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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
Right, so now explain why he's singling out Apple instead of suing everybody who makes earbud-style headphones.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
... 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.
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.
Think about that statement for a minute, then explain it to me once again, answering the following question: how can REALLY low noise impair your hearing? Be specific, make sure you talk about the decibel level at which that REALLY low noise can impair your hearing.
The problem with that is that earbuds have been around for years, probably a decade or more now, so there's been plenty of time to document such side-effects and make people aware of them, or pull such headphones off the market.
I don't get why people use those things anyways. They always hurt my ears (and I have friends bitch about that all the time as well), so I tend to use larger headphones that just cover my ears entirely. They do pretty much the same thing, and they're not a PITA to wear (though maybe a PITA to carry around; then again, I wear them most of the time. Like right now, for instance.)
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.
Except those are no more likely than earbuds to damage your hearing. In order to cause damage, the volume has to be high enough to hurt. You ever hear something at 110+ decibels? Holy shiat, you deserve what you get if you cannot respond properly to pain stimuli.
And while I'm ranting... what about concerts? I went to an Aerosmith concert a few years ago, and the sound was so loud it was distorting in my ear. I mean... LOUD. Shouldn't we be suing them too? Especially since we can't turn down the volume in that situation.
Oh wait... personal responsibility. Almost forgot it existed. As it seems the person who brought the suit did as well. Either that or he's just looking for money. That might explain going after Apple instead of smaller fish. No, it can't be, he's definitely looking out for all of our best interests...
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
Because they're making lots of money selling iPods. Big money = juicy target.
It's nothing but punnishment for success.
My Gameboy (circa 1990) had earbuds... should I sue Nintendo for those horrible Tetris sounds I blared into my ears as a child? iPod is not the only device that ships with earbuds. Also, when does common sense come in on these lawsuits? (I realize you were just making a point, but you have to admit they aren't very logical if you think about them for more than 5 seconds, as is the case with most lawsuits anymore.)
Starmen.net
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.
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.
Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
I think the guy has no case as he done it to himself: Limiting the (maximal) volume of the iPod, would also limit people with hearing disabilities from using it.
The guy is just an asshat for not having common sense: Hell, I could go around sueing the several clubs I visited in my teenyears, as the speakers certainly caused hearing loss... Then again, it was my -own- decision to go to those clubs... and stand in from of those speakers.
I agree that it should come down to personal reponsibility, but he is sueing also because he says there are not enough warnings with the iPod docs. My pair to Shure inner ear canal headpohnes have warnings all over the place.
This reminds me of the old woman who spilled the hot McDonald's coffee on her lap and sued becuase it was too hot and didnt have anough warnings/labels that is was hot so now she is rich and every to go cup of coffee you buy from many places is covered in "HOT!" or "Warning: Contents May be Hot!"
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 had earbud 'phones almost 10 years before the iPod came out. They're not a new idea, they're just trendy now.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
...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?
I do agree with earbuds can be kinda nasty on the ears, but I never want to go back to the dorky large headphones...
Then again, I am posting on Slashdot, so I don't know why I pretend -not- to be dorky ;-)
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
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-----
No, that would be the Apple In-Ear 'phones. The earbuds don't even come close to fitting 100% in the ear (which is why I bought some in-ear so that I could turn the volume DOWN and still hear the music).
Which, interestingly[1], is why the volume goes so high in the first place. Steve Jobs is partially deaf, and he tested the iPod before it was released.
[1] Or not. Mods, you decide.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Oh don't be ridiculous - I was using in the ear 'phones like that years before the iPod was available.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
He's talking (I think) about the sounds made by the earbuds themselves, when you touch them, pull them out, poke them with a fork, etc... Ever Heard that "pop" when you pull them out? That's real loud, so close.
They seal so well that those sounds are vastly amplified. I wear the rubbery-ended shure (i think) earbuds, and when I pull them out I'm very careful to break the airtight seal first by squeezing them. That popping sound really hurts, and I can see how it could damage your ears, and also how it can be contrued as a design defect. Like shoes that cut your skin if you don't remove the VERY carefully. Could you sue for that?
But Playing next to loud drummers for 15 years is what's doing in MY ears.
Just for the record, sounds don't have to be loud enough to hurt in order to cause hearing loss. Sounds ~85dB (around the level of a busy street or a factory) or higher are enough to cause permanent damage to hearing. Now, obviously, exposure time necessary for significant damage are inversely proportionate to the volume of the noise.
And I totally agree that Mr. Patterson is a fruitloop. There's a volume control for a reason. And if I want to ruin my hearing, or say, I don't know, use an iPod for something other than earbuds, like, maybe unpowered speakers, or multiple set of headphones, that's my right! I might need the power that the iPod can put out. Just 'cause some people lose their hearing 'cause they're dumb or not careful enough to protect themselves by turning the volume down a bit, doesn't mean everyone else should suffer. Think of it as evolution in action.
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?
"The *only* thing that affects the damage to your ears is the amount of energy being transferred to the eardrum."
Well, actually it's the energy transmitted to the hair cells in the cochlea corresponding to specific frequencies. Pure tones are more likely to damage hearing.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Because Apple pionered the idea of earbuds or at least popularized it of course.
Are you kidding? And let me guess: Linux invented the command line, Google invented XmlHttp, and BeOS invented the graphical operating system.
Earbud headphones have been around, and popular, for DECADES. Just because you weren't looking doesn't change reality.
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
Because Apple has the deepest pockets.
(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.
Great, I thought it was just me that couldn't wear earbuds because they hurt after a while. I always thought it was weird that they made my ears hurt as much as they did though because I am fairly sure they weren't pushing hard on any part of my ear. Still the retro whole ear headphones sorted the problem.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Headphones are always, always, going to have better sound quality over earphones.
I have a set of Sennheiser HD 595s - and previously a set of HD 500s. They don't actually touch your ear. They also block out alot of the outside noise. They offer much goodness. The only thing they are mainly for home use. Unless you don't worry about how they are going to affect yor battery life.
I would think the little earphones would dammage your ears more than headphones; at the same sounding volume.
---
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?!?
Just to comment on one issue: One reason that people put the volume so loud is that the earbuds do not keep out external noice. So, said earbuds should actually have the effect that you will not turn up the volume as much - not that you can't of course.
Also, classic earphones are better keeping external noice out and for this reason not claimed responsible for the same extent of hearing loss.
Anyway, I'm surprised that this comes up in the first place, but maybe this guy didn't listen to - or couldn't hear - the warnings...
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?
What, and Apple earbuds (specifically) did more damage than other brands of earbuds? That's news to me!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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?
I bought a mini just before they were discontinued, but my other friends have bought the 20 gig, 40 gig, and nano versions of the ipod. None of their purchases came with rubberized earbuds that form a seal in the ear, all of them are regular bud types with the slip-on foam covers. So what are these earbuds you're talking about? Are they even sold by Apple? Made by Apple? They don't seem to be the default option that comes with the product so I don't really see how a specific type of earbud that is not distributed with the ipod could be construed as "ipods cause hearing loss." In addition, as others have said, this suit has already come up in other forms, and since Apple complies with sound level regulations it looks like they've got a pretty clean case for no liability. Plus this is yet another lawsuit where the person harmed had a great deal of control over the company's product but they are somehow disavowing any personal responsibility for the damage caused. If you crank the volume on ANY sound reproduction device, and output that to sealed headphones of ANY type at maximum levels then it's a safe bet you're hurting your ears. That ringing you hear everytime you finish listening to your music? Yeah, that's your ears telling you to turn it down!
Personal responsiblity seems to be lost in this age, people need to own up to their own dumb-assery. Apple was not telling people it was ok to blast music at any volume you like with no ill effects, they are not directly responsible for some people's misuse of this particular product.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
You see hearing and volume are relative. The more background noise there is the louder the sound you are listening to has to be to overcome that background noise. With fully sealed in-ear designs you have very little background noise to overcome and thus can have a lower volume on your music and you will hear it similarly to if you cranked it up with normal headphones.
A great example of this is your car. When you are driving really slow you don't have to turn the radio up very high. Once you hit the highway, the road noise starts masking the music and you have to turn up. You get used to the music being so loud, then when you stop somewhere, turn off the car, then turn it back on you get a big surprise!
I bought a set of Etymotic ER6's for this very reason, I also got a set of custom earmolds made as I find earplugs very uncomfortable (no matter what size or type), as well as since I am an audio professional I can buy the Etymotic inserts that make them flat response earplugs. Very handy, plus since using them I have never experienced a threshold shift after listening on the headphones.
Of course care is needed with this type of headphone, as if you are not moderate with your listening level you can expose your ears to very high levels of music (which I can only imagine would be absolutely painful, but let's be honest, people are dumb), plus as another poster mentioned, the popping that occurs from plugging in and unplugging could potentially be very loud as well, so you would want to remove the headphones before connecting or disconnecting them.
That said, I haven't had a problem with this on my iPod Nano, the popping is very soft, even with the headphones in (yes, I occasionally forget...)
Shawn's Tech Articles
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.
This guy used Apple earbuds. So if any damage were because of earbuds he would have to sue Apple. He can't go suing all earbud manufacturers because that's not what did damage to his hearing. Earbuds probably did damage his hearing, whether this is the fault of Apple or the user that's up for the courts to decide.
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. :\
Apple's got deep pockets. Apple's stock is doing very well. Lawsuits drive down stock prices. Company execs get fidgetty. Payoffs, sorry, out of court settlements happen.
People have been damaging their hearing for decades with big honkin' headphones, too.
I think I'm gonna sue the apartment complex I used to live in since I looked at the sun through their clear windows. They didn't put up a warning sticker or coat the class with smoke to limit the sun's rays. The bastards didn't even give me the option.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Headphones are always, always, going to have better sound quality over earphones.
Not quite true - headphones might get the technology first, but it would eventually trickle down to the earbuds/earphones. Not to mention that earbuds will have a better quality of sound as there is less interference (and less bouncing of the waves) in getting the sound to your ears.
I would think the little earphones would dammage your ears more than headphones; at the same sounding volume.
True - but the key here is the same volume level. The nice thing about earbuds is that you can get the same quality of sound as headphones at a lower volume level, with less outside interference.
I've been using earbuds for years, and love them. Some are better than others, and expense doesn't necessarily mean better. Currently I find the $10 Sony MDR-J10 earbuds to be the best, and have 2 or 3 pairs of them that I use nearly all the time.
As per the original question of why some people can use them and others can't stand them - I would lean towards the fact that while they are generally comfortable to me (some are more comfortable than others), others can't seem to be able to wear them at all; the cause of which I believe is the size of people ears. Headphones will always be usable by anyone, while for earbuds your ears have to be big enough to hold the earbud.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
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
Oh, and as to the "now she's rich" part, that too is bogus. She initially asked for enough to recover her exact medical costs only. McDonalds refused so she sued for a larger amount. That amount was first granted, but then later was significanlty reduced. I forget what the final dollar value was but suffice to say it wasn't enough for her to go off and live a rich millionaire fantasy life.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Tell that to Etymotic.
That logic is actually backwords. muff style head phones are more effective at blocking out ambient noise. Earbud style head phones block less ambient noise so the user needs to run them at higher volumes to get the same level of immersion.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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 find earbuds to be EXTEREMELY uncomfortable, I don't even use the cell-phone hands-free sets that you stick in your ear. For a cell-phone headset, I use the receptionist style headset.
More too the point, I find all headphones to be uncomfortable after a period of time (say half an hour or so), so I wind up sitting the headphones near my ears, but off my head, or take them off entirely and crank up the volume so they act as passive desktop speakers.
Getting back to the actual topic. While the fact that earbuds can cause hearing loss (IIRC Pete Townsend recently spoke out against earbuds because he experienced hearing loss from headphones) is widely known, it is largely considered a wive's tale and/or it really hasn't reached a critical mass of people knowing.
On top of that, before the iPod, there weren't half as many people using earbuds as there currently are, so Apple HAS promoted a design that has an under-documented medical issue.
How the suit is going to play out is the guy's lawyer is going to allege that earbuds intrinsically cause hearing loss, and have expert testimony and medical reports documenting this. Meanwhile, Apple's lawyers are going to allege that this man suffered hearing loss from years of listening to music at too high a volume, using speakers, headphones, and earbuds, and a jury will decide which side is more plausable
Free MacMini
This is a very good point. I got fed up rather quickly of the horrible sound quality of the iPod's stock earbuds, and splurged for some Shure E3c. I own Grados for home listening, but was looking for something portable that would still provide great sound, as I didn't have the intention of lugging my Grados everywhere with me (especially since they are VERY open). The Shures offer not only sound benefits over standard earbuds but, as you said, their sound isolating properties can dramatically affect the volume at which you have to listen to your music. I have noticed that I never go above 50% on the volume control of my iPod when I am on the bus, yet with the other earbuds I tended to put it much higher because of all the noise in the bus. Hopefully, this will help keep my ears "healthy" for many more years to come.
I made you lose your valuable time. Sue me!
20 degrees isn't all that much, you're still gonna get scalded. Would 20 degree cooler coffee had lessened the injury that much? Methinks the lawyers would still be happy to sue. Note they call this a "problem" with the coffee.
Spilled hot stuff causes problems. They are a gigantic corporation. That McDonald's had to "settle" cases more indicates fear of publicity driven by greedy lawyers than anything else. Unless an employee dropped the cup, or a pot, McDonald's should have no liability.
And the drunk who tripped on a curb broke his wrist. Being able to sue for your own stupidity is the whole problem.
Why should they pay for her stupidity?
Five year old children are aware of the risk of dangeriously hot things. That's why suing over this is so idiotic.
Congratulations. A lawyer convince a bunch of yokels with sob stories. This is hardly a desired outcome. And the notice that the original award, a staggering $2.7 million, was just 2 days' sales of coffee indicates how badly the drooling lawyers wanted to tag McDonald's.
Still $480,000 more than it should have been.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You're wrong, earbuds DO allow quite a bit of noise in. In fact, a recent study claimed the exact opposite to what you said - that earbuds are LESS efficient at closing outside noise than padded supra-aural/circumaural headphones, and therefore kids are turning them up higher than regular headphones to compensate.
It's inner-ear monitors, AKA ear-canal-phones, AKA earplug headphones that completely isolate the music from external noise - with the major benefit being that you don't have to turn up the volume as high to drown out that extraneous noise. I never have to turn up my Ultimate Ears IEMs much further than 50% before I feel its deafening.
Both can cause hearing loss - as can regular supra aural and circumaural headphones - if the volume is too loud. The lesson is the same - lots of decibels = hearing loss, and it's stupid not to know this. I think it would be an ugly precedent if this guy won this suit.
"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
FTFA:
You can't take the sky from me...
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?
You are allowed to sue if two people even though you are not sure if one or two of them did damage. The most common example is if two people were to shoot at you but only one bullet hits your leg. You are allowed to sue both even though it was physically impossible that both person's were responsible for the damage done.
I am just stating the law. Not saying I agree with the kid.
Yeah, but where does that leave us Spinal Tap fans?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I too enjoy using my high-end headphones when I can. I bought a flash-based MP3 player, however, because with it I can easily listen to music while performing physical activity such as jogging. In the case of jogging, the benefits of the larger headphones are outweighed by their cumbersomeness. They move around too easily, are uncomforatably heavy, and most of all they are very hot to wear.
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
That's not how courts work.
You can get a bunch of scientists together and claim it's impossible.
I can get a bunch of "victims" together who claim that they lost 75% of their hearing from listening at REALLY low levels. They'll cry. They'll force the lawyers to yell the questions. They'll spend the court's time fiddling with hearing aids. They'll talk about how they lost their jobs and how their babies were run over by a bus because they couldn't hear the bus until it was too late. It'll be really tragic. And there's no way to prove they can still hear just as well as before.
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
During the trial, some ridiculous "public interest group" will send out a press release warning people of the hearing loss, even at REALLY low levels. It'll be in every newspaper and on every TV newscast. Slashdot will post it 4 times in 3 days.
Apple will settle the case for $10 per iPod. Lawyers will get $9.02 of it and Apple will give iPod owners 98 cents off their next iTMS music purchase.
They'll artificially limit the sound level on future iPods and put a warning label on them. They'll raise the price $20.
The lawyers will buy new houses and fast cars. Then they'll start looking for their next big score. (Maybe Apple will have a hit against earnings because of the case. Did they warn the shareholders sufficiently? I smell a shareholder lawsuit.)
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...
If they do that, I'll claim that the lawyers caused me hearing loss.
i can't hear you. type louder.
Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.
Welcome to the United States, you must be new here; that statement just isn't true.
Ear buds always make me feel like they're raping my ear. And their speakers are so small that they're extremely tinny and grating on my nerves... grah.
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!
You just made a great argument for becoming a lawyer.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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.
OSHA requires hearing protection for any workplace exposure of > 95 decibels
> 85 to 95 decibels for 4 or more hours per day or total exceeding 20 hours per week
> 75 to 80 decibels for 6 or more hours per day or total exceeding 24 hours per week
Antidotally, as the IT professionals age, more and more are being seen with notched hearing for the frequencies typically put out by computer fans and disk
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
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!
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!
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
Yes, Apple sells these. I believe they came with the Mini's when the mini's first started shipping (may be wrong though). Here are a few examples from the Apple Store (I have a feeling these might not work, so in case they are under apple.com->store->iPod accessories - headphones).A ppleStore.woa/7200707/wo/up0ZyklMjjbq20XeRMP1ap92a Oy/1.SLID?mco=1D18671E&nplm=MA360G%2FA
A ppleStore.woa/7200707/wo/up0ZyklMjjbq20XeRMP1ap92a Oy/13.SLID?mco=7612A515&nplm=M9394G%2FA
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
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?
(IIRC Pete Townsend recently spoke out against earbuds because he experienced hearing loss from headphones)
In spite of his claim to the contrary, don't you think it's possible that his hearing loss might have had something to do with being the guitarist for "THE LOUDEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD" for four decades?
The guy was exposed to 90 - 110 db's almost nightly for most of his career. No matter what he says, that's the main reason he's nearly deaf now. If headphones damaged his ears, it's because he had to crank them up to overcome the hearing loss from his wilder youth.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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 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.
Even if you put the noise level REALLY low you could get hearing impaired...
The correct terms are "deaf" or "hard of hearing", not "hearing impaired". Ugh!
Microsoft-free since March 28, 2004
What??
If it weren't for my stupidity, I'd be some kind of genius.
FTA:
---k--
</stupid>
I have read many accounts of the often cited, infamous McDonald's case. The question always comes down to this:
Was McDonalds morally or legally liable for the poor lady's injury?
The trouble with juries is that they have a hard time distinguishing the differences. Many people think simplistically just as you do that because a "relatively" impoverished person sustains an injury and a "relatively" wealthy corporation provided the product, legal liability inevitably must flow from the corporation.
In point of fact, the lady did a stupid thing. Since water boils at 212F, I would expect coffee could be served anywhere up to that temperature and therefore I would never place a flimsy foam cup near my balls in a car. Likewise, I would never place a loaded gun in the waistband of my pants. Any reasonable person would act likewise.
The jury wanted to punish McDonald's, plain and simply. They weren't "nice" to the woman. She could have easily prevented the injury by acting responsibly. Because of the publicity of this particular lawsuit and others like it, everybody believes they are just one small injury or slight away from winning the lawsuit lottery. Tort is out of control.
I was at the ass end of a personal injury lawsuit from a auto accident which I was involved. The plaintiff wanted the face value of my insurance policy plus $25,000. He perjured himself under deposition and at an arbitration hearing. My lawyer exposed it and tore him a new one under questioning. After the hearing, he agreed to settle for exactly what the insurance company offered right after the accident. He could have gotten all of the entire settlement up front if he hadn't chosen to hire an ambulance chasing lawyer.
Everybody thinks the civil tort system is a get rich quick scheme.
He might be talking about these earbud headphones. They don't come with foam covers. The grey part you can see at the end is rubber or a similar material. (The grey rubber part is also replacable; the set comes with three different sizes.) I don't know if they form a "seal" when used, but they're pretty snug. While not the earbuds that come with the iPod, they're Apple products and specifically sold as being for iPods.
That said, I agree it's a silly case and have no worries about it. It'll be thrown out reasonably promptly.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
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.
Parent poster is correct. In fact, the Etymotics were *intentionally designed* to make hearing loss less likely. That was their original claim to fame before the iPod existed.
I used to work at CompUSA and those earbuds are sold sepeartely. Not sure if they were ever bundled, but they are Apple brand earbuds. This guy suing is a freaking moron. Why not sue Ford or Chevy for making car stereos go so loud. I hope he gets laughed out of court!
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
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.
I bring hearing protection with me to concerts (the in-ear foam type). It actually makes the music sound better.
The problem with most concerts is they're played in concrete-and-steel arenas and civic centers that have horrible acoustics. The sound bounces around the inside, creating reflections. With earplugs, the reflected sounds are muted, leaving only the primary signal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Etymotic, with their earphones that absolutely seal into your ear canal, blocking out almost all outside noise, and putting themselves very close indeed to your eardrum.
I've been using a pair of Etymotic ER-4S headphones for about five years now. In practice, I find Ety's are far safer than normal earbuds for just the reason you cite. Since the outer part of the earbud is essentially an earplug with excellent noise blocking, the headphone doesn't have to compete volume-wise with ambient noise. You get the same clarity of sound with a lower volume level due to this.
It's also worth noting that due to the Ety's proximity to the eardrum, they don't need to be very loud at all. Their drivers run intentionally quiet for this reason. For comparison, with conventional headphones or earbuds if I set them at a comfortable listening level then set them down on the desk, I find that I can still hear the sound to some extent. With Ety's, I can't even tell whether they're on unless the volume is particularly loud or it's *very* quiet in the room.
Of course, it's critical with any headphone, Ety's or otherwise, to train yourself to moderate playback volume for extended listening.
pfft! drinking McDonald's Coffee is worse than getting burned by it.
Latewire
Of the current 7, only two cases were won - and one of them for only $900. Most frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court in short order. The problem is that this makes sense, so it doesn't get printed in the news. You only hear about these cases getting filed, and everyone gets fired up over them, even though most will be quietly dismissed.
"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.
"Personal responsiblity seems to be lost in this age, people need to own up to their own dumb-assery."
Personal responsibility is suckers and fools. That's why corporations are invented.
evil is as evil does
"Was McDonalds morally or legally liable for the poor lady's injury? "
Yes.
evil is as evil does
So it won't really be a very big story, then?
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.
*Wall of text crits you for 5000 you die.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
That's actually why you're *less* likely to lose hearing - because you're not as exposed to external background noise, you're not as likely to crank it up.
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.
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "What?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Eh? What did you say?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Ugh? YO! What did you say?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Whaaat?"
Guy 1: "Can you hea...."
Guy 2: "HEY! Yo! Hello?!"
Guy 1: "...r me now?"
Guy 2: "I'M LISTENING TO MY IPOD, CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER???"
Guy 1: "Awe, fuck this guy!" *click*
Guy 2: "I'M GOING TO TURN OFF MY IPOD NOW, CAN YOU SPEAK UP?"
*tone*
Guy 2: "Yeah, I'm doing good... you?"
Live forever, or die trying.
Everyone with this "low level" thing. Does Apple's Ipod even come with warnings against hearing loss should you turn the volume up to its highest extent. To make a legal argument. Legality != common sense, that's where everyone gets it wrong. Everyone knows that coffee is hot, but the coffee suit wins in court, why? Because common sense doesn't win in court. Technically, if you want to make this argument legally speaking you probably can with ease. The Ipod and the earbuds are sold as a set, there's probably nothing in the documentation that says hearing loss could result from any volume level, and even if there is something in the manual somewhere they'd probably argue that it's not full disclosure cuz the text is too small or something. But honestly, I've never read a hearing loss warning on most of my electronic items, so the argument, legally, seems valid to me. As long as there is no warning.
Now, common sense is right, you stuck a little speaker into your ear, turned it up way too loud and then expected no hearing loss? We all know that loud stuff causes hearing loss, and you should've known better, but that's not really a legal argument. (I do, however, agree with common sense). Either way it's another interesting case involving absolving people from all personal responsibility for their own poor choices.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
From TFA, Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle.
Even if they served the coffee at the proper temperature range of 180F (82C), I still wouldn't try to drink my coffee through a bong like I would beer, why? Because it's still going to burn.
In fact, drinking such large amounts of proper temperature coffee at that rate would probably cause minor burns to your throat. Does that mean we now can sue for that as well?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?
It was the wrong ruling, corporations should not be responsible for personal stupidity.
Live forever, or die trying.
All this talk of Hot Coffee... Excuse me, I have to go rub one out. Where did I leave GTA again?
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"
Gorram Brit ACs. Since you seem to imply that you have had the proper physics courses then you must be familiar with the fact that there are TWO widely accepted temperature scales. I did not specify which I was using, but since water at 170 degrees C is not possible in a coffee machine then one might assume I meant Farenheit, where 170 degrees is below boiling (212F). :P
And speaking of physics, I believe you can have water at 170 degrees C however you have to keep it under tremendous pressure. Been a long time since I did the calculations for pressure vs temp and volume but IIRC it can be done.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
This situation is more like the kid heard from someone that somebody may be shooting near his leg, so he sues the person with the deepest pockets, just in case he might get shot in the leg someday.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Simply put, hearing loss is a function of volume over time."
I think impulse sounds can cause damage to your hearing too even if it's in the range of OSHA's sound pressure requirements of 9.5 bel. So maybe the type of music was a factor, I wonder.
You are confusing the term damages and liability. Liable is a fact question, a judge or jury make that decision. You don't know the answer before filing suit. So you are sorta right In the US, you can sue anyone, even though they aren't remotely liable. However that doesn't mean they are not liable. However damages is something you have to claim before filing suit. Damages doesn't necessarily mean physical damage.
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.
you can only sue people that actually did damage.
I wish.
No, you can sue anyone for any pretext at all. Whether you can win, is a different question.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: do you want these clowns on their fishing expedition to get Apple to pay them for nothing, to determine how loud you are allowed to set the volume on your iPod?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Still $480,000 more than it should have been.
I concur, but she should have had to refund McDonalds' legal costs, too.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees."
quoted from here
The standard to which I was referred byt he sites that broke down this case was the internation coffee association website which states guidelines and best practices, although it is by no means an industry standard in the sense that many industries produce hard guidelines. While McDonalds was certainly within their rights to turn the temp up, most restaurants were below what McD's was serving at.
Here's a novel idea for you. Brew some coffee at 190 degrees, pour a cup and maintain the rest at 190. Now let the poured cup cool to 160 or 165, try it. You'll find that's a fine 'hot' temperature, not too cold as you claim. Now try to drink the other coffee at 190 degrees and notice how you burn the shit out of your mouth. And as to her "deep pockets" gold digging, the original suit asked only for $20,000 in medical expenses, which you also conveniently glossed over. It was only upon all denial by McDonalds for settlement that the amount was raised. The final settlement value, by the way, WAS released and was $480,000. There are well-established laws that punish companies for knowingly engaging in behavior or practices that are considered unsafe. Thus despite the fact that the woman played a role in her injury, McDonalds was considered partly at fault and found guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct".
Unlike your unsubstantiated rebuttal I have provided two links that support my facts. If you google for "mcdonalds + coffee + lawsuit" you will find many other sites that repeat these same facts, and if you look hard enough you'll probably find the court documents from which these sites got their information. It's completely tracable and you are dead wrong. A product intended for immediate human consumption should be able to be consumed by humans without causing third degree burns. I would say that a food or drink that causes immediate and severe injuries (requiring a skin graft is certainly severe!) is an unsafe product. How can you argue otherwise?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
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!
My point is that you can't sue a company if you aren't using their products. You can't sue Creative, if you never use Creative products. This guy sued Apple because he had an Apple product. I doubt that this guy lost his hearing because of the iPod. But that's the decision for the courts to decide. My use of the word damage is used in the legal sense, not that Apple damaged his hearing.
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.
In point of fact, the lady did a stupid thing. Since water boils at 212F, I would expect coffee could be served anywhere up to that temperature and therefore I would never place a flimsy foam cup near my balls in a car.
Assertions about the "proper" serving temperature for coffee are pretty much irrelevant. Yes, under normal home or restaurant serving conditions in which coffee is served in an open, noninsulated ceramic cup to be placed on a stable table, it makes sense to serve it very hot. After all, it is subject to rapid cooling by evaporation, so it is probably already significantly cooler when it gets to the table. If it is still too hot, the diner can just wait a moment while the coffee sits safely on the table.
But Macdonalds is serving the coffee in an insulated cup with a lid. That means it cools only very slowly. And who decided that the ultrahot coffee should be served in a flimsy foam cup that gets soft when the contents are really hot? Macdonalds. And considering that they were serving it to drive-through customers who were going to be holding that soft foam cup in a moving vehicle (minimally moving far enough to exit the drive-through lane) over their laps, Macdonalds surely knew that spills and lap burns were inevitable. Even then, the court only found Macdonalds to be partially responsible for the woman's injuries, with the woman herself bearing a share of the blame.
My point is that you can't sue a company if you aren't using their products.
Yeah, you can. It will probably get tossed out at the preliminary hearing, but you can still sue.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
It is not as if the man put on his earbud, turned on his ipod, and suddenly got a loud enough blast that he is now deaf.
You analogy doesn't work because the woman in the coffee suit _was not_ awared of that the coffee was not, nor did she continuously spilled hot coffee onto her body for _three months_. It was a one time thing.
The ipod man, on the other hand, must had at least felt _some_ pain during his n months of usage. It is his own fault for ignoring the warning sign.
Here is my analogy- a man brought a pair of shoes from a store. After he got home, he tried them on, and found that the shoes are too small for him and it hurts when he wears them. He ignores the pain and wears the shoes for three months until his feet become infected and has to be amputated.
Whose fault is it?
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.
You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third degree burns, as in this case, that is a severe injury. It caused deep tissue damage to the woman's crotch area. That would indicate the product was dangerously hot. Incidentally the damage would have been the about the same regardless of location, sure the crotch is more sensitive nerve-wise but the skin there has the same burn tolerances as other uncalloused skin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?
One, coffee is not brewed with boiling water by most modern devices, older percolating devices used boiling water, it is in fact recommended by the Nation Coffee Association that coffe be brewed at a temperature no higher that 185F. Also, as was testified by burn specialists in this case, water at 190 degrees F (which was the temp McDonalds was serving at) causes third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. In this case the temperature was so high that it would have caused immediate injury. The woman didn't splash it on herself to test the temperature, she spilled it. Now in this case the woman did a stupid thing by placing the cup between her legs. But what if it hadn't been the case? Let's alter the scenario slightly and say that a toddler in the seat next to her knocked the cup from the cup holder and into her lap. The temp was the same and she would have received the same injuries. The product was dangerously hot. There is a range in which coffee can be served hot but not be extremely likely to cause injury, McDonalds was knowingly operating above this range. (They had received over 700 complaints about the temp being too hot, they were aware they were 15 to 25 degrees above industry standard, and had not consulted an industry specialist to confirm the safety of this higher temperature.) Two links for you. A google search will find more information that corraborates these links as well.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Yeah and then the lawyer and the client gets sanctioned and fined for Rule 11 sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm Also if you do it enough times then you face the local state bar and be sanctioned and even disbarment proceedings. Exhibit A, see Jack Thompson.
Ah... The well considered reasoning of the tort lobby.
Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that placed coffee between the womans legs, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that subsequently opened that cup in a moving car, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact coffee is a beverage which is universally understood to be served hot, McDonald's is responsible.
In fact, McDonalds is not only liable for the event, apparently there must have been no proportion of negligence on the part of the purchaser, (Full reimbursement of medical expenses) otherwise, there would be no need for punitive damages. (reduced to a paltry $480,000 on appeal)
Your reasoning is what is wrong with the US legal system. Clearly, the purchaser engaged in risky behavior and was injured. The plaintiff argued that a 20F degree difference in temperature between McDonald's coffee and that of its competitors was all that was necessary to "prove" complete liability and absolve the plaintiff of all responsibility. Considered reason is thrown to the wind and replaced by emotional hysteria.
Were her injuries horrific? Certainly they were, but that should have no bearing on personal liability for her own risky behavior. McDonald's or any other company should not be held liable for the stupidity of their own customers. And, apparently the jurors on this particular case were no brighter than the plaintiff.
From the article: "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."
So much for actual damage.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
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.
How do you reconcile these two statements?
And yet she received a multi-million dollar punitive award from the jury along with medical expenses.
And you do realize that we are talking about a 20 degree F temperature difference between McDonald's and their competitors, right?
the medical profession now reckon that ANY overload of your hearing causes at least SOME permanent loss of hearing, so if you do regularly get a ringing in your ears, or if peaks of volume make your ears hurt, you're setting yourself up for big trouble later in life. My mother works at a charity for acquired deafness (people go go deaf rather than being born without hearing) and she says that whilst once hearing loss was associated with heavy industrial work with lots of noise, she's seeing younger and younger people develop the problem - it's no longer an elderly "disease"
So, moral of the story, resist the urge to increase the sound level as you listen - don't let it creep up. If you're listening in a noisy environment, consider noise-cancelling closed-cup phones, so you can listen at a lower level.
Damages in this case is a defective product. It's like suing Ford for a defective design on their SUVs even though you personally did not suffer any physical injuries. You still were injured because the product you own is defective and may cause injuries in the future. But if you owned a Chevy, you can't sue Ford for design flaws in the Ford because you don't have a case that Ford has caused damages to you as a Chevy owner.
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.
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.
the lawyer and the client gets sanctioned and fined for Rule 11 sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure
Hopefully, yes.
Nevertheless, my statement stands.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
How do you reconcile these two statements?
The entire point is that context matters: what might be the "proper" temperature for coffee served in an open ceramic cup on a table is ultrahot for coffee served in a closed, insulated, flimsy container to a customer in a moving vehicle.
And yet she received a multi-million dollar punitive award from the jury along with medical expenses.
Which was substantially reduced subsequently. But it is certainly understandable that a jury might feel that a large penalty is necessary to punish a big, wealthy corporation sufficiently to induce them to alter their practices.
And you do realize that we are talking about a 20 degree F temperature difference between McDonald's and their competitors, right?
Once again, it depends upon context. There are circumstances in which 20 degrees can literally be the difference between life and death. I can tell you that 90 degree weather does not feel only slightly less comfortable than 110 degree weather. Look at death rates during heat waves when considering whether 20 degrees is inconsequential. Survival time in the water is drastically lower at 60 degrees than at 80. And the danger of frostbite and hypothermia is much greater in 10 degree weather than 30 degree weather.
"Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that placed coffee between the womans legs, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that subsequently opened that cup in a moving car, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact coffee is a beverage which is universally understood to be served hot, McDonald's is responsible."
Yup. McDonalds made the coffee to hot. Hotter then any of the national standards, hotter then what they had been told was safe. So hot it was unsafe to drink. If the woman had attempted to drink it she would have burned her mouth. They did this despite being told about it, despite being warned about it.
So they are at least partially responsible.
"Your reasoning is what is wrong with the US legal system."
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.
Lucky for us the jury was able to see more colors then black and white. When I go to buy coffee I have some reasonable expectations. One of those expectations is that the coffee I buy will not scald my lips and tounge with third degree burns when I attempt to drink it. In this case it was not and that is the fault of McDOnalds more then it is the fault of woman.
"but that should have no bearing on personal liability for her own risky behavior. McDonald's or any other company should not be held liable for the stupidity of their own customers. And, apparently the jurors on this particular case were no brighter than the plaintiff."
It's risky to buy coffee? In this case she didn't attempt to drink it right away (thank god for that) but if she did her mouth would have been burned. It is also not stupid to take a drink out of your cup after the vendor gives it to you.
In this case the jurors were much brighter then you. They recognized that McDonalds was going to cause lots of burns on their customers and that they showed no regard for the safety of their customers. They chose to punish MCDonalds in the hope that the corporation would change it's behavior. It worked. Since we are unable to imprison corporations that's all we can do.
evil is as evil does
So now he must sue the band (or bands) that played the music that made hime deaf? Uh-huh...
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.
Personally, I think it serves him right for listening to Ashley Simpson.
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.
I understand. I wasn't arguing that aspect (suing Ford vs. Chevy), only the point that this is only for "potential" damages, the customer didn't suffer hearing loss.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Oh, I dunno, maybe he's talking about the headphones made by shure?
-josh
No. It's risky to open a cup of coffee wedged between your legs in a moving car when you are 81 years old.
There were 700 incidents of coffee burns over a decade. They sell 1 BILLION cups of coffee a year. That works out to a 99.999993% safety record. This is clearly a non-issue as to your "record of safety" for customers. I would guess that a billion sales a year would attest to the desirability of the coffee served at McDonalds, regardless of your particular prejudices. http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
It looks like to me that you are the one seeing the issue in only back and white. Corporations bad / Lawyers good. Check your facts before you start making wild allegations.
My memory of the court case was that liability was shared, although the balance fell on McDonalds. I don't, however, see where the parent poster insists there was no responsibility on the part of the woman. Maybe it implied strongly enough that you see it in that way.
-josh
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
....Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.....
Not true! In the US you can sue anybody you want for anything at all. However you're not likely to find a lawyer to take a case unless the defendant has deep pockets and the nature of the complaint has a pretty good chance to persuade the most ignorant members of society that can get impaneled in such a jury.
All theory is gray
Except to Gabe and Tycho
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
That's not the only reason. The iPod is the only mp3 player capable of driving many high-end headphones. Of course the same setting with a pair of cheap Sony headphones will deafen you in an hour...
Since you are interested in context, you do realize that the plaintiff was 81 years old, don't you? You do realize that a coffee spill might affect an 81-year-old much more harshly than a healthy 30-year-old male. You do realize that placing a hot cup of coffee between you legs in a moving car might be contrued as a much more risky behavior for an elderly lady than a young person.
Now you are perpetuating a myth. The spill did not happen in a moving car. The accident occurred when the car was parked. I've seen how easily this can happen with styrofoam cups and hot liquids. The cup becomes very soft but this is not obvious because it is stabilized by the plastic lid. Often the lid is tight, and it is difficult to get the lid off. It is easy to squeeze the softened cup a bit too hard, and when the lid pops off the cup basically collapses. To make it worse, the insulating properties of the styrofoam maintain the coffee at a scalding temperature much longer than would be the case with a ceramic or cardboard cup. If a cup collapses at a table, you get a painful but not too damaging burn to your hand, because the scalding liquid runs right off--a little ice right away and it might not even blister. If it happens in a car, moving or not, you are likely to end up with a bad groin burn. Mcdonalds could have avoided the hazard either by reducing the temperature of the coffee or by using a more suitable cup, such as cardboard with an insulating sleeve.
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.
Steve Jobs is partially deaf, and he tested the iPod before it was released.
Which, interestingly, might prove that briefly testing the iPod can already cause partial deafness?
I'm so sick of hearing everyone mention the coffee lawsuit. McDonald's coffee, at the time, was obviously hot enough to cause third degree burns through clothing. That's negligent, if you don't warn the consumer. Now, the guy who sued McDonald's for making him fat... that's a comparable situation.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
The volume goes that high because every set of earphones is different. Earbuds may be particularly efficient with their smaller drivers and closer positioning to the ear drums, but if they assume everyone is going to use the stock phones (I know I can't because of the shape of my ears), they're going to get a lot of complaints when other headphones can't be turned up to what would be their normal volume.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
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.
So you're saying he should sue himself, then, eh?
There are many other targets, then, besides Apple. And there are better targets, too, by your reasoning -- take for example Etymotic, with their earphones that absolutely seal into your ear canal, blocking out almost all outside noise, and putting themselves very close indeed to your eardrum.
The earphones that seal out noise are actually safer, because you can listen at a much lower volume. The music is not competing with ambient noise. With regular earbuds, on the other hand, one has a tendency to increase the volume to compete with ambient noise, so you're subjecting your ears to both the ambient noise + louder music.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I hereby claim against Apple Computers as follows;
I am an idiot.
I agree. You get a clearer sound.
I don't always remember to bring mine, so I've resorted to rolling up a piece of napkin and sticking that into my ears. It does the trick, so long as there's enough napkin to stick out far enough for easy removal.
Also, I've been able to purchase ear plugs at some clubs. If there's some sort of office for the manager, they often have them there. When I went to see a show at the Wiltern Theater in Los Angeles, I had to check my motorcycle helmet in at the manager's office. They had ear plugs for sale for $2/pair.
Speaking of motorcycles, I keep a pair of ear plugs in my jacket pocket, because the noise from the wind whistling through the helmet at high speeds can cause damage to the ears and loss of hearing after long enough exposure. If I'm going to be going at high speeds for longer than a half hour, I wear them. I can still hear traffic sounds, but the wind is muffled.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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.
"No. It's risky to open a cup of coffee wedged between your legs in a moving car when you are 81 years old."
Read this carefully because you didn't read it the first time.
Cofee was hot enough to cause third degree burns.
If she drank the cofee her mouth would have burned.
"And were you aware that the plaintiff was 81 years old? Are you aware that octagenarians have generally thinner and more delicate skin? Are you aware she may have been more succeptible to burns and therefore should have been more careful as a result? Are you aware that we are arguing over a 20 degree F temperature difference?"
Yes I am aware of those fact. So was the jury and judge.
"Corporations bad / Lawyers good."
Corporations are amoral, soul-less beings with full rights the same as human beings with souls. I will leave it up to you to decide whether this is good or bad. All I know is if I burned you I would go to jail.
evil is as evil does
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.
And while I'm ranting... what about concerts? I went to an Aerosmith concert a few years ago, and the sound was so loud it was distorting in my ear. I mean... LOUD. Shouldn't we be suing them too? Especially since we can't turn down the volume in that situation.
Oh wait... personal responsibility. Almost forgot it existed.
I can give another example. I'm a NASCAR fan and I've spent my share of time in the infield at Texas Motor Speedway during races. The way the track is designed, with rather steep banking, you can walk to either end of the infield and literally watch the cars as they pass a few feet in front of you but also over your head. You're looking up and seeing mostly the roof of the car. They do about 170-180 mph through the section between turns 1 and 2 or turns 3 and 4. After a restart, they come through there in a tight pack. Forty-three cars, all running an 800 horsepower V8 with a straight pipe and nothing whatsoever to muffle the sound.
When you get them all running together like that and you're standing less than 100 feet from them, the sound is beyond deafening. I've been to some really loud concerts, but I've never experienced loud like that. I'm no physicist, so I can't explain it, but I've done it a few times without hearing protection and it's so loud that it seems to blur your vision. It's almost like you have to struggle to see through the sound waves. The ground shakes and it's a little difficult to breathe. I've never done it for more than one pass at a time. Still, every time I've done it, my ears ring (severely, to the point of near deaf) for at least 15-20 minutes after.
So now I come to my "Ask Slashdot" question: Should I sue NASCAR, Texas Motor Speedway, the individual drivers or all of the above? There was a nary a warning sign to be seen, even at the ticket office where I bought my infield passes.
how can REALLY low noise impair your hearing? Be specific, make sure you talk about the decibel level at which that REALLY low noise can impair your hearing.
I am not an acoustics expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. So I'll give it a try. Let's assume that by "low" the poster means low amplitude, and not low frequency. With ordinary headphones (and speakers) there is usually a passage between the driven surface of the "actuator" of the speaker (cone, piezo, film, whatever) and "the world" outside the ear canal. As the surface moves, it causes pressure waves which are free to pass to the ear of the listener, but also to the rest of the world through holes, foam, whatever. It is an "escape route" for really high pressure air-- an alternate path for energy to travel.
Think of it this way: Assume air is incompressible (which it isn't, but bear with me.) If you sent a REEEAAALLYYY slow sine wave (below hearing threshold) to a speaker, the motion of the actuating surface would displace the air near it according to its amplitude. If you have an air permeable membrane or a hole or just empty atmophere, the displaced/replaced air would simply spill in the atmosphere. You would not detect any noise becuse there would be a very small pressure difference over time at your ear drum.
Now, with an air-tight ear-bud, there is no escape route from the ear canal and the atmosphere. It is a sealed system, with an actuator on one end, and your flexible ear drum on the other end. If you again consider air as incompressible (or better, approximately incompressible with respect to the flexibility of your ear drum and the driving forces), as you actuate the speaker in the ear bud, your ear drum will have to deflect by an amount that (appoximately) conserves the volume between the speaker and your ear drum. Consider that your ear drum likes to "hear" pressure waves traveling through the air. It does not like to be driven directly, which is closer to what the really tightly fitting sealed ear-buds look like they do.
Yeah, it's a gross simplification of the problem, and the assumptions will make engineers/scientists cringe. If you want to "see" what I am talking about, stretch latex glove or flexible membrane over the opening of a plastic bottle. Now squeeze the bottle (low amplitude). You are the actuator, actuating the bottle (speaker), causing the latex "ear-drum" to deflect slightly. Now, poke a few pinholes in the bottle and repeat. Now a few more holes. And a few more. Note the dependence on frequency and amplitude (pressure). Compare and contrast your results with your pre-lab calculations. Repeat the experiment using water instead of air in the bottle. Lab reports are due in my office by Friday....
As for realistic quantitative estimates of what would cause damage, I have none. However, if as in my explanation you consider air as incompressible, and assume no dissipative losses, then the power output from the ear-bud would be the same as the power received by the ear-drum. The power attenuation would be 0-dB. If you have a "leak" somewhere, and the system is capable of bleeding pressure to the atmosphere (for compressible or incompressible air), the attenuation would be >0-db. Watt for watt, sealed air buds will deliver more power to you eardrums than regular non-form-fitting ear-phones or a speaker, regardless of the frequency or amplitude.
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.
BZZT! You lose. It is not the drums that get damaged. It is the little tiny hairs that collect the sound, usually the high freqs.
A quick google has this but I'm sure there you can find more.
qz
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.
Not just deaf people, but also people who want to use big, power hungery headphones. I sometimes use my over-ear headphones, and notice I have to turn the volume up to get the same level as my in-ear buds.
Everyone knows that coffee is hot, but an accidental spill from a take-out plastic cup shouldn't be sending your customers to the burn ward. This is a predictable and preventable injury. There is no excuse for driving earbuds to decibel levels which are known to be dangerous.
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
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?
It certainly can though. The problem with spilling hot liquids on clothing is that the clothing then clings to the skin keeping the liquid in place, and causing more severe burns than if the liquid just spilled on you. That's part of why boiling oil burns so much worse than boiling water, because the oil sticks to your skin better.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
If she recieved 3rd degree burns, 20 degrees less would still have burned her (and rather badly) had she attempted to drink it and or spilled it down her pants. Should McDonalds have been liable then too?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
"If she recieved 3rd degree burns, 20 degrees less would still have burned her (and rather badly) had she attempted to drink it and or spilled it down her pants. Should McDonalds have been liable then too?"
Why don't you read up on this case instead of going on and on about something you are so ignorant about.
The jury found that both parties were partially responsible. They found that McDonalds carried greater responsibility. If the temprature was 20 degrees cooler maybe the jury would have found them less responsible. Maybe they would have paid nothing, maybe they would have paid much less.
It's not a black and white world. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, sean hannity and bill o'reilly. Those guys are stupid and they are making you look stupid.
evil is as evil does
OMG 700 Complaints. According to the site you linked McDonalds sells a BILLION cups of coffe per year. The 700 complaints were over the course of a decade which means they recieved a complaint, rady for this: 0.000007% of the time. HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESSES, McDonalds coffe is 0.000007% unsafe.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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
Good, I'm glad that she was found partialy responsible. And how much money was she required to pay? None? Hmmm. It would have been better if she was found completely responsible for it. Here's the deal, coffe is HOT. Hot things BURN you. Burns can be SEVERE. Until you are aware of the relative temperature of a HOT liquid, you should be doing everything possible to minimize the risk of BURNING yourself so as to minimize the SEVERITY of an accidental BURN. In this case, putting a HOT liquid of unknown temperature between your fucking legs is NOT minimizing risks. She was a god damned moron. I'm sorry she was hurt, I'm sorry she was hurt badly but SHIT HAPPENS. Next time she'll think twice about doing stupid things with HOT liquids. And don't give me any bullshit about it being served higher than the industry standard because it comes down to one of two senarios:
1) She buys coffe at MD all the time and is thus aware of the temperature that MD serves their coffe at, in which case she has no one to blame except herself for spilling a KNOW VERY HOT liquid on her lap.
OR
2) She bought coffe from a place she has never bought coffe from and assumed that the coffe would be served at the same temperature as her normal coffe hut. In this case she has no one to blame but herself for assuming that coffe was served at the same temperature no matter where it's served.
I don't listen to rush sean of bill as I find all of them to be just as stupid as this lady. It's about personal responsibility and the fact that coffe is HOT.
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.
If she drank the cofee her mouth would have burned.
That would be why smarter people tend to sip the coffee with a great deal of air, to test the temperature, and put it down and wait a while if it's too hot.
When you buy a hot drink, you should expect it to be hot!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And who decided that the ultrahot coffee should be served in a flimsy foam cup that gets soft when the contents are really hot?
The cup didn't fail. She took the top off the cup, and spilled the contents. If the cup had melted or something, you'd have a point, but it didn't, so you don't.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Good, I'm glad that she was found partialy responsible. And how much money was she required to pay? None? Hmmm. "
Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?
"It would have been better if she was found completely responsible for it. Here's the deal, coffe is HOT. Hot things BURN you. Burns can be SEVERE."
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. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
"It's about personal responsibility and the fact that coffe is HOT."
Personal responsiblity is for suckers and fools. That's why we invented corporations. Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment. The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do.
Secondly it was too hot. Get that through your thick head. It was too hot for human consumption. It was hot enough to cause third degree burns. It was too hot.
Fucking moron.
evil is as evil does
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.
The cup didn't fail. She took the top off the cup, and spilled the contents. If the cup had melted or something, you'd have a point, but it didn't, so you don't.
What happens is that the styrofoam cup gets soft, but it holds its shape because it is stabilized by the stiff plastic cover. The cover is tight, so you need to hold the cup firmly to get it off. It is easy to squeeze a bit too hard, but you don't realize it because of the cover stabilizing the cup. When the cover comes off, that stabilization is suddenly lost, the sides of the softened styrofoam cup collapse from the pressure, and the liquid spills out. I've seen this happen to people dozens of times. It's annoying and sometimes painful when it happens to somebody seated at a table, but it usually doesn't do any real damage because the liquid quickly runs off their hand on to the table. But if you are sitting in a car, the scalding coffee ends up in your lap.
Basically, styrofoam cups are not suitable for serving coffee at the "proper" temperature. And serving it that way to somebody in an automobile is grossly irresponsible.
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.
Was McDonalds morally or legally liable for the poor lady's injury? ... In point of fact, the lady did a stupid thing. Since water boils at 212F, I would expect coffee could be served anywhere up to that temperature and therefore I would never place a flimsy foam cup near my balls in a car. Likewise, I would never place a loaded gun in the waistband of my pants. Any reasonable person would act likewise.
I disagree - I think McDonalds was legally liable. The industry standard was 160F, as has been noted. Therefore, a consumer purchasing coffee at a variety of different businesses would have an expectation of the temperature of the coffee served.
McDonalds chose to deviate from this standard -- no problem so far.
They chose to go significantly higher than the standard - again, still no problem.
They did NOT inform consumers that they were significantly higher than the standard, so much so that THEIR product could cause severe burns where competitors products (ie the industry standard) would not. *HERE* is the problem.
Yes, the woman was foolish to put the cup between her legs, but everyone does foolish things. 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.
The jury wanted to punish McDonald's, plain and simply. They weren't "nice" to the woman. She could have easily prevented the injury by acting responsibly. Because of the publicity of this particular lawsuit and others like it, everybody believes they are just one small injury or slight away from winning the lawsuit lottery. Tort is out of control.
From the analysis I've read (sorry, don't remember where), yes, the jury did want to punish McDonald's. I see nothing wrong with that, since McDonald's was in the wrong (in my opinion). And the fact that the award was later substantially reduced is always left out. However, your last comment is really more of an urban legend - tort is not out of control. There are a few hyped-up cases (like this one - from 1994!) that everyone talks about. The reality is that most lawsuits are between businesses, and it is these B2B lawsuits that are much more likely to be frivolous (one source, but I've read others as well).
I'm glad your personal liability lawsuit came out favorably for you - I have a friend who was in a similar situation and luckily it came out favorably for her as well. It is pretty sleazy that there are all of these ambulance-chasing lawyers who set $$ in people's eyes, but I think we need to differentiate between personal lawsuits between individuals and lawsuits between people & companies. For you I'm sure this was a stressful, frustrating time. For McDonalds, that was just a cost of doing business.
This is off-topic, but I don't understand why they make coffee that hot. Even if you warn me it's hot, why the hell would you make something so hot it burns my mouth if I take a straight sip? I always have to wait for it to cool, why can't they just make coffee a little cooler? I guess I should just stick to the cold stuff.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
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.
Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?
Getting dragged through the courts and having their image tarnished by a fucking moron was payment enough from McDonalds don't you think?
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. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
That's because presumeably you aren't stupid enough to attempt to drink coffe that was freshly made. Here's the deal, if coffe is supposed to be at or near boiling for brewing, then until YOU PERSONALY verify that it is not, it should be treated as boiling. No, I can't concieve of a liquid that is too hot when we are talking about a product that is made with BOILING water. She got 3rd degree burns because she spilled the shit into her lap in a closed setting. Simple physics the severity of the burns had more to do with setting than the temperature of the coffe.
Personal responsiblity is for suckers and fools. That's why we invented corporations. Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment. The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do.
Personal responsibility is what you as a member of society must take. You must take all nessesary precautions that you control to prevent injury to yourself. Putting a HOT cup of coffe at UNKNOWN temperatures BETWEEN YOUR LEGS is not reducing risk.
And why pray tell are the people who made or served this coffe responsible for this lady taking a HOT cup of coffe that she either knew for a fact to be very hot (if she was a regular customer) or had no clue what temperature it was served at (if she wasn't) and sticking it between her legs in a car and attempting to open it there? HOW ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUPID ACTIONS OF THE LADY?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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!
Aren't the hairs on the other side of the ear-drums?
What happens is that the styrofoam cup gets soft.
Somehow, tens of millions of other customers seem to handle these allegedly defective cups without incident.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"pure tones dont do any more damage then impure ones"
For a given amount of energy, they do. It's the difference between sunlight and a laser, but worse as far as the sensor for that particular frequency is concerned. Your brain can compensate with adjacent frequency sensors to a certain extent, but the basic sensor ability for the affected frequency is degraded or lost. The effect is nonlinearly energy-dependent and frequency-specific, and virtually everybody is affected to some extent, and everybody who listens to music at "realistic" levels is considerably affected. I think that much of the modern decline in high-frequency hearing with age is caused by simply wearing the ears out.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Somehow, tens of millions of other customers seem to handle these allegedly defective cups without incident.
And doubtless tens of millions of people drive intoxicated each year without incident. So does that mean that you shouldn't be liable if you hurt somebody while driving drunk? Nobody really knows the incidence of burns from styrofoam cups, but considering that I have seen it happen multiple times, I don't believe that it is all that rare (although injuries this severe are doubtless uncommon). I've never known anybody to complain about it, much less sue, so the 700 complaints that McDonalds had received were doubtless a small fraction of the total.
From the point of view of liability, it was a predictable hazard that McDonalds was aware of, and that could have been avoided by a number of measures, such as cooler coffee, cups better suited to serving very hot liquids, or putting cream and sugar in before serving. It is hardly surprising that the jury found that McDonalds was at fault.
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.
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.
"Getting dragged through the courts and having their image tarnished by a fucking moron was payment enough from McDonalds don't you think?"
No it wasn't. Since their sales didn't go down there is no reason to think that this court case had impact on them other then their fine.
"That's because presumeably you aren't stupid enough to attempt to drink coffe that was freshly made."
Nonsense. In every restaurant I have ever been in when the coffee I ordered comes I start to drink it.
"HOW ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUPID ACTIONS OF THE LADY?"
Because they served coffee that was too hot. Too hot for human consumption. Hot enough to cause third degree burns.
You know, too hot. Not just hot, but too hot. Excessively hot. Hotter then usual. More hot. Much more hot. Not just hot. Too hot.
Got it?
"No, I can't concieve of a liquid that is too hot when we are talking about a product that is made with BOILING water. "
Coffee is best when not made with boiling water.
evil is as evil does
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.
Coffee is best when not made with boiling water.
True, coffee is best made when made between 195 and 205 or just below boiling. It's also best served at a MINIMUM of 170. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that coffee served would be anywhere between 170 and 205. McDonalds was keeping their coffee at or about 180-185 in other words about 15 over the MINIMUM serving temperature and 15 under the average brewing temperature, or EXACTLY where one might expect a company producing coffee "best made" to serve their coffee at.
http://thecoffeefaq.com/1thebasics.html#besttemp
Just face the facts, the coffee was not TOO hot. It was HOT, like coffee is SUPOSSED TO BE. If we're going to be pedantic and say that coffee is best served without boiling water, then we can be pedantic and talk about the optimum serving temperatures too which is what McDonalds was using. If we're going to assume that McDonalds serves swill and that it's customers are not coffee snobs then we would also assume that McDonalds uses boiling water to make their coffee and that any reasonable person would treat such a cup of coffee as boiling until proven otherwise. Safety and personal responsibility is about minimizing risks. The lady in question did NOTHING to minimize her risks and did many things to maximize her risk (i.e. sticking a cup of HOT liquids of unknown temperatures in her god damned crotch).
Because they served coffee that was too hot. Too hot for human consumption. Hot enough to cause third degree burns.
You know, too hot. Not just hot, but too hot. Excessively hot. Hotter then usual. More hot. Much more hot. Not just hot. Too hot.
Got it?
The coffee was not "too hot". Proof above. QED.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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
It caused third degree burns, it was too hot. QED.
Coffee that is not too hot does not cause third degree burns. It may cause burns, it may cause second degree burns but not third degree burns. This coffee was too hot.
evil is as evil does
And doubtless tens of millions of people drive intoxicated each year without incident.
Wow! What an amazingly irrelevant leap!
It is hardly surprising that the jury found that McDonalds was at fault.
Juries aren't noted for dispassionate analysis in personal-injury lawsuits.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You do realize that 3rd degree burns can be caused by anything right? A hot liquid that normaly causes 2nd degree burns can cause 3rd degree burns if it remains in contact with the skin for a long period of time (boiling oil or hot coffee spilled on to sweat pants for example), or if the liquid comes in contact with weak skin (like the skin of an old or young person) steam can also cause very severe burns and much more quickly than water would. A 3rd degree burn is not nessesarily a reflection of the heat of something and more often than not a reflection of how long you were exposed to that heat. In the case of this woman it is no suprise at all that she would have recieved 3rd degree burns to anyone familiar with burns. Let's look at the factors:
1) Liquid in excess of 120 degrees (it is recomended to avoid scalding your children to keep your water heaters set at 120 or below, note that you can cause 3rd degree burns with 120 degree water on someone with weak skin or with long exposure to such water)
2) The liquid was susequently trapped in the burn area by clothing and pressed against the skin with nowhere else to go.
3) Steam from the liquid that spilled into the seat under the woman would have caused their own burns and greatly intensified the severity of the burns already caused by the hot liquid being forced against the skin
4) The woman was practicaly 80. Anyone will tell you that as you age your skin becomes more fragile and more prone to damage and more severe damage than normal.
5) The liquid was spilled on her crotch. Here's a little experiment for you to try. Take 3 ice cubes. Place one in your mouth, tape the other to your arm, and place the last in your underwear, be sure to secure it tightly to your crotch. Tell me which area sustains the most damage from ice cubes that are all the same temperature. Do not reply until you have sucessfuly completed this experiement.
It was not too hot. I have shown you time and time again, evidence which shows that not only was it served at the optimal serving temperatures, but that your own facts and statements show that 99.9999997% of people manage to successfully consume the SAME EXACT COFFEE without problem AND that this very woman had also previously consumed the same coffee without problem.
The coffee was fine. The woman was stupid. The blame rests with the woman.
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!
"It was not too hot. I have shown you time and time again, evidence which shows that not only was it served at the optimal serving temperatures,"
/. who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system.....
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.
So who am I going to take the word of? Some nutcase on
Gee that's a tough one, I think I will take the word of the court system on this one.
evil is as evil does
Yeah that kid was just too young to have owned an original GameBoy... which of course came with a pair of color-coded stereo earbuds. This was the only way to enjoy the revolutionary stereo sound.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
"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
I've used them on trans-continental flights
I use them with ripped CDs in AAC on my iPod
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."
What evidence. You just kept repeating the same nonsensical shit you always sprout off.
/. who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system.....
I gave you links to various sites in regards to proper brewing and serving temperatures of coffee. I gave you links to medical sites supporting my claims. I used your own evidence (the one site you linked to in your entire argument) to show that McDonalds coffee was succesfully and safely consumed by 99.999997% of 10 billion people. Further more, coffee enthusists elsewhere in this thread have backed up my claims. You in the mean time have linked to one site total which was a break down of the prosecution's arguments point by point and continued to scream "3rd degree burn" at the top of your lungs while failing to realize you can sustain a 3rd degree burn from 130 degree water.
The actual evidence was heard in a court of law. According to the actual evidence it was too hot.
The United States Supreme Court (the highest court in the US BTW) once ruled that black people weren't real people and were instead property. Courts can be and often are wrong. According to a court in texas, it's illegal for you to have oral sex. Recently a court ruled that burning a copy of porn was equivilent to manufacture and production of porn. Excuse me if I don't put 100% faith into the courts.
Some nutcase on
For burning a woman? Tell me, which McDonalds employee burned this woman? Which one poured the coffee into her lap? Which one forced her to place the cup in her lap? Which McDonalds employee acted maliciously and purposefuly to directly cause her to spill the coffee in her lap? Which McDonalds employee was fired for this? Wait, you mean to tell me she was the one that took the coffee. She was the one that placed it in her lap? She was the one that tried to open the coffe while it was in her lap in the car? She was the one that caused the coffee to spill on herself? So remind me again how McDonalds burned her?
Gee that's a tough one, I think I will take the word of the court system on this one.
you do that, I'll stick with the facts.
PS: How's that experiment with the ice cubes going?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
"Excuse me if I don't put 100% faith into the courts."
YOu can put your faith in anything you like. Even though I too do not have 100% faith in the US court system I certainly have more faith in that then I do on some schmuck on slashdot who got his panties in a wad because McDonalds had to pay a little money to an old woman they burned.
evil is as evil does
Hmm, ad hominem attacks, repetition of the same statements without supporting evidence, dishonest statements, and refusing to answer previously posed questions. Yep, I'd say you've run out of defenses for your position. If you feel like actualy debating, please participate, otherwise this discussion is over.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
What's there to debate? It's not like McDOnald's can afford good lawyers. All the so called "evidence" you have provided was most likely presented in court. Unless you are some sort of a genious and located something on google that the mcDonalds lawyers did not during the long time leading up to the trial and the trial itself you simply full of shit.
There is nothing to debate here. You got your panties in a wad about this because according to your opinion the water was not too hot. Well despite the best defence money could buy a legal ruling said otherwise.
The fact that you are unable to accept that shows your immaturrity and your zealotry in this regard. Zealots can't be persuaded by reason or evidence.
A corporation burned somebody, they had to pay a little money and went on their way. Deal with it. It's not like anybody at McDonalds went to jail or was held personally responsible for their actions. That's why corporations were invented. To shirk personal responsiblity.
evil is as evil does
- 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.
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._Mc
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).
"t was a misguided liberal jury in a civil tort (not a court ruling as you asserted) that awarded big money on an emotional sympathy vote."
Did you interview the jury to determine if they were liberal or is anybody who disagrees with you automatically liberal? Did you look at their voting records? Or perhaps you are merely talking out of your ass again?
Too bad McDOnalds didn't hire you though. You are Soooooooooo much smarter then those idiot lawyers they hired. Look at all the "evidence" you presented here!.
evil is as evil does
It is a reasonable inference considering the issues of the case and the jury's resulting decision.
I don't claim to be smarter than McDonald's attorneys, just the jurors of this particular case, and... apparently you too. I'm guessing you don't fare too well in areas that require critical thinking skills or abstract reasoning.
I see that you failed to address any of the issues I presented. You howl that McDonald's serves coffee too hot, but you fail to address the fact that Starbuck's sells coffee at the same temperature. You ignore the fact that the coffee trade association recommends serving coffee at that temperature. You claim that drinking such hot coffee will cause third degree burns in the mouth but you simply ignore the nearly ten billion McDonald's customers over the last decade that had no trouble drinking it.
You have presented absolutely no argument as to why my assertions are in error or should be discounted. You have utterly failed to defend you own assertions when they are held up to scrutiny. You want me to accept your position simply on pure hysterical emotion as I have said all along. It is clear you have nothing constructive to add to the debate.
"It is a reasonable inference considering the issues of the case and the jury's resulting decision."
It figures you would think that way. Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that or is that something you heard on fox news?
"You have presented absolutely no argument as to why my assertions are in error or should be discounted."
I implore you to contact McDonalds. They need your talents. You have exposed evidence that their attroneys never presented in court. Your amazing powers of research and logic would have come in handy at the trial. I bet not one of these facts were presented at the trial.
evil is as evil does
Again, you obviously have nothing to add to the debate, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. But just for you information, I do not have cable nor do I have satellite, so Foxnews is not on my radar. I have also never listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show in my life. I can, however, reason.
Maybe if you're not too busy reading the Village Voice, you can listen to NPR. Frank Duford mentioned a whole raft of frivolous lawsuits this morning on Morning Edition that won large awards. Each one was ridiculous in its entire premise. I'm sure you would have supported every one.
DId you contact McDOnalds yet? they need sharp minds like you. You uncovered evidence their lawyers missed. Plus I bet you could have spotted those nasty liberals a mile away and kept them away from the jury in the first place.
evil is as evil does