard related to the use of their product/s that anyone with a small degree of common sense would be competent to identify for themselves and thus take appropriate action."
AT&ROFLMAO
The article claims it takes 28 seconds to damage your hearing at the loudest setting. That's plenty of time to take the earphones off, or lower the volume. If the iPod damaged hearing in under 1 or 2 seconds I could see how that would be an inherent flaw in the device as anyone can make that mistake by accident.
Obviously that's not the case, so I'd be surprised if this suit gets any father than dumb headlines on slashdot.
AccountKiller
Besides, who would they pay, the guy that brought the suit and didn't even claim hearing loss?
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
Headphones can be loud.
Knives can be sharp.
Cars can go fast.
You've been warned!
Win or lose, they're going to take the beautiful iPod and plaster warnings all over it. It's going to be hideous.
Actually I want my iPod to go louder.
If I have a big pair of earphones on, then the iPod doesn't really have enough power to drive them. I have heard a rumor that a US firmware (as opposed to EU) will give it more volume (apparently the EU has a law that forces output to be capped at a *safe* level), but I have been unable to find any regional firmware at all.
i'll be sueing levis because of poor blood circulation due to lack of warning on too-tight jeans.
my legs are sleeping but my rear is buffed.
As much as I would like to agree with you, I think he has a case for one reason...
In the early days headphones sat on the side of your head and let in other noise. However, with the IPod ear buds fit 100% percent into your ear. This means you get music and only music. I saw a news article in German that said because the ear buds fit tightly and do not let other noise in you are subject to the noise of the ear buds.
The short and curly of it. Even if you put the noise level REALLY low you could get hearing impaired...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
When I'm not a mild-mannered software engineer, I compose and record music. Should I sue myself if I have hearing loss from listening to my music? Should I sue Line 6, Fender, Gibson, and a host of others for making "loud" devices? I think not.
There's a thing called a volume control. When used in moderation, volume is cool.
These lawsuits shouldn't even be picked up by the lawyers in the first place.
A Passionate Independent Musician
First I live here in the USA and I love it here but....
People here are morons looking for a quick buck. I was amazed when I learned about the man who used his lawnmower to trim his hedges and then sued the lawnmower company when he hurt himself because there were no safetys or warning labels.
People need to start owning up to their own actions and stop expecting other people (in this case apple) to hold their hand.
I really wish judges could make the accuser pay for the legal teams of the other company for stupid and sensless lawsuits and disbar the lawyer who takes the case.
Now ipods (and indeed every electonic sounds device) will simply have the max volume reduced, covering thier asses from being sued, but for those of with heaing loss (that we actually liked getting thank you) were boned because the music is going to be a whisper. I mean seriously whats next, we sue cars manufacturers for not making a car that can steer away from an accident while im drunk? Nothing is my fault!
Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
I can only assume that you haven't paid attention to the goings-on in the US for the last, oh, two point five decades or so. There is no need to assume responsibility for your actions, as long as you can find a lawyer (you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one) to plead your case. The goal isn't to win a trial, but to win a settlement. Cash in, as it were. There's a whole industry built around these nuisance suits. The worst part is that the ones that do go to a jury trial are likely to be succesful anyway as the jurors apparently sit there thinking, 'Well, if we give this guy a big award, when it's our turn...' Entitlement mentality.
On top of that, you get the 'junk science' lawsuits. Dow Corning and the silicone breast implant bankruptcy is a prime example. There never was and is not any scientific evidence that silicone breast implants lead to any of the medical conditions (real or imagined) that were the cause of those lawsuits. I believe there are still silicone implants available, too (although DC is no longer maufacturing them).
Some times I think I went to bed last night in one timeline. A timeline where normal, common sense prevails. Yet, somehow I've woken up in another timeline. One where everything is slightly off kilter. Not enough to be grossly disorienting, but just enough to be maddeningly noticeable.
--
Sig sour
What a great idea, I'm going to sue my car manufacturer for building a car that can go fast enough to kill me!
I find this absolutely ridiculous to blame Apple for your own stupidity. It's not like they force you to listen a the iPod at maximum level, isn't it ?
Also portable music system have been around since sony's walkman and since then the same claim as been made over and over.
It's true. Listening at full volume will damage your hearing but arent you supposed to know that by now ?
It's bad when people can't take responsability for anything they are doing nowadays. It's the same as how parents don't want to take responsabilty for how they raise their own children and will blame everybody but themsleves when something goes wrong...
...can lack of common sense be basis for a law suit.
Not that I'm 'sue happy'... I have an iPod that hooks into my car stereo. To listen to the music there, I have to turn my iPod on max volume. When I leave my car, I flip the "Hold" switch on the iPod so it doesn't start by accident. Now I want to listen to my headphones. I plug them into the jack, flip off the Hold switch, turn the iPod on. The iPod started playing at the loudest possible volume setting. It was painful.
There should be some sort of 'lag-time' which allows you to adjust the volume before the music plays. It was the loudest thing I have ever heard.
... they want their lawsuit back.
Wasn't the same thing done over the Sony Walkman?
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said. - of-course it is beside the point. The point is this dude wants a shit-load of money he did not deserve and he is prepared to be a litigious bastard to get it, truth be damned!
I hope Steve Jobs doesn't give in and sticks this lawsuit into this guy's ass like a handgrenade and makes his lawyers pull the pin. (an idea for a new product - iGrenade.)
You can't handle the truth.
What's next? People gonna start suing McDonalds for burning themselves with hot coffee? Geese, what's this world coming to.
For mass-producing pop music so bad it makes me want to shove sharp objects in my ear just so I won't have to hear it anymore?
Monstar L
I knew someone would bring up the McDonald's Coffee case.
.. Other establishments sell
m cdonalds.htmo naldsCoffeecase.aspx
The knee-jerk reaction to any seemingly stupid/frivolous litigation (or patent) is to assume that the summary = the case, when in fact things tend to be more complex.
There are a lot of details to the McDonald's case that the unwashed masses tend to not know:
Some important points:
"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle."
"[she] suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas."
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks."
"it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd
I have tinitus since 1996. I don't hear it (or more correctly, think about it) when there is some background noise but it's driving me mad when it's silent. My hearing is still very good though, on the non-damaged frequences. My tinitus has made me much more sensitive to loud volumes than I was before 1996. I frequently go to clubs and concerts and but I hate it when they crank the volume too high, although using ear plugs helps. I like moderate volume.
That said, I have a 60GB iPod Video which I use every day when I'm on the metro, bus, shopping etc. I always have the volume set to max but it's still too damn low. It's impossible to hear the music when people sitting next to me are talking, there is motor noise from the bus, etc. The background noise is often louder than the music...
I fail to see how you can get hearing damages from the iPod. I have never used an older iPod though, could they go louder?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
But they did come with a warning to not steal music. It must be only the illegal downloads that harm hearing!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
So it can cause hearing loss, all the while killing cancer. Sounds more like a feature than a bug!
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I would sue Slashdot for not allowing me to work with my fullest ability, anybody with me?
Every single set of headphones/earphones has a different sensitivity level. That is, feed the same amount of power to 2 different sets of phones, and one will be louder than the other because of the efficiency of the speaker drivers which convert electricity into vibrations.
Basically, at a given volume level on the portable player (say 75% of total) may produce 80 dB of sound output with Brand X headphones and 84 dB of sound output with Brand Y.
IMO if you damage your hearing it is your own damn fault. It is quite easy to tell if you are listening to something that is too loud. If your ears always ring after you listen to a couple of MP3's on your portable player, turn the freaking volume down, nimwit. Same deal if your ears bleed....
My spoon is too big.
We've reversed evolution. Now the stupid unproductive people are the ones who are able to reproduce the most. They're able to do so by living off lawsuit money and welfare.
All those sounds I hear everyday have damaged my hearing. Everything should have a WARNING CAUSES SOUNDS label on it.
"He's bought a product which is not safe to use as currently sold on the market," Berman said. "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."
Why isn't this logic applicable to software? We'd get rid of Microsoft in a second!
I hope the suit gets tossed. Only person getting rich out of this deal is the lawyer. Chances are he has some gas-guzzling vehicle that he can no longer afford to drive.
A class-action lawsuit has been formed by fat people against the Acme Spoon Company, on the claims that their products were insufficiently labeled that excessive use of their product might make someone gain weight.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
In the McDonald's coffee is to hot case, the plaintiff knew that the coffee being served was too hot and had recieved hundreds of complaints about how high the temperature was. The coffee was being served at 40-50 decgrees hotter than recommended. Yet, despite knowing so, McDonald's continued to serve coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns. Is coffee served hot enough to cause third degree burns not fit to drink? Do other drive-throughs serve coffee at a lower temperature? Is coffee served that hot defective? The jury in the McDonald's case answered "yes".
Obviously this is a frivolous case, but what has happened to western society? Why did we let lawyers take over? Is there any way to stop this?
I was somewhat recently in China and this is not the case. One of the first things I noticed is that there are no guard rails for anything. There are six foot drops from sidewalks that have no railings. Parks run directly into big rivers. Although China's government may be a unique case, but I think that the non-western society expects more common sense from their people.
Guy offs himself trimming hedges with a push mower, deafens self by headphones, etc.. I call these sorts of stupid actions "culling of the herd"....
Let's form an organization "Common Sense Of the Commons" and file an amicus curiae.
Fire is hot, dog poop stinks, and water is slightly damp. Any coincidence that San Jose is in the heart of the Ninth Circuit? Seriously, this guy needs to be slapped around with a trout or something...
A Series Of Tubes - The Remix
Apple has countersued John Kiel Patterson's finger for moving the iPod's volume beyond the 93db range, which has possibly caused damage to his hearing.
His finger will be required to testify in court that it indeed did raise the volume beyond acceptable levels, his ears were also subpoenaed in to testify about their injuries.
Noone is sure about Patterson's brain, it has gone missing and possibly is living out of the country.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Another point is in this comparison is that Big Tobacco knowingly increased the nicotine in its product, thereby making it more addictive. While some people might claim that Apple, in all its hip design glory, made the iPod addictive, I'd have my doubts.
1) McDonalds made my kids fat
2) Gun manufactures are liable because people shot each other.
3) Cigarette companies caused me to get cancer, not the fact I inhaled smoke hundreds of times a day, for 30 years.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So my theory is that distortion is more a culprit than overall loudness. There is a mechanical AGC system in the ear that works pretty well, but when you assault it with extra powerful narrow frequency bands, that's what destroys hearing. Because the AGC works with the overall loudness, a single frequency with 10x the power of the overall loudness = damage.
So please try to make sure you are listening to a well-recorded, well-encoded song with good headphones on an amplifier that is nowhere near its limits.
In my opinion this absolutely, beyond belief, nullifies any claim this man may have even thought he had.
nothing
I thought we'd agreed to take the warning labels off everything and let the problem solve itself?
"The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss..."
So basically, he's telling us that if there was a big sticker pasted on the side that said "Hey, Asshat, don't turn it up too loud, you will lose your hearing!" that everything would have been OK, and he would not have sued?
*sigh*
What an asshat.
I'll hear none of this stupidity! ...
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Don't quote me on this, since I just woke up, but I remember reading an article a few months ago, saying other people were considering suing Apple for hearing loss. At least with that case, IIRC, they were claiming that the earbuds AS WELL as the idea that playing 14 hours of non-stop music may cause hearing issues. Or, maybe that was the counterclaim against all the "BUT SONY WALKMANS HAVE BEEN OUT SINCE 1983!!" people saying the people were idiots...
You know, had to flip a tape over, or some other jazz...so, the Walkman vs Mp3 Player issue wasn't relevant...
Anyway, imagine if this guy actually wins? What would Apple do? Prompt the user every 30 minutes that "taking a rest, while listening to the iPod is a good idea." Or, maybe every 30 seconds on really loud levels??
If this guy DOES win, I've got dibs on Creative. It would be GREAT, because their crack pot CEO would probably declare war on me or something equally insane...
I have an iPod (color). In the manual (at least the one on Apple's site), dated 3/3/2005, on page 71 (in the "Safety and Cleaning" section, there is a subsection that is called "Avoid Hearing Damage" that has a box drawn around it.
This section contains the standard boilerplate( "Warning Permanent hearing loss may occur if earbuds or headphone are used at high volume. You can adapt over time to a higher level of sound, which may sound normal but can be damaging to your hearing. Set your iPod to a safe volume level before that happens. If you experience ringing in your ears, reduce the volume or discontinue use of your iPod."
I think that pretty clearly states the issue. Of course it wasn't page zero in the manual, and plaintiff is functionally illiterate, and the warning wasnt in the "meaningful" "international" pictoral diagrams, so Apple will still be at fault.
...it's called a scissors. I'll cut the wires to his headphones, then there is no way he can turn his iPod up loud enough to hurt his hearing!
Better yet, since he may "work around the fix" by replacing the headphones, a dab of epoxy in the headphone jack. Yeah, that will REALLY keep him from hurting himself!
Seriously though, his attorney even admits that they don't know if the iPod caused any damage:
Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said.
EVERYTHING has the potential to cause bodily harm! Do you want to be put in a bubble to protect you from all the "bad things" in the world? His television also has the potential to cause hearing loss, as does his car (defective muffler,) smoke detector (I wonder if he would sue First Alert for hearing loss in the event of a fire,) even the Q-Tips in the bathroom (which everybody knows aren't supposed to be used in the ear canal, but c'mon, who doesn't do that?)
Long live the nanny state! (Yes I meant that sarcastically yet it's unfortunate that some really want it to go that way.)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
But, I have to admit, those earbuds can get dangerously loud. The other day I heard music coming from the next room. I asked my daughter what she was listening to and she said, "My iPod."
"Your Nano? What speakers?", I asked.
"The earbuds," she replied.
Some people are like Slinkies - Not good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you push 'em down the stairs.
the next headline will read "man sues Glock after shooting himself in the foot, claims they sold him something he could hurt himself with." this is just common sense. I mean the knives in cour kitchen drawer could easily cut your fingers clean off, but there isn't a tag attached to those that says "be careful, it is possible to cut your damn fingers off!" its just kind of a given like the iPod thing. I think that ths guy outta be shot, and taken out of the gene pool.
I have an ipod mini and sometimes it gets too loud. If something brushes against the dial (when I forget to put on hold), or if I have been listening to the ipod using a patch cable in my car and have the volume up. I wish the ipod had a way to limit the volume at start up. I also wish the ipod had a skip ahead 45 seconds function for audio books. The ipod/human interface is not customizable. Iriver does a much better job in this area.
I can only guess that your post's title was supposed to be a quote from The Jerk, but it was so poorly carried off that I must point out your ignorance. In the movie's opening scene, Steve Martin's character claims, "I was born a poor black child."
You even have the imdb.com link on your post - didn't have time to click on memorable quotes, I guess.
I'm just really surprised that you seem to think the line is funny, and yet... you mangled it nearly beyond all recognition.
Also, I find your comparison of the Apple lawsuit and the plot of The Jerk to be shallow and pedantic.
Actually, I just think it's a really bad comparison. Really bad.
iPods can be adjusted/set by the user to a level that causes hearing loss. My car can exceed every speed limit and get me killed, if I choose to set the accelerator to "floor."
My drain cleaner will kill me if I drink it....
What ever happened to common sense?
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Excelent! I can almost start marketing my iPod amplified ear buds and head phones! I just wish I could wrap a warning on there that insulted the customer. I just don't think that telling them, "If you are stupid enough to listen loud enough to damage your hearing. Don't blame us... But we can help you with that with our new line of hearing aids!" But seriously, I like being able to crank the volume on my iPod when listening to certain books and podcasts that are recorded a little low.
How about all the other MP3 players? How about the old tape players, Walkmans? The portable CD players? All the portable radios?
Any of these devices can be used to damage your hearing (I don't know if it is permanent or temporary damage.)
Why single out iPod? Simple. It is the most popular, best advertised, basically the one with the most money.
You can't handle the truth.
If the plaintiff knew that the coffee being served was too hot, I'd say the lawsuit had no merits. Try defendant.
This crap has happened for so long, the only surprise is that Apple didn't put the warnings there. Not saying Apple made a dangerous product, just that their lawyers clearly didn't do their job to protect them (assuming no significant 'idiot' warnings were included -- I don't own one so I don't know).
#1
No one, NO ONE else in that town or the surrounding area sold coffee anywhere NEAR that hot.
#2
If you spilt coffee on you from a restraunt or that you made yourself you would probably not even manage FIRST DEGREE burns These were THIRD degree burns, the kind your more used to seeing from actual fires and not boiling water.
#3
The city AND state had filed health warnings with McDonalds due to the complaints, which McDonalds prompty ignored.
#4
The lady inquestion only sued after McDonalds refused to cover her health expenses. (Which they HAD done in the previous two instances in this state.)
#5
A company memo existed that flat out said that it would be cheaper and better marketing slogun to be able to say they had the "Hottest Coffee" and pay off any lawsuits that would happen from burn victims then to lower the tempurature and lose the possibility of lording it over their competitors.
#6
And finally it was not the defendant who sued for millions, it was the jury who awarded it becuase it was "unspecified" and the jury specifically said 3million was picked because it was the sales for one days worth of coffee at McDonalds and the jury thought that they needed to prove the company memo wrong.
Maybe Apple is coming out with the iHearingAid next &
this is part of their business plan.
Didn't this already come up, but was dismissed because the idiot was using an external amplifier?
0x68ADA2CC
The lawyer gets someone to sue, tries to get a class action law suite so the stakes are higher on the pay out. Then if they win, they get a whole lot of cash out of the settlement, while everyone that was represented gets 1 cent for their troubles. This is really getting out of hand these class action law suits. Lawyers are willing to draw up anything to try and make a few million quickly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I know, I know. The issue is the combination and lack of warning. Lawsuits like this lead to "do not apply to groin" printed on coffee cups.
Why not suing them all for making music that can damage your ears? Or even better, Why not sue the whole world for making noises that can turn you deaf? This is stupid.
This is jsut crazy and can only happen in the states imho. I mean, isn't it common sense; loud music == damage to the ears. Dumb f*cks that turn it up so loud that their ears hurt/are damaged deserve it and shouldn't be allowed to sue apple or any other company for sh*t that is just common sense. It's madness.
I remember seeing things like
Warning: Flammable
On the kiddie fireworks they sell around here in the summer. I always though it kind of redundant to waste time/money labeling all the fireworks with that.
Now I know why.
The other problem with the ipod is that people listen to it for long periods of time -- apparently it's not only volume but also the duration of the sound that can damage your hearing.
Anyway, couldn't the problem be mitigated by shaping the earbuds in more of an hourglass shape, allowing the air pressure to equalize with the outside while still allowing for them to stay in place? Or is that design impossible due to the size of the device and the necessary shape of the magnets etc?
On a side note, back in the day my Walkman came with a warning that it could damage my hearing. That warning was my Mother, who constantly told me, "If you listen to that thing too loud, it'll damage your hearing." Thanks to this warning device, I also know that too many video games or too much TV will "rot my brain." Perhaps Apple could provide this guy with a mommy to constantly nag him about his lifestyle until he starts using some common sense. Hmm, new product idea? iMommy? Jobs, if you're reading... call me...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
i think the little ear phones are to be the blame.. those things fuckin HURT.. ya gotta shove 'em in your ears just so they stay in place.. and they suck anyway.. use the kind that clip over your ear, and cover a good portion of the circumference of your ear.. they seem to sound the best.. and they don't hurt.. as much as I hate iPods, I still think suing them over something a person should have good common sense not to do, is very ridiculous..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
...and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings...
"I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people. Just remove all the warning labels from things, and let nature take it's course."
- orginal speaker unknown
What?? What did he say?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
And I think the threshold of pain is supposed to be somewhere around 120-140 dB.
If I shove this guy's iPod down his throat and he cokes to death on it, is that Apple's fault for not putting s sticker on the iPod that says "DO NOT SHOVE THIS DOWN ANYONE'S THROAT"?
WARNING: attempting to swallow this iPod could cause choking and death.
WARNING: wrapping this headphone lead of this iPod around your neck could cause strangulation and death.
WARNING: shooting this iPod at yourself using a mini home made cannon could result in the loss of life.
There are some products that have been released that are just down right dangerous because they do something that most people wouldn't expect. Soft toys that have the eyes attached with what ammounts to nails springs to mind. This guy is a fool though. Anyone stupid enough to not realize that blasting their ear drums with very loud music day in day out is likely to cause long term problems needs more help than money can buy.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
and sometimes I record stuff too quietly and I need to turn the volume up to hear it.
Modern commercial music on the other hand I listen to at between 1/2 and 2/3 volume.
I will be unhappy if portable player device manufacturers bow to pressure to lower their maximum volumes.
Peace,
Synk
Recommended by whom? Coffee drinkers and coffee geeks recommend that coffee's hot water should be between 90C (194F) and 95C (203F), and that coffee should be served immediately after being brewed e.g. with the coffee itself being well above 80C (176F), because that's the way to get the best out of your coffee
That's a recommandation, too...
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
(there should be some diacricits in there, but I can't be a*sed to find them on the kbd - sorry)
Translated to English this means something like: "Long term usage of this apparatus at high volume can lead to hearing damage".
I bought this iPod in The Netherlands, but I'm pretty sure that there'll be a similar disclaimer for hardware sold in English-speaking countries. And if not on the hardware, then probably in the manual.
Seems to me the greedy bastard doesn't have much chance of getting richer over someone else's back.
Stachel
Apple didn't invent the ear bud..
Who has the patent?
Sue them!
And if they win I will sue that goatsex guy for the dammage done to my retina's.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Is it just me or is everybody immediately reminded of the eyeglasses in The Jerk?
I'm sure Apple's lawyers saw this coming from miles away since it is well-established that earbud styles headphones at the highest volumes will give hearing loss. Now if the Chino Espinoza band that played at Monsoon would just compensate me maybe I could deal with my hearing loss!
TimJowers
Expect Freedom.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I guess I must have used my Ipod to much.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Yes, I know he said "I was raised a poor black child." And had I chosen to quote it accurately, it wouldn't have been funny anyway because it would have been read out of context. I appreciate the fact you took the time to respond. For some unknown reason when I think of Steve Jobs the word 'jerk' comes to mind. And in point of fact, if you examine the lawsuit more closely you will notice the resemblance between the movie and the real live lawsuit.
I like the fact you can use big words like shallow and pedantic. Someday, I might actually look them up in a dictionary.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Say what?!?
Did ANYONE read the article? The guy's hearing wasn't even damaged - it specifically says that in there. He is suing because he thinks his iPod MIGHT damage his hearing if he keeps turning it up so loud.
Also, he evidently can not control himself to lower the volume because the warning that Apple ALREADY ships with the damn thing is not sufficient to alter his idiotic behavior.
Maybe if we're lucky this guy will step out into a busy street due to a lack of warning signs that read something like. "Cars can kill." oh wait that's common sense and this article just proves that this retard is lacking any form of it. Even worse our(the US)judicial system will probably award him something assuming that apple just does not settle out of court. I need to find a really retarded way to make a quick buck.. I know Xbox 360's caused me to lose my legs. After sitting on my couch for 2 weeks straight the blood clots got me. Who wants to sue microsoft with me?
That is essentially what this lawsuit is about. When it goes to court, I would be surprised if the jury assigns less that 90% fault to the idiot who cranked up the volume. It is now common knowledge that if you have high volume on any device, you will damage your hearing. My 7 year-olds even know that!
However, our courts to punish companies, because they, typically, have deep pockets. I would not be surprised to see that Apple and many of other manufacturers are going to be forced to take nicely packaged products and nice looking products and make them ugly with big orange permenant labels that indicate what all intelligent people know.
Yes, this country needs tort reform!
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Maybe we should sue Al Gore for inventing the internet (his words not mine) and turning everyone into perverts who surf for porn. Or maybe we should sue RCA for inventing the first consumer television and making so many of us into overweight couch potatoes.
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
"does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said."
This is whats wrong with the US system, you can sue for the
possible unproven potential to do damage.
How long will it be before they sue computer makers, stereo
makers, etc etc for the same thing.
A Dutch saying goes "van rukken wordt je doof" which translates "wanking makes you deaf". Now how is he going to prove to the judge that he isn't a wanker?
For more on the use of the phrase "shallow and pedantic," see the Family Guy episode entitled "Petarded."
Turns out I didn't mean anything by its use, since I don't really know what I mean by "pedantic" either.
Masturbating can cause you to go blind. I'm going to sue the porn industry.
I'm going to be sueing the universe. It is full of things that can potientially hurt me. That'll teach em.
*wanders off to ponder what to buy with the money from the 'suit*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone making an amplified music device meant to be used with the supplied ear buds that can produce a 110 decibel sound pressure is automatically liable - since a decibel sound level meter is not included on the iPod, than measures the sound pressure inside the ear canal.
How does one know when one's inner ear is receiving more than 85 decibels of sound pressure (the standard for office workers)? If the amplifier/buds increase the level by 10 decibels - from 85 decibels to 95 decibels - that means a 10 fold increase in sound pressure (that's 1000 % increase!!).
Naturally the iPod/Apple isn't the only one that should be sued - for example every night club, bar, concert venue needs to be sued as well - because more often than not - the sound level is in the 110 decibel range
By the way if one smokes cigarettes - one has an induced hearing loss to begin with - and will not notice that the sound level is high - but the damage to the inner ear continues anyway - and the hearing loss increases
The other day, I saw a commercial - I think it was for Velveeta. It showed people heating some up in a bowl and eating it with chips. In small print at the bottom, it said 'Bowl must be safe for food.' I just kind of laughed and thought that was a ridiculous warning. This lawsuit makes it clear why it was there. :\
For f**k's sake! What happened to personal responsibility.
Do you want to like in a world where everything you do is checked by some authority? That's the way these things head us.
If you're stupid enough to listen to an iPod/walkman/whatever too loud then its your own stupid fault.
Like spilling hot coffee over yourself, the courts eventually ruled you should know coffee is hot and it is your fault if you spill it (unless you're run into etc).
Perhaps rock fans should sue the bands for playing music too loud.
Out of curiosity, how many of the people here preaching "personal responsibility" and calling this guy an asshat would have piped up if he was suing a tobacco company for damages?
Maybe Apple is deliberately targeting youth with their advertising and attempting to get them hooked on using iPod ear-buds. Then when they are older, they won't be able to listen to any other style of headphone, because they've damaged their hearing.
What about boy bands? Whenever I've heard that type of music (not by choice, mind you) I'm pretty sure I was damaged in some way. Scarred for life you might say.
SIGFAULT
This is why my Mother-in-Law brings ear plugs to concerts and movies, so if it's too loud for her, she can put them in. That way, she's accepting personal responsibility for her hearing, and NOT trying to shift the responsibility onto anyone else.
She even brings enough for everybody.
When I got my iPod, I bought a pair of high end earphones form Shure. With them, I'm very comfortable listening at much lower volumes than with a regular pair of ear buds or headphones.
It's all about taking care of your own body, instead of whining like a spoiled little brat demeaning everyone else do it for you.
What's next, some spoiled little mamma's boy going to sue McDonnalds for making him fat, as if any reasonable person with an IQ above 50 should realize fast fod is BAD for them?
Oh wait... Nevermind.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Or rock concerts.
Or sitting next to the speaker.
Or sitting next to a computer with a lot of noisy disk drives and a fans.
All voluntary.
Give me a break!
Stuff like this makes me ashamed to live in this country. >.
Why not sue all the speaker makers? All the headphone makers?
This guy's a wank, and I hope he gets laughed out of the courtroom.
More disturblingly... France limits earphone-driven audio kit to 100db?! WTF?! What if I'm listening to some good ole angry Beethoven, where most of the material's around 70db but allasudden good ole Ludwig Van goes from a hush to ffff in one beat? Limiting to 100db HAS to make the music sound like ass...
Not that the public would notice anway.. all that compressed, limitied pop garbage they listen to simply doesn't *have* any dynamic range to speak of.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
"I am going to sue you because I am an idiot" lawsuits are really starting to get old...
dB Masters
I made you lose your valuable time. Sue me!
"Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said." I'm suing General Moters, because I take issue with their products' potential to cause irreparable death.
This is just like the tobacco law suits. It's painfully obvious what can happen. Crank up the volume, go deaf. If you choose to listen to your music loud, smoke, or any other thing thats obviously dangerous to your health. It's your own fault, not the company that sold it to you. They didn't force your hand, trick you into doing it, or lie to you claiming there wasn't any danger. Just like those that skydive and other dangerous things. They know well in advance the risk they take. Sometimes they pay the ultimate price. John Kiel's hearing loss it a product of his own stupidity.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because your car can do 150 mph doesn't mean you have to drive that fast. This guy should take some personal responsibility and adjust the volume of his ipod to a level that is comfortable to him.
I love big production style phones. I've got Sony, Tascam, and Bose ones... but I do a lot of street-crossing in my daily commute, and not hearing the outside world is dangerous. With ear buds in, and volume at a medium level, I get tunes and the ability to hear what's going on around me.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
If you have ever had a loved one truly hurt by a defective product this case should anger you, but I am glad that America is a country that uses courts as a means of consumer protection as opposed to excessive government regulation. It really is almost a binary choice. Either you have the government aggressively regulate everything from paper clips to chainsaws or you allow aggrieved parties to bring suit against each other. The advantage that a court has is that 12 citizens that make the decision to award "victims." I've lived in places in Europe where there was a ministry office that covered whatever product was on the market and these "philosopher king" bureaucrat could issue whatever edict that they wanted. I remember specifically hearing that there was a Norwegian law on the books regulating the color of cheese wax (this could have been a joke though). Sure we do this to a large extent in the US. The FDA really acted WAY out of line when they outlawed Ma-Huang (ephedrine) because a couple of idiots ate it like candy, but take a look at what the EU proposes to regulate and you soon get the idea that Europe would rather have the state act like a nanny and shoo consumers away from making their own choices.
I bought these shoes, when i walk in them for more then 30 miles i get this really tired feeling and aches the next day.. Should i sue dockers because their shoes make me feel tired and achey? I can't believe that people are sueing over really obvious things these days.. sigh..
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low
That's the problem. The supply of intelligence in the world is finite, so as the world's population grows, the average person gets more stupid.
"Oh God help us. We're in the hands of engineers."
At one time people took responsibility for their own actions and products were MUCH more dangerous.
The lawyers will argue that by bringing up all the product lawsuits we now have safer cars, and
other products. But lawsuits are still brought against companies whose products are missused by
stupid people. There has to be a limit some where.
ALL headphones, ear buds or over the ear types, can cause hearing damage by delivering a sound level
that's too high. Listening with speakers can cause the same damage too (while peeling the paint
off the walls and cracking the windows). I suppose a form of active feedback could be added to
headphones with a transducer to measure the sound level being delivered to the ear and back off the
volume before it reaches the danger point. Would consumers buy such a product? (that would be like
having a car that wouldn't go above 55mph by having a speed regulator. Some trucking companies actually
put such a gizmo in their trucks to keep their drivers honest). Would you like the government to demand
that makers of portable audio players put such a circuit into such players?
At some point our tort system exists only to make a profit for the lawyers and for "whiplash Willies" to
abuse the system for a quick buck. The small aircraft business was almost destroyed by product liability
lawsuits. Those cases involved 20-50 year old planes that were built before todays standards were
developed. How can you justify calling such a product "defective"? Should you be allowed to sue Ford if you were hurt when your 80 year old model "T"'s gas tank exploded today?
At least Sun knows about what risks it takes to administrate a Sun Java webserver :-)
In fact, it's probably not entirely his fault either. He probably went to the doctor with hearing problems, had expensive tests and treatments, and then his insurer asked him to sue Apple. That's the way it works.
I accidentally cut my finger open using a Leatherman tool, and had to go to the ER. When it came time to pay up, my insurance company sent me a letter asking where the accident occurred, what products were involved, and asking me to sue anyone who might be liable in order to recoup the costs. The letter really didn't have a checkbox for "It was my own stupid fault"; it just assumed that it would be possible to sue somebody.
I wrote "It was my own stupid fault" on the form and sent it back... but don't be surprised if you see someone suing Leatherman for making knives sharp enough to cut into fingers.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
http://notmtv.tv/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=26&Itemid=37
Will an Mp3 player destroy your hearing? If so, are the manufacturers liable?
This is an independent, investigative report, that uses science and technology to answer the question...
Does hearing loss occur when listening to portable devices at high volumes?
"Not Mainstream Typical Videos" feels that it's important to make sure
that our government never creates a law which limits the volume, or decibel(dB), in our Mp3 players and other portable devices. Soon, all of our portable devices could possibly be regulated by legislation. It has already happened in France. Is this something we want? NOTMTV.TV feels that manufacturers should not be regulated. But at the same time, consumers should be made more aware of the real dangers these devices present. Especially considering young children, who tend to push their volumes to the maximum, simply because they don't know better.
http://notmtv.tv/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=26&Itemid=37
What? This guy is suing Apple?
No seriously, could you repeat it. I had my iPod on and wasn't paying attention...
For certain people, after fifty, litigation takes the place of sex. -- Gore Vidal
i can't hear you. type louder.
Is if the portal players had an auto-normalization feature or auto-volume-adjust. Even my car stereo etc can scare the bejeezus out of me if my playlist goes from a classical (quieter, so volume up) to hard rock (louder volume, blasting) song without me expecting it.
Still, the user has ultimate control over volume. If you're putting it too high, you carry the blame for what it does. Really this isn't much smarter than sueing MacDonalds for one's own obesity....
I have hearing loss that didn't become apparent until my 30's.
;)
A good part of it is genetic (a fact I didn't find out until recently). Another good part is also from being in loud environments (driving tractors, working in a coal-fired power plant, computer machine rooms,etc.). I also had lots of middle-ear infections as a kid.
I wore hearing protection when it was recommended. I didn't listen to *really* loud music (no concerts), and I didn't start wearing headphones until my hearing loss was already apparent.
I wear some pretty advanced hearing aids, but they aren't great for listening to music (I lose too much bass). I like to take them out when listening to music, and I typically have to crank my iPod close to the maximum volume. I've had to return laptops because they just didn't have enough audio "ooomph".
I use the most efficient headphones I can (based only on my perception), but many electronic devices just fall a little bit short of having a comfortable volume. I need an extra boost. I've tried a few sound boosters for headphones, but haven't found one I really like (If someone has some good recommendations, I'd appreciate it)
I'm really going to hate it if they impose more severe limits on volume. I'd like the option of going a bit higher.
I understand the higher volumes can still be damaging if you have hearing loss, but I can't really enjoy music otherwise.
The population is aging, and everyone's hearing is just going to get worse. Just wait until you guys find out hearing aids aren't covered by insurance! (I'm hoping that will change soon)
Now, if someone would just get on the ball and sell hearing aids with built-in bluetooth, I'd be very, very, happy. (If there isn't a patent on this already, it is mine!
If anyone knows of any home-brew hearing assistance device projects, please let me know!
Even ignoring loudness, the iPod has issues driving headphones. Bass, in particular, is mushy. I got an Xin Mini, it's about the size of a box of matches, takes 3xAAA cells, and will comfortably drive a pair of full-size Sennheisers. It also has a binaural crossover circuit, so the stereo image sounds much better.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
If I turn the burner on full blast, and put my hand on it. I get burned. That's dangerous!
If you call them, they'll know you can hear! Unless you were going to call them and just repeat "What?" everytime they spoke.
Just junk food for thought...
Sounds an amicable tactic.
Had you never looked at a ladder and wondered about the huge number of warning labels on the side?
The story there, (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I have no corroboration...) is that a ladder manufacturer was actually sued for making a product on which someone might get hurt.
hair dryers and the like also have those permanently attached warning labels for similar reasons.
I blame it on the education system. the science classes I took did explain how electricity and water were not a healthy combination. but they didn't say anything specifically about hair dryers...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
iDiot
You imply that the coffee was significantly hotter than boiling water, but that's not possible. A degree or two, perhaps, since the water is not pure, but the laws of physics prevail.
at what point do people start to take responsibility for their freaking actions
if you drop hot coffee on your lap, well guess what, you are gonna get burned. if you walk out in front of a car, you might get run over. if you listen to loud music you might hurt your ears. Think about it, and deal with it.
I'm sick of this argument. I've no idea about your lukewarm coffee, but coffee is supposed to be served at near boiling point. 96 degrees is going to give anyone third degree burns, so this is something that should be expected. The last time I had a coffee at McDonalds, it was ridiculously cold, and anyone who claims that serving it at 90 degrees+ just doesn't know what coffee is.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
And finally it was not the defendant who sued for millions, it was the jury who awarded it becuase it was "unspecified" and the jury specifically said 3million was picked because it was the sales for one days worth of coffee at McDonalds and the jury thought that they needed to prove the company memo wrong.
And she only ended up with about $400,000.
http://www.ssqq.com/archive/responsibility03.htm
Very good, definately a miss speak on my part.
-
The it was mearily very very hot. 180-190 degrees (82-87 C)
Avg coffee is served at 150-160F (~65C-70C)
I "meant to say" hot water... Hindsight 20/20 and all that
*bows You are correct sir.
It would be funny if it didn't have such a good chance of actually happening. Especially the shareholder lawsuit.
Although the iPod is more popular than other types of portable music players, its ability to cause noise-induced hearing isn't any higher, experts said.
Damn all that noise-induced hearing!
Just how much hotter than boiling water is McDonalds coffee? You mean no one else uses boiling water to make coffee in the US? Is it too dangerous?
They also tried to sue McDonalds for making you fat. Imagine, food can make you fat. There are just so many stupid lawsuits in the US because sometimes they win. Has common sense fled the country?
Stores need a disclaimer:
"This area is dangerous to idiots. By entering you agree that have common sense and an understanding that includes BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:
Hot liquids may burn you
Any hot object may cause burns
Utensils are painful when inserted in the eye
Excessive consumption of food may cause obesity
etc.
If you are unwilling or unable to comply, please pay $100 for additional insurance."
And there's a warning on any set of headphones you might buy to use with your iPod.
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
They let me drive my car faster than the legal limit, and I received a ticket. Nowhere in the users manual did it warn me of that!
See Me
Feel Me
Touch Me
Deafen Me
I do not accept czechs.
Hi, I agree this is stupid. I can't imagine that something similar could happen here in Europe. That said, I think Apple should have put a warning on their iPod products. I recently bought Grado Labs headphones (Sr 125, Recommended!!), and they had a big warning, an A4 paper, regarding this problem. It seems that Apple think it is more important tell us not to steal music, than take care of our health. Regards FoxyFox
Add 'Learn American Sign Language' to the list of things iPod can help you do. iPod users are so occupied thinking of other ways to use their devices other than using it to listen to music like it was intended. Crank it up, you'll always be able to read the ID3 tags.
CD MP3 Player, unlimited storage, 700MB 'memory cards' only $0.10 each.
As it turns out, just creating a seal the ear, but not sound proof, can damage your hearing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said.
(emphasis mine)
okay, so by this logic, we could:
Point is, IIRC (but IANAL), I don't think you can file lawsuits for potential damages, just real ones. (someone care to correct me on this and prove just how stupid the US legal system really is?)
This guy is wack, right up there with Ms. I-didn't-know-steaming-hot-coffee-could-burn-you, except she actually got burned, so this guy is worse.
Matt
If the idiot is going to sue Apple, make it something that actually matters. Just because the dude is stupid enough to blast the volume doesn't mean Apple is at fault. What ever happen to common sense? The Law isn't suppose to prevent people from doing idiot things. If people really want government to control everything, then there should be an idiot law. All idiots must be licensed by the government to operate each device and demonstrate proper usage.
THAT is very hot???
Don't you ever drink coffee in portugal please,... First goes (almost) boiling water to the cup to make it hot, so the coffee can stay hot for some time. and the whater to make the coffee is actually vapor, so you'll be served with something near the 100C .
I am going to start a class-action against my Mother, Wife, Cockatoo, every construction site I've walked past, and every person who has ever honked the car horn when my head was under the hood (that's loud you bastards), all of which are definatly louder than 115dB! And my mother absolutely screamed more than 28 seconds a day.
....well you know , stop you from being a danger to yourself.
On a more serious note....
Oh well, here goes my good karma.
Doesn't anybody take goddamned responsibilty for their actions anymore? I am tired of people complaining about ANYTHING THEY HAD CONTROL OVER !
There are no excuses at all, if your iPod/mp3 player can play 115dB and you know this DON'T DO IT, 110 dB and up will cause pain. If you are feeling pain and you still keep it up that loud then I say you are an idiot and didn't need you hearing to begin with. There is a reason it is called a volume control, it is there to
From the article
The iPod players are "inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss," according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana.
The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer. Patterson's suit said he bought an iPod last year, but does not specify whether he suffered hearing loss from the device.
Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said.
"He's bought a product which is not safe to use as currently sold on the market," Berman said. "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."
I say BULLSHIT "not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings" should be not sufficiently adorned with a clue. Can we please stop with having warning labels on everything, we as a society (America, EU and others haven't gotten this bad yet) need to realize the Coffee is hot, Smoking is dangerous and fatty foods make you fat. There are too many Lawyers and it is destroying our day to day life. I say that we need to enact "Loser Pays" for court filings & fees and you will see how fast this type of frivolity stops.
P.S. Mr Patterson & Lawyer, can you guys just make money like the rest of us? Apple (and other frivolous lawsuit targets) are not replacements for the Powerball/Megamillions jackpots and years of hard work.
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
There were several appeals, and she got an undisclosed amount under a million.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The McDonalds coffee suit has NOTHING to do with frivolous lawsuits such as TFA. Here are a few important facts about the McDonalds case:
1. McDonalds coffee was held at temperatures at 180 degrees, 40-50 degrees higher than normal coffee, which is hot enough to produce a 3rd degree burn in as little as two seconds.
2. The plaintiff, a 79-year old woman, spent eight days in the hospital recieving skin grafts for 3rd degree burns covering 6% of her body.
3. There were 700 similar incidents, including some as serious as the plaintiff's.
4. She only asked for a $20,000 settlement; McDonalds refused.
6. The actual compensatory award was $200,000, the other $2.7 million (2 days of McD coffee sales) was punishment for McDonalds' "reckless, callous and willful" conduct. This was later reduced to only $480,000.
There are some stupid lawsuits, but most of them don't win. And if you're going to argue the point with anecdotal evidence, at least research your anecdotes.
Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Study hard. Be evil.
It's what I use, it's what my 75 year old father uses..
We both use Trio MP3 players from Tiger Direct,
he is not computer literate, but he can use that player
better (I think) than he could use a 300 dollar iPod.
I think the solution here is for Apple to pay more attention
to the alternatives and how the alternatives can be more of an advantage
than the package they offer..
I would never use Ear buds for these reasons:
1. No adequate bass (some elderly can't even hear high frequencies, and a good percentage of the population is elderly, no?)
2. too close to ear drum (point in case) - closer the headphone, more hearing damage
3. uncomfortable
4. clumsy design (easily fall out).
5. too cheap to manufacturer (apple's reason to sell them), I'm sure they cost about 50 cents to make. Is this the quality you purchased?
The reason I use clip-on's:
1. adequate bass
2. outside ear (not too close)
3. comfortable (work like ear muffs on a cold day).
4. clips can only fit on ears in one way, left clip only works on left ear, you can't screw up the orientation.
5. still fairly cheap to manufacturer, but not cheap (quality-wise).
Problems with mp3 players in general: lack of a compressor filter to equalize the amplitude for each audio file. This is needed more for podcasts, iTunes could pre-compress the sound before storing on the iPod's, or they could offer a filter that works on the audio as it comes out of the iPod.
I personally think more of the people buying iPod's buy them for
A. popularity (keeping up with the joneses)
B. inspired by Mac's (I'm an ex-amiga owner, I know how this works, I
don't buy anything anymore based on vain perception, I only buy stuff for
the quality, I still have yet to understand the iPod business model).
Just say no to license servers!!
The trial lawyer industry continues to thrive on the culture of victimization.
P.S.: Guess which political party trial laywers support?
will add the following question on their juror questionaire...
/.?"
"have you ever heard of or read any material off of
i agree, this person is being unreasonable.
the question is, how long until the "system" tells him this and make shim just go away?
In a subsequent filing, John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana has brought a suit against Bausch & Lomb, makers of RayBan sunglasses, for loss of vision suffered when he looked directly at the sun while wearing a pair of mirrored aviator-style glasses.
Now I always have earplugs with me, and I wear them in every loud situation (trains, planes, machine rooms) but it's a little too late. The irony is that now that I'm older, music is a very big part of my life. To think that I wasted the perfect hearing of youth on random loud backgrounds of the city and music I didn't really care for.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
I'm suing Johnson and Johnson because I shoved a q-tip too far in my ear. Something should've prevented it from going in that deep.
Yeah, right, this guy has a case. That's utter crap. He will have a case because half of america are poor, the other half are lawyers, and like 0.1% control all of it anyway.
..... what's my point, well on REALLY low volume the background noise around you is still prominent. Bout time i started suing mother nature and everything that makes a noise ever!! My hearing really should be perfect. Oh wait, I can't sue things that don't have money, why don't i just sue where the money is. Yeah, that'll work.
So here's my theory. Has anyone ever had a plane go overhead? Really, has anyone ever been to an AIRPORT? Best start law suits against every airport and aerospace company for damaging my hearing.
Also, this whole REALLY low volume bollocks damaging your hearing. Think for one second: If you have it on REALLY low volume, can you still hear people talking? Er, Yes! Can you still hear cars? Er, Yes!
You know the french don't even have a department of safety, apparently if you take a risk it's your fault, unless of course you WANT to live in a police state where the government tell you exactly what you can and can't do. Try suing then. Freedom or hearing?.... Freedom or hearing?..... tough call.
If you sue for something where excercising personal responsibility would have prevented it, then you don't deserve freedom. You clearly can't handle it, and by suing you admit that you don't have any responsibility. Take this guys ass to camp x-ray before he uses a kitchen knife or something.
I was told by... someone... can't even remember now (how's that for official?) that such earbuds can increase ear infections over time, and that can lead to hearing loss. I'd be more likely to buy that than volume level at least. Most people I know listen to their music on earbuds way to loud imo. I generally always have to turn it down when I listen to someone elses player.
in other news,gun users sometimes experience death
FTA:
---k--
</stupid>
While 30 dB will not make you comfortable if there's a shuttle launch next to you, it will help at a concert. And, according to this page 43 dB is available. Motorcyclists use these, apparently. OTOH, field studies indicate that you may not get more than half the claimed protection, depending on frequency. That page is pretty technical, but interesting reading.
I'm going to sue George RR Martin for making me nearsighted.
You need to reread the Coffee FAQ. Near boiling point is the temperature the water is supposed to be at when it _touches_the_ground_coffee_ while brewing, not when the brewed coffee is served. 60C feels scalding hot to a normal person, 92C causes burns in your mouth, just as it would cause burns on your body.
People get lung cancer, they sue the cigarrette companies.
People don't realize their coffee is hot, they sue the people who made it (McDonalds comes to mind).
People break into your house, get trapped in your garage and are forced to eat dog food to survive while you're on vacation, they sue you for emotional distress.
It seems like a short leap to sue the people who make music players for going deaf.
Vinigar boy, the site seems to be down tho... and google hasnt cached it. Anyone got a link?
Non-sequitur. I can only buy a Ferrari at a Ferrari dealership. I am easily able to injure myself in a Ferrarri. Does that make is Ferrari's fault if I do something stupid with their product? Just because a Saturn is unable to hit a tree at 200mph doesn't obviate me of my own responsibilty of using the product in a safe manner.
Again, immaterial. Spilling coffee on your lap is not the natural state. I do not manage risk by permitting first degree burns as acceptable.
I have a scar on my leg from a chainsaw muffler. I momentarily rested the chainsaw on my leg as I shifted positions in the tree. Should I have sued McCullough or did I do something stupid? McDonald's generosity on the two prior incidents does not necessarily set a legal precedent.
Hmmmm... McDonald's markets their coffee as the "hottest" and a buyer is shocked when their coffee is hotter than their competitors???? What is wrong with this picture?
Precisely the problem. Juries apparently cannot distinguish the difference between moral responsibility and legal liability. The lady was involved in an unfortunate accident, but is that the fault of the company? The company did not place the cup between her legs. The company did not open the cup in a moving car. Was the coffee defective? Aparently, not. They were marketing the temperature as a benefit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Hurt" him, hurt yourself in the process and sue him for being stupid enough to piss you off to try and hurt him in the first place. Afterall if he can sue Apple for a product he had complete discretion as to whether or not he used it. I can sue him for being stupid enough to piss me off to the level where I have to use necessary force. It was clearly not my fault, he's the one that pissed me off.
On a serious note, where does it end? Seriously? This frustrates me very much. I think I remember a bash.org comment referring to warning labels and how we should just take them all off and allow the problem to solve itself? (paraphrased) This guy's legally retarded in 9 countries. Seriously.
Let us correct some of your misinformation that tries to mislead about this textbook example of a completely frivolous lawsuit:
"McDonalds in question was serving coffee at temps well above established standards and recommended industry guidelines."
Entirely incorrect. Please look this up; check web sites involved with coffee information.
You stated:
"they were serving it at... 170 to 180 degrees, This was 20 degrees above the norm for hot coffee from a restaurant."
Let's compare this to the facts:
boyds.com "serving decanter, and a heat source under the decanter maintains the temperature of the brewed coffee at 185 F".
de novo: "The STANDARD temperature ACROSS THE ENTIRE FOOD INDUSTRY is a minimum of 170 F. MINIMUM. 190 F is a common target temperature."
There are plenty of other sites. Everything you can find shows the recommended serving temperature at or above the temperature McDonald's kept.
"They had already received multiple complaints that their product was too hot, but had done nothing to change it."
After the lawsuit forced them to serve cold coffee, they got many times more complaints about the coffee being cold. What next? If McDonald's receives complaints that their plastic spoons hurt like hell when you jab them in your eye, they should stop giving away those spoons???
"If they had served it at accepted industy temps"
They did.
"What happened was she received THIRD DEGREE SCALD BURNS."
She poured the coffee herself! She had 100% responsibility for the burns, not McDonalds. You are forgetting the FACT that this same old lady had bought and consumed many cups of coffee, at this same temperature from this McDonalds. The difference? These other times, she didn't choose to dump it in her crotch and then file a frivolous lawsuit.
"Hot coffee is expected to be hot."
Exactly. They even label it as "hot coffee"
"Hot coffee that causes third degree burns is too hot"
Really? Consider that during the time they sold coffee of this temperature, they got an astonishing one complaint for every 12,000,000 cups consumed. This is not a matter of a rare defective hyper-hot cup: all of these cups were at the recommended temperature which you falseley claim is "too hot". Almost all of the very few complaints were a result of a coffee purchaser choosing to do something stupid with it (like pour it in their crotch).
"This court decision was correct because the injury potential was high"
It was entirely incorrect: the product was safe, and the lady burned herself with it.
"McDonalds knew about the potential for harm and did nothing to alter their behavior"
It is not their behavior that caused the burn.
"Oh, and as to the "now she's rich" part, that too is bogus."
The exact amount is undisclosed, but realize that she got a significant cash reward for lying in court and trying to get "deep pockets" to make for a mistake only she made.
The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer.
Apple has made upgrades. It's called ADJUSTABLE VOLUME.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
The real problem is what to set the volume to? How loud is too loud? I have no idea.
I shouldn't be able to max out my ipod ever (especially when on a noisy airplane). It
is very easy to get the ipod at max volume in an airplane. How many people know this is
bad for them?
I've almost gotten into an auto accident before because I was futzing around with my iPod's click wheel, trying to select a new podcast to listen to. Can I sue?
It seem like in USA (not America. America is a whole continent), people likes to blame someone else for their irresponsabilities. A way to get easy money. You cannot sue somebody else because of your stupidity.
When you listen to ear buds the pressure in your ear is higher than it normally is. This is where a lot of the damage comes from, not from how loud the music is. I don't think it is common sense to know this so a warning label would definitely be warrented. Though I do dissagree with a lawsuit since studies have been out for awhile about this so people who care should already be aware.
Techfix -- simpler than the hardware used for noise-cancelling, straightforward, every audio player could do this.
Measure the sound level at each output -- probably doable with a simple transducer; provide the user feedback on the display saying "at this level you can listen safely for X minutes".
This would take into account the variation in loudness of individual earbuds -- taking the measure right inside the ear canal where the damage is going to occur.
Heck, offer an option to actually damp the sound level down to the user's specified listening time. Simple matter of programming.
Of course it'd be easier to use a warning like the laser labs do:
WARNING -- Do Not Switch Earbud To Functioning Ear
But that would be wrong, it'd waste customers.
I just happened to be working in hearing research when the Walkman first came out. We tested the max sound levels ( with the aid of Motorhead IIRC ), and you could easily present levels akin to being really close to Concorde at takeoff - damaging levels.
This was in the early 80's, and I don't remember anyone sueing Sony... for that anyway.
the difference here is that the volume knob is slippery as f*ck. it's not like a normal stereo, walkman, etc. where you can twist a knob to a specified point with complete control.
when i work out with my nano, it's MUCH harder to keep the volume under steady control when adjusting it. anyone with a newer ipod with this type of clickwheel can attest to accidentally blasting the f*ck out of their ears by rubbing the wheel just a tad too quick.
my guess is this is the angle the lawyers will work.
"As it turns out, just creating a seal the ear, but not sound proof, can damage your hearing"
You ams damaged of grammar, not creating of subject hearing damage. ("just creating a seal the ear"? wtf???)
How is this even an issue?? i take it the guy comes from the same gene pool as the woman who sued mcdonalds over the coffee being "too hot."
what's he want?
a big fat label on the back of his iPod saying "CAUTION...if ur a fucking idiot and turn the volume up too loud, you just might get Tinnitus"
This guy is a dick that's out for some $$$ no matter who gets screwed. Plain and simple. I mean, come'on... he's from Louisiana, he can't really have a steady income in the first place!
-Ponga
Granted, the U.S. system has its flaws, and any oppositional model presents a jurist with seemingly crazy, contradictory information to work through, but I'm not stumbling across better models out there anywhere. What's your alternative? Solomonic wisdom dispensed by all-powerful judges? Or what?
Our civil court system does put the burden of frivolous lawsuits on the people bringing them. Personally, for example, I'm not considering suing Microsoft for the endless frustration their risibly awful API has brought me -- because I'd have to foot a lawyer's bill with no chance of winning, and Microsoft has the legal resources to eat my lunch. The lawyers know that'd be a losing case so they won't take it without the money up front. Ta da! Deterrence.
In any case the U.S. legal system is hardly, hardly skewed against big corporations and for the "little guy." Paid any attention to politics over the last 26 years?
It's appalling to me how completely the "tort reform" folks, whose position is always that we need to limit damages, control public discussion of the legal system. They distort unbelievable corporate conduct until the public has its head up its ass about stuff like the Mickey-D's coffee case. These folks don't have your best interests at heart, or those of our society. They're about protecting the people who give them money. And that's not you or me.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since this guy singled out Apple rather than all earbud makers or all media players shipped with earbuds Apple should counter sue claiming what this lawsuit is, a nuisance lawsuit.
If Apple needs a witness I have been using my iPod for years and at full volume and I have not lost my hearing at all.
These warnings can be very annoying. On my Sony Ericsson, every time I hit SPEAKERPHONE, I must confirm that I am aware that this may damage my hearing. AFAIK, there is no way to permanently shut this reminder off, presumably because someone else could pick up my phone and not receive the warning.
This is slowly getting out of control...
Coffee is supposed to be served so that it causes 3rd degree burns on the inside of your mouth....boy that sounds like a wonderful beverage.
Those earphone plugs are pointy!
Well this is not specific to the iPod. We've known for years that portable players, back from the old Walkman can damage your ears.
French law limits the output of 'portable players' so the iPod sold in France has a different firmware from anywhere else in the world.
Something they could do is to have an option (maybe deep in the preferences) to limit the volume to a maximum safe level. If someone wants it louder, then he could unlock the full potential of the iPod, after agreeing on the warnings.
Do not insert iPod in any bodily orifices, no matter how convenient.
Do not use headphone cord to tow your boat.
Do not superglue iPod to upper arm because you are too cheap to buy an exercise armband.
Do not pull out battery and attempt to eat lithium goo.
Do not rip off plastic cover, whittle it into a knife, and plunge it into your heart.
F*cking baby. I've been living with hearing aids since I was 3 years old. I have owned three iPods and enjoy my music immensely with a little hardware hacking. This schmuck is just out for a quick buck, and if he really does feel damaged by it - DEAL WITH IT!! Common sense kinda pretty much says that you use too much of something (food, drugs, sound, whatever) it will bite you back. I hope the judge who gets this case tosses it out on its ear! Pun blatantly intended.
Non-sequitur. I can only buy a Ferrari at a Ferrari dealership. I am easily able to injure myself in a Ferrarri. Does that make is Ferrari's fault if I do something stupid with their product?
No. It would be Ferrari's fault if their cars did something you would never expect given your previous experience with cars. Say, if they exploded if you went over 60mph. You expect that you could be injured in a Ferrari because you know you can be injured in any car, but you would not expect it to turn into a shrapnel-filled fireball at 60mph.
In most of our experiences, "normal" coffee is hot enough to hurt, and possibly cause 1st degree burns. In this case, it caused 3rd degree burns because it was served at such an unexpectedly high temperature.
Again, immaterial. Spilling coffee on your lap is not the natural state. I do not manage risk by permitting first degree burns as acceptable.
Goes to what a coffee drinker would expect. You'd expect pain, and possibly first degree burns. So you decide to risk drinking coffee while driving. Instead, you get 3rd degree burns. That Ferrari suddenly shot an iron spike out of the steering wheel when you crashed at 30mph, killing you instead of causing minor injuries.
I have a scar on my leg from a chainsaw muffler. I momentarily rested the chainsaw on my leg as I shifted positions in the tree. Should I have sued McCullough or did I do something stupid?
McCullough explicitily warned you in their operator's manual, and stamped "HOT" on the exhaust muffler (assuming your chainsaw is at all like mine). Thus, you knew about it. McD's didn't provide any warning that their coffee is served well above the average temperature, so a reasonable person would expect the coffee to be served near average temperature.
Hmmmm... McDonald's markets their coffee as the "hottest" and a buyer is shocked when their coffee is hotter than their competitors?
McD's can claim the "hottest" coffee by being only 1 degree higher than the competition. At that temperature, their coffee would not be dangerous. Advertising the "hottest" coffee doesn't provide enough specifics to know that their coffee is actually dangerous.
Precisely the problem. Juries apparently cannot distinguish the difference between moral responsibility and legal liability.
This is why any jury reward is reviewed by professional jurists, also known as judges and appellate judges. And these professionals almost always reduce the jury reward to something "sane", as they did in this case.
The lady was involved in an unfortunate accident, but is that the fault of the company? The company did not place the cup between her legs. The company did not open the cup in a moving car. Was the coffee defective? Aparently, not. They were marketing the temperature as a benefit.
The company filled the cup with a substance that caused 3rd degree burns. The company had already caused many incidents of 3rd degree burns, so they knew their product was capable of harming people and they continued to serve it without telling anyone that it was much more dangerous than the "normal" version of the substance. That's where their liability lay.
As to it's defective nature, it doesn't matter what the advertising for a product is. It can still be considered defective. That iron-spike launching Ferrari would be considered defective as a vehicle even if "launches iron spikes!" was part of their ad campaign. The coffee was considered defective as a beverage regardless of what McD's execs thought.
I'm serious. I was one of the first people to buy a 5gb Rio Carbon when they came out. A few months later, a firmware upgrade came down to the pipe "to make the unit compliant with French laws regarding volume". It made the Carbon so quiet it was almost useless. My point is simply that although Apple made the volume switch, it's your own bloody finger that operates it, and it's not Apple's fault that this idiot doesn't have a brain.
Firstly, was she even moving? Secondly, are you aware that she was assigned a non-trivial amount of responsibility for the accident?
Am I the only person who has had to break hard / swerve to avoid knocking over some fool jogging down the road plugged into their iPod who was oblivious of traffic on the road ?
iPods are so cheap now that even idiots can buy them, and they are so simple that the town fool can use one (albeit badly).
Is there a lawsuit in that too ?
Doesn't this guy know that this is EXACTLY like what happened when Walkmans came out? Seriously, this guy needs a bleeding life.
if I could join in on the suit.
Of course, I'll probably get sued for "annoying" him. Thanks BUSH.
Subject: I WANT IN ON THE iPOD SUIT!!
I want to sue Apple too! I've bought FOUR of them so far, and my hearing has gone to shit.
But, I also want to sue Creative, iRiver, Sony, and Sandisk. They all create potentially hazardous devices which should NOT be sold.
Although I haven't bought one yet (and it hasn't resulted in my hearing loss), I think the fact that they're even producing such devices SHOULD not be allowed.
While we're at it, can I also sue Nakamichi and Altec Lansing. I bought some of their products, and the volume is SO loud. I swear, I'm going to be deaf here soon. Oh, and Infinity as well. Can we get Mitsubishi as well? (I like to crank the volume up in my car...but it's not my fault that I'm listening to it at a loud level, right? It's the manufacturer cause I'm a fucking moron, right?? Fuck PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!! Let's milk those fuckers DRY!)
OH, one more, let's also sue the State for all the construction they do around me, as well as the city. I'm sick and tired of all the loud noise. My POOR ears...
After this, can we tackle Logitech and Microsoft? They keyboards are causing me carpal tunnel syndrome - I don't actually have CTS, but that's not the point. It's a dangerous product.
Thanks.
So you assert that a simple "HOT" warning sticker is all that would be required to absolve McDonald's of legal liability for burns injuries due to coffee spills? I can assure you that the muffler on an operating chainsaw greatly exceeds the serving temperature of McDonald's coffee. Despite the fact that coffee is universally understood to be served hot, I need only mark the obvious on the cup to shift responsibility to the purchaser.
That's a pretty tenuous liability asignment for a 2.7 Million dollar punitive award (reduced on appeal to $480,000)
And judges are subject to all the same prejudices and emotionalism as the juries they review.
911 Turbos are 'not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of speed killing'. A class-action suit will limit the speed that Porsche, and other manufacturers, allow their vehicles to achieve.
"No, your reasoning is what is wrong with the US. Like most americans you can only think in black and white. Either the woman is responsible or McDonalds is responsible. It's not like that. There is responsiblity on both sides."
Like many, I think in terms of what is real and what is not. McDonald's had no responsibility at all in this. None at all. The woman spilled the coffee herself, and burned herself.
"It's risky to buy coffee?"
Not at all, especially at the temperature McDonald's sold it at, where only one in twelve million ever had a burn complaint. And then, of course, it was when they chose to do something idiotic with it.
I have an iPod, I use it when running and motorcycling, when I'm running it has to be at around 75%-80% volume, just to drown out normal noise, on my bike I always have it at 100% and even then it is just barely loud enough.. I wish it could go louder without distoring the music .. this guy is just stupid.. does he sue the county when they are doing road construction because its loud? that is much louder than an iPod will ever be..
In-ear headphones have been around for fifteen years or so, long before Apple thought of producing and hyping a run-of-the-mill mp3 player.
I didn't see health warnings on that $10 pair of ear buds I bought for my Zaurus a few weeks ago. Should I sue Philips or Sharp if I can't find the volume knob?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Except to Gabe and Tycho
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
So lets ask a few questions, if apple were to limit the output of the ipod to 100db what would that actually do. Well there are several problems. Number 1 to limit something means to prevent the voltage from getting to loud. In that you have to know the impedance of the headphones that you're using. So you bought the ipod with apple headphones great, well I use a pair of Shure earbuds and those will drive to a max volume to over 125db vs the apple headphones at 105ish. Not that I listen to the ipod at 125db most often my volume is under a 25 percent but they can get that loud. Number 2 100 db for a long period of time will do damage that's great. Lets talk about 100db, a lot of cars at freeway speed will be awfully close to 100 db, I know for sure that any Harley Davidson will break 100 db. Your average American household TV is quite often louder than 95 db in the living room. And the person who said 110 is painful, he is about 30 db short of that. I happen to work in the professional music industry I care a lot about my ears, in fact without them I wouldn't have a job. Most rock concerts that you go to are at least 110 db in the middle of the room and can easily go over 120, I have worked for a few artists that think 120 is quite. Last thing the ipod hasn't been out long enough to cause real damage to someone's hearing.
The attorney, Steve Berman, is on retainer at Microsoft!
Hmm, that's odd. . . my iPod doesn't make any noise at all, except for the clicking when you push the buttons. . .
www.linuxpenguin.net
Warning! Side effects may include: loss of hearing, hair loss, rectal bleeding, dry mouth, nausea, constipation, diarrhea, numbness of the extremities, sense of dislocation from reality, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and loss of appetite. Should these or other symptoms persist after five days, discontinue use of iPod and contact a metaphysician immediately. Use only as directed.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
That'd be a good place to start....
I hereby claim against Apple Computers as follows;
I am an idiot.
how many of you ipod owners (i have a nano & this is a huge problem for me.) rub the clickwheel & inadvertently blast the fuck out of your ears?
this happens to me all the time, even if i'm consciously causcious about it.
THIS is the difference between suing apple over the ipod vs. suing others for their products. don't give me that 'deeper pockets' crap. they ALL have deep enough pockets & it wouldn't make a difference in a settlement.
but THIS is what the lawyers will be looking at, and in my opinion, rightfully so.
Proverbial, non-literal soft drink squirting from my proverbial, non-literal nose.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
You been SCO is claiming that Linux causes hearing loss, too?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The guy has a point though - of all my mp3 players and walkmans and discmans and radios, none have been so dangerious to my hearing (and pain-causing) as my ipod, due to it's poor design.
The front, back, top, and bottom, are shaped identically, so when I put my hand in my pocket to skip songs, it is not always apparent what part of the machine I will be touching. The control settings lock the volume adjust sensitivity to menu select sensitivity, so the only way to turn down the speed at which the volume will leap to maximum is to make the menu navigation difficult and timeconsuming to use. The volume setting changes whenever the scrollwheel is touched, or even brushed through fabric. The hold switch is little use here - it has to be off to skip songs or make intentional changes to the volume.
The result of all of these things is that, unlike every other portable music player I've ever owned (which is a lot), the ipod painfully spontaneously blasts up to full volume frequently, despite no intention on my part to change the volume. Just trying to take the thing out of your pocket can blast your ears.
If you're not used to better designed mp3 players, it might seem like something the user should go the extra mile to try to avoid, but good design should Just Work. Looking at other devices, it's a completely unnecessary design flaw. For a quick fix, it's trivial to uncouple the volume sensitivity from the menu sensitivity, compared to the user difficulty to not accidentally change the volume when using the device normally (such as skipping songs without unpacking it). Flash over substance makes for sucky design.
However I don't think it's worth suing over. More like just taking it back to the store, get the purchase refunded and buy something with better ergonomics.
"If she drank the cofFee her mouth would have burned."
Ermmm... no. The same lady had bought and drank many cups of coffee at the same temperature from the exact same McDonald's restaurant many times before. Without burns, just like all the other customers.
"All I know is if I burned you I would go to jail"
This is kind of irrelevant. No, make that totally irrelevant. The oaf who filed the frivolous lawsuit against McDonald's burned herself. Her own actions. Now, I'm sure if you burned someone else with coffee, you might go to jail. But in the case we are talking about the only action involved was by the old lady.
Warning: use of lawyers may result in economic ruin.
The name for this that us audio guys use is called "signal to noise ratio" and is usually put in these terms:
As an example let's pretent the signal is 100dB. Ambient noise is 20dB. Therefore the SNR is 80dB.
Libertas in infinitum
When I was in school for audio engineering one of our classes required us to purchase Grados. Freakin $250..grr..
Anyway, they were awesome sounding as long as you were listening to something organic and natural sounding. They were probably the most transparant ears I had ever worn. But when you listened to loud modern music, pop, rock, electronica, etc they didn't to so well in my opinion. They were flat and non-colored which is not what our ears like in those genres. When listening to music of that type I much prefered the Sony MDRs.
Libertas in infinitum
The problem is that unless they know which drivers (speaker/transducers) you are using for sure, then they don't know what the actual dB SPL (sound pressure level) are being generated.
Different speakers have different levels of efficiency. If you pump 1 watt though one it might produce 96dB at 1 ft. However another one might only produce 90dB at 1 ft with the same amount of power.
They know exactly wha the rating of their speakers are, but they dont know about every other pair of headphones out there. So they cannot effectively limit it because doing so would run the risk that using a 3rd party pair of less efficient ears would be underpowered.
Libertas in infinitum
Could you please explain what you mean here?
I am interested.
Libertas in infinitum
I'm commenting late, but I've noticed the volume control on the IPOD mini is TOO sensitive and can jump from quite to insanely loud! It should progressively increase volume when it detects a full on 'loud' setting. It has hurt my ears a few times. A good old potentiometer control with a little bit of tactile resistance stops this 'digital jump' from happening. This could easily be written into the software: WHEN volume gets past 'x' threshold, in 'y' milliseconds, THEN limit progression rate!
The eyes have some of the most finely "tuned" muscles in the entire body. That's why whenyou get drunk your vision is the first to go.
I would suspect that the high SPL was probably actually vibrating your eyeballs and/or your controlling muscles.
What you then experienced afterwards was called TTS or Temporary Threshold Shift. Your hearing was probably permanantly damaged to a certain extent whether you realized it or not.
Libertas in infinitum
Yeah,
;-)
I too bring protection to concerts just in case.... Oh yeah - you mean HEARING protection
Libertas in infinitum
Which Christian event?
;-)
Check out my website. Chances are I was behind it
Libertas in infinitum
Then it is already too late, you have blown your ear drums.
Libertas in infinitum
Adam Baloney sued GOD(TM), because when being born into this world he wasn't told that living is SO DANGEROUS it always ends in death. He is looking for repairs of about $4.95 and a MARS bar*
*(So he can make a living there selling beer to martians)
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Man blinded after staring at the sun sues God! Congressman demands mandatory sunglasses.
Be heard || Be herd
"...it's like suing the maker of a handgun because you were careless with it..."
Or like saying that Microsoft Windows is insecure because you clicked on the HotBabes.jpg.exe attachment in your email and it trashed your computer and sent itself to everyone in your address book fifty times.
"Take responsibility for your actions people... if you are too stupid to know the difference between a legitimate email and a scam, then deal with the consequences of your stupidity."
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Can I launch a class action against people who launch class actions instead of taking responsibility for their own actions? Sheesh!
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
can cause hearing loss. lets tatoo kids ears with warnings so they can be really protected from themselves.
idiot
In one of our local designer coffee shops, the paper cups actually sport this warning: "Hot coffee is hot." Yes, and it may contain nuts.
So I wonder given that same logic, why would one not sue any major car manufacturer (pick one with good profits of course) because their cars could be driven very fast, even above the speed limits. That of course should be a class-action for all drivers that got a speeding ticket (even if they didn't have a license). Not to forget those that crashed or even killed someone, because perhaps it was not their fault, but the car manufacturer's. One wonders when would common sense prevail, or is it not taught at school any more?
People should beat idiots like this in public. Furthermore MY iPod actually did have warnings about hearing loss. Loud noise causes hear loss you retards.
No. It would be Ferrari's fault if their cars did something you would never expect given your previous experience with cars. Say, if they exploded if you went over 60mph. You expect that you could be injured in a Ferrari because you know you can be injured in any car, but you would not expect it to turn into a shrapnel-filled fireball at 60mph.
And any normal person (i.e. a person capable of driving a car to MD and ordering a coffe) would expect that they would be BURNED by the coffe. And personaly, I don't know about you, but if I'm handed a hot beverage I assume that it will burn me severely until I know otherwise.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
There can only be one respnse to crap like this besides "only in America" and that is What a Wanker!
I hope this guy gets countersued for stupidity and/or greed! I mean, if I'll sit on a burning camp fire. Can I sue the land owner for not putting warning stickers on all the trees:
What about fire place? The sticker should also mention them. And forest fires? You could easily hurt yourself if cought in one. - Definately a clear case of neglect from the land owner...
But seriously, I think this kind of idiocy should not get any publicity. It only breeds more idiocy. - Or maybe these guys should just be thrown out of court when they try to file up the suit? Once upon a time even in America there used to be a thing called common sense...
If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
The Life is out there...
...that they limit the output to 100dB maximum on the crappy, yet extremely sensitive earbuds that come with the device. Plug in some less efficient but great sounding 'phones and you barely have enough volume on today's maxed-out compressed top 40 crap. Then try listening to some classical and you can't hear a thing except for the FF bits. And it's not because of hearing loss.
Awww, someone beat me to it. This is retarded, absolutely retarded, of course they cause hearing loss. This one will get thrown out.
i do not suffer from Insanity... I revel in it.
"Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?"
These resulted from something she did, of course.
"I have never ever in my entire life had a cup of cofee which gave me third degree burns when tried to drink it. There is such a thing as too hot."
Yet, this coffee wasn't too hot. 700 burn complaints out of a BILLION cups sold. This same woman was able to drink this same hot coffee previously just fine. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
"Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment."
Well, at least something went right. These individuals had absolutely no blame.
"The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do."
In this case, these two weren't responsible at all.
"Secondly it was too hot. Get that through your thick head. It was too hot for human consumption."
No, it was at the industry recommended serving temperature. Here is something to get through your thick head: if it was too hot to consume, how come everyone was able to drink it? Not only did she drink the same sort of hot coffee (same temperature) from the same McDonald's many times before: she kept coming back for more. It was quite drinkable.
"It was hot enough to cause third degree burns. It was too hot."
A McDonald's plastic spoon can cause blindness if you choose to jab it in your eye.
Yet you fail to suggest any measure that would lead to those outcomes.
An(d) so we can go back to being a free country instead of one ruled by judges and lawyers.
That's a tried and true rhetorical fluorish, but personally I don't feel that "judges and lawyers" are ruling our country at all. We do have a government. It's true that our y2k election got called by a clean partisan split down the Supreme Court, but even in that case it was the political figures who appointed those judges who ultimately made that bed.
Legislators make the law, judges enforce it according to its constitutionality. The idea that personal injury attorneys are running rampant doesn't match my limited experience -- but it gets pimped up in the pop media like I can hardly believe...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Ohh Hell this is another pointless fight over peoples stupidity. Next your going to hear someone going after the maker of a high end sound system becuase it did not warn them that IF *THEY* TURN IT UP THEY RUN THE RISK OF GOING DEAF!
I hope this get struck down becuase you know what it's my freaking right to go deaf for one thing and I like my music a bit louder than most, so if I go deaf who gives a rats @ss.
First of all, considering how long we (all third-world countries and above) have been collectively aware that long term loud noises, i.e. music, can cause hearing loss, this sounds like just another typical money-grubbing, underhanded, baseless-but-quite-possibly-profitable, do-anything-to-get-money-because-our-legal-system- is-so-screwed-up-that-we-can, example of our civil legal system at work.
So, if the court is to believe that this person is so 'logically challenged' that he actually didn't know, simply because this particular product didn't have a warning label, and that he can't connect the fact that ANY device that generates loud and repetitive noise MIGHT POSSIBLY have the same effect as one that did have a label. Well, then hopefully they also believe that no amount of money is going to help him get through life any better than he or she can now.
Also, this must be the kind of person that they put warning labels on lawn mowers for, so that they can actually understand (apparently, only possibe for them by reading a warning label) that it would be dangerous for him to hold on to the edge of the lawn mower body itself, and use it for hedging ("gee look honey, it says that if I stick my fingers right by the whirling sharp blades that I might lose my fingers...wow, I'd never have thought of that")!!!
My first gut reactions is that people like this will most likely show up soon on the Darwin Awards lists (after all, sharp knives, cars, electrical wall plugs, banana peels and HAND GRENADES don't all have labels on them either).
I also don't believe that attorney's that represent this kind of perversion of our legal system should be allowed to practic law.
And the worst part appears to be...
that this person wasn't necessarily even affected by the supposed 'flaw'.
In other words, let's bring suit solely because some other country (or court) was able to win a lawsuit just like this, not because logic dictates that it is wrong or improper, or that common standards have been purposely disregarded for a marketing ploy or for profit seeking.
Oh yeah...and let's make it a class action suit, so there might eventually be people in the suit that can possibly prove that they are so stupid that they ruined their hearing with an iPod (and totally without any responsibility on their part), so therefore a possibility exists that I might actually get some money out of this 'flaw'.
It almost makes one sick!
Hearing induced by noise? Who would have thought?
"The industry standard was 160F, as has been noted"
l p/ins_December2000.asp: They recommend 180 - 190 degrees.
No, it is usually considered to be well above that. Check http://www.hammacher.com/about_us/Institute%20Ehe
"McDonalds chose to deviate from this standard -- no problem so far."
No, they held to the standard.
"They did NOT inform consumers that they were significantly higher than the standard"
They did inform customers. They said it was "hot coffee". The "hot" was the typical expected temperature.
" I see nothing wrong with that, since McDonald's was in the wrong (in my opinion)."
As we see with yours, some opinions are incorrect.
"Her foolish action would not have caused nearly so much damage had it not been for McDonalds' decision to serve coffee dangerously hot *and* not inform consumers how dangerous it was."
1) It wasn't dangerous.
2) They did inform consumers.
He will set a precedent for me to sue everyone because I'm an ignorant bastard too stupid to notice the volume control, or hold my cup of coffee! Thank you! Thank You! Then I'll be able to sue weather.com because I pissed in the wind and they didn't warn me about getting wet.
I don't care at what temperature you want to burn yourself, that is your problem, if you are dumb enough to be a hazard to yourself, be our guest and post the pictures.
That a company selling you drinks sells you something that can cause 3rd degree burns (it will not hurt initially btw, your nerve endings would be destroyed, check what a 3rd degree burn is before opening your bocota) is completely unnaceptable.
If I spill coffee on myself I have a reasonalbe expectation of mitigating the symptoms with a bit of cold water. Spending any time on the hospital receiving skin grafts and being marked for life is not reasonalbe, no seas pendejo.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And enjoy your 3rd degree burns.
You would not be so cavalier if you have been received a 3rd degree burn due to lack of care.
It would be childish to sue companies for spilled coffee at a reasonable temperature. A normal temperature spillage is treated with running cold water and you move on with life.
It is childish to insist that 3rd degree burns are somehow the fault of a person spilling coffee that is clearly not fit for human consumption. That can't be treated easily and your life does not just move on if you are unofrtunate to experience this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The people that were burned are guilty of spilling the coffee (maybe).
The 3rd degree burns (I think you don't appreciate what this is. Google for it, it is a life devastating experience) are not their fault: they did not heat and served an unsafe product.
700 may be too small for you. Pray you never are burned that badly, then you will appreciate the real proportion of the problem and how lucky people were not to be badly burnt.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This has nothing to do with French law, GP's point was about human phisiology, which is not different if you speak French or US English.
Apple knew that the product could be harmful, in one place they were forced to make ammends, in another they ignore the issue. How more negligent can you get?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"The 3rd degree burns are not their fault: they did not heat and served an unsafe product."
McDonald's did not serve an unsafe product, either. The third degree burns were nothing but the fault of the spillers.
"Google for it, it is a life devastating experience"
All the more reason to choose to not burn yourself. Yes, it can mess up your life if you choose to jump off the Grand Canyon cliff to dash yourself on the rocks below.... but it is your choice. This analogy is not so far removed from being relevant here: the proportion of Grand Canyon visitors who die falling is greater than the proportion of coffee drinkers burned by McDonald's Coffee (in the "pre-Stella" years when they served it at the nice hot recommended temperature). Using your "blame everyone except those who did it" logic, the National Park Service is liable for refusing to fill in that dangerous canyon.
"700 may be too small for you. Pray you never are burned that badly"
Do the math, please. 700 burns. 1 billion cups sold. Each burn incident involving someone choosing to do something WRONG with the product. No burn incidents from defective product. Yes, pray that I am not burned this badly, but if I choose to dump hot coffee in my crotch, it is my own fault. In other words, I pray that I am not so stupid and greedy like "Stella" to choose to injure myself and then try to blame others for it and get rich from it.. I also pray that you will learn the basic idea that if you choose to do something stupid, it is your own fault.
"then you will appreciate the real proportion of the problem "
Since you haven't bothered to look at the real proportion before using the words, let's do the math for you.
700 out of a billion means a burn risk (DANGER) of less than 0.000001 each time you consume a cup of coffee.. Think that is low? Unless you are brain damaged, you know it is very low. Almost nothing. Now, realize that the real danger is MUCH lower than this if you are smart enough not to do something like squeeze an open cup of hot coffee between your thighs.
"how lucky people were not to be badly burnt".
With the real proportion of the problem being so ludicrously small, it is not a matter of luck. It is a matter of math and probability. You learn this when you look at the "real proportion" of the problem.
It's much more dangerous to take a bath (if you look at the number of drownings). What next, do we sue the bathtub makers demanding that they drills holes in the tubs so that the tubs won't hold dangerous water?
If the coffee is hot enough to cause 2nd- or 3rd-degree burns on your legs, how do you propose someone is supposed to drink it? Unless I'm missing something, the inside of your mouth will burn just as readily as any other skin on your body.
And any normal person (i.e. a person capable of driving a car to MD and ordering a coffe) would expect that they would be BURNED by the coffe. And personaly, I don't know about you, but if I'm handed a hot beverage I assume that it will burn me severely until I know otherwise.
I'm not a coffee drinker. Can you educate me about what exactly the point is of serving someone a beverage that is so hot that it'll cause 3rd-degree burns inside their mouth? Obviously, that's too hot to drink, so what exactly are you supposed to do with it? Sit around and look cool?
When I buy Chai Tea lattes from Starbuck's, I'm able to drink them immediately. I don't have to sit around for 30 minutes waiting for them to cool off. I don't pay that much attention, but I don't recall seeing people buy coffees at Starbuck's and not drinking them right away.
If I buy some type of edible product from a restaurant, I expect it to be just that: edible. Not later, after it's cooled down, but when it's served. Of course you have to brew coffee with near-boiling water, but that doesn't mean you have to serve it immediately.
It doesn't traditionaly cause 3rd degree burns becuase it's sipped not guzzled like a beer. It doesn't traditionaly cause burns because it's a minimal amount and you don't normaly pour coffee in your lap while in the car (well, maybe you do but that's not exactly standard operating procedure ya know?). On top of that, your mouth is more resiliant to hot temperatures than other parts of your body like say, your crotch. As a sort of experiment in this, place an ice cube in your mouth and one in your crotch, see which experiences more pain and or negative side effects from such an experiment.
Finaly, the optimum serving temperature of coffee is a MINIMUM of 170. McDonalds was serving at 180, or exactly where they they should have been.
http://thecoffeefaq.com/1thebasics.html#besttemp
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Listening to loud sounds can damage your hearing!
Retard.
Edit:
"Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."
Yeah, that was the point. Thanks for the newsflash, Slashcode!
"What evidence. You just kept repeating the same nonsensical shit you always sprout off. The actual evidence was heard in a court of law. According to the actual evidence it was too hot."
No, it was not. Look at the actual recommended serving temperature of coffee. What it really is when you don't get lawyers lying in court to try to enrich themselves by frivolous means. McDonald's served the coffee at the recommended serving temperature for the best coffee. Nobody has a problem with it unless they choose to do something stupid with it. I take it that you aren't a coffee drinker and don't know much about these matters at all.
"So who am I going to take the word of?"
Take the word of coffee servers AND drinkers....
"who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system"
Caught you in a lie there. McDonald's did not burn the woman. She burned herself. As for the court system, frivolous lawsuit happen all the time. People jump off high ladders, hurt themselves, file frivolous lawsuits and win.
"The assumptions made in this post of yours are insulting to essentially everyone involved in any court case."
Well, not exactly, but lets go with your straw man.
Most people are stupid. Not just little, but a lot. And when I say "most", I mean 80-90% of people are stupid. And a lot stupid too. Like so stupid that they will breathe smoke into their lungs forever on purpose and then (SHOCKER!) get sick and die and then their relatives sue people. Other people take really loud sounds and shove them in their ears until their ears actually start ringing from the pain. Then they go deaf and then they sue people. Or they don't go deaf but sue people anyway because maybe someone else might go deaf. Or they take boiling liquid, stick it between their legs in a car where it's likely they'll burn skin. Then they burn their skin as they set out to do and they sue people.
The list goes on and on. And if we had any sort of system we'd say "No, you are stupid and like sucks for stupid people because you can't do basic stuff like avoid sticking loud noises in your ear or you can't stop breathing in smoke, or you try to burn your legs. You are a menace and frankly we all laugh at the results of your stupidity.
No, the problem is we get other people just as dumb as they idiot suing people who say "Hey, how was he supposed to know that breathing in smoke over and over repeatedly for 50 years is dangerous. Those animals. They're going to pay!". And we put them on the jury pool instead of saying "We have a population full of stupid people. We can let them work and consume, but they don't get to sue people, because they are the kind of people who can f*ck up an anvil. It's too bad but hopefully, they'll sterilize themselves before they breed. But in either case, they can't bring lawsuits. It wouldn't be allowed in a rational system.
"Simply put, hearing loss is a function of volume over time... for very loud sounds the time is very short before damage occurs. For very soft sounds the time is extremely long, so long that most people will suffer damage from loud sounds before they realize they've lost hearing do to the soft sound."
No it's not. That's like saying I can cook a turkey for 6 hours at 350 degrees or 12 hours at 175 degrees or 24 hours at 88 degrees and all of these will yield the same result.
Try it and see if it works that way. Take pictures of the results. They should be amusing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
...but isn't this a variant on the case where McDonalds was sued by the guy who claims their food made him fat? The only main difference is that here, it hasn't actually happened to him. Yet, that is. Honestly, there are some times that I'm tempted to move to Canada just to get away from the idiocy/insanity down here.
I suppose that another difference is that Apple has already been asked by the EU to modify the power so that it can only play so loud, but that's not as big a deal. This eventually goes back to a few of the recurring themes I've seen: we have no sense of self-responsibility and people love to complain for quasi-valid reasons. Seriously, what is wrong with these people?
I think that's basically some additional hardware compression that can be applied to the output -- boosting volume on quiet sections and reducing it on loud sections. So you can listen to, for instance, classical music while on the train or something. Of course it really just makes your Beethoven sound like it was mastered with all the skill and artistry of the latest Brittany Spears album, but apparently somebody at Sony thought it was a good idea.
What it does for pop music that's already compressed as much as humanly possible already, I don't know.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
" You got your panties in a wad about this because according to your opinion the water was not too hot."
It is not merely an opinion. It is fact. The coffee is quite safe. The temperature is the one recommended by a wide variety of sources as the recommended serving temperature for coffee. The only way is is dangerous is if you choose to do something stupid with it.
Is your name "killjoe" a use of the term "joe" for coffee? As in you being a rabid, irrational coffee-hater? You certainly seem to know nothing about coffee.
"Well despite the best defence money could buy a legal ruling said otherwise."
Sometimes, the court rules against the facts. Many frivolous lawsuits are won by the plaintiffs. Just because a court said it does not mean the court had any idea what it was doing.
"A corporation burned somebody"
Caught you in a lie. The "plaintiff" in this frivolous suit was the only one who burned anyone (and it was herself).
"they had to pay a little money and went on their way. Deal with it. "
The best way to deal with this abuse is tort reform so someone who is entirely blameless never has to "pay a little money" like they did in this case.
"That's why corporations were invented. To shirk personal responsiblity. "
The real reason is to negate the effects of frivolous lawsuits. It is "business 101": small businesses are encouraged to incorporate to help avoid the effects when someone comes along and files a frivilous lawsuit against you. This is irrelevant to this case, however: no individual(s) at McDonald's had any blame in this at all. (i.e. no blame to shirk).
" Zealots can't be persuaded by reason or evidence."
Very true. You have ignored a wide variety of sources who know coffee (unlike you) and know the recommended serving temperature. Why? Because facts don't matter. You have ignored the fact that 11,999,999 out of 12,000,000 people are able to drink this "dangerous" beverage with no harm (and the 1 missing from the equation is the oaf who does something idiotic with it).
- u heard ipod make u deaf?? -- o rly? - ya rly! -- no wai!!1
You're focusing on the existence of injuries instead of their severity. When spilling coffee, a "reasonable" person would expect injuries so minor that they don't require even home medical care (up to and including 1st degree burns). That's where the spike analogy comes in. You'd expect minor injuries in a 30mph crash in a modern car, like that new Ferrari. The iron spike suddenly changes those minor injuries into fatal ones.
The only controversy at hand is whether or not the extent of the injury constitutes a legal liability on the part of the vendor.
Yes, and that's exactly where I said their liability lay. In this situation, McD's coffee caused far more extensive injuries than would be reasonably expected, and did not provide any warning that their product would do so.
So you assert that a simple "HOT" warning sticker is all that would be required to absolve McDonald's of legal liability for burns injuries due to coffee spills? I can assure you that the muffler on an operating chainsaw greatly exceeds the serving temperature of McDonald's coffee. Despite the fact that coffee is universally understood to be served hot, I need only mark the obvious on the cup to shift responsibility to the purchaser.
No, I'm saying that an explicit warning by McD's would have absovled them of some, possibly all, liability. Something like "Warning: we serve coffee that may cause 3rd degree burns when exposed to skin. Allow our coffee to cool before consuming". Just like your chainsaw manual had an explict warning that the exhaust manafold will cause burns. The "HOT" stamp on it is a reminder, not a substitute for the details in the manual.
And judges are subject to all the same prejudices and emotionalism as the juries they review.
Which is why there are appeals courts, where decisions can be reviewed by a body of judges, which greatly reduces the effect of the personal emotions of each judge. They have to defend any irrational decision to people with opposite emotional tendencies.
This is actually false. The skin within our mouths is not as tough as the skin on the outside of our bodies. As an example, you can quickly dunk your hand into that 170 degree coffee with minimal injury (slight scalding). Dumping that coffee into your mouth and immediately spitting it out would case more severe injuries (at least a 1st degree burn).