Wiimote Straps Result in Class Action Suit

Kotaku reports the news that problems with breaking Wiimote straps has resulted in a class action lawsuit against Nintendo. From the press release about the suit: "Green Welling LLP filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of the owners of the Nintendo Wii against Nintendo of America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action lawsuit arose as result of the defective nature of the Nintendo Wii. In particular, the Nintendo Wii game console includes a remote and a wrist strap for the remote. Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty."

Comments

If only stupidity were illegal

[antifoidulus]

then Nintendo would have a valid counterclaim.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Pulse_Instance]

I don't think stupidity should be illegal, but we should stop protecting stupid people so much. Unless there is a legitimate concern here, I haven't used one so I don't know, then having to replace a TV you broke by being stupid should teach you to not be stupid anymore. The American society seems to encourage people to be stupid.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[silentounce]

The suit states that they break when used "as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console." That's not being stupid, that's following instructions. If you're not going to RTFA, at least RTFS.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[jessecurry]

I think the fact that Nintendo already issued a recall and has been actively replacing the straps is enough to make this suit go away... you'd think the lawyers involved would've done some research before filing this(is it's taken on contingency that is).

Strap Replacement site

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Shadow Wrought]

Or, in the alternative, you could maybe not let go! I have a Wii and have played it enereggetically and have never even come close to throwing it across. Now has my 13 year old stepson or my wife or any of the half-dozen other kids and adults who ahve come over and played it.

Don't let go.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[aesiamun]

The instructions do not say "flail your arms around like a retard and make sure you don't have a tight grip on the piece of smooth plastic in your hands"...

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[kannibal_klown]

As a Wii user, I'm sorry but that's BS. If you're using them as instructed the things should not be flying like canonballs. I remember watching a video of a guy holding the Wiimote like a baseball, doing a fullstrength pitch, and letting go of the Wiimote (hoping the strap would keep it on his wrist when he let go). Sorry, that is NOT proper usage.

I've had it since the week it came out and played a lot of Wii Sports during the first week. And even at my strongest throws and such I never let the thing go.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Jim_Maryland]

Not having the Wii yet myself, I can't say what is in the user manual but I'm guessing through "normal" usage the problem doesn't exist. The Wiimote straps certainly would have shown themselves to be defective in the early demonstrations for normal usage so likely excessive usage was corrected by people controlling the demonstrations.

From the Nintendo site (Wii Safety):

Wii Remote Wrist Strap Replacement Information

Nintendo is offering to replace the original version of the wrist straps for the Wii Remote with a newer version. We have received some reports that when consumers swing the Wii Remote with the original version of the wrist-strap using excessive force and accidentally let go, the cord connecting the controller to the wrist strap can break, potentially causing the Wii Remote to strike bystanders or objects. Because Wii consoles shipped starting in early December already utilized the newer version of the strap, you will need to determine which version of the strap you have before ordering a replacement. To determine if you need the newer version of the strap, or to place an order for a replacement, click here.

Please note the line about "excessive force". I also recall hearing a Nintendo response to the early complaints about Wiimotes breaking TVs. Didn't they say that users were using excessive movement where a small movement would suffice? I'd equate this almost to using your fist to hit the "A" button when a light tap would suffice.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[silentounce]

Ok, I realize that this is a frivolous lawsuit but your quote is interesting. Note, "original version of the wrist-strap" followed by "newer version of the strap". If there was nothing wrong with the first strap then why did they correct it. The phrasing of that quote makes it seem like they were distributing the "new" strap before reports of the "old" strap breaking came in. If Nintendo knew that the original straps were defective, or not as strong and they shipped the product anyway. Well, that is negligence.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chris Burke]

Well, as I've said before I do think Nintendo should have made the straps stronger from the beginning in anticipation of people abusing the controller in unusual ways, but I have to say I find this lawsuit to be pretty meritless. FTFS:

"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand."

Now I don't have a Wii, but based on what I've read on the internet, both the manual and the warning screens they display do not say "Let go of the remote and let the wrist strap keep the remote from flying", rather the opposite. If you use the remote as intended, then the wrist strap is irrelevent because it is secured by your hand.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[HappySqurriel]

Or, in the alternative, you could maybe not let go! I have a Wii and have played it enereggetically and have never even come close to throwing it across. Now has my 13 year old stepson or my wife or any of the half-dozen other kids and adults who ahve come over and played it.

Don't let go.

If my 8 year old niece can flail her arms for 20 minutes straight while playing Wii Sports Boxing, I think most adults should be able to hold onto it under normal usage. Even if an adult drops the Wiimote under normal usage the strap apears to be able to handle (about) 50lbs of force so the strap should be able to prevent the Wiimote from flying across the room. Even if the strap broke the Wiimote is not heavy enough to break a TV at the speed it would be thrown at under normal use.

The fact that the Wiimote is flying out of people's hands with enough force to break the strap and a person's TV makes me think that these are not normal use. Now, I think it would have been better for Nintendo to provide a strap that can handle even moronic usage, but companies are not responsible for moronic use of their product.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Tom]

By now I have quite a few hours of playtime down, most of it with friends. Not once has a Wiimote left the hands of its player, even though some of us have played with enthusiasm. If you look at the videos on YouTube, you'll see that in those where the straps broke, there are always two things:

a) The player's hands were sweaty, and I don't mean a little bit
b) The Wiimote was literally thrown into a wall at full speed, as in "everything you've got".

Yeah, you can get into the game, but if you stand in your living room throwing something at the TV with the maximum amount of power you can muster, then anyone with more than 3 brain cells should realize he's doing something potentially dangerous.

Plus there is no advantage I've noticed to putting that much power into your movements. In all the games I've played so far, timing is more important than raw power.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Manchot]

The first famous report of a Wii strap breaking was on November 20th, the day after the system launched. The strap replacement program was announced on December 15th, almost a full month after the first reports came in. One can only assume that Nintendo though that people would only use the Wiimote as the manual said they should (i.e., not throwing it around and hoping that the strap will hold). That cannot possibly be negligence, as many products are extremely dangerous when used improperly.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Traiklin]

[blockquote]If my 8 year old niece can flail her arms for 20 minutes straight while playing Wii Sports Boxing, I think most adults should be able to hold onto it under normal usage. Even if an adult drops the Wiimote under normal usage the strap apears to be able to handle (about) 50lbs of force so the strap should be able to prevent the Wiimote from flying across the room. Even if the strap broke the Wiimote is not heavy enough to break a TV at the speed it would be thrown at under normal use. The fact that the Wiimote is flying out of people's hands with enough force to break the strap and a person's TV makes me think that these are not normal use. Now, I think it would have been better for Nintendo to provide a strap that can handle even moronic usage, but companies are not responsible for moronic use of their product.[/blockquote] This lawsuit seems to say otherwise, I understand it's easy to get in the game but really this goes back to the "Murder simulatoers" you know the FPS' and GTA, where they help you get a real feel that you are actually holding the gun, feeling the kickback of the gun and everything like that.

Unless I am missing something I don't think the Wiimote weighs as much as a bowling ball or a baseball and all the "mishaps" I have heard with it are from people treating the Wiimote as though it was actually one of those things.

As I told my parents aboutt he funny insturction booklet released in Japan about the Wiimote, maybe Nintendo shouldn't of released it there, instead they should of released it here cause america is just way to fucking stupid anymore.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[theckhd]

If there was nothing wrong with the first strap then why did they correct it. The fact that they started using a newer version of the strap does not imply the old one was defective. Perhaps the old strap was perfectly suitable for normal use, as instructed in the manual (I don't know, I don't own a Wii). If Nintendo found that a larger subset of their users than first expected like swinging their wiimote much more vigorously than instructed, then updating the strap to be a little stronger to accommodate those users is a smart business decision (fewer complaints from users about weak straps is good for the product's image among that demographic).

It's kind of a shame, from that point of view. The summary could read:
1)Business releases product.
2)Customers ask for improvement to product.
3)Business improves product.
4)Customers file class-action lawsuit against business, assuming that the improvement implies the original product was defective.
5)Profit! (for the lawyers, anyhow)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Jim_Maryland]

I didn't notice a date on the online Wiimote Safety page so I can't comment to them knowing the original straps were defective. I'm guessing though that the page was updated when they received reports (at whatever volume threshold they use) about the problems. As I indicated above, given Nintendo had to have done demos to see if the Wiimote was a viable interface, if problems existed for "normal" usage, they should have been discovered at that time. Likely any "excessive movements" would have been corrected by the person(s) running the demos so the Wiimote would be used "normally". Does that mean that Nintendo "knew" about a problem? Maybe it does. On the other hand it could just mean that the person running the demo knew that excessive movement cut down on user performance (i.e. if I smash the "A" button, likely I can't hit it as quickly as rapid light taps). Now if Nintendo shipped the straps knowing they were defective, then yes I agree it is negligence. I'm not enough of a Nintendo history fanatic to know if knowingly shipping a defective product is standard practice for Nintendo. Given their slowness to include certain game genres until a satisfactory ESRB rating system was implemented I'd like to think they have some acceptable level of ethics (feel free to shoot me down).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[paeanblack]

The fact that the Wiimote is flying out of people's hands with enough force to break the strap and a person's TV makes me think that these are not normal use.

If enough people are having these problems, then it is "normal use", no matter how stupid you may think it is. The Wii is designed engage children in physical activity within a den/bedroom/family room area. While Nintendo should not be held accountable for the outlandish cases, they are certainly culpable when their products fail under usage only a standard deviation or two more vigorous than the median.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, in America, that would probably be held up as an implicit admission of guilt, foreknowledge, and culpability. Anywhere else, it would be seen as Nintendo just trying to make their product safer.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Noxx]

Stupidity in nature is a crime which carries the death penalty...unfortunately civilization allows probation instead.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[MeNeXT]

This is just a ploy to have someone pay for their TV after they forgot to put on the strap. There is no way that one of these straps broke just by playing the Wii.

I decided to order the new straps just to see how much stress the old one handle. I am willing to bet they can handle more than 50lbs.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[rblancarte]

The suit states that they break when used "as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console." That's not being stupid, that's following instructions.

No, it is not. These people of stories of death and destruction are doing things WELL beyond what they should with the controls.

RonB

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[rblancarte]

Well in Soviet Russia ... oh never mind.

RonB

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[TheRaven64]

I think Penny Arcade had a good explanation...

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[The Only Druid]

All I could hear in my head as I read your post was "Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball". As a soon-to-be lawyer, and a current Wii owner, I'm disgusted by every person on the suing-side of this case. It's embarrassing in almost every way possible.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[icedcool]

Right. My rule is " you break it you buy it." All my buddies make damn sure they hold on tight.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous. I should call these joke of a group of ambulance chasers and ask them if I can sue Rawlings because I bought one of their baseballs when I was 12 and there wasn't a warning NOT to throw it towards my parents windows when I was a kid! When does this crap end? I would be thoroughly embarassed to be named in this suit! Somebody should crate a website and post these clowns names under the title "I am very stupid because I threw my Wii remote through my TV set and then blamed somebody else for it", then list all the names!

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[The Only Druid]

I just explained this, but you're utterly and completely wrong.

In America, you cannot, whatsoever, hold up an improvement in a product as evidence of prior defect. Period. Full stop.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[stoolpigeon]

i've watched video of them busting on youtube. and i don't think the video was doctored in any way. the video was of a guy playing and you can see that the strap snapped.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Original Replica]

Is it possible for everyone who enjoys the Wii to sue this lawyer for interfereing in their access to innovative video gaming? If the lawsuit were massively successful, and Nintendo decided to discontinue the Wii or double it's price to cover legal costs, would I have legal recourse against those who destroyed it? This might sound silly at first, but consider how lawsuits have effected the cost of health care, or caused the closing of many mountain biking trails, rock climbing crags, and lake side rope swings. How do we stop the lawyers from ruining all our fun?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[SuiteSisterMary]

Does that apply to criminal proceedings, civil, or both?

I'm thinking it's kind of like 'never say 'I'm sorry' at a traffic accident.'

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Orange Crush]

but companies are not responsible for moronic use of their product.

Like driving around bumpy roads with a hot cup of coffee between your legs? I'm not saying companies should be responsible for such blatant customer idiocy . . . they've lost suits against people who claim they are.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[The Only Druid]

This is not legal advice: in the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is clearly stated that any attempt by a company to improve a product cannot and must not be admitted as evidence of a defect in the original design. Otherwise, products would never be improved (for fear of a resulting defect lawsuit).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Apotekaren]

The funny thing is, I think I remember that Nintendo explicitly states in the manual that you should take a break every 45 minutes, and to wipe your hands if you get sweaty. Can anyone confirm this? If this holds true, I think 99% of the claims will be moot.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[The Only Druid]

This is not legal advice: it applies to both criminal and civil trials. The rationale is simple: if companies were creating evidence of defect every time they improved a product, they would simply never update products. Worse, they'd have an incentive to hide the existence of superior versions (e.g. safer implementations of coffee lids).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[nanojath]

It's a shame class action suits are such lawyer bait - there just ain't no cream like the cream you skim off the top of a megacorporation's liability to an honest to goodness population. Of course, with class action suits it's more like they skim off the whole milk and give that long-suffering population the whey

I think they geniuses responsible for this one will regret it, though. Some will say Nintendo invited this by offering strap replacement (and general advice on not playing like a full-on spaz), but I think they merely observed the inevitable and effectively froze the potential plaintiff pool.

It looks to me like they're trying to wrangle the notion of some sort of harm being done to people by simply receiving a defective product - whether or not it actually harmed them - but I sincerely doubt (particularly since Nintendo has addressed the problem very early on) that this will fly. Or they may think Nintendo will spook easily and cough up a decent pay-off with little effort... but I think they will find themselves disappointed if so - like all major corporations Nintendo has lawyers just sitting around waiting for stuff like this. Thus only people with some claim to actual harm will be able to apply, and there won't be enough of them to make bringing this suit even remotely (wiimotely?) pay off. Hah hah.

In short, while my first reaction is that this story was merely about greed, on reflection yes, it's equally about stupidity.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[_KiTA_]

The fact that they started using a newer version of the strap does not imply the old one was defective. Perhaps the old strap was perfectly suitable for normal use, as instructed in the manual (I don't know, I don't own a Wii). If Nintendo found that a larger subset of their users than first expected like swinging their wiimote much more vigorously than instructed, then updating the strap to be a little stronger to accommodate those users is a smart business decision (fewer complaints from users about weak straps is good for the product's image among that demographic).

No, they very specifically state that this is NOT a recall. They're replacing all NEW straps with the new one, but if you are really concerned about it, you can call and get a replacement, new one.

Simply put, the wrist strap is there in case you are silly enough to let go of the Wiimote during play, which you are NOT supposed to do.

My gut is telling me these charming lawsuits are coming from a group of people (Homo Sapiens Moronicus) who think they're actually supposed to throw the Wiimote as a baseball or bowling ball, and the strap is supposed to keep it from getting away from you.

This is NOT how you're supposed to actually use the darned thing, but hey, I guess this is the downside to bringing gaming to a wider audience. (That, and Nintendo daring to have a hugely successful holiday product).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[rucs_hack]

I've looked at a lot of these images of screwed televisions and so on. It strikes me that the main problem is that people who normally spend their time sat down twiddling with buttons on controllers are so inept at normal exercise that they can't manage a simple thing like not chucking a controller.

It also occurs to me that some people sit glued to the news 24/7 trying to find another opportunity for a frivolous lawsuit that might net them an easy buck.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon-to-be lawyer? If your future employers hear you talking that way about a potentially profitable case like this, you'll be a never-to-be-lawyer... ; ) (Okay, sorry, I know not all lawyers are mercenary - long may your upright attitude continue and spread - happy holidays...)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[mattmacf]

Or, in the alternative, you could maybe not let go!

Or Nintendo could have simply anticipated this and created a stronger wrist strap.

; )

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[GeckoX]

Nintendo should have left the strap off.

Should there be a class action lawsuit against the makers of baseball bats...because when you swing one of those and let go...

Ahh, but since there is no strap provided with a baseball bat, there can be no defective strap.

But because Nintendo chose to be nice and add a little extra feature to their controller, this strap, to help those that can't figure out how to hold on to a remote control...and because that little strap doesn't hold up under abusive circumstances....

Christ, there are SO many things wrong with this. All I can say is Fuck The Lawyers.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[nocomment]

I too have about a dozen hours under my belt. Even had friends come over for an exciting all out battle of bowling. One friend was a little spastic with the remote, and hit the ceiling fan a few times, but the remote has never even slid a little.

Admittedly the strap is kind of cheesy afterthought. While playing, I've found that a quick flick of the wrist will often times send the strap down my hand and all the way over the remote so that the strap isn't even connected to me anymore.

If you broke your TV throwing the remote then you are a complete and utter spaz.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[stuntpope]

The strap failed. But taking that fact to the conclusion:

"the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand." (from article)

is bogus. The failure of the strap did not cause the remote to leave the user's hand, unless the breaking strap also pried the user's fingers open. Or if the remote is unusually difficult to maintain a grip on without a strap tying it to the hand.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[the_greywolf]

This is why I advocate passive eugenics.

I personally have a lot of trouble supporting the theory of evolution, but I can't help but think that eugenics is a good thing where stupid people are concerned.

I agree with both GP and parent post. Let them all get themselves killed and the problem sovles itself - and the lawyers all starve in the process.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[GeckoX]

It's only come to this because Nintendo was trying to be nice by offering a strap for those that have trouble holding on to things.

Now the lawyers can argue that since Nintendo provided this as part of the product, and since it doesn't hold up in all cases (Regardless of _how_ the damned thing fails, doesn't matter to them), well it's time to sue.

If Nintendo had not added the strap, this couldn't have happened.

How completely fucked up is that?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[abscissa]

But was it foreseeable that people would use the wiimote in such a way? If so, Nintendo could have a problem.

Extreme case: a company mails out guns to every person in America with instructions: NEVER TOUCH, DO NOT USE, DO NOT LOAD WITH LIVE AMMUNITION, etc. and people use them and kill each other. Very foreseeable.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Dirtside]

Like driving around bumpy roads with a hot cup of coffee between your legs?

I assume you're referring to the classic McDonald's coffee case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, where a woman had a cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap and got scalded by it when it spilled.

1. The car was sitting still.
2. The cup spilled when she tried to pry off the top while the car was sitting still.
3. She was in the passenger seat; she was not the driver.

Whether or not the case had any merit one way or the other, I really wish people would stop repeating incorrect facts about that case. I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits either, but can we at least use examples of actually frivolous lawsuits?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Samus]

The only advantage that I have seen is in Wii Sports Baseball. The manual says that the faster you "throw" the remote, the faster the pitch will go. I've noticed this to some small extent. That said, I have two boys ages 4 & 6 and never have the controllers left their hands when they are playing. My 4 year old is especially "active" and the only problem I've had is him creeping up to the TV during boxing.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[lordmatthias215]

i find it odd that there are several *videos* of people playing the Wii, whose straps *just happen* to break on camera. I dunno about the rest of the world, but where I live, we don't tend to record ourselves playing video games so we can come back in 6 months and laugh at ourselves... And although the video probably isn't doctored, it wouldn't be hard to snip part of the strap so it would break during a conveniently recorded game session.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Phisbut]

i've watched video of them busting on youtube. and i don't think the video was doctored in any way. the video was of a guy playing and you can see that the strap snapped.

You mean videos like this one, or maybe this one? All of the Wii straps I've seen break were from people trying to send the thing flying into orbit. That is simple abuse of the hardware.

From the article:

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

No where in the documentation does it say to let go of the remote. In the Wii Sports instruction booklet, on the Wii Tennis page, it says "Use gentle motion while playing". Throwing the thing hard enough to break a TV is not "gentle motion". These people are not using the Nintendo remote and wrist strap as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console. It's not the strap breaking that caused the remote to leave the user's hand, it's the user letting go of the remote that caused the strap to break.

I really hope that these people go to court and use the argument "that's what the documentation says", because it's exactly what the documentation says NOT TO DO. If you can't read the manual, and if you can't control yourself, it's not Nintendo's fault.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Phisbut]

The suit states that they break when used "as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console."

Yes, and if they had indeed read "the material that accompanied the Wii console", they would have noticed that, when playing Wii bowling, you need to release the button while keeping hold of the Wii remote, not throw the remote in the general direction of your TV. They would also have noticed that, when playing Wii tennis, the instruction booklet says "use gentle motion while playing". So far, all the videos I've seen of straps breaking while playing tennis were of players trying to send the Wiimote back in time.

Read "the material that accompanied the Wii console", do what it says, and your strap will never break.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[deadstatue]

last time i checked, the wii instruction book does show how to use the remote and strap.but they didnt tell you to let go of the remote during your swing.so because peoples hand eye coordination is sub par to that of a chimpanzees, nintendo has to pay. ***i wish ignorance was punishable by death***

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Lane.exe]

OK, this requires a brief explanation of what the "products liability" area of law entails. It falls within an area known as "strict liability." This means that if you place a defectively designed, defectively manufactured, or defectively marketed product in the stream of commerce, you are liable regardless of whose "fault" it is. The reasons advanced for this are many, but mainly, it is to spread the cost of defective products on those who can bear the cost -- the manufacturers with lots of money -- rather than on those who cannot bear the cost -- the general populace. In general, you like strict liability theories for products liability. It prevents companies from knowingly or negligently putting bad products on the market and standing behind a "caveat emptor" defense.

In this case, I have to admit, I'm skeptical as to whether the straps were defectively designed. If only some were made weaker relative to others, then those might be defectively manufactured, but I think that abnormal, excessive use might be a more proximate cause than any alleged defects in design. However, Nintendo may have screwed themselves by performing the strap exchange program. I'm not sure (because I'm not a lawyer, only a student). However, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'll keep it on my radar.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[CantStopDancing]

But that's not what happened.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Like driving around bumpy roads with a hot cup of coffee between your legs? "

Question: Suppose in this hypothetical situation that the lids were really weak, something a little foresight would have cured? They'd work adequately for walking out of Starbucks with them, but were just weak enough that a standard car bump would burst them open. What would the opinion be, then?

I know it sounds like it, but I'm not setting up an argument against Nintendo. I'm just reading a lot of extreme opinions here where I expected more shades of gray. I think it's great, for example, that Chrstimas Tree lights have fuses in them to minimize problems with putting too many of them in a chain. But from what I'm reading, most here would think they shouldn't have those fuses. I think I'm missing a critical ingredient of the line of thought and was hoping for clarification. (As opposed to getting into a debate about whether Nintendo's responsible or not. I can cut that off right now: I think a class action suit in this context is unfounded and likely fueled by greed.)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[KDR_11k]

And if Nintendo had made it strong enough to rip your wrist off rather than breaking? They could call that a safety feature.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[SageMusings]

Well, I for one am glad this happened.

It's about time. Why, the packing box almost slipped out of my hand while walking to the car after having just purchased it. Clearly, Nintendo does not have my best interests in mind. I will just sit back and wait for my $0.37 check while the thoughtful attorney scores a new Lambo and a new mistress.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, first your endorse eugenics, then you state matter of factly that you do not believe in evolution. If you are the spokesman for the "anti-class-action" crowd, then count me out of the "anti-class-action" crowd.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[ottothecow]

I also dont see how it is violating the warranty. Nintendo almost immediately began offering to replace the straps. I can see sueing them if they knew there was a problem and did nothing but doesnt the warranty state that they guarantee it to be free of manufacturing defects and will replace it if that is not so? Wouldnt this mean that they were perefctly fin as long as they replace the straps (Or simply claim that the straps are within spec, you are throwing to hard...kind of like sueing ford because your engine blew up when you drove it only in 1st gear)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Actually, its more like using a sledgehammer to tap the A button.
I got a Wii at launch, and the thin cord that attaches the strap to the remote is smaller than the ones being sold now.
So the fuck what?
After a couple pretty savage drops onto my hardwood floor (by drunken guests passing the remote between themselves) it became apparent that the remote itself is nearly indestructible. So i decided to test the strap.
I went over to my bed, held the end of the strap, and whipped it downward at my bed. Hard.
nothing
Again, harder.
nothing
againagain, as hard as i could muster.
nothing.
I was unable to break the strap.
maybe I'm just a wuss, but i kinda doubt it.

people need to settle the fuck down and realize that they're playing a fucking video game, not the world fucking series.

Also, how could the strap breaking possibly *cause* the remote to come out of one's hand? At most, it could fail to *prevent* the remote to go flying across the room... but i dont really understand how, in the physical universe in which we live, the strap could possibly break *before* the remote has left the hand in such a way as to *cause* anything. I guess you could snag the strap on some kind of protruding hook that then ripped the cord while the remote was still in the hand, but causing it to leave the hand? BULLSHIT. and any decent lawyer will pick apart the logic on that in about 5 minutes.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Lost Engineer]

Explain to me again why is is negligent to serve hot coffee. Some people probably like it that way.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Skater]

Sadly, Nintendo probably would've been better off had they NOT included a strap. After all, you don't see Louisville Slugger being sued because their bat slipped out of someone's hand.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Lost Engineer]

Not all lawyers will take on class actions either. It generally requires a ton of cash, which is why the lawyers get the better part of the settlement in the end. It's more like entrepeneurship than being a mercenary.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[tbannist]

The question is whether coffee needs to be hot enough to melt flesh or not. The court's decision was that, no, it doesn't.

I'm not really sympathetic to either side in the case, but the end result is safer coffee for everyone.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Viper Daimao]

I'll cop out to this. This is how I broke my wrist strap. Playing baseball I was getting annoyed at how hard it was to get the ball to go above 70something mph. So I devised a clever(read:foreshadowing for dumb) technique of actually throwing the remote, and letting the wrist strap cause it to loop around my wrist afterwards. I'm proud to say I was then throwing in the mid to low 90s, but after about 3 or 4 times the wrist strap broke.

That's all that broke though, and I accept full blame for anything else that might have broken. People have to realize that it's not the company's fault that your kids started acting like kids and broke their new toy. Breaking stuff is what kids do.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[indil]

Go here for the US or here for the UK to get up to 4 free strap replacements.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Buran]

"It also occurs to me that some people sit glued to the news 24/7 trying to find another opportunity for a frivolous lawsuit that might net them an easy buck."

I've never gotten anything as part of a class action lawsuit (and I've wound up as a claimant in a few not by any action on my part but just from owning something that was sued over) other than discount coupons on more stuff from the company being sued, and of course there's never a "we screwed up" admission, ever.

Quick buck? Nope, not unless the plaintiffs' eyes are showing dollar signs just from the prospect of, say, a future $5 off coupon.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[stoolpigeon]

no - it isn't odd. have you watched much of what is on youtube? i don't think so- because people taping themselves playing video games is one of the least 'odd' things going on. and since it is a very new console, that relatively few people could get, there were tons of videos coming up from the 'lucky few' and some of them caught this failure.
 
i don't really care personally but it's silly to me that i've seen comments saying it is impossible to snap them playing or it would take an nfl quarterback to throw it hard enough. no - it is possible and some regular guy getting a little too into tennis can do the job.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[VJ42]

All I can say is Fuck The Lawyers. I Shakespeare's take on it: Henry VI (Part 2):
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[stoolpigeon]

i'm not saying anyone should sue. i'm not saying they didn't go over board. the parent said he didn't even think it was possible. but as the videos you've posted show, it is possible. i've seen in other threads that only a major league pitcher capable of 100 mph plus pitches could break it. that guy in the first video is not a professional athlete in any league.
 
i think the lawsuit is stupid, and nintendo is sending out new straps so everybody should just chill, it seems to me. but it boggles my mind that someone would say all these people are not telling the truth.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[The Only Druid]

I should have also commented on this line: "I'm thinking it's kind of like 'never say 'I'm sorry' at a traffic accident.'"

Good point, and I understand your confusion. The difference is very real, but perhaps subtle.

Suppose you're Nintendo. Now, undoubtedly you've tested the wrist-strap prior to releasing it for the simple reason that you want to avoid lawsuits besides your interests in releasing a popular, desireable product. Unfortunately, it appears that some people are treating it with excessive force, resulting in the accidents we've seen. If you release a better version of the wrist strap, you're not admitting you did anything wrong with the first strap, but rather saying that "Well, seeing how people are abusing the product, we've decided to make it harder for that abuse to cause a problem." In other words, it's a reaction to people's misuse of the Wii in a conscientious way. Nintendo is exceeding it's duty here.

Now, let's consider your car accident scenario. If you and I get in a car accident (ignore any question about which of us is at fault, objectively), one or both of us was at fault (in all but an exceedingly narrow type of situation). If we get out, and I say "sorry", I could be saying a lot of different things: I might be saying "I'm sorry I caused this," "I'm sorry this accident befell us both," "I'm sorry you caused this," etc. This ambiguity is the actual problem with saying "I'm sorry" at a car accident: it looks like it might be an admission of guilt.

Incidentally, the same evidence laws that protect Nintendo here also would protect you if you decided to pay my medical bills (but only those medical bills) if we were in that car accident. In other words, if you paid my medical bills (because you felt sorry for me) I couldn't bring that in as evidence in a trial (civil or criminal) to show that you were admitting guilt. The reasoning is the same: we don't want to discourage people from desireable behavior such as this.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[LineNoiz]

I'm pretty sure the strap was included in the first place "in anticipation of people abusing the controller in unusual ways" (i.e. letting go of the damned thing). They just underestimated the amount of force people would subject these things to in the process. In other words, Nintendo put the straps on to counter people accidently letting go of the remote, but they had no reason to believe people would be throwing these things with the force that they are.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Spokehedz]

The suit states that they break when used "as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console." That's not being stupid, that's following instructions. If you're not going to RTFA, at least RTFS. I'd be willing to bet that the manual also says, "Don't let go of the wiimote during play." or "Do not move the wiimote in any dangerous manner around people/objects." or something along those lines as well.

So this suit is for people who are upset that they broke [insert expensive electronics] and they cannot get it fixed under warranty so they just want to bitch about something, to someone.

And yes, I know Nintendo is putting more robust straps onto the NEW consoles and extra wiimotes. This is NOT an admission of guilt on the part of Nintendo--they are simply making a product change. The new straps could be cheaper--we don't know.

I have played with the Wii, and the Wiimote and I have done 'extensive' testing on this subject (my cousin has one, and I bought Zelda. When I beat it, i'm giving it to him--so he wants me over every day to play.) so I can say with as much authority as anybody can:

There is NO benefit to swinging the wiimote like it's a real baseball bat, tennis raquet, sword, or whatever. None. So stop swinging them around like a moron.

And for the record... The straps were never meant to prevent the wiimote from flying out of your hands. They are there so you don't drop it on the floor.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[catwh0re]

I bought a Wii as a gift for my brother who loves gaming, my brother is a big boy and can throw a pretty wild swing. So the first thing I did when I got the Wii home was to open it and check the "weak" lanyard.. and I can assure you, it is anything but weak. With the light controller (the batteries are heavier) the combined weight is minimal, as expected since a user is to be picking it up and swinging it around for an hour or so.

I can only assume the following circumstances:

- Very large wrists+hands (i.e fat) are pulling and stretching at the lanyard tie during normal operation, so when they do finally swing the controller with a great force the combined tension is enough to snap the lanyard.
- Kids aren't using the lanyard at all, their hands get a bit sweaty (palms contain 95% of your bodies sweat glands), then tada the controller that is so easy to hang onto suddenly becomes airborne... followed by the kid gnawing at the lanyard tie so they won't get in trouble with their parents."I swear it broke mommy!"
- Or similar to option 1, a regular hand is holding the controller in such a way that the lanyard is always pulled tight.
- It wouldn't be slashdot without the conspiracy theory: This is just a scare tactic legal to discourage people from buying a Wii

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[dangitman]

So, if enough people are drinking toxic cleaning products, despite the "POISON - do not ingest" warnings on the bottle, does that qualify as normal use?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[dinther]

"Products shouldn't be released in America" first. And that is exactly what is happening more already. Sites like Gizmodo and Kotaku complain on a regular basis about "why o why don't we get this fancy new gadget States side" Well, many manufacturers are scared to enter into the American market. Large as it may be, it is filled with degenerated morons who all have their lawyers phone number tattooed on their right arm.

Any manufacturer mostly release their products in normal countries first to give them a chance to make the product USA Idiot proof. Once they have done that and stockpiled enough money to handle the lawyers fees they will incur in the USA they might think about releasing there.

I design a range of products for clients and I always suggest to steer clear of the USA because there is always a dick that is going to sue you and you better have a fat wallet ready.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[woohoodonuts]

Would this lawsuit have come about if nintendo chose to not even offer a wrist strap? My bet is that it would not have. The documentation clearly states the user is not supposed to release the wiimote, thus a strap should not be a necessity. And while I appreciate the fact nintendo chose to include one, as I intend to buy a wii as soon as I can, I genuinely believe their attempt to avoid problems has inadvertently caused them one.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[AP2005]

Even Beavis and Butt-head had the sense to find another TV when they lost theirs ...

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[drcln]

Its about "discovery" and "production." When a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff gets the right to go on a fishing expedition in the defendant's files, emails, factories and to depose personnel. It is a burdensome and ridiculously expensive process for the defendant, who has to "produce" all the discovery material. And who knows what they might find? Even with a bogus claim, if the plaintiff's lawyers can survive long enough to force discovery, the cost and burden alone may make it worth Nintendo's money to just pay the plaintiff lawyers' "fees" to go away and send all Wii owners a $5 coupon for a Wii accessory in a "settlement" that is really a marketing campaign. That is at the heart of this game.

    Of course, the cost of settlement is simply passed along to those poor saps that are represented by these lawyers in the higher cost of Wii games and accessories. Only the lawyers win.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope those assholes lose the case

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Homo Sapiens Moronicus"

more like "Winicus Litigation Loteryicus"

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[mrchaotica]

Counterpoint.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, don't take me wrong but who can blame people when most of them press "harder" the buttons of the remote when you think is not working?

I do believe that people should have a stupidity exam prior to the corresponding use. As it should be done with weapons.

It looks like nobody has suited Smith & Wesson for the consequences of their products, so it should be safe only to get some permit, in this way, you can make sure that only skilled people and psychos can use them (either weapons or wiimotes).

This said, no skilled people nor psychos will suit anyone. Case closed.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Lumpy]

Exactly! a bunch of morons break their toy and get a class action lawsuit going in mere moments. GM makes their 3400 Engine in most Pontiac and Chevy cars with bad head gaskets(yes it is a defect, way WAY too many cars with the 3400 engine and dexcool have bad head gaskets that look corroded from the waterjacket side) and trying to get a class action lawsuit put together is like pulling teeth.

Glad to see priorities are straight here in the USA!

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Ogive17]

I've never seen any of the videos, but this sounds staged. Who would actually film something like that unless their intent was to "force" a malfunction?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Zordak]

If Nintendo had not added the strap, this couldn't have happened.

I think you're seriously underestimating plaintiffs' lawyers. If Nintendo had not included a strap, that attorney would be standing in front of a jury saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, Nintendo could have avoided these grievous injuries to person and property if they had just included a simple strap for the wiimote---a strap that would have cost no more than a few cents each. But those greedy Japanese capitalists had no more regard for Americans than their forebears had when they bombed Pearl Harbor. They put profits before people [this is a plaintiff's attorney's favorite line], and now you should tell them that in America, we don't put up with that sort of thing."

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[kaptron]

So you're the guy that's always preventing cool products from being released in the US! That's discrimination, I am so going to sue your ass!

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Moofie]

I would love to watch you drink a cup of 180-190 degree (F) coffee. I'll buy you a cup, and we'll test how much you like it.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Elwood P Dowd]

Dunno why y'all are saying that the wrist straps are fine for normal use.

My friends always wear the straps, have never let the wiimote fly out of their hands or even dangle by the strap, and still the little thread that holds the strap on is fraying and will soon come apart.

Unless my friends really do have a defective wiimote strap, and the rest are totally different, then I rather agree that the straps are defective and unsuitable for any safety-related purpose.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

They're not telling the truth if they're saying it's Nintendo's fault they let go of their remote.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

And yet the person who loaded the gun and shot his wife would still be liable, not the manufacturer.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

That's funny I have two of my own, my brother has two, my cousin has four, another cousin and a friend each own one, my aunt owns four... I could keep going down the list. All of our straps are fine? No fraying/splitting/etc? Did your friend wet his repeatedly or something to cause it to break down faster?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Afrosheen]

"Breaking stuff is what kids do."

  True, but them throwing a Wiimote at 90mph towards your new 50" plasma and causing a $4,000 crater in your wallet is a little worse than 'breaking stuff'. Not saying this is always the issue but it has happened more than once.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[TheoMurpse]

Of course, with class action suits it's more like they skim off the whole milk and give that long-suffering population the whey

I'm Ms Muffett, counsel for the class representatives. Are you implying that there is anything wrong with whey?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[abscissa]

I guarantee you, in a civil suit, the manufacturer would be liable.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

Perhaps, but not to the person who shot his wife. And in this case, Nintendo didn't send their product to everyone in the country, either. At least shooting your wife is a somewhat reasonable approximation of what a gun is to be used for. Swinging a wiimote like an idiot, however, is not.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Workaphobia]

Agreed. The presence of the strap should have been more than enough to avoid this kind of nonsense, but instead it just gave people a sense of entitlement. And to think that Nintendo offered the stronger wriststrap of their own accord.

I'm still trying to get my hands on a wii (Heh, I was wrong, that phrase IS funny), but I played one at my friend's house last month. I didn't really see the point of the strap as far as my own style goes. While my friends were leaping into the air (or at least into the low basement ceiling), I was sitting in a chair just moving my wrist back and forth, and I still kicked their butts. But if anything, it seemed like the danger wouldn't be the strap breaking - which seemed impossible with the amount of force I or a sensible gamer would use - but that the strap might slip off. If anything there should have been something to tighten the strap with. But I'd be just as happy with no strap at all.

And I just have to say this: Nintendo's hardware is high quality stuff. It generally takes a lot to break a nintendo product, compared to third party crap. Never, ever buy third party controllers, they invariably suck. Hell, I had a 3rd-party gamecube controller that had a bad C-stick practically out of the box. My friend had the exact same model, and his managed to reset the actual console when plugged in. How's that for crappy quality control? And those old 3rd-party wireless N64 controllers have nothing, absolutely nothing, on the gamecube nintendo wavebird.

I'm sorry you have to put up with idiots, nintendo. I'm still a fan.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bar-agent]

Plus there is no advantage I've noticed to putting that much power into your movements. In all the games I've played so far, timing is more important than raw power.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Please record a video of your stress test and post it on Youtube or another site. I wonder how much stress the old straps can take.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Delirium Tremens]

The suit is misstating the facts. It inversed cause and effect. The truth is

the remote left the user's hand and caused the wrist strap to break.

not

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand (from the article)

Actually, since the remote has no will of its own, the only actor here is the user. And the real fact is that

the user let go of the remote and caused the wrist strap to break.

But then, if it is the user who is the cause of the problem, it is really not Nitendo's fault. There wouldn't be much of a lawsuit.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[crazygamer]

Nowhere does the "material that accompanied the Wii console" state that you should let go of the Wiimote while playing. So, technically, the people that throw the damn thing are not following instructions very well. I say they deserve whatever they get for their stupidity.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you were wondering, the speed of your pitches is all in the wrist: if you snap the remote back and flick it forward with your wrist, you can consistently get 90+mph fastballs without breaking your arm (or your TV...).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people are having these problems, then it is "normal use", no matter how stupid you may think it is.

So? Since when are companies required to have good products? You ever buy something at Walmart? A pretty big percentage of their products will fail under "normal use," including 95% of the stuff in the toy department. Safe, yes, but unless they are making some kind of guarantee and not living up to it, let the market sort it out.

And let the people who want to sue Nintendo for it take it before a jury of Chuck Norris

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[miro f]

just give the remote a quick flick with your wrist. I get 150km/h fastballs every time

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Unless there's a valid concern?

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

I slid the wrist strap over my hand and the Wii remote suddenly jumped up and flew at the television, breaking the strap and my tv in the process; just like the linked article said!

Seriously, exactly where in the manuals are Wii owners instructed to violently throw the controller at the screen?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[paulpas]

Habitual masturbators don't have these problems. :)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Kreigaffe]

I think this would be more analogous to a lid holding up under normal driving, but failing to contain the coffee while doing 50 on a rough dirt road.

Seriously, busted LCDs? That takes a fair bit of force.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I think this is the third time I've posted the trick to fastballs. Don't go through the standard pitching motion, instead hold your straight hand out, palm down, and flick your wrist down. You should get a 90+ mph pitch every time.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[SinGunner]

speaking in a relative sense, i'd bet the 8 year old has more hand-strength and endurance than the adult. when i was 8, i was constantly in motion. now, i sit at work all day, and to tell the truth, an hour or two on wii sports wears me out.

the funny thing is, i've actually brought wii sports into my workout schedule, cause if i do it on the days i normally go to the gym, one or the other suffers from it.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Wordplay]

And as a bonus, you can pretend you're pitching for the San Francisco Giants!

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is Chewbacca..."

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[crossmr]

Anyone remember the Pepsi/Syringe incident? I remember seeing the video where a woman just happened to be opening a can ever so slightly off camera and WOW there was a syringe in it.

Same shit. The american legal system is a goddam joke.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Blkdeath]

I would love to watch you drink a cup of 180-190 degree (F) coffee. I'll buy you a cup, and we'll test how much you like it.

I've had it before, and it's great, if even only as a hand-warmer on a cold day.

See, the funny thing is McDonald's coffee was always a bit of a joke up here in Canada. "Leave it to McDonald's to violate the laws of physics" (you know, by somehow serving their coffee hotter than the boiling point of water), but leave it up to a self indulgent twit to demand financial compensation for it.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Sparr0]

"While playing, I've found that a quick flick of the wrist will often times send the strap down my hand and all the way over the remote so that the strap isn't even connected to me anymore."

This tells me you aren't using the strap tightening doodad.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[nocomment]

oh, but I am. That thing doesn't tighten very well, and loosens up quite quickly.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[feepness]

You went to all that trouble and it never occurred to you that all straps may not be the same. Sometimes production runs vary even on the same item.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bakana]

Your point would be valid if the median were people letting go and tossing their wiimote around the house. I think the reason we hear about these cases is because they aren't the median, they are the exception. You don't hear on the news, people bought this product took it home and it worked okay. You hear 5 people out of the X amount that bought this product so happen to get hurt, etc. etc. Think about it this way, baseball bats are meant to hit baseballs. Everyone once and a while an idiot swings the bat and lets it go. The bat flies into the stands and hits someone, I'm obviously talking about non professional players. Just because there are a lot of morons that might do that, it doesn't make it normal use. Normal use is using a product as instructed. There is no instruction that comes with the Wii that says, let go of the Wiimote. There is a lot of warnings about not letting go of the product. So since when is doing the opposite of what the company instructs you to do considered normal use.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

yes, three swings certainly is a herculean undertaking worthy of description as "all that effort" thank you for giving me the recognition my efforts deserve.
and, Duh, they're not all the same. As long as you think you're showing the error in my thinking, I'll go ahead and help you out a bit. Not all swings are the same either: I was swinging vaguely consistently in an arc... perhaps the breaking comes from a quick jerk, consistent with the remote slipping or being suddenly let go. Perhaps the broken straps in question had first been worn partially through at the anchor point on the wiimote from sliding back and forth. Perhaps the Sony Sabotage Fairy is sneaking around weakening wiimote straps to boost ps3 sales.
My point was that A) i had been unable to break the strap, and more importantly that B) even if the strap was made of wet pasta, I fail to see how the failure of the backup safety device could cause the remote to fly from the hand, as it is intended to be structural only after the remote has been dropped/thrown. The claim in the suit is that the failure of the strap caused damage to tvs and whatnot by causing the remote to be dropped/thrown. This is patently bullshit backwards ass logic.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Moofie]

Maybe physics is different in Canada, but it's an easy matter to superheat a fluid by maintaining it under pressure.

Maybe physics is different in Canada, but the references I've read say the coffee was 180-190 degrees, which is lower than the boiling point of water at STP.

It must be so comforting to just be able to write it off as stupid people doing stupid things, and not deliberate malfeasance.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[pruneau]

That's what strike me with the legal way US of seeing things in U.S.: it's not written somewhere that you should use your common sense when using anything, so we have the right to sue. What kind of country are you building for your daughters and sons ?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[carl0ski]

The manual for the gas cooker said turn on the gas an light the burner

that doesn't stop idiots waiting 2 minutes to light the burner = stupidity

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[WhatDoIKnow]

Hindsight is easy, but for their own protection, Nintendo should have made the Wiimote without any strap.

:wq

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[yakumo.unr]

I was just checking the comments to see if I was about to post a dupe and I see I was .. However I still intend to add I still have yet to hear of a single complaint from anywhere in Europe.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Dantu]

I believe that Nintendo Canada actually commented and said that they have had no such complaints here either. Perhaps Canadian/European idiots are just more willing to own up / pay for breaking stuff?

That said, a friend of mine did break his wimote (not the strap) the first day he used it, but Nintendo replaced it right away. What more do you really want?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[UbuntuDupe]

The reasons advanced for this are many, but mainly, it is to spread the cost of defective products on those who can bear the cost -- the manufacturers with lots of money -- rather than on those who cannot bear the cost -- the general populace. In general, you like strict liability theories for products liability.

Actually, believe it or not, I don't like assigning liability based on envy.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[UbuntuDupe]

I wouldn't call that stupid. I'd call it careless. "Stupid" would be if you inferred from those events that Nintendo is to blame and took legal action on that basis.

You're money.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

And could you please explain what kind of weird-ass production run on the strap would make the remote jump out of the users hand?

The point is that the claim indicates that the strap broke, resulting in the remote flying across the room. That seems highly unlikely?

My yo-yo has a strap on it too. If I hurl it across the room at my TV, and the string breaks (damaging my TV), can I then sue Yo-Yo Inc?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nintendo may have screwed themselves by performing the strap exchange program."

Nope. Subsequent voluntary remediation of a potentially dangerous situation is not admissible as evidence of wrongdoing, neglect, or product defect. (source: rules of evidence)

It's just sound public policy -- we want people fixing the rusty nail even though the outcome of lawsuits from stepping on it are not yet resolved.

IAAL.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Unknown_monkey]

The Wii as Weapon
After seeing the damage that people are doing to their homes, TVs, friends, loved ones, and themselves, I've come to realize that the Wii must be a secret Japanese weapon.
The rest is on my blog at http://truthaboutwomenandmen.blogspot.com//

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

If anything there should have been something to tighten the strap with.

You did notice the little rubber slider on the strap to cinch it to your wrist, right?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

Well the quick buck is actually for the lawyers, not the plaintiffs, but I digress...

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[iamhassi]

"...and since it is a very new console, that relatively few people could get, there were tons of videos coming up from the 'lucky few' and some of them caught this failure."

How many hours of video did they have to record before catching the 10 seconds of video of the strap breaking? You're telling me they just had a camcorder recording non-stop for 10, 20, 30, etc hours, every time they played the Wii? I don't buy it.

I think the videos are fake too, I have a Wii and I don't think I could break the strap no matter how hard I flailed my arms around. It's just not going to get full force from a swinging arm within the ~6 inches of the strap length. It'd fly the length of the strap and snap back into my hand.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Nintendo made the replacement straps can't be used against them. The case, if it is not dismissed or settled (statistically there's a 98% chance this won't go to trial), will be held in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The federal rules of evidence do not allow evidence of repairs and other "fixes" to be used to prove that the company who made the repairs had done something wrong or that the fixed product was defective. The rule is intended to encourage product manufacturers and land owners to make repairs without fear of losing future litigation because of it.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Johan Jonasson]

In no way do the instructions say "swing with all your might and then let go". Quite to opposite in fact. If the user thinks the strap is intented for anything other than a little bit of extra safety, that's stupidity.

On the other hand... naming one half of the controller "Nunchuck"...

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

The breakaway strap is a feature: If you are throwing the wiimote with enough force that it is smashing through solid objects, you probably wouldn't want the strap strong enough to cause it to swing back into your delicate wrist bones.

With a stronger strap idiots would be breaking their wrists.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Calydor]

Lawyer's phone number tattooed on the right arm? Easy solution! Get the NEW Wiimote to CUT OFF THE RIGHT ARM!

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Lane.exe]

I thought evidence of subsequent remedial measures was still admissible for other purposes. Tex. R. Evid. 407 indicates that it's available for proving things like feasibility of precautionary measures or for impeachment purposes, or that a written notification is available to prove the existence of a defect (to the extent that this is relevant).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Xerxes of Zealot]

Forword: Mod me flamebait if you want, this will make the second time in a week that its happened over this arugement.

Some people dont like to eat/drink/fuck around with their coffee while driving.

Say I pick up a cup a joe while driving to work in the middle of winter. It gonna be cold outside so I would expect that coffee to be able to maintain the warm temperature associated with coffee. Would I stop at McDonalds for coffee that was cold by the time I got to work? Hell no.

Suppose Grandma Angus got into an accident because she was driving while eating her Big Mac and killed 2 out of 3 people in the other car. Should that other person sure Mcdonalds for making their food "too tasty" that Grandma couldnt wait to get home to eat her food. No, that should would get laughed out of a courtroom.

Bottom line, if you spill hot coffee on yourself (and then sit in a pool of it for a minute and a half) its gonna fucking burn. Thats just common sense. Should McDonalds reduce their coffee temperatue for this, maybe 180-190 F is a bit warm, but by the time I get to work the coffee has cooled down to a very pleasant temperature. Why should McDonalds lose my business because some dumb cunt spilled her coffee and them fucking sat in it?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bjq]

I think the videos are fake too, I have a Wii and I don't think I could break the strap no matter how hard I flailed my arms around. It's just not going to get full force from a swinging arm within the ~6 inches of the strap length. It'd fly the length of the strap and snap back into my hand.

The videos may (or may not) be staged, but the problem is certainly real.

I don't have a Wii, but my friend does. I was playing the baseball game that comes with it, and while doing the pitching motion the remote flew out of my hand. My hand was sweaty from using the remote, which helped cause me to lose the remote. Luckily, I had the wrist strap on and it just dangled there. I put the remote back in my hand for the next pitch, and the same thing happened. Except this time the strap broke up near the base of the remote where it's attached (via something like fishing line with a sheath over it) and went flying into the carpet and bounced into the TV.

I wasn't swinging the remote around very wildly at all. I imagine if I were throwing a baseball with the same force I was using, it'd probably would fly 40 feet. If I were really being forceful, I'm sure I could throw a baseball more than 4 times that.

When this happened, I was shocked and embarrassed, since it wasn't my Wii. My friend told me it had been a common occurrence for others, but that was the first I'd heard of the problem.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bjq]

They're not telling the truth if they're saying it's Nintendo's fault they let go of their remote.

If the remotes are leaving hands because the design of the remote causes hands to become sweaty from holding the remote, then Nintendo does have some culpability.

The problem seems widespread enough that some testing by Nintendo could have identified ways to minimize this phenomenon by shaping the remote differently or using alternative materials in its construction.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[1cebird]

...but companies are not responsible for moronic use of their product.

I think you mean common sense dictates that companies are not responsible for moronic use of their product. However, many courts have proven that companies can be held responsible for such use when they clearly should not be. I think we've all heard the stories about people successfully suing due to self-destructive acts such as: reaching hands under running lawnmowers, putting motor-homes on "autopilot" while walking back to make coffee--on the Interstate, dumping hot coffee in the lap, etc etc.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[db32]

This is simple, its because you and your family are the stupid ones. The people with broken strapes are freaking genius. Buy the cheapest console on the market, fling the controller at the expensive TV, get new TV free. These people are the best and brightest minds our society has to offer! I bet some of them even hooked the Wii up to multiple TVs in the house to get more than one free TV out of the deal! Get a life you uncreative loser.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[JayBlalock]

I wish I could mod you ABOVE +5 for this.

American litigousness is starting to seriously impact our economy. Between that and our insane patent system (which is tied in with the first problem) we're going to start suffering hard if something doesn't change.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[theckhd]

No, they very specifically state that this is NOT a recall. They're replacing all NEW straps with the new one, but if you are really concerned about it, you can call and get a replacement, new one. Where in my post did I say anything about a recall? I am well aware that all new wiimotes sold will use the new strap, which is why I used the phrase "updating the strap" and not "recall" or "replacement."

I'm also well aware that you are not supposed to let go of the wiimote during play, and that the strap is not designed with that in mind. That doesn't change the fact that it is a wise business decision for Nintendo to strengthen the strap to accommodate the people who wish to do so. Nobody ever went bankrupt by listening and incorporating user feedback into their product to make it better.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realise that the cumulative effects of your post and the parent meant that dicks will sue asses.

-Sj53

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

Even if I were to grant that sweaty hands are a problem (and somehow accept that people can't wipe their hands), it still takes minimal force to interact with the wiimote. Just a flick of the wrist. You don't have to flail about like you're drowning. In every video I've seen of the strap breaking, the person was literally swinging with ALL their might. How is it Nintendo's fault that they're a complete jackass?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[brkello]

Not that I agree with the lawsuit...but give me a break. So you and a few of your friends haven't broken the strap...that doesn't mean that it isn't an issue.

Then you just get rediculous. I have watched the youtube videos. Even if these things were super hi-def, how in the world could you know how sweaty their hands are.

The simple fact is that Nintendo encourages people to do these sort of immersive movements. So when you are pitching a baseball, you want to throw as hard as you can. If the wrist strap can't handle a slip, then what is the point of the wrist strap?

Now I don't agree with the lawsuit since Nintendo alread took steps to improve the strap. But the arguments "it never happened to me" and "these people are just stupid" really doesn't cut it. At least Nintendo is doing the right thing. If it was up to Slashdotters they would just call these people morons and there would be more issues.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Blkdeath]

Maybe physics is different in Canada, but it's an easy matter to superheat a fluid by maintaining it under pressure.

Maybe physics is different in Canada, but the references I've read say the coffee was 180-190 degrees, which is lower than the boiling point of water at STP.

Yes, you see, that's why it's a joke, but way to go defeating the science behind it! There's a hero cookie (served cold) somewhere here for you.

(BTW, as far as the physics go; the coffee could not be "maintained under pressure" in a styrofoam cup several minutes after it's been poured, and I also know the boiling point of water in your measurement system is 212 degrees, so yes, we know it's not actually hotter than boiling, but again, it was a joke. Way to uphold the mighty Slashdot stereotype! {slaps hand to forehead} For this, I salute you!)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Moofie]

I see. Please pardon my multicultural blindness, as here in the United States, we like our jokes to be funny. Your lack of funniness led me to believe you were trying to be, what's that thing that's the opposite of funny? Oh yeah. Not funny.

I appreciate this opportunity to broaden my cultural horizons.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Jerinaw]

The lawsuit says "the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand" which makes no sense: how can the wrist strap breaking cause the remote to leave the user's hand? The wrist strap isn't what's holding the remote in the user's hand in the first place. Nintendo was hoping people's opposable thumbs would be holding the remote in their hands, but apparently some people are utterly retarded and think it's okay to throw the remote at their TV. I bet these are the same people that throw their regular TV remotes at the TV to turn the TV off. If this lawsuit even goes to court, I am going to throw my TV remote at my TV and sue the TV manufacturer for not teaching me that the remote should not be thrown at the TV to operate. The only thing Nintendo is guilty of is not realizing the full potential for American stupidity. I don't even understand how the remote could possibly fly out of someone's hand. I never even had a single case where it came even remotely close to leaving my hand. Do these people put astroglide on their hands before playing? Are they eating greasy chicken legs with their bare hands while playing?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[lophan]

...it is filled with degenerated morons who all have their lawyers phone number tattooed on their right arm.

Realistically, they probably have the numbers tattooed on their LEFT arm: it'd be too hard to dial otherwise =P

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bjq]

Well, like I stated in another post above, when I broke a remote, I was making a full baseball pitching motion, but not using all my might. It was definitely no more force than what I'd have used to toss (not throw) a ball to someone else while indoors to avoid breaking things.

The one I broke was a friend's remote, and I'd been using it less than 15 minutes. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've never read the instruction manuals for friends' toys. My decision to use the full motion was based on what I'd seen others do. The decision to not use full force was just common sense in not wanting to break something. And yet it still broke.

I think it was a silly decision by Nintendo to use such a small cord to attach the wrist strap to the remote. Just looking at it one can wonder if it'll break. And while some players (mostly owners) might read the instructions to see exactly how little force and/or motion is needed to operate the remote, a majority of players will base their usage on what others are doing.

You may be right that those in the videos you watched were being complete jackasses, but it certainly doesn't take being a complete jackass to break one of these remotes.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

So why did you let go of the remote?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[aplusjimages]

Could it be that the straps are cheap? It's like the xbox 360 has problems, but some people won't believe it. My friend constantly gets locking issues when playing games on his. He even bought those fans that attach to the 360 to help cool it down. I haven't had any locking issues. I guess my friend is lying. Or maybe there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Mal-2]

Of course you are aware that after you successfully hit a baseball, you're supposed to drop the bat and run, aren't you?

Also at sporting events (at least those of a large, organized nature), precautions are taken regarding flying objects if they are a known hazard. At a baseball game you will find netting over the first tier of seats behind home plate, as many foul balls go essentially straight back at more or less the pitched speed. At a hockey game there will be netting extending above the glass because deflected shots can kill. At basketball games you have to watch for diving players and the occasional sucker-punch or thrown beer/chair/other object within reach, but that is another matter entirely.

Sure there are warnings posted that you have to be on the lookout for flying objects, but how many people are capable of carrying their maximum allowed two beers down a steep flight of stairs and be watching for a ball or puck coming at them at 100 miles an hour? What about those going up the stairs with their backs turned, even without beers? If there is even a small chance of a disaster occurring, and enough events occur, there eventually will be a disaster. It only makes sense to protect against the foreseeable ones and to try to anticipate those that haven't happened yet.

That said, Nintendo clearly anticipated their Wiimote would get out of a player's hand. What they did not anticipate is people using the strap as anything other than an emergency backup or as a way to carry the Wiimote when not in use. Seriously, they should have had people testing the units and games without instructions on how to use the Wiimote to see what people would come up with on their own. This would reasonably approximate what could be expected "in the wild", because let's face it, children don't read directions (even if they are capable, and some won't be). For that matter, neither do many adults. Once they saw the abuse the product took, they wouldn't fit it with something resembling the wrist strap on a point-and-shoot camera.

It could also have been written into the games to (1) not require insane amounts of speed to get desired results (which could still be implemented by amplifying motions in newly produced Wiimotes and letting current owners swap out), (2) make such activities counterproductive (for example, if you use the strap to swing the Wiimote when pitching, you would be insanely wild, hit batters, get thrown out of the game, etc.), and/or (3) implement user-controlled "acceleration" as has been standard practice with mouse drivers almost as long as there have been mice.

When people are stupid, it hurts. When corporations are stupid, it should hurt too, and money and sanctions are about the only way to inflict any pain on a corporation. In a just world, small acts of stupidity would hurt a little and large ones a lot. This seems like a small-to-moderate scale of stupidity to me.

Mal-2

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Workaphobia]

No I did not. As I said, I do not yet own the Wii. In that case this is even more baseless than I thought.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[gwyrdd benyw]

Shakespeare's take on it: Henry VI (Part 2): "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).

Read the surrounding context. The men in this scene are discussing how to take over the kingdom and, essentially, get away with murder. They are acknowledging that lawyers are a force for good.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Skater]

(1) From what I understand, the games do NOT require "insane amounts of speed". I don't have one, but from what I've read, simple hand motions are enough to get it to react properly. You don't need to do 100 mph fast pitches or whatever to get a fast pitch in the game.

(2) This is likely to cause more problems than it'd solve. Besides, the people already have a deterrent: the controller could slip out of their hand and break something. If people couldn't see that as a possible outcome, then how is that Nintendo's fault?

(3) I'm not sure what this means. I know what the "user controlled acceleration" in mice is, the faster you push it the farther it relatively goes...also I'm not sure HOW you'd do that considering it's all accelerometers; the Wiimote doesn't have linear frame of reference like your mouse/trackball does.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[ChangelingJane]

Large as it may be, it is filled with degenerated morons who all have their lawyers phone number tattooed on their right arm.

As a left-handed person, I find that statement offensive. You owe me for emotional damages. I'll see you in court.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[the_greywolf]

Just because I have issue with evolution in general (as it applies as an absolute theory) doesn't mean I don't have a strong belief that natural selection applies to humans equally as well as it applies to the natural order of biological development.

I just happen to be of the mind that whether or not stupidity is hereditary, stupid people need not reproduce.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bjq]

So why did you let go of the remote?

Sweaty hand. Slipped out. I'd dried my hands several times, but I couldn't hold the remote for more than 30 seconds or so without my hand getting sweaty again.

I'd guess that the contributing factors were that the remote's plastic is very smooth and prone to slipperiness, the remote got warm in my hand, the room was fairly warm since there were lots of people arounds (after Thanksgiving dinner), and I'm just prone to getting sweaty hands. I'm sure that being more active with the Wii remote than a normal remote or video game controller probably helped as well.

Had the remote been a rougher plastic or rubber I'm not sure it would have slipped and had the chance to test the strap's ability to break.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

You're money = You are money

Next time, try: It's your money.

Actually, you had better use: It is your money.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Mal-2]

(1) From what I understand, the games do NOT require "insane amounts of speed". I don't have one, but from what I've read, simple hand motions are enough to get it to react properly. You don't need to do 100 mph fast pitches or whatever to get a fast pitch in the game.

No, they don't... if you know how to perform the right motion. But if they don't show what that motion is, and it's not intuitive, why is it any surprise people will turn to the brute force method?

(2) This is likely to cause more problems than it'd solve. Besides, the people already have a deterrent: the controller could slip out of their hand and break something. If people couldn't see that as a possible outcome, then how is that Nintendo's fault?

Because they (wrongly) assume that just because the wrist strap stops them from flinging the Wiimote once or twice, it will ALWAYS do so. Humans (with the possible exception of trained professionals) are notoriously bad at detecting cumulative damage until something actually fails. Someone who builds bridges would know that when one strand in a cable frays, the whole thing is likely to snap. The rest of us generally don't think that way.

(3) I'm not sure what this means. I know what the "user controlled acceleration" in mice is, the faster you push it the farther it relatively goes...also I'm not sure HOW you'd do that considering it's all accelerometers; the Wiimote doesn't have linear frame of reference like your mouse/trackball does.

Acceleration off -- 1 m/s in real life equals 1 m/s in game terms. 8 m/s still equals 8 m/s.
Medium acceleration -- 1 m/s may still mean 1 m/s in game, but 2 m/s gives you 3 m/s in game, and 8 m/s may give you 20 in game. You retain fine control while not having to ramp up the power so much.
High acceleration -- forget fine control, it's all twitch gaming here.

Basically you get to set a gamma curve on how real motion translates into game motion. This can remain a linear relationship in a simple "double everything" mode (until the game physics max out) if you want, or it could be more like your typical monitor gamma -- the bottom end ramps up pretty quickly, then things flatten out.

I can imagine how this might leave you halfway across the room if your quick (but short) motions are taking you one way and your slow motions are taking you another, which is not so bad with a mouse (just pick it up and set it back down in the middle of the pad) but would be problematic for something that you can't afford to switch off to re-center, however briefly. I have to imagine there would be some sort of trick that would work, but it is probably non-obvious and non-intuitive and likely to be detrimental to game immersion. Maybe motion below some threshold could be completely ignored so that you can slowly drift back to the front of the TV.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[UbuntuDupe]

I meant "money" as a slang adjective ("money" = "good").

Now go watch Swingers.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[RedBear]

The suit is misstating the facts. It inversed cause and effect. The truth is

the remote left the user's hand and caused the wrist strap to break.

not

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand (from the article)

Actually, since the remote has no will of its own, the only actor here is the user. And the real fact is that

the user let go of the remote and caused the wrist strap to break.

But then, if it is the user who is the cause of the problem, it is really not Nitendo's fault. There wouldn't be much of a lawsuit.

Give. Me. A. Break.

It boggles my mind how the normally fairly competent comments from the Slashdot community can degenerate into a steaming pile of "anybody who would do that is a retard" comments and nitpicky, pedantic/semantic idiocy that misses the whole point. These must be the same morons who spout off ignorant group-think about stories like the McDonald's coffee incident, where if you actually took the time to find out the facts of the case any halfway intelligent person would have sided with the jury (who quite reasonably thought that McD's should be held accountable for serving coffee hot enough to create instant 3rd degree burns after repeatedly being warned not to serve their coffee that hot). Seriously, I've seen maybe three comments so far from anyone with a brain. Let's take a little walk through the facts, shall we? Amazingly, I will do this without even having seen one of these devices in person:

1. Fact: Video games are designed such that the player will want to position themselves directly in front of their TV.
2. Fact: The Wii Remote is designed to be swung around in a way that simulates various sporting equipment, such as baseball bats, golf clubs, tennis raquets, baseballs, etc.
3. Fact: Many of said sporting equipment objects are normally swung or thrown in a quick, vigorous manner, thus it is only natural for a user to go through their normal use motions in an environment designed explicitly to simulate the normal sporting activity. Failing to do so in the real world would result in failing to play the real game properly, therefore any simulated environment designed to simulate these activities should be designed to handle the stresses of vigorous, realistic play.
4. Fact: The Wii Remote is basically cylinder shaped, i.e. there is nothing in particular sticking out to give a good solid grip. Compare, for instance, the large knob on the handle end of a baseball bat, designed specifically to keep the bat in your hands during vigorous swinging.
5. Fact: The Wii Remote is made of a smooth, non-porous plastic material.
6. Fact: Human hands get sweaty, especially during any level of physical activity or mental excitement, such as that experienced during real or simulated competitive game play.
7. Fact: Smooth, non-porous surfaces are extremely difficult to grip securely with any amount of sweat on your hands, no matter how slight.
8. Fact: The strap in question is explicitly shown in the manual as being a safety device to retain the remote should it leave the users hand during game play.
9. Fact: The strap in question is entirely inadequate for its touted purpose due to the fact that it is like those wimpy little lanyards you get "free" with many keychains, USB thumb drives and cell phones. It contains a very inadequate plastic clip and an exceedingly inadequate section section of string barely thicker than a few threads.

In other words, the whole design of this device and the games designed for it is meant to get you standing directly in front of your expensive LCD or plasma television, vigorously swinging a slipperly plastic object in various ways in an attempt to defeat your onscreen opponent. In many games that I've seen in the commercials the obvious way to play the game is to swing your arm directly and vigorously at the TV. This is normal game play as is being promoted by every aspect of the product! What the manual may

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

Seriously? 30 seconds? You sound like you have a medical condition. There are some people that do have overactive sweat glands in their hands... But they are the vast minority of the population. And for them, you can buy a controller glove. Problem solved.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[bjq]

Seriously? 30 seconds? You sound like you have a medical condition. There are some people that do have overactive sweat glands in their hands... But they are the vast minority of the population. And for them, you can buy a controller glove. Problem solved.

Yes, seriously. But it doesn't take that much sweat. You are probably thinking sweat like you'd see on someone's face after running 5 miles or even standing in 100+ degree heat. The sweat I'd get on my hands is like the condensation you'd see on a can of soda a minute after opening it. Not really noticeable, but certainly there.

I get the same thing using a mouse, but it really doesn't affect me much... leave the mouse alone for 10 seconds, and it goes away. It's the full time contact with the remote (and subsequent lack of airflow across the palm) that exasperates the situation. And with the Wii remote, you never really get it out of your hand during game play.

A controller glove would be great, but the unfortunate problem is that by the time you realize you need it, the Wii remote has already hit the TV.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Skater]

(1) My first thought wouldn't be brute force. I think I'd try a few tentative swings or whatever to see what happens then go from there.

(2) I assume the strap frays a bit or something before it snaps - people couldn't notice that?

I was working in a hardware store (not the computer kind, the nuts and bolts and plumbing and paint and electrical kind) when they were switching to a computerized POS system. As part of that, they handed me a wireless scanner that cost upwards of $10,000 at the time, and said, "The person that drops this has to call the owner of the chain and tell him." Needless to say, I was very careful with it...even though it had a wrist strap. I didn't rely on the wrist strap to keep me from dropping it. I don't see why a game controller would be any different. Common sense indicates that if it slips out of my hand - even if the wrist strap DOESN'T break but just slips over my hand - I'm going to have to replace it at my own expense.

(3) This would make the controller extremely touchy, I'd think. Haven't you ever moved your mouse and had it go farther than you'd expected? Frustrating when playing a game.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Mal-2]

(1) My first thought wouldn't be brute force. I think I'd try a few tentative swings or whatever to see what happens then go from there.

Other posters on this article have already said things like "I have to whip the Wiimote around on its leash to get 100 mph fastballs, I don't know any other way." This proves that SOME people, at least, will resort to the first means they can find that works, even if they are somewhat aware a better solution probably exists. Until someone points out a better method, they are going to use the one they have found to work.

(2) I assume the strap frays a bit or something before it snaps - people couldn't notice that?

Maybe, maybe not. If it goes from looking intact to frayed to snapping within a single abusive session, that could easily evade detection -- players are looking at the screen, not at the Wiimote.

Even if they notice, I mentioned this before -- if it looks a bit fuzzy around the edges, that doesn't equal "about to break" in the average person's mind. If a cord has four filaments, and two are broken, your Joe Sixpack probably thinks that means it's half as strong. Any engineer could tell you that really means imminent failure.

(3) This would make the controller extremely touchy, I'd think. Haven't you ever moved your mouse and had it go farther than you'd expected? Frustrating when playing a game.

That is why I said "user-controlled". What is your priority -- pinpoint control or a 104 mph fastball? There's a reason most real-life power pitchers are a little bit on the wild side. Putting a little something extra on a pitch means the margin of error on the release gets even smaller, and the greater muscle tension involved (not to mention mechanical arm stress) makes it much more difficult to be that precise. Is it really a problem if the game is making you face the same decision?

Mal-2

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Knuckles]

My European Wii has straps that look much sturdier than the one shown in the aforementioned Youtube video.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[yakumo.unr]

The out of the (console) box ones were, but most, if not all, of the additional controller, and wii play bundled ones still had the original cotton thin thread.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Knuckles]

I can confirm that my own additional controller (Wii Play bundle) and the same belonging to a friend have the thicker threads.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[yakumo.unr]

stock turnover was bound to happen eventually :) the 4 remotes here were bought from 2 different stores, within a week of the launch, and only the one that came with the system had the stronger chord.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Knuckles]

Mine and the friend's were bought on launch day :) This was in Germany (Cologne and Berlin)

Wait...

[Aadain2001]

Didn't I read recently that Nintendo was issuing a massive recall/replacement program to replace the straps on all the Wiimotes? How can you sue a company who is completely willing to fix the problem is a very timely manor (1 month)? Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?

Re:Wait...

[Jarjarthejedi]

He's suing a company that's willing to help solve a problem that's not their fault (as the strap is NOT intended to stop the Wiimote if it's thrown but rather intended to keep you from dropping it). Nintendo has, frankly, done everything you could expect of a company in their position. People are using their devices improperly and then blaming Nintendo for damage. It's the same as if you have one of those shake-to-recharge flashlights and you let it go and it broke your T.V., could you blame the company who made those for anything? No, because it's your fault. Nintendo doesn't really need to do anything, the Wii works as advertised as does the Wiimote. It's not their fault that people are being idiots with the thing, and so their offering to replace straps with heavier-duty ones is generous of them.

And watch, I'm calling it, Nintendo will lose. Because in America, land of the free, home of the brave, you can get money out of McDonalds for spilling coffee on yourself. Some days I love being an American, and then there are days where a company gets sued for doing more than should rationally be expected of them.

Re:Wait...

[thebdj]

Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?

Does a bear shit in the woods? Is the pope catholic? These are all questions with one pretty clear answer...

Re:Wait...

[Nos.]

The lawyers are probably going to try and use this "replacement" as an admission of guilt on the part of Nintendo, even though there are obvious issues with their entire argument.

Re:Wait...

[Aadain2001]

Personally, I hate references to the old woman who spilled coffee on herself as a stupid lawsuit. If you actually look in deeper, you will find that the coffee was so hot, it scalded and caused horrible burns. I don't care how stupid she was, if you get coffee spilled on you you should only have to worry about having wet clothes, not burns that require hospitalization. So please, stop using that reference. She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

Third-degree burns, to be specific. It annoys me that this case, in which the woman sued McDonalds only for medical expenses after getting THIRD DEGREES BURNS from a CUP OF COFFEE, is somehow held up as the quintessential frivolous lawsuit. It's not. Stop mentioning it.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in America, land of the free, home of the brave, you can get money out of McDonalds for spilling coffee on yourself.

As frivilous as this one sounds, there really is more to that lawsuit than is often made out to be. Simply put, McDonald's served coffee at a known dangerous temperature, 180F, and had been warned on other occassions that's a medically dangerous temperature. They gambled this would never happen and lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's _Corp.

During the case, Liebeck's attorney's discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. ...
[McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher] Appleton also conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

Re:Wait...

[LordKronos]

And the temperature was only half the basis for the lawsuit. The other half was that they knew about the problem because several other people had suffered similar burns, yet they chose to maintain the unsafe temperature because it increased sales.

Re:Wait...

[ravenshrike]

Yeah, and every focus group they asked preferred it to be that hot. $10 bucks says that the woman had gotten McDonalds coffee before, which means she KNEW it was scalding hot. What sort of idiot puts a scalding hot beverage in between their legs in a flimsy cup and then tries to take the damned top off? Seriously, had she died it would have been worthy of a Darwin. You either put the damn thing in a cup holder or hold it over the ground.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Coffee is ideally brewed at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit which is the temperature that McDonald's used. Most customers prefer that coffee be served as hot as possible as it becomes unpleasant once it has cooled too much. As such, most places that serve coffee, serve it at or near brewing temperature. I would consider McDonald's negligent if they served coffee that turned lukewarm soon after it was served, but I doubt I'd be able to sue them for that.

It's worth noting that after the lawsuit McDonald's lowered the temperature of their coffee but after receiving complaints from customers they returned to the former temperatures.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with you, just one nitpick (I know). It didn't really increase sales as much as reduce expenses (no second cup of coffee for sit down customers), the other half of the profit equation.

Re:Wait...

[nelsonal]

Not increased sales, it meant they didn't have to throw out old pots and make fresh ones as frequently. If I recall correctly the jury used some multiple of a day or year's coffee profits as the basis for calculating punative damages. I wish there were some way to have the punative portion of corporate damanges go to someone other than the victim ($10 million dollars isn't very much to most multinationals but is far more than an individual needs for a comfortable life).

Re:Wait...

[xenocide2]

What was the purpose of the wrist strap? When you compare the original Wiimote wrist strap to the one provided for the original DS (the DS Lite doesn't come with one), they appear nearly identical. I feel pretty confident that the DS wrist strap was not intended to prevent you from throwing your DS across the room, yet they felt confident enough to place it there. It seems that they didn't

I doubt Nintendo will lose, because it seems unlikely that this case will be settled in court. Maybe there's some rule about out of court settlements in a class action suit, but it just seems that a) Nintendo may be partly at fault for using an existing design for something it wasn't suited for and b) the cost of doing the few people who have a valid claim is negligable compared to a court proceeding dragging them through the mud. Nintendo has a history of serving customers well. They repair NES carts, they replaced DS's with dead pixels, etc. As you've pointed out, they have already fixed the current wrist strap and are offering free replacements.

You might argue that this is a class action lawsuit that will have the effects intended when class action lawsuits were invented: reduce court load and social costs associated with a firm implicated in several civil suits. Society wins because courts are less overloaded than they would be otherwise, the affected individuals win because they get a valid chance at damages, and Nintendo wins because the limited number of people affected will come forward together, reducing negotiation costs. This is only bad if you expect companies to break the law and get away with it.

But we won't know this for certain until the case is settled. All sorts of things could go awry: the lawyers could settle for coupons (usually I hate this, but it might work out in this case. A year's subscription to Nintendo Power however, would fall into the same "shitty resolution that gets the lawyers paid and saves the company millions" category), parents who's children threw Wiimotes at one another during a competitive game could claim the wrist strap broke and injured their child, etc.

Re:Wait...

[cmdrpaddy]

The coffee wasn't too hot, it was at the correct temperature. The reason she got so badly burned was because she put it between her legs and was wearing some sort of super absorbant tracksuit.

Re:Wait...

[cfeedback]

So please, stop using that reference. She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.

Complete BS. Here's one link, there's plenty of others for those who actually care about the facts, which say that coffee tastes best at precisely the temperature McDonalds used.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.s html

Re:Wait...

[fistfullast33l]

Nintendo has, frankly, done everything you could expect of a company in their position. People are using their devices improperly and then blaming Nintendo for damage. It's the same as if you have one of those shake-to-recharge flashlights and you let it go and it broke your T.V., could you blame the company who made those for anything? No, because it's your fault

First, I agree that Nintendo has acted properly here in offering to replace the Wiimote straps.

However, I think you're wrong. Your example is similar, but not the same. You do have to shake the flashlight to charge it, but it does not require a huge shake to get it to work. Only a child would shake it more than necessary because they enjoy the shaking action.

Let's contrast that with the Wii and the Wiimote. Here, you have an entertainment system which is supposed to immerse you in the game which you are playing. It's billed as the next step in interactivity, and many here would love to argue that it's groundbreaking. However, people are getting into the game and are playing with excitement and fervor that these activities sometimes call for in real life. In baseball, do you give a weak throw to get a 100mph pitch? In golf, do you swing haphazardly to hit the ball 400 yards? In boxing do you weakly throw a punch to knock out your opponent? In all these cases, the harder you perform the action the better a result you will get.

It's no one's fault necessarily that this is happening. People are enjoying themselves and that's the entire purpose of the system. To say that they are using the Wiimote improperly is ridiculous. Are they not playing the game? Are they intentionally trying to break the Wiimote or their TV? No, they're getting caught up in the game. Did the woman with the coffee attempt to burn herself and intentionally spill it? No, she went to drink the coffee and McDonald's obviously made it way too hot and it's their responsibility to clean up. Nintendo has responded properly and didn't anticipate it but if people are getting excited and having fun and playing the game as they would in real life because that's how the system is marketed by Nintendo and fanboys alike, so how could that be using the device improperly?

Re:Wait...

[glenrm]

She got the coffee at the drive through and was drinking and driving. Look Nintendo is doing America a favor by getting us all off the couch, and we are all sick of these law suits, we need loser pays like the UK has.

Re:Wait...

[mindstormpt]

I'm not sure about that watery stuff that's sold everywhere but real coffee - espresso - if served straight from the machine should be about around 90 celsium. Since you can't go over 100, what exactly does the "safe" temperature range end? 94 C ? 98 C?

Coffee is supposed to be hot.

Re:Wait...

[Aadain2001]

You mean so hot that your burn your mouth and require medical attention? Yup, sure seems a good trade off for their POS coffee to taste just a little bit better. You know, this new coffee shop that is popping up everyone, I think they are called Star-something, serves great tasting coffee with the added bonus that is won't burn you if you spill it on yourself (I've done that, it's just really warm and then turns very cold). The "flavor" argument, IMHO, is a BS cop-out meant to shift blame from McD's to it's customers, which is also a pretty crummy thing to do.

Re:Wait...

[Aadain2001]

Ever spilled some Starbucks or other major coffee shop brand coffee on yourself (I have)? Did it result in third degree burns (it didn't on me)? You can easily serve good coffee that will not result in serious injury to a person if spilled.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look up the definition of lawyer in the dictionary, you'll find that it is this:

lawyer /lyr, lr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[law-yer, loi-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. a greedy bastard.

e.g. That lawyer won my personal injury suit and got me two million dollars, but I only received fifty cents after his "lawyer's fees".

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia's account of the incident:

1 - She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap

    Millions of people have done this without spilling coffee on themselves. +1 on the stupid scale.

2 - Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds

    She sat in the coffee for 90 seconds! If the coffee was that hot, why sit in the flaming puddle of coffee for 90 seconds? another +1 on the stupid scale.

If these wikipedia's assertions are correct then I would definitely call this a stupid lawsuit.

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

Why don't you at least check the basic facts before spouting off? Her grandson was driving.

Re:Wait...

[SiliconJesus]

Yet *$ and other franchises sell their coffee at similar temperatures, and it doesn't cause any problems. The truth of the matter is it increases sales BECAUSE people don't want luke-warm coffee.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, wait until the fucking coffee cools. Why should others have to put up with fucking cold coffee when some fucktarded bitch burned herself from being too fucking stupid to even exist let alone drink coffee. Not only should the courts have said case dissmised before even hearing the fucking case, but the doctors should have told her to go fuck herself and let natural selection take its course.

Re:Wait...

[Traiklin]

how about we referance the truck driver who sued McDonalds (I think it was McDonalds anyways) for making him fat?

That one probably would fit in better, since they never forced him to eat their food, he knew it was cooked in grease, yet he didn't think he would get fat eating it.

Re:Wait...

[glenrm]

From Wikipedia: Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

Wow thanks for the link it was worse than I thought, this has to be the worst way to add cream and sugar to coffee that I have ever heard of.

Re:Wait...

[hazem]

A pot roast is done when you heat it to about 140 degrees F. So somewhere around that is where the proteins that are in your tissues would start to take on un-useful shapes.

The espresso might come out of the machine at 90 C, but I'm pretty sure you're not drinking it at 90 C.

And since when is espresso the "real coffee"? I'm sure the original coffee inventors (weren't they in Yemen or Ethiopia?) had espresso machines laying around waiting for invention of roasted coffee beans... "Wa'allah! We can finally use these machines!"

Re:Wait...

[cmdrpaddy]

For more information on the case and the urban legends around it:
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_leg ends_and_stella_liebe.html

From my POV this case was ridiculous, she was wearing absorbant sweat pants and spilt hot coffee on herself in a car. What did she expect would happen if she spilt the coffee? That it wouldn't burn? Thats like complaining that after you bought sharp knives you cut yourself when they fell on your foot.

Re:Wait...

[TheVidiot]

Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?

Hahah... is there any other kind?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I need to sue my mom. She used *BOILING* water to make tea for me. That is as hot as you can make water (at normal atmospheric pressure)! Good god, she must be stopped!

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

Actually, the McDonalds served coffee at well within industry standards for coffee, far below the legal allowed temperature for coffee, and somewhat less than the Starbucks chain servers their coffee. They also put a warning on the coffee cup. They also did not spill the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself after she was away from the drive through window.

The coffee is served hot, because people LIKE hot coffee. Tepid coffee, while being more idiot proof, is not something that people who drink coffee like.

Now, I realize, the U.S. government should ban hot beverages and ban the Nintendo Wii, because Americans are far too idiotic to be able to handle even the most basic levels of self responsibility it takes to drink a cup of coffee or play a video game. And McDonalds should be smart enough to know that Americans should be treated like slightly retarded two year olds when it comes to anything even remotely risky.

But both Nintendo, and McDonalds, are not guilty of anything but assuming that Americans are sensible rational adults.

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

I think there's a reasonable expectation that spilled coffee won't cause third-degree burns, requiring third-degree burneight days of hospitalization and two years of treatment. Oh, but she was wearing cotton sweatpants, so obviously it's all her fault. I always wear rubber underwear anywhere near hot liquids. Oh, and she opened it wrong. Clearly, she should have gotten out of the parked car, walked into the McDonald's, and opened it there.

Re:Wait...

[cfeedback]

You must not drink much coffee, I take it? Couldn't find the stats for my home coffee maker, but here is a similar one...

http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html

The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200. (Conventional home brewers heat water until it boils up to coffee basket.)

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me explain this to you people

Coffee does taste best at that temperture and is served at that temperture in Europe.
However in Europe they only serve it in half a cupfuls and you sip it.
Hence you can't burn yourself with it.
Not in mcdonalds supersized containers.

Re:Wait...

[michael021689]

Do you realize that nine out of ten people who purchase coffee at McDonald's complains about it being too cold?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You my friend are the annnoying one here. She did NOT sue for medical expenses. Check for yourself:

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

I was in Albuquerque at the time, actually have eaten at that McDonnalds. Being a know-it-all without checking facts...

Re:Wait...

[Bastian]

I can't remember who said it and this is mostly paraphrase, but here goes. . .

I've often heard people talk about famous authors and wonder aloud how much greater their bodies of work would have been had they not been drunkards. This is silly. It's like wondering how many more cases a great lawyer would have taken on had he not been a moneygrubbing weasel.

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

The coffee is served hot, because people LIKE hot coffee. Tepid coffee, while being more idiot proof, is not something that people who drink coffee like.

Yes, because the only two choices are hot or tepid. There's nothing in between. Intelligent people call this kind of fallacious argument "false dichotomy".

Oh, and:

[McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher] Appleton also conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

-- WP

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's brewing temperature, not drinking temperature.

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck obtained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured." McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's _Restaurants

Oops. If McDonald's hadn't been so incredibly stupid, they could have paid $20,000 instead of somewhere around $600,000.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure water boils at 100 C, Coffee however, is not pure water, and can be made a lot hotter.

Re:Wait...

[iamnobody2]

oh fuck that. coffee is supposed to be hot. give me a goddamn break. idiots. the human race is completely doomed. technology and modern society have far outstripped the average idiot's intelligence level. i mean, c'mon, half the people in the world can't program a vcr. i have a friend who works at walmart, and he gets people returning universal remotes because they don't realize they have to be programmed and are too stupid to do it anyway. people are fucking stupid and we're all doomed. doomed i say!!!!

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

The burns from the coffee are to entirely to be expected if your pour HOT coffee into your lap. Now nobody in the country can get a hot cup of coffee because of this stupid case. I keep hearing how the coffee was unexpectedly hot - this is such crap - coffee is made by passing BOILING water through the grounds. Boiling water is hot.

Re:Wait...

[MeNeXT]

Most coffee tastes better when brewed with hot watter, the hotter, the better the brew.

I was a little surprised that they didn't take the hot water tank manufacturers to court since they allow the temperature to exceed that of the coffee of your mentioned case. Which, by the way, was a stupid case.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow held up as the quintessential frivolous lawsuit. It's not. Stop mentioning it.

No, but putting a styrofoam cup of even warm coffee between your legs is the quintessential act of stupidity, and she was paid for it. What would have happened had it not been so hot it scalded her? A lawsuit for her dry cleaning expenses?

It all comes down to responsibility. We've been passing the buck for so long that the person who performs the act is no longer responsible for having performed the act; no, we have to go and hunt down the "enablers" and blame them. Sure, the coffee was excessively hot, but that doesn't change the fact that she dumped it in her own lap.

Re:Wait...

[Charcharodon]

She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature

McDonald's appealed and she lost. Someone got her on a talk show and got her to blab about the case. The host also had a slew of coffee makers and places tested for coffee temp. Turns out Mc Donald's didn't serve their coffee any hotter than anyone else, including her own home personal coffee maker. That along with the fact that the lawyer was taking something like 80% of the claim, which at the time was considered outrageous, ended up getting the whole thing reduced to her medical expenses plus a much smaller reward for pain and suffering of which the lawyer got his 80%, in other words very little.

There was one thing that did change about the whole thing, the togo coffee cups were improved quite a bit. The lids pre-lawsuit were pretty crappy, the ones now you can drop and expect the lid to stay on most of the time.

It still boils down to one thing you shouldn't put near boiling liquids down by your privates. (She had it held between her legs.)

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

It is not the quintessential frivolous lawsuit - That would be the racist woman who sued her employer claiming that her racism was a medical condition, and by the employer forcing her to work with black coworkers, that he was violating the Americans with Disabilities act. (She won several million dollars if I remember correctly.)

However, the act of drinking a hot beverage is something that everyone has done... so it resonates with all of us. It is so common place and basic, and everyone knows that coffee is hot and can fucking burn you. And people know that something fundamental has changed in our culture when someone else is held responsible when you spill coffee on yourself. It might not be the worse case of tort abuse, but it is the point in time when most of us realized just how stupid the legal system was getting, and just how much this stupidity was costing us as a society.

Re:Wait...

[LordKronos]

Oops. Bad wording on my part. Profits is what I meant to say. Thanks for correcting me.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

If you want lukewarm coffee, that's your own problem.

What next you want to sue the maker of grits becuase you burnt yourself pouring them down your pants ?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the pope shit in the woods?

Re:Wait...

[revery]

If you do a little research you will see that the McDonald's coffee was heated to the same temperature that Starbuck's heats their coffee to. The woman received third degree burns because she was wearing sweat pants, which quickly absorbed the hot coffee and held it against her skin for the time necessary to cause a serious burn. McDonald's should not have to insure a consumer against the risk that they will handle a known hot liquid in an unsafe manner.

Re:Wait...

[silentounce]

What was your sample size for that survey?

Re:Wait...

[The Only Druid]

She put a hot cup of coffee without a secure lid between her thighs, and then drove away. She was defective, not the coffee.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

I believe that she also removed the lid - it's nearly impossible to grip a styrofoam or paper cup between your legs with the lid off without spilling on yourself.

Re:Wait...

[dank zappingly]

The fact that they are issuing a recall doesn't shield them from liability for damages due to a defective design even if it is in a timely manner. Think about if a car maker built a car with brakes that didn't work. They can't get out of liability for previous accidents just by issuing a recall. It shields them from liability in FUTURE accidents where people involving people who negligently did not participate in the recall.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Third-degree burns, to be specific. It annoys me that this case, in which the woman sued McDonalds only for medical expenses after getting THIRD DEGREES BURNS from a CUP OF COFFEE, is somehow held up as the quintessential frivolous lawsuit. It's not. Stop mentioning it.

While I don't think this is the quintessential frivolous lawsuit, it *is* frivolous. It is so because coffee is hot, intuitively. The ideal brewing temperature of coffee is 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit, while it takes less than 2 seconds of direct skin exposier to get a severe burn (THIRD DEGREE) when fluid is as little as 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

I agree the company serving coffee and the customer should exercise care with fluids at this temperature, however it does not rise to the level of negligence on the part of the company if the customer dumps coffee on themselves.

Now if the company was serving the coffee in a defective cup that caused the spill despite the best attempt at care on the part of the customer, then that rises to the level of negligence, IMHO.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

THIRD DEGREES BURNS from a CUP OF COFFEE
uh, cause a CUP OF COFFEE is SUPPOSED to be HOT?!?!?! If it can't burn you when you drop it on yourself, it's not a good cup of coffee, your also supposed to put it on the inside of you, not the outside, she just forgot her coffee manual. freakin' moron, in my country that person probably wouldn't even be alive by now from sheer stupidity without anyone to protect her every move through the day. I'm still waiting for the Wii to have good games though so I don't really care, but this seems pretty ordinary for a country so full of lawsuits, I'm still waiting for someone to sue someone cause their iron is hot(it doesn't say I shouldn't flatten my tongue) and their kitchen knife is sharp (there is no sticker to say throwing at feet is bad).

Re:Wait...

[mypalmike]

I think there's a reasonable expectation that spilled coffee won't cause third-degree burns, requiring third-degree burneight days of hospitalization and two years of treatment.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that car manufacturers should put coffee holders in convenient locations so that I don't decide to place hot coffee between my legs. Blame Ford.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that a cigarette lighter will not set fire to my hair which hangs in my face as I light my cigarette. Blame Bic.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that when camping in the wilderness, I will not die of exposure due to lack of planning. Blame the police who should have been there.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that a bartender should recognize when I've had one too many. And he should be legally responsible for my actions if he fails to do so.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that my life be free of risk for which I am personally responsible.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

9 out of 10 Statistics are completely made up by people too lazy to find actual facts to support their arguments.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

OMG ..... A Known dangerous temperature ?

People, for the record, Coffee is made with boiling or near boiling water. Depending on whether it is kept warm or how much time has passed since it was brewed it could be anywhere up to that temperature. I can't believe so many people keep spouting this line about it would burn you if you drank it at that temp. etc. If you routinely buy a cup of coffee and pour the thing straight down your throat without any caution then expect to be burned. Likewise for pouring the entire cup into you lap.

Re:Wait...

[William_Lee]

Personally, I hate references to the old woman who spilled coffee on herself as a stupid lawsuit. If you actually look in deeper, you will find that the coffee was so hot, it scalded and caused horrible burns. I don't care how stupid she was, if you get coffee spilled on you you should only have to worry about having wet clothes, not burns that require hospitalization. So please, stop using that reference. She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.

How could this parent be modded insightful, especially coming from a line of reasoning that is as retarded and irresponsible as the original lawsuit. The coffee wasn't too hot, it was served at a normal brewing temperature. For all of you out there who are a bit slow, coffee is served HOT. WFT, if you drink coffee, you'd realize it tastes like ass served lukewarm.


The woman shouldn't have been stupid enough to be putting freshly brewed coffee in her crotch, just like these idiots throwing wiimotes through tv screens should know enough to hold on to the damn thing when they're using it.

Re:Wait...

[darkmeridian]

McDonald's kept their coffee super-duper hot not because "customers like hot coffee", as they claimed, but because you get more coffee per pound of grind if the water's super-duper hot. Furthermore, the plaintiff was willing to settle for medical expenses related to her third-degree burns (totaling $10K), but McDonald's went to litigation and lost out big-time. (Lesson: No matter how good your claim is, as a big corporation, going up against a little-old lady with third-degree burns and no insurance is NOT a good way to hold on to your money.)

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

McDonalds served the coffee at the temperature that coffee is supposed to be served at... 180-200 degrees F. And well below the legal limit for temperature (which I think was 300 or something like that, I can't find the exact reference, but it changes based on locality.). McDonalds served the coffee at a lower temperature than Starbucks currently serves their coffee.

There is no false dichotomy here... Yeah, there are temperatures between hot or tepid, but no one wants their coffee at luke warm, or medium warm, or slightly warm. Consumers want coffee hot! Which is why McDonalds served the coffee hot in the first place, and why McDonald's coffee sales plummeted when they made all their chains lower the temperature to what is safe for for the half retarded two year old responsibility level of Americans.

Fortunatly for McDonalds, their coffee wasn't particularly that good in the first place, so it didn't destroy their sales when they made their coffee retard safe. However, a place like Starbucks that is known exclusively for coffee must keep the temperature high... and so one of the reasons a Starbucks coffee is so expensive is that you are paying your retard tax on one of the hundreds of people who spill Starbucks coffee on themselves and sue Starbucks every year.

Re:Wait...

[BinaryOpty]

Except you don't drink it while its still boiling: you let it cool down. When being served coffee by an establishment you expect at the very least that the coffee has cooled down to the point you can drink it relatively soon. You do NOT expect for them to hand you a cup of boiling water that would give you third degree burns. Thus the idea of "negligence" comes in for them not telling you "Hey don't spill that, it will burn you so bad it'll kill your nerve endings (third-degree burn)" when the expectation is at the very most served coffee will give you a first-degree burn if that.

Re:Wait...

[Daemonstar]

This was a part of the post above on overlawyered.com:

And Starbucks serves at a higher temperature today, and faces lawsuits over third-degree burns as a result (Jan. 2, 2004)

It references an article here.

Re:Wait...

[Krakhan]

I think the GP has other problems anyways, such as buying low quality coffee at Starbucks anyways...

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for that "unsafe temperture" is called a Health code, Coffee MUST be kept at a specified temp to guard against bacteria

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you don't drink it while its still boiling: you let it cool down. When being served coffee by an establishment you expect at the very least that the coffee has cooled down to the point you can drink it relatively soon. You do NOT expect for them to hand you a cup of boiling water that would give you third degree burns. Thus the idea of "negligence" comes in for them not telling you "Hey don't spill that, it will burn you so bad it'll kill your nerve endings (third-degree burn)" when the expectation is at the very most served coffee will give you a first-degree burn if that.

True, you aren't expecting boiling hot coffee. However, even if your coffee is 30-40 degrees cooler that the lowest ideal brewing temperature, you will still get a severe burn from less than 2 seconds of skin exposier to the liquid. It is a hot beverage. You can't reasonably expect to not get a burn if it is fresh and you dump it on yourself.

Re:Wait...

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

I wish the woman had gotten more because of the disgusting argument of the McDonalds lawyer: the woman was too old for sex in his opinion so reconstructive surgery to her lap would be purely cosmetic and not necessary. It would has set a precident for all cases of injury through negligence to be dismissed with arguments such as "yeah well he's fat and lazy and didn't like being able to walk anyway".

Re:Wait...

[pluther]

I know you're being facetious, but also, sadly accurate...

I think there's a reasonable expectation that car manufacturers should put coffee holders in convenient locations so that I don't decide to place hot coffee between my legs. Blame Ford.

I remember a car commercial from some time back about a car company whose "every car comes standard with four-wheel anti-lock brakes!" It then mentioned, disdainfully, that all their competitor's cars "come standard with... cup holders?"

I've never seen an actual study, but I'd be willing to be that cup holders have prevented more accidents than anti-lock brakes have.

Anyway, cup holders are becoming pretty much standard equipment in cars anymore, though not mandatory like airbags and seatbelts.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that a cigarette lighter will not set fire to my hair which hangs in my face as I light my cigarette. Blame Bic.

Sadly, this is part of the reason why lighters are now "child-proof" (and hence, of course, more dangerous than before).

I think there's a reasonable expectation that when camping in the wilderness, I will not die of exposure due to lack of planning. Blame the police who should have been there.

I'm not aware of any lawsuits over this yet. Though Oregon has apparently lost a record number of campers this year, so wait a bit and we'll see.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that a bartender should recognize when I've had one too many. And he should be legally responsible for my actions if he fails to do so.

Sadly, this one is already law in several states, including Oregon.

The bartender is also responsible if you have fake ID and he still serves you.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that my life be free of risk for which I am personally responsible.

Welcome to America!

Re:Wait...

[Krakhan]

I take it you also do not know how to drink coffee. I don't know, perhaps you should maybe get advice from an elderly person who has been likely been drinking (hot) coffee for years, but thing I can tell is that YOU DO NOT CHUG IT, you sip it.

Well, thanks for reminding me to buy any coffee from anywhere the next time I go down to visit the U.S., since all I can expect to get is terrible lukewarm coffee, because some retards don't know how to hold or drink it correctly.

Re:Wait...

[PayPaI]

the legal limit for temperature (which I think was 300 or something like that

Is it served in an autoclave?

Re:Wait...

[Daemonstar]

I agree; also, one other fact that needs to be mentioned is:

she sat in a puddle of hot coffee for over ninety seconds

I dunno, but if that was me, my butt would be out of the car and my pants around my ankles as fast as I could possibly get there, not sitting in a parked car for a minute and a half while I let my flesh cook.

Flesh continues to cook even after the heat source is removed (like carry-over cooking when you're cooking a steak, the food will rise a few more degrees after taken off the grill). Immediate cooling is needed to minimize damage. It's simple first aid. :P Granted it takes less than a second for 180+ degree coffee to cause a 3rd degree burn, but the sooner you get to cooling the flesh, the less damage it will do.

Besides, that's what they make cup holders for (even for vehicles that don't have any built in). :)

Re:Wait...

[chad.koehler]

I think he want to McDonald's for coffee once a day for 10 days.

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

I said I couldn't find the reference, and that I *THINK* it was that temperature. However, my oven in my kitchen goes up to 500 F (I bake bread at 375 F)... and the boiling point of water is 212 F. Perhaps you are mixing up celsius with farenheit if you are astounded by that temperature? (300 C would be very hot... 300 F, not nearly as hot).

Re:Wait...

[fitten]

Since "Hot Coffee" is served... well... hot... If you spill something hot into your lap, you will probably have to worry about more than being wet. Where I grew up, we were taught to be careful and not spill anything hot into our laps because it might, you know, burn you or something.

Re:Wait...

[Some_Llama]

Somebody should pour some 140 degree F coffee in your lap and then some 180 degree F and you can let use know which you prefer.

"During the case, Liebeck's attorney's discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds"

140F is nowhere near tepid, in fact it is quite hot, but at least you would have up to 20 seconds to avoid a third degree burn.

Re:Wait...

[ReverendHoss]

The legal limit for serving a water-based liquid like coffee is "300 or something like that"?

Wow. That's a pretty impressive coffee. A physics guy want to calculate how many psi would be required to get the water to 300 degrees?

Re:Wait...

[Some_Llama]

"Most coffee tastes better when brewed with hot watter, the hotter, the better the brew."

You must be quite the established barrista.

Unfortunately, in quite the opposite case it all depends on steeping time and extraction from the grounds, I have made coffee from a hot water tap using an Aeropress that beats any expresso machine I have ever used or tasted previously. Using water that is "too hot" can induce bitterness from the grounds.

Re:Wait...

[Phisbut]

In baseball, do you give a weak throw to get a 100mph pitch?

In baseball, if your 100mph pitch breaks a window, do you sue the ball manufacturer?

In golf, do you swing haphazardly to hit the ball 400 yards?

In golf, if you swing and let go of your club, and it hurts someone, do you sue the club manufacturer?

but if people are getting excited and having fun and playing the game as they would in real life because that's how the system is marketed by Nintendo and fanboys alike, so how could that be using the device improperly?

Tennis players don't throw their racket when serving. Golf players don't throw their clubs when playing. And if they do, the player is responsible for what happens next.

Re:Wait...

[skam240]

"everyone knows that coffee is hot and can fucking burn you" but not to the level of third degree burns. almost everyone who's an avid coffee drinker (such as myself) has spilled hot coffee on themselves at some point in their lives. it hurts, makes the skin a little tender for a little bit and leaves you with a big, embarrassing, cold, wet, brown spot on your pants. it sucks alot but that's about it.

she was not suing over something like this. the coffee served her was served at an incredibly unsafe temperature. no restaurant serves coffee at this temperature because it is a blatant safety hazard. she literally had to go to the hospital because of something as common place as spilled coffee. all she wanted was her medical expenses recouped for being served something so unsafe.

how anybody who knows the facts of the case can make the claim that this is frivolous at any level is beyond me.

Re:Wait...

[ad0gg]

Because she dropped it on herself? 180 degree coffee will cause 3rd degree burns. 180 degress is the recommended serving temperature of coffee. She didn't sue for just medical damages. She first asked double the money of the total medical bill. Mcdonalds declines and offers something more reasonable, she then sues for punitive damages. Just the facts. And if you look at any manufator website for coffee brewers, they store coffee at 180-190 degrees. Mcdonalds didn't do anything wrong, they still served coffee at 180 degrees, it will still cause 3rd degree burns if you drop it on your lap. Thats why mcdonalds hot coffee case is always mentioned in tort reform threads as it was pure greed.

Re:Wait...

[cfulmer]

I don't expect that. Nearly every time I get coffee, I have to wait for a few minutes before drinking it. In fact, the coffee counsel recommends keeping coffee at around 185 degrees. McDonald's was serving coffee that's just about as hot as Starbuck's, and Caribou's and Dunkin' Donuts' and....

Many people get coffee from fast-food restaurants because it will be just cool enough for them to drink when they get to where they are going (think construction workers.)

The coffee itself did not cause immediate 3rd degree burns -- that came from prolonged contact because the coffee was absorbed into her clothes. If you make yourself a cup of coffee at home and then poured it into your lap, you'd have a similar problem. Had she not been using her crotch as a cup holder, the whole thing never would have happened.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are states in between hot and tepid, but most people still want their coffee as hot as possible to maximize the amount of time before it becomes tepid.

Re:Wait...

[skam240]

that's funny. every time I get coffee from a restuarant it's hot. granted it's not "give me third degree burns" hot but i think i can live without that.

"I keep hearing how the coffee was unexpectedly hot - this is such crap - coffee is made by passing BOILING water through the grounds. Boiling water is hot. so you cant get a hot cup of coffee anymore but yet restuarnts still make it using this process that some how necessitates customers being served boiling, third degree inducing, hot coffee? huh...

all that happened as a result of this lawsuit is that restuarants take greater care in not having their heating pads for their coffee turned up to rediculously high levels.

Re:Wait...

[collectivescott]

>I wish there were some way to have the punative portion of corporate damanges go to someone other than the victim ($10 million dollars isn't very much to most multinationals but is far more than an individual needs for a comfortable life).

While I agree with giving juries additional options for awarding damages, I would not trade my genitals for 10 million dollars. Would you?

Re:Wait...

[Gothic_Walrus]

As was mentioned in another article, it's not a recall. The replacement is entirely voluntary, and Nintendo has stated that their product testing showed the original strap was sturdy enough (though these douche bags seem intent on proving otherwise).

Not that that alters your point in the slightest, but this might end up playing into the lawsuit somehow, maybe in that since it's not mandatory they're allowing people to continue using "defective products" or some kind of bullcrap like that.

Re:Wait...

[julesh]

From the site you reference:
Another trial court in New Mexico, however, didn't, and became a national icon when the jury claimed that Stella Liebeck deserved $2.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages because McDonald's dared to sell the 79-year-old hot 170-degree coffee.

Which just goes to show that the author doesn't understand punitive damages: you don't get them awarded to you because you "deserve them". Punitive damages are awarded because the responsible party has acted in a way that means they deserve to pay them.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't get THIRD DEGREE BURNS from a water-based liquid. It's not physically possible. Third degree burns are characterized by a charring of the skin on the effected area. Given that water evaporates far below the temperature required to ignite flesh, it is simply not possible- it would be like heating a cup of water to the point that a stick would catch fire upon being dropped into it.

Re:Wait...

[skam240]

i have never been served luke warm coffee under any conditions other than the rare coffee pot left off the heating pad for too long scenario. maybe this is a regional problem? where are you from?

or maybe you're just blatantly exaggerating and no one gets served luke warm coffee on a reguluar basis because no one would buy it at that temperature because it's gross?

Re:Wait...

[NorthWestFLNative]

Right off hand I don't know what the boiling point of coffee is, but I suspect that it's not very different from the boiling point of water. By the time it reached 300 F, it would have completely vaporised into steam (i.e. the hottest temperature any liquid can reach is its boiling point. When the entire volume of liquid turns to gas then the temperature starts to rise again.). But then again even if the boiling point of water is over 300 F, you would scald yourself when you tried to drink it.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then if you sit in a puddle of it for 90 seconds like that lady did ...

Stupid!

Re:Wait...

[collectivescott]

>And well below the legal limit for temperature (which I think was 300 or something like that, I can't find the exact reference, but it changes based on locality.)

You realize that 212ish is the maximum, right? (Hence the autoclave comment - it would have to be under high pressure... really high, most autoclaves only go to 250.) If you're going to spout off, make sure you know what you're talking about.

And regarding Starbucks, I can tell you that none of the ones near me serve their coffee this hot. I know because I wouldn't be able to drink it if they did.

Here's a simple tip, if you want your coffee to stay warm, keep a lid on it. Duh.

Re:Wait...

[julesh]

The ideal brewing temperature of coffee is 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit,

True. But there is little or no reason to actually serve it at that temperature. Drinking it at such a high temperature would be dangerous, and allowing it to cool (to say 160) would mean the drink could be drunk as soon as it is served.

while it takes less than 2 seconds of direct skin exposier to get a severe burn (THIRD DEGREE) when fluid is as little as 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

Do you have a source for that? Medical evidence presented at the trial in question suggests more like 20 seconds, as opposed to 5 at 180.

Re:Wait...

[Tim Browse]

Most customers prefer that coffee be served as hot as possible as it becomes unpleasant once it has cooled too much.

IIRC, the reason McDonalds serve the coffee that hot is because if they keep it really hot, you can't tell that the coffee is stale, and that they only make new coffee when they run out. In the case, McDonalds had been warned multiple times not to do this because it was dangerous. They kept on doing it to avoid the coffee being 'unpleasant' (i.e. customers could taste that it was stale), which is one of the reasons they lost.

It's worth noting that after the lawsuit McDonald's lowered the temperature of their coffee but after receiving complaints from customers they returned to the former temperatures.

See above.

Re:Wait...

[Wisconsingod]

Does a bear shit in the woods? No, one actually used my front lawn the other day

Is the pope catholic? nope, and neither was Jesus, so get over it.

These are all questions with one pretty clear answer... yes, the one clear answer is you are thinking in your own small little world, it is the generalization and abiguities to your thinking that lead to the flaws on your conclusions.

Nothing in this world is certain, and until that is understood and accepted, peace will never occur.

Re:Wait...

[drew]

If you actually look in deeper, you will find that the coffee was so hot, it scalded and caused horrible burns.

Maybe you need to look a little deeper. The temperature that McDonalds served its coffee at is not only in the temperature range recommended by most coffee producers, it is also lower than Starbucks, Einstein bros (at least the ones around here), and several other widespread coffee chains currently serve their coffee, and lower even some newer home coffee makers. If McDonalds was really serving their coffee at an unsafe temperature, coffee temperatures should have come down since then. If anything, they've gone up.

Even if the coffee had actually been boiling, it would not have been enough to cause third degree burns just from having it spilled on her. I know - I've spilled boiling liquids on myself before. The problem was not just that she had coffee spilled on her- she then sat in the puddle of nearly boiling coffee.

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

Somebody should pour some 140 degree F coffee in your lap and then some 180 degree F and you can let use know which you prefer.
"During the case, Liebeck's attorney's discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds"
140F is nowhere near tepid, in fact it is quite hot, but at least you would have up to 20 seconds to avoid a third degree burn.

This discussion shows out truly devoid of common sense the legal system, and people defending it, are.

Now, I am not a big coffee drinker, but I make tea and I make it with boiling water. Water boils at 212 F. That is 22-32 degrees higher than the temperature they said the McDonalds coffee was at (which in itself was likely an exassuration for the sake of the law suit, but I am assuming it was at the temperate they say for the sake of arguement). I HAVE spilled hot tea on my leg. I can most certainly tell you that I did not recieve third degree burns in two to seven seconds. Other than it was a little sore for about a day, I was fine. Now, I do wear pants and underwear, and so the boiling water didn't go directly on my skin, however I am pretty certain ol' Stella was wearing pants and underwear herself. I did also try to wipe up the tea, I didn't wait 90 seconds to do anything, like ol' Stella admitted happened. But I have also spilled hot tea directly on my hand, and I most certainly didn't have any injury that didn't disapear in a couple days - and that was with liquid MUCH HOTTER that the inflated value given by the trial lawyer!

But now to the utterly insane idea that 140 F you would have 20 seconds to avoid a third degree burn... WHAT? Shit, in Death Valley the AIR TEMPERATURE can get 134 F (I think the hottest temperature was in Libya at 136 F). Air doesn't conduct heat as well as water, but still, if the temperature was as dangerous as you say you couldn't walk around death valley or the Libyan desert without a NASA space suit and not be fried to death. The hot water from my tap is set to around 140 F, and I most certainly do not get burns when I run my hands under the hot water when I wash them.

Seriously man, the english has been drinking hot tea for generations (recommended temperature for Earl Grey is 212 F, Green Tea is 170-180 F). If these temperatures are so recklessly dangerously hot, why isn't hot tea burns an empidemic in England? (Well, I know why it isn't an epidemic in England... cause their legal system isn't as retarded as ours).

Basicly, the figures you are giving for burns and liquid temperature are, at best, taken totally out of context... but most likely they are out and outright fabrications by the greedy trial lawyers in this case! The most basic common sense and first hand experience totally contradicts what you are saying.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Serving coffee at 300F?! You do realize that water boils at 212F?

Re:Wait...

[Sancho]

Snopes ([url:http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp]) disagrees. As do a few other sites: [url:http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonald s.htm], [url:http://www.therationalradical.com/2005/01/mcd onalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit-facts.html], [url:http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=11070 89].

Some useful facts:
= the coffee was found to be 30-50 degrees hotter than normal, at a temperature which causes 3rd degree burns in seconds.
= there were hundreds of similar complaints that never saw court cases
= Stella wasn't driving, and the car wasn't moving (many of the complaints regarding this case are about how stupid it is to get coffee and try to manipulate it in those conditions)
= The QA manager testified that they knew the dangers of serving too-hot coffee, but they did it anyway.

Just some things to consider before jerking that knee.

Re:Wait...

[Buran]

"Personally, I hate references to the old woman who spilled coffee on herself as a stupid lawsuit."

Personally, I hate knee-jerk replies that defend the fact that the woman was stupid enough to have a cup containing HOT BEVERAGE in an unstable position while in a MOVING VEHICLE. The woman was stupid enough to not get out of her car and drink the coffee in a safe place, e.g. somewhere steady. She knew that it was stupid to risk a spill, spilled it, and sued anyway.

The references to this as a stupid lawsuit are justified.

Re:Wait...

[jedidiah]

No, I think this is just a simple case of many people NOT HAVING ANY CLUE what a 3rd degree burn is.

They know about as much about first aid as they do law and civics.

Re:Wait...

[WilliamSChips]

In addition, Espresso falls down a few inches before going into the cup and contact with the colder air cools it down to levels that won't kill you if you drink it. There have been other cases involving McDonalds coffee causing damage to the stomach because it was too hot.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

all that happened as a result of this lawsuit is that restuarants take greater care in not having their heating pads for their coffee turned up to rediculously high levels.

Yeah it's ridiculous, we have to endure coffee that's too cold to drink because the restaurant has to serve it at a temperature that's appropriate for pouring down your pants rather than drinking.

Re:Wait...

[WilliamSChips]

But very few people want it in a state that literally burns your stomach.

Re:Wait...

[jedidiah]

No, it just sounds like we've got to nix this whole idea of hot fluids and cars altogether.

Since it's such an obvious menace that ANYone should be aware of and watching out for. Well if that's really the case than this stuff really has ZERO business being served in a drive-through PERIOD.

I mean, I treat containers of near boiling liquids like someone in a chemlab. I've got the big thick gloves and all strategic body parts are positioned as far away from the fluid as possible. You might as well have people cleaning guns while rolling down the road.

Re:Wait...

[WilliamSChips]

McDonalds not only used foam that became damn near useless at those temperatures, they also served it immediately, something you're not supposed to do. At that temperature the coffee burns your mouth and stomach, and there have been other cases about that. They were settled out of court.

Re:Wait...

[jedidiah]

No. Coffee tastes better when you start with good beans, grind them just before brewing, and then don't oversoak them.

This folgers/maxwell house crap is gnarly at any temperature with pretty much any preparation method short of being part of a milkshake.

Re:Wait...

[tbannist]

There's a problem with that one too. McDonalds still maintains that their food is healthy enough to be part of a regular diet. Unless it turns out the trucker was eating considerably more than is normal, you'd end up with the same type of marginal safety issue. If you are dishonest to your customers, you deserve to lose a lot of money.

If McDonalds had always maintained that their food was bad for you, and should only be eaten in moderation, the case would be different. I know, this type of thing should be common sense, but it stops being a matter of common sense when the person providing the service deliberate conceals the true dangers.

As far as the wii-mote goes, obviously the straps weren't strong enough. Whether or not they were "reasonably" strong is a matter for the courts.

Re:Wait...

[WilliamSChips]

McDonalds was the one who directly gave a woman coffee at a temperature that would burn her mouth and stomach if she drank it immediately. But because of McDonalds' fucking profit motive(keep the drive-through lines going as fast as possible) they serve it immediately from their broken brewing process(which forces the water through the grounds under pressure to save money on grounds) to you, the customer.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

Of course his client was being accused of deliberately maiming their customers in order to save money on coffee, when they were simply following industry guidelines of making and serving coffee.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

If you're going to chug hot cofee you deserve to get your stomach burned. If you don't understand how coffee works you're really not qualified to participate in this discussion.

You sip it, slowly. You don't chug the whole cup in 2 seconds and you don't pour it down your pants. It's that simple.

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

How many PSIs do percolators operate at? Isn't the whole point of a percolator to heat coffee to a temperature higher than the boiling point? If not, why do they need the steam pressure chamber?

Re:Wait...

[KDR_11k]

Needs a warning label: "Do not spill coffee on remaining skin".

Re:Wait...

[WilliamSChips]

No, they don't. They don't, they don't, they don't. Nobody prefers coffee to be that hot, except psychopaths and sadists. 180 degrees Fahrenheit means that the coffee burns your stomach and skin. The preferred temperature is closer to 140 degrees. Your coffeemaker may start out at 180 degrees but while it's filling up for 5 minutes it shares heat with the air, increasing entropy and decreasing the temperature of the coffee to about 140 degrees. Espresso, although it is made a cup at a time in a few seconds, drops for about five seconds, sharing heat with the air, increasing entropy, and decreasing the temperature of the coffee.

I wish Slashdot would stop defending McDonalds here. Stella may not be the best example but I would rather five million frauds run away with huge class-action settlements than one corporation fuck over one worker.

Re:Wait...

[tbannist]

That obviously can't be the temperature. If you're going to ridicule other people for being stupid for getting burned, you definitely shouldn't try to tell people that the maximum safe temperature for serving coffee is 88 degrees above the boiling point. Coffee can't be that temperature and still recognize it as coffee. Coffee boils at 100 degrees Celcius so it can't be Celcius either. And 300 degrees Kelvin would be pretty close to room temperature, so too cold.

Like he said how are you going to drink a hot cup of steam?

Re:Wait...

[blugu64]

" the coffee served her was served at an incredibly unsafe temperature. no restaurant serves coffee at this temperature because it is a blatant safety hazard."

That's incorrect. I worked at starbucks when I was in college. We served our teas and freshly brewed coffee at 190F. If you'd read up on the case that is right about the same temperature that McDonalds was serving their coffee. So places do serve coffee and teas that hot.

Re:Wait...

[Sancho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation doesn't mention pressure or temperature.

Re:Wait...

[skam240]

"Yeah it's ridiculous, we have to endure coffee that's too cold to drink because the restaurant has to serve it at a temperature that's appropriate for pouring down your pants rather than drinking."

i've said this in a couple posts now. where are you getting your coffee from? i have always been given hot coffee, too hot to drink right away in fact, at every place i've gotten coffee at. the only exception being when some one left the coffee off the heating pad for too long.

maybe you should stop asking for ice cubes in your coffee? or maybe you should stop making bold exadurations?

Re:Wait...

[WilliamSChips]

She didn't pour it down her pants. It spilled while she tried to open it because the foam was defective. And at 180 degrees it doesn't matter how much you drink, one touch with coffee that hot and not only do your lips instantly swell, your stomach instantly burns. And it's hard to get it out of your stomach in less than three seconds, which is necessary to prevent third-degree burns.

Re:Wait...

[tbannist]

Actually, I'm reasonably sure both golf club makers, baseball bat makers, and tennis racket makers* have been sued over injuries relating to the use of their products. The cynic in me says it's probably the reason why they all come with anti-slip measures and warnings that no one should be standing in front of you when you're swinging away. Broken windows don't count because you're not using the baseball in the approved environment (a baseball diamond).

* Actually, I vaguely remember a tennis racket lawsuit over the strings being too tight on certain rackets and being a hazard when a string broke.

Re:Wait...

[644bd346996]

Water cannot exist as a liquid under atmospheric conditions significantly hotter than 212 degrees F unless it is superheated. Serving a superheated liquid in a resturant would be criminal. Serving coffee near boiling is not safe because, as others have described, third-degree burns form in a matter of seconds. If there is any "legal limit" for the temperature of a hot beverage, it must be below the boiling point.

Re:Wait...

[ReverendHoss]

Some types of percolators do this to a very minor degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooker

Your average pressure cooker acheives 15 psi to keep water from boiling under 257. These pressure cookers require pressure release valves to keep the water inside from exploding into steam when that pressure is released. Please note that the cups of coffee that _I_ drink do not come with the pressure release vents that would be required were you to serve water at the 300 degrees you are suggesting is allowed by law.

Pulling numbers out of one's ass cheapens debate for both sides. I encourage you to read this, linked from snopes.com:

http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=fac ts

Money quote:
"Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

Tort reform is a complex issue, with good arguments to be made on both sides. Please use the good ones, and leave numbers pulled out of one's ass for "Wii vs. PS3 vs. XBox 360" threads.

And yes, all temperatures in this post are in F, not C.

Re:Wait...

[The_Wilschon]

She first asked double the money of the total medical bill. Mcdonalds declines and offers something more reasonable, she then sues for punitive damages.

Not quite double, but close, yes. However, you think McDonald's offer of US$800 to cover her US$11,000 is more reasonable!? Usually, when one is "offering to settle" it is because one has already filed suit. So your "she then sues for punitive damages" is likely off the mark.

Re:Wait...

[644bd346996]

I understand that you are supposed to put Earl Grey into boiling water (or vice versa) but aren't you supposed to let it steep for at least a minute or two before drinking?

Also, the legal system does not define or affect any epidemic.

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

There comes a point when the outcome becomes basically inevitable from your actions, here gripping a foam cup between your legs and then removing the lid is close enough to deliberately pouring the contents down your pants that it makes no difference. The cup is not designed to be squeezed with no lid, it collapses.

Re:Wait...

[KDR_11k]

The fact remains, they're throwing a controller at their TV. I don't think it requires much brain capacity to notice that the Wii Sports games don't require much force and often will only care about a small part of your motion.

Re:Wait...

[GDwarf]

Not quite, the coffee was hot enough to give third degree burns in well under a second. Unless she could somehow phase out of her clothes the instant the coffee spilt the burn was inevitable. Let me put it this way: When you buy Pizza, you expect it to be hot, but still cool enough to eat, if not right away, then fairly soon, right? So, one day you buy a pizza, open the box, grab a slice, and pull back suddenly, that Pizza is HOT, so hot, in fact, that you get a 3rd degree burn from it. Would you sue the pizza company for your medical expenses? I would, I do expect pizza to be hot, but not hot enough to destroy any flesh that touches it. Better yet, it's revealed that the Pizza at that store is kept 50 degrees hotter then what every other store keeps it at (The coffee at McDonalds was about 50 degrees F hotter then what regulations consider safe.) and then the store offers to only pay you a few hundred dollars to keep you quiet. Do you honestly advocate the position that the woman was conducting a frivolous lawsuit after you stop and actually think about it?

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

You aren't arguing my point, you are arguing a small detail that I explicitly mentioned COULD be wrong in my post.

If an irrelevant detail is so important to you, McDonalds percolates the coffee... A percolator is like a pressure cooker for coffee... so the coffee is being prepared at a temperature higher than the boiling point of water (that is the whole point of a percolator... otherwise you could just drip the coffee). Of course the coffee will not be that temperature at the time you drink it. Maybe the regulations cover the internal temperature of the percolator, or the max temperature includes liquid foods like oils or fats... or maybe I just completly mis-remembered the number.

But worse case scenario, I did not proofread my message enough, and so I made a silly mistake. That doesn't change the fact that 140 F is lukewarm coffee. Maybe I should sue Slashdot, for not explicitly warning me this type of mistake is possible.

Re:Wait...

[LordVader717]

There's not much difference. You try to make coffee as hot as you can get it, and it still won't last for longer than 10 minutes in a cup. If I were to drink the coffee I make myself, I would burn my throat. But the normal way to drink hot beverages, as everyone should know, is to slowly test and sip it before you gulp it down your throat.

Re:Wait...

[Chris Burke]

For all of you out there who are a bit slow, coffee is served HOT.

People always say this like it is obvious, but they must be slow because they don't realize there are gradiations of HOT. Brewing temperature and serving temperature are not the same thing.

I have never, ever seen anyone treat a cup of coffee as though it were capable of causing third-degree burns. They treat it like something which if spilled on them will cause a painful burn but one they can easily recover from without medical attention. Thus, caution, but not overly cautious. Nobody thinks coffee is so hot that if they spill it on themselves it will take skin grafts to repair. If they did, they'd think you were insane if you were walking around with a cup of coffee with no lid.

Just like when you go to a Mexican restaurant, and the server warns you that your plate is HOT. Okay, you've been duly warned. Everyone knows that, right? Now then you touch it, just for a second to move it to a more convenient location, and your fingers turn almost instantly into blackened, charred husks that may one day recover their sense of feeling after a couple years of treatment. So, are you dumb for having touched the plate after being warned? Yeah sure, but you sure as hell didn't expect the result, now did you?

Nobody expects coffee that hot. Nobody who knows what a third degree burn treats coffee like it can cause them. Nobody exercises caution commensurate with the amount of damage this temperature of liquid can cause.

Like with the Wii remote. Is it dumb to let go? Yes. If the controller fucking exploded when it hit the wall and killed your whole family, would that be Nintendo's fault? Yes. It's not just about the stupidity of the user, it's about the expectation of what will be the consequences.

Re:Wait...

[LordVader717]

If someone would serve me 140F coffee, I would either ridicule them, or if I payed for it tell them to fuck off (okay, I haven't said it before, but I would have liked to on occaisons).

I don't want to have "safe" coffee, that I can drink as fast as Water, I wan't hot coffee that I can slowly sip and enjoy.

Re:Wait...

[Chris Burke]

Thus the idea of "negligence" comes in for them not telling you "Hey don't spill that, it will burn you so bad it'll kill your nerve endings (third-degree burn)" when the expectation is at the very most served coffee will give you a first-degree burn if that.

I strongly suspect that not a single person complaining about this lawsuit knows what a third-degree burn is, because I have never seen anyone treat a cup of coffee like it was capable of giving those kinds of burns. Most people are fairly non-chalant about it, because in the event they screw up and spill it on themselves they'll get a minor burn.

Re:Wait...

[Sigma 7]

Personally, I hate knee-jerk replies that defend the fact that the woman was stupid enough to have a cup containing HOT BEVERAGE in an unstable position while in a MOVING VEHICLE.

And which woman are you referring to? It obviously isn't Stella Liebeck since the car was parked at the time.

I'd comment on other aspects of this case (if applicable), but I need to know the person or case in question. Just remember that I received a minor second-degree burn from spilled coffee, which wasn't even mine.

Re:Wait...

[LordVader717]

I don't know if you're trying to be serious or humerous with this comment, but the thing is, what you are describing is physically impossible. If I imagine holding an open kettle with bubbling water in it, that is the absolute maximum temperature anything made up of mostly water will get. I would treat it in a similar way as a cup of hot coffee. As for the other examples, they're pretty obvious too (although exploding batteries are well known). They simply don't pose that much of a threat. It's because of the womans lack of reaction that she suffered the injuries she did.

Re:Wait...

[LordVader717]

Yeah sure, Starbucks uses their "magic recipe" which makes the water turn cold on contact with exothermal human skin. They use the same stuff McDonalds use, water. If you make hot coffee out of water, you can burn yourself very easily.
And you don't have to describe your sensations when you spilled coffee on you, I think most people have had experience with that already.

Re:Wait...

[Chris Burke]

If I imagine holding an open kettle with bubbling water in it, that is the absolute maximum temperature anything made up of mostly water will get. I would treat it in a similar way as a cup of hot coffee.

Most sane humans would wait until the liquid stopped boiling before even attempting to carry the pot.

And if you did have to carry a pot of boiling water, you would not treat it in a similar way to a cup of coffee. You would walk slowly and carefully, taking the utmost care to be sure not to spill because you would know the consequences would, unlike with a normal cup of coffee, be disastrous. If you treat it casually like most people do a cup of cofeee, then you are a fool who is liable to get badly burned. Or if you have a cup of coffee that, unlike most cups of coffee, poses a significant threat of severe burns in which case you'd be caught offguard.

It's because of the womans lack of reaction that she suffered the injuries she did.

Yes she suffered extremely severe injuries because of a lack of reaction, but at the temperature the coffee was served it would have caused third degree burns in five seconds. Can you strip off your pants in five seconds from a seated position in a car? Maybe. Care to find out? I doubt it.

Re:Wait...

[Some_Llama]

and 140F IS hot Coffee, i'd love to see you drink a cup of 180F water, please enlighten us, microwave some water and tempertaure probe it, when the probe says 180F go ahead and take a big sip and post it on Youtube for us to laugh at.. thx.

Re:Wait...

[cfulmer]

What regulation? I'm unaware of any government agency that regulates the temperature at which restaurants can serve coffee. The National Coffee Ass'n of the USA suggests serving coffee at 180-195 degrees.

Exactly how hot do you think this coffee was? You can pour boiling water over your arm and it won't cause 3rd degree burns in well under a second. A person can drink 180 degree coffee 'fairly soon' (within about 5-10 minutes) of being served it, as long as they don't put it into a thermos or anything.

There's an article debunking your view here:

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

You've also obviously never burned the roof of your mouth on a pizza.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, shut the fuck up. Listen to yourself you fucking moron, you make no sense.

Re:Wait...

[GDwarf]

That link has been thrown around quite a bit during this discussion, most people's interpretation: That guy knows nothing about the law.(He doesn't even seem to know what Punitive damages are, which I learnt about in grade 11.) He also seems to have quite a few facts that go against the official record. When was the last time pizza gave you a third-degree burn and sent you to the hospital for two years? If it did, would you sue? I'd assume so, what with you losing all sense of taste for the rest of your life. Actually, I have to ask this: Do you know what a 3rd degree burn is? That means that the skin in the area, all of it, is dead. Please tell me who would want to drink coffee that would burn their tongue so badly that it could never be used again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_degree_burn

Re:Wait...

[terrymr]

Yes. Why worry about making a reasoned argument when you can just insult the other guy instead. Have you considered a career in politics ?

Re:Wait...

[Fafnir43]

You really can't tell the difference between the examples you just gave and the Stella case? That's scary.

Grandparent: I think there's a reasonable expectation that spilled coffee won't cause third-degree burns, requiring third-degree burneight days of hospitalization and two years of treatment.

When you spill a cup of coffee on yourself, your expectation as a logical human being is that you will spend the next few minutes swearing, spend the rest of the day with stained trousers, and spend the rest of the week with a painful red spot on your groin. You therefore treat the cup with some caution, but not too much. You do not believe you are in real danger. If you spill the coffee, you shrug, well aware that you weren't treating it with caution, commence swearing and go on with your life. You do not expect that you will end up with a third-degree burn in five seconds. In case you were unaware of this (and I really think you must be to consider it in any way normal or sane), this is what someone with third-degree burns looks like. I urge you to look. It is not a patch of redness. It will not go away in a few days. No-one in their right mind would believe a cup of coffee could do that to someone.

There is a huge difference between someone making a foolish decision and suffering the consequences they should have expected (redness, irritation, ruined trousers) and someone making a foolish decision and suffering consequences they could not have expected (third-degree burns, skin grafts, medical treatment costing $11,000). Someone who knows they are running the risk of ruined trousers acts very differently to someone who knows they are running the risk of burning their crotch to the point of annihilation. I would cheerfully take a chance on the former (as, I suspect, would you), but never the latter. In other words, Stella was not simply a moron, but a rational person who took a calculated risk and found that the stakes were far, far higher than she had any reason to expect.

If someone takes a risk, and the consequences are not what a reasonable person would expect, and someone is at fault (as MacDonald's was at fault - they'd settled hundreds of cases for burns out of court before, so they knew there was a problem, and the coffee was well over the state-mandated maximum safe temperature), then that someone should pay. Just as if an advertisement informs you that a practice is safe, knowing that it carries a high risk of death, the advertiser is partially at fault if you die due to the practice (e.g. tobacco ads while the health risks of smoking were still under dispute).

Just a note: If MacDonald's had placed warning labels on the cups saying "WARNING: COFFEE MAY CAUSE THIRD-DEGREE BURNS", I would be siding with you. Unfortunately, they said "WARNING: COFFEE IS HOT" or words to that effect, which is simply an obvious truism - not a warning of some abnormal danger. Now, your examples of frivolous lawsuits and why I would be against them:

I think there's a reasonable expectation that car manufacturers should put coffee holders in convenient locations so that I don't decide to place hot coffee between my legs. Blame Ford.

Wrong! If Ford places the coffee holder in an inconvenient location, it's your fault if you decide not to use it. You were under no false impressions as to the risks you were taking - you knew damn well that you might spill the coffee over yourself. Ford just makes shoddy cars. They might be partially to blame if, for example, the coffee holder snapped and poured coffee all over you.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that a cigarette lighter will not set fire to my hair which hangs in my face as I light my cigarette. Blame Bic.

Now that's just bullshit. As you yourself indicate, any reasonable person would think there was a high probability of your hair catching fire. Not the case with the coffee.

Re:Wait...

[Breakfast Pants]

That is completely not true. Anywhere that makes coffee does so with boiling water. There is this thing called 'the boiling temperature of water'. McDonalds could not go hotter than boiling temperature without an elaborate pressure device. The coffee is then cooled to around 180 degrees F. But your argument was that they got more for their buck from the grounds by preparing it with hotter water than everyone else; that just plain isn't true. Show me one fast food restaurant that doesn't use a coffee maker which heats it's water up to boiling temperature during the brewing process.

Re:Wait...

[turnipsatemybaby]

Hell yeah I would! Of course, I'm aiming to get sex reassignment surgery one day, so perhaps I'm biased...

Re:Wait...

[Breakfast Pants]

Then why doesn't the court have to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden of proof when punitive damages are in the mix, rather than the much less stringent, 'preponderance of evidence'?

Re:Wait...

[turnipsatemybaby]

I just wanted to make a quick observation. You can't compare something like ambient air temperature to pouring a liquid of even the same temperature onto yourself. The areas you describe are deserts, and so, have next to no humidity. This gives your body all the opportunity it needs to protect itself from the heat and maintain homeostasis. For eg: sweating like mad. Additionally, your body would have time to adjust to this temperature over time, for no other reason than the steady increase in temperature during travel. As long as you had plenty of water to keep hydrated and you had shade, you could survive well enough in such conditions, although it would be pretty uncomfortable. Dropping a hot liquid on your skin is a concentrated blast of heat on a small area, with no chance for your body to adjust and purge the heat. Not that I'm discounting the main point of your argument, which I fully agree with. I just felt like being anal retentive.

Re:Wait...

[Epistax]

No, I think it's a simple case of people thinking that the severity of an action determines guilt. It doesn't. This argument is the same as if it caused 1st degree burns, just the money amount is adjusted to reflect it. Blame is blame. How much is irrelevant until after guilt has been determined. Too bad it doesn't work this way and you can use emotions to sway courts.

Re:Wait...

[Psychotic_Wrath]

"Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?".... Is there even a point in asking that question?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

almost everyone who's an avid coffee drinker (such as myself) has spilled hot coffee on themselves at some point in their lives

I'm an avid coffee drinker. I've spilled coffee on my hands by putting down mugs too fast etc. No matter how hot the coffee, you don't get scalded because it's such a small splash it hasn't got the energy to.

I have never spilled coffee on my crotch. There's a good reason for that, and it's because I can see how stupid trying to drive while holding a paper cup of coffee between my legs is! The reason the law suit was frivolous is nothing to do with how hot the coffee was, but entirely down to the woman being STUPID!

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

> it is the generalization and abiguities to your thinking that lead to the flaws on your conclusions
> Nothing in this world is certain, and until that is understood and accepted, peace will never occur.

Ah! So the uncertainties in your spelling and grammar are an attempt at bringing peace to the world? They should give Slashdot the Nobel Peace Prize, then!

Re:Wait...

[cfulmer]

O'Melveny & Myers (the law firm where that author used to practice as an attorney) will be interested to hear that he knows nothing about the law.

The woman's burns were caused mainly by prolonged contact to the coffee, not by the inherent temperature of the coffee. I regularly buy coffee which could severely burn me if I let it sit on sensitive tissue and get into my vagina (if I had one). If you've ever bought coffee at Starbucks, you have too. We just both have the good sense to be careful with it.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone find a link or resource to this story about a woman suing her employer for forcing her to work with black people as she claimed racism was a medical disability? I have never heard of this and I can't get google to cough up anything either.

Thanks

Re:Wait...

[Chibi Merrow]

Please tell me who would want to drink coffee that would burn their tongue so badly that it could never be used again.

Well, personally, I wouldn't drink coffee that hot. That's why I either 1) let it oool or 2) mix cold milk into it. Like a sensible person. And when I spill coffee on my hand (which I often do ascending/descending stairs) I don't blame the barista for serving it to me so hot. I'm happy that it's that hot so that when I get back to my office it's still warm. At no point do I put it near anything I value (such as my laptop or genitals [not necessarily in that order]) that could be sensitive to its heat and/or wetness. Carrying hot coffee in between one's legs does not deserve $630k. It deserves the expected result of removing one's self from the breeding population. Unfortunately, being 79, we were probably too late...

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she dropped it on herself? 180 degree coffee will cause 3rd degree burns. 180 degress [ncausa.org] is the recommended serving temperature of coffee.

So, combining these two, we get that getting 3rd degree burns down your throat is recommended.

Are coffee-people insane, or just suicidal?

Re:Wait...

[rtechie]

Yes she suffered extremely severe injuries because of a lack of reaction, but at the temperature the coffee was served it would have caused third degree burns in five seconds. Can you strip off your pants in five seconds from a seated position in a car? Maybe. Care to find out? I doubt it.

I take it you've never had sex in a car? :-)

But to be more serious: Yes, you can easily strip off a pair of SWEAT PANTS (which is what she was wearing) pretty quickly. The temperature of the hot coffee, plus the absorbency of he pants (she wouldn't have been burned as bad if she'd been wearing jeans), plus her slow reactions caused the incident. The McDonald's Corporation are evil fucks, but they're clearly in the right here. And under no stretch of the imagination did she deserve millions in compensation.

And I'm speaking from experience here. Almost EXACTLY the same thing happed to me as happened to this woman (I was in the passenger seat too) and I did get slightly burned, but it was clearly MY fault (more my mother's fault, it was her coffee) as I took the lid off while the car was in motion and it sloshed coffee all over me.

Someone else mentioned those "hot plates" you sometimes get it resturants, like the skittles you get in Mexican resqurants with hot fajitas or whatever. Should the resturants stop doing this because some idiot might try to handle the hit plate or skillet?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is little or no reason to actually serve it at that temperature

When you mix with creme or milk, the coffee comes down to a very reasonable temperature. Just hot enough to sip, but not too hot to scald. I certainly enjoy my coffee this way.

Re:Wait...

[LordVader717]

I don't want to take "big sips" I want to take small, slow sips if I just got it. I have to blow it to cool it if it's too hot.
I don't want to be treated like a baby who expects everything they touch to be absolutely danger-free. If I were to order a hot coffee and burn my tongue because I was too dumb to drink it like a hot drink shoul be drank, that would be my own stupid fault.

Re:Wait...

[tmasman]

Have you ever poured coffee on yourself straight out of your own coffee pot? It's Hot enough to burn you!

When you get older, your skin can tend to get more sensitive...
The reason this country (USA) is so freaking stupid, is because lawyers are protecting everyone's right to be as stupid as they want to be.

"If I hurt myself or anything I own, I'll just sue the company that made the product that I misused/abused/dropped/spilled/broke/choked on/got stuck in my rectum. It's not like it could actually be my fault!"

Re:Wait...

[Chris Burke]

But to be more serious: Yes, you can easily strip off a pair of SWEAT PANTS (which is what she was wearing) pretty quickly.

Maybe when you're in you're seventies and in searing pain you might find it more difficult. And I was using the high end of the two to five second threshold at which liquid at that temperature causes 3rd degree burns.

The McDonald's Corporation are evil fucks, but they're clearly in the right here.

Why? Because the lady was too slow, even though she would have still suffered third degree burns from coffee servered dangerously hot?

Almost EXACTLY the same thing happed to me as happened to this woman (I was in the passenger seat too) and I did get slightly burned

SLIGHTLY burned means the coffee was served at the temperature any normal, reasonable human expects -- hot enough to burn you, but not hot enough to hospitalize you if you don't have cat-like reflexes. If the coffee had been at 180 degrees like the McDonald's coffee, then you would have probably been SEVERELY burned, maybe not enough to require skin grafts but definitely enough to have huge painfull blisters all over the affected area -- a mere second degree burn, which would have occured almost instantly.

That's the whole point. People make mistakes, but a dangerous product is one where the consequence of common mistakes like the exact same one you made yourself are not ridiculously out of proportion with what one would expect.

See -- you made the exact same mistake, and because the coffee was normal temperature, you were okay. Reaction time plays into it, but clearly McDonald's is in the wrong for serving coffee that hot! You'd be another one of the hundreds of complainants if you'd had coffee that hot! I can't imagine how you can side with McDonald's here, since you can't even call here uniquely clumsy!


Someone else mentioned those "hot plates" you sometimes get it resturants, like the skittles you get in Mexican resqurants with hot fajitas or whatever. Should the resturants stop doing this because some idiot might try to handle the hit plate or skillet?

That was me, and if the plate was so hot that it turned your fingers into blackened charcoal in seconds then FUCK YES the restaurant should stop serving plates that hot!

There are gradiations of "hot", and more importantly there are expectations of "hot". A sizzling fajita plate is expected to be very hot. A normal ceramic enchilada plate should be hot enough to cause a 1st degree burn if you held your hand against it, and if it was any hotter this would again be a case of the restaurant serving a dangerously hot item. Coffee, same thing. You expect it to be hot enough to cause minor burns, not severe burns. Serving it hotter than that is negligent regardless of whether or not the person handling the coffee screwed up.

It's like excusing the Ford Pinto because, well, you just shouldn't get in an accident!

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The coffee itself did not cause immediate 3rd degree burns -- that came from prolonged contact because the coffee was absorbed into her clothes."

@ 185 degrees it would take approx. 3 or 4 seconds to cause 3rd degree burns. Obviously it was her fault for not taking off all her clothing in 3 or 4 seconds.

Re:Wait...

[kid_oliva]

I for one have to object to all this stereotyping going on. I am an American and am not stupid. I own a Wii and the strap is still functioning fine. In fact I bought my Wii on opening day. (and no I didn't wait overnight at some store, I only waited three hours for one) I don't drink McDonald's coffee because I don't go to McDonald's. (I'm some what of a coffee snob and usually grind the beans myself to ensure the freshness.)

As usual it only takes a couple of morons to ruin it for everybody else. This is common in the world today. You have a small group of people claiming to be Muslim and committing acts of terrorism. People start thinking anyone of Arab descent is evil or a sympathizer. There is a gas station owned by a couple of guys from Iran. They are great guys, we play poker every once in awhile. People started boycotting their gas station just because they were from Iran around 9/11. I told a couple people off because I bought my gas from there and they in not so many words, eluded that I wasn't American. I called them bigots and asked them when their ancestors came over to this land.

This problem is not unique to America. France started deporting people of Arab descent because of the riots that happened earlier this year. They are deporting all of them, even those that had nothing to do with the riots, which was a majority of the people. You have genocide happening in the Sudan. Nepal has finally ended it's Civil War. China has suppressed many people groups including Tibetans and Mongolians. It all happens because we focus on our slight differences instead of embracing our humanity and celebrating our uniqueness.

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

I believe I read it in this book:

http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetai ls&method=cats&scid=33&pid=1441226

Re:Wait...

[Kattspya]

When I was five I dropped literally boiling water on my foot as I took the pot of the stove. I had woolen socks on but naturally removed them as fast as I could. Total exposure time must've been 3-5 seconds. I got a nice 2nd degree burn.

If non-boiling coffe is spilled in my crotch I guarantee you it will have no time to cause 3rd degree burns unless the person is a fucking retard or a paraplegic.

Re:Wait...

[Some_Llama]

"If I were to order a hot coffee and burn my tongue because I was too dumb to drink it like a hot drink shoul be drank, that would be my own stupid fault."

So everyone should be put in peril because you want to risk your own welfare.. sounds reasonable.

Re:Wait...

[thebdj]

Now, I will have some fun of my own...

No, one actually used my front lawn the other day
Environmentalist Reponse: "If people were not encroaching on the natural habits that have belonged to these creatures for millenia, then the bear would not be shitting on your front lawn and would instead be shitting in the woods."
My Response: "Hey, at least you got free fertilizer!"

nope, and neither was Jesus, so get over it.
Catholic Response: "The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, a ordained Catholic Priest, and former Cardinal of the Catholic Church. A church that was founded as one of the earliest, if not the first, Christian church based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."
My Response: "The Pope is Catholic, he wears a funny hat and leads the Catholic Church, that is enough for me. As for Jesus, he was a Jew and quite possibly a Buddhist. Look at the teachings of Jesus and compare them to Buddha. Trust me, he didn't lose 20 yrs of his life, he had to be somewhere during that great missing span of life that isn't talked about in the bible.

yes, the one clear answer is you are thinking in your own small little world, it is the generalization and abiguities to your thinking that lead to the flaws on your conclusions.

Yes, my little world is one full of cynicism and humor. One in which you obviously have never been. They were damn jokes, and thankfully the moderators had more common sense then you did.

Nothing in this world is certain, and until that is understood and accepted, peace will never occur.

That statement is so untrue. There are many things in this world that are certain. I am certain that we will all die, despite how much we try to delay the inevitable. This notion that this has to be understood and accepted for peace to occur is as absurd as people saying I cannot develop a moral base without a religious context. Understanding and acceptance of others beliefs is important, but the idea that it is a necessity for peace is just stupid. There are plenty of places where people live in relative peace without having any understanding or acceptance of others. Just because you do not understand or do not accept a group of people does not mean you have to be violent to that group of people, and just because you are not violent and not hateful towards a group of people does not mean you understand or accept them. (Damn, I am bordering on a logical fallacy there.)

Re:Wait...

[julesh]

When you mix with creme or milk, the coffee comes down to a very reasonable temperature.

Would it really hurt for a member of staff to do this, rather than leaving it to the customer?

Re:Wait...

[GDwarf]

O'Melveny & Myers (the law firm where that author used to practice as an attorney) will be interested to hear that he knows nothing about the law. They might be interested to know that he doesn't see a problem with lying about what laws mean then, since he is quite clearly wrong on several points. Prolonged contact? My first numbers, I admit, were off. However, it takes less then two seconds at the temperature that coffee was. Chibi Merrow said: Well, personally, I wouldn't drink coffee that hot. That's why I either 1) let it oool or 2) mix cold milk into it. Like a sensible person. And when I spill coffee on my hand (which I often do ascending/descending stairs) I don't blame the barista for serving it to me so hot. I'm happy that it's that hot so that when I get back to my office it's still warm. At no point do I put it near anything I value (such as my laptop or genitals [not necessarily in that order]) that could be sensitive to its heat and/or wetness. Carrying hot coffee in between one's legs does not deserve $630k. It deserves the expected result of removing one's self from the breeding population. Unfortunately, being 79, we were probably too late... -- -Merrow Had you spilt it on yourself while going downstairs you'd be in hospital right now, since I doubt you could: Realise what had happened, figure out what to do, then strip in anything less then 5 seconds. Yet you'd have no issue with the resulting hospitalization? None at all? You'd accept that it's perfectly fine for something to be sold at a temperature that causes permanent, irreversible, and potentially deadly (Certainly very disabling) injuries after brief contact, because some customers might possibly like it that hot?

Re:Wait...

[SeaCrazy]

Gaaaawd! not again...
And people moderated this insightful?
The MCD-hot coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants) _is_ the quintessential frivolous product liability suit.

What's really old is that people (even some law professors) are still falling for the myth that that case had merit.
Please stop defending it; Litigation Lawyers have their own lobbyist organization (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) that is obviously already doing a great job in defending the verdict in that case.

Re:Wait...

[mindstormpt]

Real coffee is coffee with water instead of water with coffee.

Now, you might not drink it that hot, but it is served straight from the machine, so it's quite hot. You have a choice of drinking it or letting it cool, as you probably have with something straight out of a frying pan. In fact, you could probably burn yourself on a fried egg too. Also, for a better example, if you ask for a tea I hope they'll bring it with just boiled water and if they don't, you should try going to another place.

It was a stupid case, one more on a stupid legal system. There's no excuse.

Re:Wait...

[rtechie]

Maybe when you're in you're seventies and in searing pain you might find it more difficult.

Or maybe she was overly concerned with modesty to the point that she let herself get severely burned?

And I was using the high end of the two to five second threshold at which liquid at that temperature causes 3rd degree burns.

I call bullshit on this. I've had parts of my body IMMERSED in boiling water for longer than 5 seconds and I did not recieve 3rd-degree burns. 2nd-degree only, and no skin loss. So I am utterly convinced that her exposure was considerably longer.

That's the whole point. People make mistakes, but a dangerous product is one where the consequence of common mistakes like the exact same one you made yourself are not ridiculously out of proportion with what one would expect.

Virtually every product on the market has the potential to cause severe harm or death if used improperly. In my case I was sitting in the passenger side, and the driver took the cup of coffee, took the lid off and took a sip, then handed me the hot coffee cup, and then accelerated which caused the hot coffee to slosh all over me. I think would would be insane to blame the McDonald's Corporation for this incident. By your logic I would have grounds to sue for my minor injuries.

How about the recognition that this was a freak accident? Out of BILLIONS of cups served, millions presumably to elderly women, this is the only person who somehow managed to severely burn themselves. I more inclined to believe that this case was exceptional rather than McDonald's coffee cups being ticking time bombs.

It's like excusing the Ford Pinto because, well, you just shouldn't get in an accident!

The Ford Pinto case was probably BS too. Statistically, the Ford Pinto didn't really have more fires than other corparable vehicles. But the key difference is that that the Pinto lacked critical safety features common to cars of that era, so at least in terms of design the car was exceptionally unsafe. This is not the case with McDonald's coffee, though some have argued this.

making the wii-mote leave the persons hand?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how the wrist strap breaking has anything to do with making the wii-mote leave the persons hand. If the person threw it and the strap broke because of that then it is user fault.

Re:making the wii-mote leave the persons hand?

[spun]

Dude, in LawyerLand the very fact that it HAS a strap is an admission that it may involuntarily fly out fo your hand through no fault of your own. If it had no strap, it would arguably be much more likely to leave your hand and cause injury or damage, but the company would probably be LESS liable.

Isn't law fun?

This Litigious Society

[CerebusUS]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

The owner's manual pretty clearly states not to let go of the thing.

I hope this lawsuit fails.

Re:This Litigious Society

[Anonymous Coward]

"the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand"

I would think that the remote leaving the user's had would cause the strap to break. Maybe thats the problem. The straps are propelling the wiimotes!

Re:This Litigious Society

[dolphinling]

There can be only one logical reason for this: The straps are filled with explosives!

BOOM!

Re:This Litigious Society

[IgLou]

No doubt, sounds like the strap is in fact mal-adjusted and possibly sociopathic. If had a breakdown and made someone leave someone elses hands then I'd at least be a very angry person.

Ok, maybe I humanize inanimate objects too much.

Serious note, it would be interesting to read how the claim is worded and what it claims. Until that comes there really is only speculation. If you buy something and it breaks early in it's usage and the company is willing to fix it you should be happy. There's probably way more to this, I'm curious if it will be baseless or not.

Re:This Litigious Society

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I hope the lawsuit fails AND the instigators of the suit are forced to pay Nintendo's court costs.

I don't have my Wii yet (getting it on Friday), but I did play one on the weekend at a friend's house (with the original strap).

He's ordered the newer straps, so we did some stress-testing on the old ones. We flailed the remotes around pretty good (at the couch)...I can't see how these things are breaking so "easily"

Personally, I call BS...I think a LOT of the people claiming problems with the remotes are lying in an attempt to get some cash out of nintendo....

Re:This Litigious Society

[barefoothannibal]

I wonder what most /.er's would have to say if they saw that these same "scumbag lawyers" support causes they believe in.
From the Green Welling LLP website :

"Sony DRM - Green Welling is investigating Sony BMG over its latest copy-protection scheme. It is alleged that copy-protected Sony BMG audio CDs released after January 1, 2005 contain unlawful, unauthorized and potentially damaging software that is not disclosed to the consumer when the disc is inserted in a Microsoft Windows-based personal computer. Furthermore, the software can not be un-installed or removed by the end user without considerable time, expense and expertise."

many would say "Good for them, this is an example of Lawyers holding an evil company responsible for screwing people over!"

Re:This Litigious Society

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that perhaps someone is playing without the strap, putting a remote through a tv, then breaking the strap as to reduce punishment.

"But mom!! The strap broke, honest!!"

Re:This Litigious Society

[Moofie]

Golly, I wonder if it's possible to have one opinion of one action taken by a person, and another opinion of another action taken by the person.

Furthermore, I wonder if it's possible for (ok, hold on tight now) different /. readers to have different opinions on different actions taken by different people?

That may be a lot to absorb, but if you sit down and take deep breaths, I bet you can do it.

So people (americans) are stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should bring a lawsuit against themselves for tainting the gene pool.

Hey Rocky!

[AnswerIs42]

What Bullwinkle?
Watch me pull a lawsuit out of my a**!

This will most likely get swept under the rug and forgotten.

Re:Hey Rocky!

[DuckWizard]

But that trick never works!

Oh. Wait.

Re:Hey Rocky!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Again?" :-)

Wow...

[Kirin Fenrir]

You've got to be kidding me. Are the plantiffs wii'tarded or something?

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

possibly, but your joke sure is wii-ly bad...

This can only happen in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo, why do you hate america?

Web Site of Lawyers

[MyLongNickName]

Want to share your thoughts on the validity of this suit? Click here

Re:Web Site of Lawyers

[MyLongNickName]

Or better yet: Sign up for the class action contact list. Who can come up with the most creative name?

Re:Web Site of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, call 1-800-843-9053 (State bar of California) and lodge a complaint.

Re:Web Site of Lawyers

[FormulaTroll]

Good deal. I posted a complaint. What happens when a very large portion of the "class" doesn't want to participate in the lawsuit?

Re:Web Site of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I also posted a comment...

Please provide us with the name of company that you are complaining about:

Green Welling LLP

Please describe your situation or problem:

I have an issue with the current legal environment, the one that allows you to file frivolous lawsuits on the behalf of moronic "clients" who are unable to read the instruction manual correctly and cause damage to themselves or their property.

Nintendo has already announced a free replacement for anyone who currently owns a Wii that does not have the upgraded wrist strap. Instead of allowing them to correct an issue, one brought on by people wildly flinging their Wiimotes in a manner they were never designed to withstand, you feel the need to exploit Nintendo for your own personal gain.

Legal groups like yours are a cancer in the heart and mind of America. You exploit the technological naivete of judges and juries around this country to exploit profitable companies to line your own pockets.

Remember this, aside from those few who have profited from your shameless exploitation, you and your ilk are despised by a large majority of this country.

Never will it be said that this country was built on the sacrifices of it's lawyers. Instead it will be said that while it was built by the sacrifices of the brave and proud who truly love this country, it was brought to it's knees by the exploitations of the few who place personal gain over the good of the people.

Please provide us with the search terms you used to find our Web site:

Scumbag, explotive lawers.

Re:Web Site of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

No economy ever sued itself into prosperity. Look at the suits this firm brings: product liability, corporate governance, consumer protection. Look at the defendants: large, profitable companies. This guy is just a leech on someone else's success. Companies just pay a settlement to make people like this go away and write it off as the cost of doing business. He gets his millions, and deludes himself into thinking he's making the world a better place.

But this kind of parasitical legal action generally stifles innovation. I remember James Dyson saying his biggest impediment to product development was engineering it against all the dumb things people could do with it and then sue him for. Because of greedy lawyers, many good and useful products are painfully late to market, if they get there at all, and cost more than they need to. If this guy only knew or cared how many good things he and his slimy colleagues were keeping out of consumers' hands...

Sadly, the participants in a class almost never see any significant relief from the suit. After the settlement they'll each get some inconsequential pittance from Nintendo, probably a voucher for a free game or a discount on future purchases. The lawyer banks the real settlement. Lawyers like this are the glue in the gears of modern commerce. They climb on the backs of honest hardworking people to steal from other honest hardworking people.

Re:Web Site of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

From linked page:
The class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nintendo from continuing its unfair or deceptive business practices as it relates to the Nintendo Wii.The lawsuit also seeks an injunction that requires Nintendo to correct the defect in the Wii remote and to provide a refund to the purchaser or to replace the defective Wii remote with a Wii remote that functions as it is warranted and intended.

Don't they do that already...?

Ridiculous

[Grym]

No where in the instructions does it say that you should ever let go of the remote. Honestly, if you can't hold onto the thing, maybe you should practice a little more self-restraint and control.

What's next? Does Nintendo have to include a helmet for the possibility that someone might hit themselves in the head?

-Grym

Re:Ridiculous

[Ambitwistor]

No where in the instructions does it say that you should ever let go of the remote. Honestly, if you can't hold onto the thing, maybe you should practice a little more self-restraint and control. True, but the fact that Nintendo saw fit to include a wrist strap in the first place could be legally construed as a tacit acknowledgment on Nintendo's part that the remote can slip from one's grasp during reasonable use. If their lawyers try the "Duh, if you can't hold onto it you shouldn't be using it" defense, the prosecution will respond with "So what's the wrist strap for, then?"

Re:Ridiculous

[HTH NE1]

No where in the instructions does it say that you should ever let go of the remote.

Then clearly the remote should have come with a tube of super-glue.

Re:Ridiculous

[ravenshrike]

So you dont have to put down the remote when you reach for your drink.

Re:Ridiculous

[eriklou]

Or you can play 4 player games all by your self.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next? Does Nintendo have to include a helmet for the possibility that someone might hit themselves in the head?

That's stupid. You don't hit yourself in a swordfighting game, you hit your brother's head.

Re:Ridiculous

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

What's next? Does Nintendo have to include a helmet for the possibility that someone might hit themselves in the head?

Hell yeah.

Ok so let me sum up

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

A bunch of hyperactive excited morons with too much muscle break their TV, punch their friends in the face or cut themselves with the Wii remote, and they sue Nintendo, because naturally, Nintendo should be blamed for not making hardware solid enough for hyperactive excited morons?

I'm sorry, but I'm tried a friend's Wii and there's no way I would have dropped or launched the remote across the window, simply because I realize it's only an electronic game, and it doesn't cross my mind to treat a delicate piece of electronic like a jokari paddle. Talk about a lawyer-happy nation... Either that or they're trying to make a cheap buck off of Nintendo's back. Either way, I hope the morons lose.

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[silentounce]

"A bunch of hyperactive excited morons with too much muscle break their TV, punch their friends in the face or cut themselves with the Wii remote, and they sue Nintendo, because naturally, Nintendo should be blamed for not making hardware solid enough for hyperactive excited morons?"

IANAL, but can't lawyers start a class action suit on behalf of people without even being asked to so by said people? It's not the Wii users, it's the lawyers.

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[bockelboy]

I've tried a friend's Wii and there's no way I would have dropped or launched the remote across the window

You forgot a step: Drink 10 beers, *then* start playing the Wii. See if you can break something then.

Most (but not all, of course) of the incidents involving breaking stuff also involve plenty of alcohol

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

You forgot a step: Drink 10 beers, *then* start playing the Wii. See if you can break something then. Most (but not all, of course) of the incidents involving breaking stuff also involve plenty of alcohol

Yes, but then you can break your TV with a SNES gamepad as well, and I don't recall Nintendo ever being sued over that. Why would the Wii gamepad being wireless absolve people from taking responsability for their own stupidity?

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[rkanodia]

Interestingly enough, it's not the Wiimotes that are delicate. If you'll notice, all of the various OMG IT IS TEH BROKE complaints involve things like $3000 plasma screens. The remotes themselves are fine.

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. You need at least a couple of "seed" complaints from actual "victims".

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[everphilski]

Because the critical difference here is that the Wii controller involves gameplay motions that require a motion towards the TV... like bowling and pitching. The SNES gamepad did not require controller motion. Not that I agree with the lawsuit...

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[bockelboy]

Because the Wii has such a sexy name?

Beats the hell outta me.

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[rlp]

IANAL, but I did notice that the complaint included a statement regarding a Mr. Chewbacca.

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[CerebusUS]

IANAL, but I did notice that the complaint included a statement regarding a Mr. Chewbacca.

"Let the Wookie win?"

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[HorsePunchKid]

I'm sorry, but I'm tried a friend's Wii and there's no way I would have dropped or launched the remote across the window... I guess we know what kind of Wii-gamer you are... ;)

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[collectivescott]

Too bad the wiimote isn't protected from damage when you drink like your brain is.

Welcome To America

[HadesX]

Sigh, who didn't see this coming, knew it would only be a matter of time.

ONLY IN AMERICA

Re:Welcome To America

[RexRhino]

ONLY IN AMERICA

Unfortunatly, it is happening everywhere in the Western world... It is just that the U.S. is at the bleeding edge of tort law stupidity. But insane law suits like this are becoming common everywhere that is wealthy enough to support an entire class of people who survive by suing other people.

What do Nintendo have to do?

[xwizbt]

But haven't Nintendo already offered to replace the straps in question? What case is there to answer? Claims for damages should surely be dealt with via Nintendo rather than unnecessary court action?

Oh, wait - that's silly. D'uh... more lawsuits, please!

Re:What do Nintendo have to do?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

That would make perfect sense in LogicLand. But this is America and if people dealt directly with Nintendo then the lawyers wouldn't make a dime. Won't somebody please think of the poor starving lawyers?

Re:What do Nintendo have to do?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Won't somebody please think of the poor starving lawyers?

Now that's a happy thought to cheer me up on my journey home from work!

Re:What do Nintendo have to do?

[dank zappingly]

Actually in logicland many people would argue that manufacturers should be held liable for damages caused by defective products even if they issue a recall. Let us say for example, that I manufacture a product that gives everyone cancer. Should I be able to issue a product recall and tell those people that their injuries no longer matter? A recall does not insulate the manufacturer from liability for previous damages. Sure there are plenty other arguments that nintendo can make to defend this lawsuit, but this is not one of them because it doesn't make any sense.

Re:What do Nintendo have to do?

[TheShadowzero]

If your product causes Cancer to people who use it without reading the instruction manual, or not as intended (for example, sniffing gasoline can cause Cancer. Can we sue the gas companies?) then yes, forget them.

Media Insanity

[gregtron]

I love it when the media's snowballing of an asinine non-point turns into greedy idiots. Everyone involved in the suit should be made to give their Wiis up.

Re:Media Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone involved in the suit should be made to give their Wiis up." I just hope you're referring to their Nintendo Wiis.

Ummm...No

[Anonymous Coward]

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand

I believe that would be the other way around. Nintendo can't control users throwing the wiimote with enough force to break a strap designed to keep you from inadvertently dropping the thing.

Re:Ummm...No

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Nintendo can't control users throwing the wiimote with enough force to break a strap designed to keep you from inadvertently dropping the thing.

Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?

Re:Ummm...No

[Jarjarthejedi]

"Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?"

Have you ever fake-thrown something? Like, make it look like you're going to throw something at someone but stop at the last second? I think pretty much every kid has done that at least once, it's the same situation.

Frankly if you don't have the capability to hold onto something while pretending to throw it you really shouldn't be buying the Wii, it's not like it's a particularly hard skill to develop or anything.

And how hard is it to hold onto a remote anyways? If the Wiimote was small or excessively large I could understand how people could have a bad grip, but most everyone can grip a remote and have little chance of dropping it. The problem is people who think the strap is going to stop the wiimote, if the strap wasn't there there'd probably be less incidents because people would be more careful.

That's the problem in this modern age, if you make something to increase safety people take it to be something that will make them safe no matter what they do and then act like morons.

Re:Ummm...No

[ivan256]

Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?

I'd be amazed.

More likely it didn't slip, but people let go. It's just not slippery, even when your hands are all sweaty.

I don't see how anybody can argue that it is Nintendo's fault that somebody let go of their controller. It is completely unreasonable that we should be able to require companies to produce products that are unable to do damage to any other object if you aren't careful with them. We'd have to make everything out of foam-rubber.

Re:Ummm...No

[SnowZero]

So, if you are at a bowling alley, and on your backswing you let go of a bowling ball and hit someone with it, should you sue the bowling ball manufacturer? If you pitch a baseball, and let go of the ball early and break a window, should you sue the baseball manufacturer? No, you shouldn't, because in normal sports there is an expectation that you hold on to the ball until the proper time. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to hold on to a Wii controller?

Having actually played WiiSports, it states in the directions that extreme motions aren't necessary. You do not need to swing the remote anywhere near what some people are doing, as it offers zero benefit in the game; The controller saturates at a much lower speed. It's like breaking off the analog stick on a gamepad because you were "trying to go faster".

Re:Ummm...No

[Tom]

Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying? Don't know about them, but I am, yes. I've played bowling, tennis and baseball for a couple hours each and I have no idea how you could let go of the Wiimote. Never happened neither to me nor any of the other players. You'd have to be very careless to do it. You know, like in dropping your notebook because you only gripped it with one sweaty hand by the very edge and then suing the manufacturer for a replacement...

Re:Ummm...No

[dank zappingly]

A more parallel analogy would be if the bowling ball had a protective strap on it to keep it from flying away on your backswing and it broke, at which point you could very easily sue the bowling ball manufacturer.

Re:Ummm...No

[LordKronos]

Those aren't the best examples, because at some point you ARE expected to let go of a bowling ball or baseball.

A better, much more accurate comparison would be a ping pong (table tennis) paddle. It's very similar to a Wiimote in size/weight, how you hold it, how you flail it around as part of normal usage, that it's used in your home, and in the amount of damage that it can cause. Of course, many of those have grip tape wrapped around the handle, but certainly not all of them. And almost none of them that I've seen have any sort of wrist strap.

So, I wonder if a manufacturer has ever been sued over one of those? Wait....oh crap. I probably just gave a lawyer somewhere an idea.

Re:Ummm...No

[Thraxen]

Good point. Can I sue someone is the grip isn't "good enough" on a ping pong paddle? What about a golf club? Seems like the same argument to me... the strap is meant to protect against against accidental drops the same as the grip tape on itmes like ping pong paddles are mean to protect against the same thing. In neither case is it normal usage to let go during use.

Re:Ummm...No

[kpang]

No, I don't think you could sue the bowling ball manufacturer for that unless letting go of the bowling ball on your backswing was part of the game. How does adding a safety feature to an item that doesn't need one open a company up to lawsuits?

Re:Ummm...No

[91degrees]

Don't know about them, but I am, yes. I've played bowling, tennis and baseball for a couple hours each and I have no idea how you could let go of the Wiimote.

Maybe these people are baseball players, and their instinct when pitching is to let go of the ball.

Re:Ummm...No

[collectivescott]

The remote slipped out of my hand a few times the first time I played. No big deal, the strap saved it. Sweaty hands will do it.

I also watched a friend who had been drinking punch a chair with some force. Too funny. However, neither she or I would put the responsibility on Nintendo for our mistakes.

I think the problem with grip is, the more rubbery the controller is, the more likely it is to blister your hands. So there is no easy fix, its just a tradeoff.

Re:Ummm...No

[fredmosby]

Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?

So how long until they sue companies for making baseball bats that can slip out of peoples hands?

Re:Ummm...No

[Falkentyne]

I have to agree on this - I've played Wii Sports, Rayman Raving Rabbids, the Monkey Ball game, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Zelda, and Rampage so far. I've never once gotten close to throwing the remote (except when I was drunk and getting pissed at the damn pig race in rayman lol) but that was me wanting to throw it at the tv on purpose. Rayman gets me working up a sweat on some of the mini games - it's like doing a drum solo on some of them and I'm sure I didn't have to work that hard though. Anyways - besides me wanting to throw the remote out of frustration and my g/f hitting the wall (behind her while she was holding the remote) there's been no chance of the remote slipping out of my hand and definately no straps breaking. There was a video on youtube where some guy was playing tennis or something and threw the remote onto the ground on a downswing - he was waving it way too hard and looked like a complete tard. Personally I think it was staged - why the hell were they recording him playing the wii right when he broke the remote? Kinda lame imo.

Re:Ummm...No

[VJ42]

How does adding a safety feature to an item that doesn't need one open a company up to lawsuits? Because we need to think of the lawyers, the poor, starving lawyers who have nothing better to do?

Re:Ummm...No

[slackmaster2000]

If you add a safety feature to prevent a hazard, even if 9 out of 10 slashdotters think that the hazard is ridiculous, and the safety feature fails, exposing the user to the hazard that the safety feature was supposed to protect against, then you assume some amount of liability unless the user was using the device in an unsuitable manner.

Wow, that was my best sentence ever! Four commas, three lines, damn.

If you don't add a safety feature to prevent against a potential hazard, and the hazard itself is "obvious", like releasing a bowling ball on the backswing, then in no way could you be considered liable for an accident of this nature.

To conclude my essay: if you include a feature and the feature doesn't work, it's your fault when the user finds out that the feature doesn't work.

That said, it looks so far like this lawsuit is pretty silly and that the users were abusing the controllers.

Re:Ummm...No

[kpang]

then you assume some amount of liability unless the user was using the device in an unsuitable manner.

Don't you think letting go of the controller counts as "using the device in an unsuitable manner"? To use someone else's example, if you swing a ping pong paddle and let go of it during your swing and it breaks your tv, do you get to sue the ping pong paddle manufacturer?

If you don't add a safety feature to prevent against a potential hazard, and the hazard itself is "obvious", like releasing a bowling ball on the backswing, then in no way could you be considered liable for an accident of this nature.

Personally, I think the hazard here is pretty obvious. Don't throw the Wiimote. This really applies to any hard object regardless of whether it is tethered to your body or how strong the tether is.

Re:Ummm...No

[slackmaster2000]

If ping pong paddles had safety straps, I would assume that the designers of the paddles foresaw that people will sometimes accidentally lose their grip and thus the paddle. After all, what else would the safety strap be for?

If I was playing ping pong with a paddle that had a safety strap, and for some bizzare reason lost my grip on the paddle, which then went flying across the table and directly into my opponents eye, then I might be a little upset to look down and see the safety strap still attached to my wrist. Yes, I would blame the manufacturer for providing me with a safety strap that did not function.

- If the paddle had no safety strap to begin with, I wouldn't even think of blaming the paddle or its manufacturer.

- If the strap was instead labeled, "handy hands-free carrying strap", then I wouldn't expect it to prevent the paddle from flying out of my hand during play, and again wouldn't think of blaming the paddle or manufacturer.

- But if the strap is indeed *intended* to provide *safety*, no matter how dumb the protection may seem, then it should provide the intended safety. If it does not, then it is faulty, and the manufacturer is to blame.

If Nintendo didn't expect the strap on the Wiimote to protect the user and/or device from being thrown accidentally, then why did they include it in the design? The intent is obvious. People are flailing their limbs all over the place getting all excited the way people do - the Wiimote is bound to go flying eventually. The designers thought of this, and placed a convenient little strap onto the controller. Very thoughtful, nice touch. But if that strap doesn't hold up under normal use and some five year old kid accidentally sends the thing flying and knocks grandpa's cigar over onto grandma's oxygen tank causing the entire house and family to go up smoke, then yeah, Nintendo is *partially* to blame.

Hell, I wish Nintendo had put a safety strap (a working one, anyhow) on the original Nintendo controller. I probably threw mine in frustration more than all these crazy Wii kids combined.

Again, I will say that it looks like this lawsuit is silly and that these people are not using the controllers as they were intended to be used. My argument is simply that a device should provide its intended function and if it does not, then the manufacturer is liable to the consumer and potentially liable for damages that result from using the device.

Re:Ummm...No

[kpang]

Fair enough. I understand your point. I suppose it boils down to what the strap is intended to do. Personally, I think Nintendo could get away with argueing that it is simply there to prevent the occasional, random drop and not there to prevent the throwing of their controllers. It would seem that although the safety strap is there to keep the Wiimote attached to the user, it cannot guarantee to do so for all velocities. Maybe it'll come down to whether Nintendo designed the strap well enough for normal usage. If they didn't, then yes it is negligent. However, something tells me these kids were really flinging this thing around hard, which, should not be Nintendo's fault.

Re:Ummm...No

[hkmwbz]

If the paddle had no safety strap to begin with, I wouldn't even think of blaming the paddle or its manufacturer.

Why not? The paddle has a part that you are supposed to grip. If that does not allow you to keep it in your hand, it is clearly defective.

Re:Ummm...No

[slackmaster2000]

Maybe if the grip actually becomes unexpectedly slippery, otherwise it would be up to me to determine how tightly I need to grip the paddle. This is not difficult, as we have all held things in our moving hands.

A safety strap is another story. I should not be expected to discern the tensile strength of the strap and then determine the maximum amount of force the strap would have to endure based on how hard I can whip the paddle. Engineering a safety strap a little bit on the safe side is probably a good idea.

This discussion rawks.

In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kitchenaid for making kitchen knives that are sharp. Users of knives have been known to CUT themselves on these sharp edges, therefore proving that the product is flawed.

Come the freak on. Its a controller, not a projectile. How on earth are you supposed to control the game by letting go of the entire wiimote? I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything in Nintendo's documentation about purposely flinging the remote and letting the strap retain it.

If I were nintendo, I would make the new cords out of 1" chain and say: Here you go, retards.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers, People Found to be Stupid

kind of lame

[Anonymous Coward]

since they already have acknowledged this and have a solution for customers..

Sony defective DVD drives

[DrWho520]

Why was there never a class action suit brought against Sony for defective DVD drives in there PS2 consoles? Stories abound about generation one drives wearing out because they were not spec'ed for the continuous spin required for DVD movie playback. That being said, Nintendo has acknowledged a defect and issued a Wii-mote wrist strap recall.

Re:Sony defective DVD drives

[ivan256]

Presumably because nothing was damaged other than the unit itself.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Re:Sony defective DVD drives

[fithmo]

Well, this same law firm, Green Welling LLC, was involved in suing Sony BMG over DRM issues.

Re:A defect?

[revlayle]

I think people who were not really watching what they were doing broker their TV and want someone else to pay for it. While a handful of the owners may be completely deserving of some compensation, I bet a good portion of those in the class action are in it for the "i'm a tard and i want someone else to fix my dumbiness" - whether it's true or not, i have no idea.

Totally Bogus Claim

[CokeBear]

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand

Impossible. The wrist strap breaking does not cause the remote to leave your hand. Its the other way around - only if you repeatedly let go of the remote with considerable force does the wrist strap break, and even then if you just hold onto the remote you don't have a problem.

As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised to find xBox or PS3 fanboys at the root of this...

Re:Totally Bogus Claim

[GodInHell]

It's lawyer-speak. They take out a memo they had some intern write a few months ago, and pull the "standard cause of action for products liability template" and then fill it in.

[product name] has [defect] which caused [harm or harm causing act].

This is comparable to me attacking a C++ for using excessive semi-colons.

-GiH

Re:Totally Bogus Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for outing yourself as a nintendo fanboy troll. Feel free to watch as we ignore everything else you have to say on this subject as the source is clearly tainted by idiocy

Whereas with your post you've shown yourself to be a paragon of wisdom and sage advice.

STUPID

[geekmansworld]

Stupid, stupid, sweaty nerds! Too bad there isn't something in the EULA about not supporting "defective users".

When will people learn that electronics are delicate? You don't throw them. If you THROW them, they BREAK. Isn't that, like, implicit? I have a Wii, and I can't imagine how someone could break that strap without winging the thing with all their might. If you BROKE your TOY, buy yourself a new one. Don't blame a perfectly reputable company for your own idiocy.

STUUUUUPIIIIIIID!!!!!!

Re:Stupid

[PitaBred]

What year is your Corolla? Because I've had my '04 up over 100, and it's still perfectly stable ;)

Just for one minute..

[mcnut]

Just for one minute I'd like to think that people weren't completely and totally ignorant. This is user error at its finest, as the controller works properly and in no way causes "the remote to leave the user's hand" Letting go causes the remote to leave your hand, end of story. This is like someone suing a bridge designer because they were able to plow through the side wall and their car ended up in the river.

Re:Just for one minute..

[HTH NE1]

This is like someone suing a bridge designer because they were able to plow through the side wall and their car ended up in the river.

Bad analogy(*). Adequate safety barriers are required in modern bridge design and their failure would not be at issue if the driver was intent on driving off the bridge.

(*) Why is it always a car analogy?

Seriousely

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they serious? I'm all for getting a company to fix their mistakes, but this is rediculous. I've seen the videos online and of the remotes slipping from their hand, their playing way to hard. The warning screens tell you to make sure you have the strap on and if i'm not mistaken tells you how to play the game. I've never even come close to letting the remote slip once. I do hope that Nintendo does win this one.

What happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Nintendo just start replacing the wrist-straps? http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/ 1349221

oh my..

[dolson]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

Umm, the wrist strap does not break UNLESS the remote has already left the user's hand...

Nintendo should counter-sue the parents because they raised defective children.

Oh really?

[EVil Lawyer]

... the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

Bullshit. The WRIST STRAP did not cause the remote to leave the user's hand. And the "wrist strap breaking" did not cause the remote to leave the user's hand, either. The breaking of the wrist strap may have been one "but for" cause of the remote leaving the user's hand, but something being a "but for" cause is not enough to establish liability.

Re:Oh really?

[thesandtiger]

The breaking of the wrist strap may have been one "but for" cause of the remote leaving the user's hand, but something being a "but for" cause is not enough to establish liability.

What's a "but for"?
Pooping, of course!

Ah, god I'm not remotely funny.

Um but

[aesiamun]

"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand."

So they are saying the breaking of the wrist strap caused the remote to leave their hands? This should invalidate this claim right now seeing the strap wouldn't break until they throw the remote at very high velocities...

Stop supporting lawyers who do this shit.

[kinglink]

If anyone tries to work with idiotic lawyers like this (no matter for money or for hatred of Nintendo) I'll lose all respect for them. Not that I have much for them in the first place for releasing the controller but that's another story.

Hell the class action suit makes no sense. "As instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console" funny the book that says numerous times to use the controller but put on the wrist strap? Or did I miss a page where it says "release the controller, it's fun". Nope guess not. Especially the part of the strap breaking is causing the controller to fly out of your hands. That's pure BS, tasty too.

Hell Nintendo is replacing the straps for free, not even calling for a mandatory recall, but the court case doesn't even meantion the tvs that are damaged. Personally that's what I'd care about, not the remote that probably still works, but the 3 inch hole in the wall from the impact of the remote.

Why is it when ever there's some news story about a defect (or retards in this case). There's always a second group of retards (normally called lawyers) who tries to get "rich" off of it? Simple solution. Stop supporting frivilious lawsuits. It'd be one thing if Nintendo told you to release the controller, or Nintendo did something neglegent, but there's no sign of that.

Re:Stop supporting lawyers who do this shit.

[kabocox]

Hell Nintendo is replacing the straps for free, not even calling for a mandatory recall, but the court case doesn't even meantion the tvs that are damaged. Personally that's what I'd care about, not the remote that probably still works, but the 3 inch hole in the wall from the impact of the remote.

Why is it when ever there's some news story about a defect (or retards in this case). There's always a second group of retards (normally called lawyers) who tries to get "rich" off of it? Simple solution. Stop supporting frivilious lawsuits. It'd be one thing if Nintendo told you to release the controller, or Nintendo did something neglegent, but there's no sign of that.

The Wii stuff generally still works from the horror stories that I've read. I think that they need to sue the makers of the TVs, entertainment centers, and ceiling fans for not being durable enough to handle a remote thrown at it. If those TVs were actually durable or rubbermade those remotes would have just bounced right off those TVs without harm to the TVs. Obviously it's the fault of the TV makers for not making their stuff strong and durable enough to handle normal remote usage. Obviously all the other TVs handle remotes being thrown at them on a daily basis so these TVs should be able to handle any type of remote being thrown at them. ;)

Re:Stop supporting lawyers who do this shit.

[freddyfast]

All lawyers should be tattooed on the forehead or both hands, so they are easily identifiable. Then they should have to pay quadruple the advertised amount for all goods and services. This way they can start contributing to society, rather than leeching off of it. Granted, there are some lawyers that actually do some good. But they are vastly out-numbered by the money-grabbing sacks, who leech. "Coffee hot? Then sue."

Re:Stop supporting lawyers who do this shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should file a class action suit against TV makers because theirs screens aren't "wiimote-proof"...
I think this is just an attempt for some bad publicity on Nintendo.

And once again...

[Shados]

Idiots cannot accept that they are idiots, and thus claim they are perfectly normal, and blame their idiocy on others. What a sad world are we in...

According to the material?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand."

I haven't read it all the way through, but I'm pretty sure that "Don't worry, if you let go of the remote while playing, the wrist strap will save you from all risk of injury or property damage!" isn't in the manual.

Disgusting

[Deluxe_247]

Wow, I feel like someone just puked their hands and rubbed it all over my body. This is absolutly rediculous.

Nintendo adds a wrist strap as a safety feature, so stupid people who have 'grip' problems (small peens perhaps?) don't throw the Wiimote around. A group of morons (ok ok, maybe they were drunk and ... how did NPR put it?... overzealous?) break a few TVs, and now all of a sudden Nintendo is libel for a defective console?

Yea, great. Im sure this is REALLY going to make Nintendo warm to us Americans. You wonder why they don't port a lot of games over to the US, and you wonder why in some games prior to the port they 'dumb it down' thinking its 'too hard for westerners.' (I wish I could find the article that I got this information from.. I thought it was BS at the time, but now Im thinking it might have been credible.)

Nintendo comes out of left field with a great console, thats tons of fun for all ages... And some douchebags who are looking to make a quick buck want to file a lawsuit against them for breaking a WRIST STRAP which didnt' even need to be added in the first place?

wiihaveaproblem.com - 29 broken straps out of... 1million+ consoles (probably near double that in controllers)
wiidamage.com - 3 broken straps reported

I love the US, but sometimes I just have a hard time being 'proud to be an American.'

(I reserve the right to not check my spelling or grammar. Deal with it!)

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

(I reserve the right to not check my spelling or grammar. Deal with it!)

It just makes you look like a moron. But hey, if you're cool with that...

Re:Disgusting

[dank zappingly]

"I feel like someone who just puked their hands and rubbed it all over my body. This is absolutly rediculous." Hey buddy, at least some of those "MORONS" who are suing can form a sentence. I laughed so hard when I read your post that I almost puked my hands.

Re:Disgusting

[drew]

Normally I'm not one to pick on spelling or grammar errors, but "liable", which you probably meant to use, is a very different thing from "libel".

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the US, but sometimes I just have a hard time being 'proud to be an American.' (I reserve the right to not check my spelling or grammar. Deal with it!)

Well, look on the bright side -- at least you aren't an annoying fucking stupid cunt like your countrymen are!

Re:Disgusting

[jouvart]

I don't know about Nintendo, but the American release of Final Fantasy IV (by Squaresoft for the SNES) was actually an "easy version" for the US market. Final Fantasy VIII (for the PSX) also had some modifications in the US market version to be easier (specifically, some extra draw opportunities were added to the final dungeon IIRC).

Re:Disgusting

[not-enough-info]

Nintendo is libel for a defective console? Since they are presenting these claims in a court, I believe it's more correct to call it slander.

it's funny. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

. . . that the Nintendo Wii seems to be overly protective of my well being. Every time you go to use the damn thing it'll warn you about seizures, ask you to wear the wrist strap and fasten it securely to your wrist, hell, it even tells you to take a break and go outside after every couple of Wii Sports matches you do. I honestly don't know of any where in the instructions or warranties that asks you politely to "Throw the remote at about 60mph directly at your television, making sure to let go of the remote at the end of your swing."

If only the photosensitive seizure warnings were accompanied with a "warning: don't be an overly retarded douchebag who doesn't actually read any of the instructions, then blame your retardedness and douchebaggery on those aforementioned instructions." Why, Nintendo? Why?

Re:it's funny. . .

[winomonkey]

I wish that I could mod you for creative use of the term "douchbag" - +1 for douchbaggery. I think that I need to use that term in our next developers' meeting.

Re:it's funny. . .

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

It seems like every couple years, there's another new warning added in-game or in the instruction booklets. With the current expectation that people need to be reminded of every possible bad thing that could happen to them with everything they use, no matter how trivial or nonsensical, the paragraph or two at the beginning of the instructions Nintendo used to have in the 80s, which has now turned into two full pages of fine print, will become a multi-section legal document in a decade like the EULAs you see currently.

The reminders in Wii Sports actually remind me of what they did with the Virtual Boy (man, do I wish I'd grabbed all the games when EB had a lot of them in stock for $.50-$1 each a few months after it had launched, just for novelty value), where it does pretty much the same thing, only you could disable it. Now it's mandatory. Oh, and on the VB, it was a feature of the system, not the game.

Also, I remember reading about how they wanted to make it load as fast as possible, both from when you turn the console on to the menu screen and from the menu to playing a game. I wonder whether the mandatory health and safety warning screens in both cases help to disguise load times, delay getting to what you actually want to do, or a mixture of both in different situations.

Last, speaking of photosensitive seizure warnings, I actually have photosensitive epilepsy, but I've never had a seizure triggered by video games, TV, movies, etc. I do have probably half the symptoms listed in the warnings they give when I do have one, though. Nothing in a game has ever been the right frequency or taken up enough of my field of vision, even though that's what you see warnings on the most, but Times Square while unmedicated was an adventure. Everyone's brain is different.

Re:it's funny. . .

[cnelzie]

That last warning is probably going to be uploaded to Wii consoles with the next update...

What do they want?

[silentounce]

Is it just me, or does it seem that all the lawsuit is asking for is them to stop making bad ones and replace the broken ones with good ones?

"The class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nintendo from continuing its unfair or deceptive business practices as it relates to the Nintendo Wii.The lawsuit also seeks an injunction that requires Nintendo to correct the defect in the Wii remote and to provide a refund to the purchaser or to replace the defective Wii remote with a Wii remote that functions as it is warranted and intended."

It doesn't appear that they are suing for damages. But they have to be, right? There's no mention of a Wii strap breaking and a family pet being impaled. How much money could they get anyway? There's only about five people with Wiis, right? Wiis, is that the proper pluralization?

Re:What do they want?

[MonsterSound]

I think it's Wii'i

Re:What do they want?

[dank zappingly]

Yeah they have to be suing for damages, unless the lawyers are working for free. The injunction is probably only part of the claim.

Re:What do they want?

[75th Trombone]

+0.5, Funny. Would've been +1 if you'd omitted the apostrophe.

penny-arcade

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/15

fools

[wframe9109]

"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty." So I'm assuming they have yet to read the manual for the system or the games. Or the on-screen instructions explicitly given before each game. I hope they fail, and somehow die of AIDS and Ebola in a fire.

Ya know what would be really funny. . .

[smooth wombat]

if Nintendo had the balls to say, "Ok, file the lawsuit. We are hereby recalling all Wii systems and related products, including all games. Owners of systems must return all products to your nearest store by [insert date] after which anyone in possession of Wii products will be considered to have stolen the product."

*Sigh* Yes, I know that's not going to happen but just once I'd love to see a company which is financially secure take such action whenever lawsuits like this are filed.

Re:Ya know what would be really funny. . .

[Captain Jack Taylor]

Agreed - this is why I tend to advise companies that their stuff not be exported to or used in the United States. It's just too damn much liability until they learn to behave like civilized people. If you don't think we can't stay in business just because we're not marketing to 100 million or so US gamers? Pfffffffffft, cost of marketing in the US states that we'd barely be making a profit anyway. No big deal! :)

Re:Ya know what would be really funny. . .

[GigsVT]

You can't do that.

Has the mass media and media companies really skewed the idea of property rights that you honestly don't understand that once you buy something, you own it?

Stupid

[SavedLinuXgeeK]

All I can say is that this is stupid. Nintendo is doing their job, and people are taking things to the extreme. If I were to run my car at 120mph (because it says I can on my speedometer), I should not expect standard behavior of my vehicle. My Corolla isn't made to go that fast, even if things seem to point to otherwise.

omg, wtf, wii...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... What happened to personal responsibility? The only mistake that Nintendo has made here is to underestimate the stupidity of people, and the greed of lawyers. They should offer to replace the wrist strap with a roll of masking tape so that these people can tape their hands shut around the remote and flail away happily...

In other news..

[Cristofori42]

.. Weird Al sues Colorado for looking too much like Wyoming.

It's a Rii-Rii Parade!

[ontheheap]

These people must be swinging the Wiimote around like they're crazy. I've had my Wii since launch and I really don't understand why people are having problems with the strap... I haven't had a single mishap yet. WTF.

I know whose kids these people are!

[CompSci101]

Remember the stories of the tech support call complaining that the user couldn't fit any more floppies in the drive? Because the onscreen instructions only said to insert disks, and not remove previously inserted ones first?

That asshole must have had a lot of kids. Typical.

Why couldn't Einstein have bred like a rabbit? The world would have been a better place.

C

Re:I know whose kids these people are!

[silentounce]

"Why couldn't Einstein have bred like a rabbit? The world would have been a better place."

I'd be careful with that one. He married his cousin, you know.

Re:I know whose kids these people are!

[arose]

Why couldn't Einstein have bred like a rabbit? The world would have been a better place.

Are you sure about that? :-)

It just isn't fair!

[ALeavitt]

Nintendo has done everything in its power to fix the problem. As soon as they learned that there was a problem, they released new instructions and warnings. Then they improved the wrist strap, thickening the weak point. They've even gone so far as to send free replacement straps to every Wii owner - all you have to do is request them through Nintendo's website and they're on the way. But no, people want to sue, they want some of Nintendo's money because they screwed up and couldn't hold onto the controller. Last I checked, golf clubs, tennis rackets, and baseball bats don't have wrist straps, but people don't go suing when somebody lets go of one of those and it goes flying. The fact of the matter is that some users are themselves being negligent and using the system improperly. Users are meant to grip the remote; letting go is not part of the system's design, despite what the wrist strap may have you think. If someone is unable to hang onto the remote in normal play, he should probably also be wearing a helmet while playing too. It disgusts me that some people think that Nintendo should pay for their idiocy.

What does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty"

How is Nintendo breaching their warranty? A warranty doesn't say that the product is perfect, just that it will be fixed/replaced if it is defective. And Nintendo is offering to replace the straps with heavier ones for people who don't know how to use the remotes properly. Seems like they're more than fulfilling their responsibilities under the warranty.

How about Nintendo's copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears they even managed to use the picture from Nintendo's replacement program http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/straps.jsp on their http://www.classcounsel.com/. Are they arguing Nintendo's replacement isn't enough?

Oh Jesus Christ

[teflaime]

Nintendo is already offering to replace the broken controllers. Fucking stupid people shouldn't be allow to have fun.

Re:Oh Jesus Christ

[kabocox]

Fucking stupid people shouldn't be allow to have fun.

Um, that's even worse, they breed when doing that!

Re:Oh Jesus Christ

[Tetrad_of_doom]

Fucking stupid people shouldn't be allow[ed]. Had to fix that.

Re:Oh Jesus Christ

[GodInHell]

The suit predates the recall.

-GiH

ARGH!

[XenoPhage]

HEY DUMBASS! DONT LET GO OF THE FUCKING CONTROLLER!

Seriously.. Are people THAT stupid?

Unfortunately, the fact that Nintendo started the strap replacement program will hurt rather than help them I think. Admission of guilt, blah blah ..

But let's get real. If you're stupid enough to let go of the damn thing, then you deserve to have your stuff broke. It's not a REAL football/bowling ball/racket/etc.. You *REALLY* don't need to swing it that hard..

I'd love to see a study on the amount of force required to break the strap. Seriously.

Per the article...

[xstonedogx]

...the lawsuit was in place before Nintendo began the Wii remote replacement program:

What's been kept strangely hush-hush is the fact that a class action lawsuit has already been filed.

The suit apparently goes further:

The class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nintendo from continuing its unfair or deceptive business practices as it relates to the Nintendo Wii.

So it also sounds like they're claiming Nintendo was lying about the capabilities of the strap and want the manual/box/whatever changed.

OPT OUT???

[Ark42]

Where can I opt out of this suit? Please provide some web form or 1-800 # to call the lawyer involved here. I own a Wii and have to say that only a complete idiot could break these things under normal usage. This suite is completely without merit and I don't want to be included in such garbage.

Re:OPT OUT???

[GigsVT]

Generally, if you are part of the class and they get your address, they'll send you an information packet that has instructions on how to opt-out of the class, so you can sue nintendo individually.

That's not how it works.

[Programmer_In_Traini]

You did read correctly, nintendo did a massive recall to replace the straps.

That being said, that doesn't mean anyone isn't allowed to sue them for the damage "suffered" because of the strap.

But because the class action suit is valid doesn't mean its got a winning case. It means someone, somewhere is willing to spend big bucks trying to get bigger bucks in the name of every people who punched a hole in their wall, or tv or window...etc.

Its a fact that everywhere where there's a fault, there will be someone to get compensation/money for it. Why class action and not sue in your own name ? because it multiplies the damage, thus, the compensation receivable from Nintendo.

I don't really agree with it but that doesn't mean its not valid.

The biggest debate in court will be to determine whether the original wii strap was really defective or if Wii users have been abusive in such a way that the Wii strap could not handle the stress.

Then they're gonna debate about what is "abusive use". What is the nature of the abuse ? too much conviction while playing ? Then what about those PS2 button masher games where we have to press faster (and ultimately harder) on the buttons ? Could Sony have predicted its users would be so hard on the remotes ? i know i bought at least 3 new remote controllers for my PS2 because they broke overtime.

the defendant will have to prove that its remote control was used in an abusive manner and they're gonna have to justify that if they think its abusive to begin with, why they agree to recall all the straps ?

and the guy who's suing will have to prove that the wiimote is defective to begin with.

Not letting go

[Cauchy]

In all fairness to the people involved, these are not cases of people letting go of the device. Apparently, the incidents arose because the activity caused the users to perspire. The remotes left people's hands because they slipped out due to sweat and the strap breaking.

A lawsuit is stupid and ridiculous, and Nintendo is doing the right thing. However, one wonders if Nintendo bothered to test these under realistic operating conditions? Nintendo is not entirely fault free here. People are using the Wii in a reasonable manner, and this is happening. It is not entirely operator error.

Re:Not letting go

[Chibi Merrow]

So wipe your hands off. Or if you're one of those unlucky people who has very sweaty hands, buy a controller glove. Or better yet DON'T FLAIL AROUND LIKE YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO NERVE GAS. None of the Wii games I've played so far require anything more than a flick of the wrist for interaction. People who are swinging their arms around like idiots are NOT using the Wii in a reasonable manner, ESPECIALLY if they have sweaty hands. It is entirely operator error, the same as idiots who throw their tennis rackets or golf clubs.

Re:Not letting go

[StillAnonymous]

Finally someone with some common sense in this thread.

Almost every other post is someone knee-jerking the phrase "you're not supposed to let it go" and "these people are morons".

People are not DELIBERATLY letting go of the controller. It can slip, it can be an accident. When you repeat an action thousands of times, there is a chance that you will screw it up at some point, no matter how simple it may seem. Have you never dropped something by accident? Knocked a drink off a table? By these people's standards, I guess you're an idiotic moron if you do.

Nintendo realises this too. That's why there's a friggen strap on the device in the first place! In case you accidentally let go, the thing won't go flying. They just misjudged how strong the strap needed to be.

However, I think this class action suit is pure and simple greed. Nintendo offered to replace the straps. What more do you want them to do? Class action is supposed to exist for the cases where companies know there's a problem but they refuse to do anything about it.

Re:Not letting go

[Chibi Merrow]

When you repeat an action thousands of times, there is a chance that you will screw it up at some point, no matter how simple it may seem.

And, regardless, when you screw it up it's still your fault.

That's why there's a friggen strap on the device in the first place! In case you accidentally let go, the thing won't go flying.

No, it's so you don't drop it and possibly have it smash to pieces on a hard floor. My digital camera and my DS both have (funnily enough) a strap with the EXACT same design as the Wii one... But that doesn't make me feel like I can safely swing either of them around like a six year old epileptic with ADHD and Tourette's on meth.

However, I think this class action suit is pure and simple greed.

I think it's more than just greed. It's trying to legitimize a lack of responsibility for one's own actions.

Re:Not letting go

[GizmoToy]

Nintendo will also replace any remote damaged in such an incident. It also seemed that they may have been willing to replace anything broken in the incident, judging from my conversation with them.

I strongly agree with Nintendo's introduction of a new strap, but this lawsuit is stupid.

Re:Not letting go

[Lithdren]

If you're getting so sweaty you lose grip on a controler, by waving your arm around a little bit, I think you have more serious issues then a broken TV to worry about.

A heart atack, comes to mind.

Tards of a feather thick together

[Rotund Prickpull]

She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.

Presumably if it had been cooler it wouldn't have had sufficient energy to leap out of the pot and swoop in for the attack?

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[gamer4Life]

Well not to argue either way, but a lower temperature allows the fingers to tolerate the heat more... perhaps just enough so they don't drop it.

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[TheoMurpse]

Presumably if it had been cooler it wouldn't have had sufficient energy to leap out of the pot and swoop in for the attack?

Presumably, coffee at a normal coffee temperature is safe enough that you can take the risk of placing the cup between your legs to put cream in it. However, because the coffee was so hot that it gave her third-degree burns and hospitalized her for eight days where she received skin grafts, McDonalds had to compensate her for her hospitalization. She relied on McDonalds employing intelligent food preparation techniques, and McDonalds violated that reliance by serving unsafe coffee. She was awarded compensatory damages (reduced by her fault in the accident), and punitive damages designed to, as you would expect from the word "punitive," teach McDonalds a lesson -- don't serve coffee at 190 degrees Fahrenheit!

Seriously, I'm going to start modding down anyone who flubs up the facts of this case. The popular understanding of it is seriously flawed, and the only way to kill it is to quiet those who spread the lies, whether they know them to be lies or not.

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[Chibi Merrow]

Here's a simple prescription to prevent this:

Coffee is hot. Don't put it between your legs.

If a McDonald's employee had spilled the coffee on her, you'd have a point. But she spilled it on herself. Despite the warning that it was hot. No matter what the temperature of the coffee, spilling it on yourself is not reasonable use of the product.

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[TheoMurpse]

spilling it on yourself is not reasonable use of the product

The problem is that if she had known the dangers of this coffee (because it was dangerously and, more importantly, unreasonably hot), she might not have put the coffee in her lap. She acted in reliance of McDonalds not serving her coffee heated well above any reasonable temperature, and her reliance caused her danger. The courts found she did not receive adequate warning of the heat of the coffee. McDonalds was not completely at fault (and the court agrees with me here, by finding the lady partially responsible) of course, but they were really, really negligent in their preparation of the coffee. It doesn't matter if she did something dumb; she was held liable. But McDonalds was punished for making the coffee unsafe (which they did).

If they had made the coffee a reasonable temperature, the lady may not have suffered any third-degree burns (and this is how the plaintiffs proceeded to argue in the case). Thus, her belief was "coffee reasonable temperature, therefore safe to put between legs because if it spills, it won't cause severe damage." Then, when McDonalds behaved unreasonably by making the coffee dangerously hot, they harmed her because her reliance was based on dealing with a reasonable partner. McDonalds was not a reasonable partner.

Read up on some contract law and tort law to see how important this negligence and reasonability is to all legal dealings in the US and other common law nations.

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[Chibi Merrow]

because it was dangerously and, more importantly, unreasonably hot

Then what's reasonably hot? The coffee was at the industry standard temperature for being served (and is still at that temperature today, millions of cups of which being served weekly WITHOUT incident).

I think this is just a case of someone not wanting to be responsible for being an idiot. I could see McDonald's being forced to pay medical bills (though I still wouldn't agree with it) but punitive damages are doubly ridiculous for a company that's following industry standards in its behavior.

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[TheoMurpse]

The coffee was at the industry standard temperature for being served

False. There was evidence produced at trial showing that there are a great deal of chain restaurants who do not serve coffee that hot. In fact, McDonalds on QA representative testified that the temperature was beyond reasonable ("not fit for human consumption"). Also, the judge on the case (and believe it or not, judges are typically very smart, reasonable people) called McDonalds's behavior "reckless, callous and willful."

millions of cups of which being served weekly WITHOUT incident

Just because there is only one injury out of a few million servings does not invalidate the right to seek remedy from the injured person. By the way, there also was evidence showing 700 similar incidents in the years before. Thus, what you said is false. Others had sustained 3rd degree burns as well.

I could see McDonald's being forced to pay medical bills (though I still wouldn't agree with it) but punitive damages are doubly ridiculous for a company that's following industry standards in its behavior.

The lady only sued for medical bills (McDonalds had offered her only 800 dollars). In fact, she had attempted to settle with McDonalds for less than she was eventually awarded (McDonalds had refused). She did not seek punitive damages.

Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's _Corp.

Re:Tards of a feather thick together

[Chibi Merrow]

False. There was evidence produced at trial showing that there are a great deal of chain restaurants who do not serve coffee that hot.

Did you purposely not read what I wrote? I said it was at the INDUSTRY STANDARD, which is right about 190F. I didn't say anything about other restaurants, I was talking about what the National Coffee Association suggests. Hence industry standard. Strike 1.

Just because there is only one injury out of a few million servings does not invalidate the right to seek remedy from the injured person.

No, but in a sensible world, spilling coffee I sold you on yourself would not entitle you to my money.

By the way, there also was evidence showing 700 similar incidents in the years before. Thus, what you said is false. Others had sustained 3rd degree burns as well.

No, I said millions of cups are served weekly WITHOUT INCIDENT. 700 similar incidents over multiple decades with literally BILLIONS of cups served. So, no, what I said is NOT false. Again, are you purposely NOT reading what I wrote? Strike two.

The lady only sued for medical bills (McDonalds had offered her only 800 dollars). In fact, she had attempted to settle with McDonalds for less than she was eventually awarded (McDonalds had refused). She did not seek punitive damages.

Quoting the article: "Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000... Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court... McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000."

So I guess that's strike three.

Of course you'll probably continue not to read what I've written and instead continue to parrot what you want to believe because "For gosh sake, that lady got burnt!"

Re:A defect?

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Throw wiimote at crappy TV breaking it.
2: Let loose the lawyers.
3: ??
4: New HDTV!

Oh...

[vga_init]

How can you sue a company for what is an obvious misuse of their product? You're not supposed to THROW the controller! That's like sueing baseball bat manufacturers because you can let go of the bat while swinging and hit something/someone with it.

Perhaps Nintendo was better off not including any wrist strap. They might base the lawsuit on the claim that the strap provided an illusion of safety but failed. Seems like a silly thing to sue over, though...

Um...

[MBCook]

the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

OK. The strap physically moved the remote out of people's grasp? That's one powerful strap.

I wonder why the strap on MY Wiimote didn't do that. Maybe it was defective?

The strap was intended to prevent the Wiimote from going flying if you accidentally lost your grip so it would slip at most a few inches and not go flying. It's also there so if you lose your grip it stays where you can get it instead of falling to the floor and possibly damaging the remote in the process (playing on concrete maybe?).

It was NOT designed to let you THROW the Wiimote and rely on the strap to keep the thing on your wrist. Every video I've seen online where a strap breaks, someone is being an incredible idiot.

Besides which, Nintendo fix it in new Wiimotes and offered to send you a replacement strap for free.

I still think we need class-action reform in this country. Some cases are good. Some are debatable. Some are stupid.

And some are like this one: Some lawyer probably made it up and went fishing for "victims" who were "harmed" by their innabilty to follow directions, including those IN THE MANUAL, IN GAME MANUALS, and EVER TIME YOU START A GAME.

Re:A defect?

[gEvil (beta)]

I believe that should be:
3. $25 coupon good towards the purchase of:
4. New HDTV!

My CAMERA has a strap

[Ahnteis]

It's to keep me from DROPPING it, not to stop me from THROWING it.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Yvan256]

Mod parent informative/insightful. Nintendo also has previous history with such straps with the Nintendo DS.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Ambitwistor]

You might say that's what it's for, but what did Nintendo say it was for? They currently say, "Wearing the wrist strap will help prevent the Wii Remote from flying across the room if you accidentally let go of it during game play." Of course, that's after all of the complaints of broken wrist straps. From the standpoint of legal liability, what's just as important is what they said in the operations manual that came with the Wii. Does anyone know? If the manual originally stated that the strap is there to prevent the remote from going flying across the room, then they're responsible for making a strap that really will prevent it from doing so.

Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, companies are held liable for what happens when their products are used in ways that the consumer (not just the company!) will commonly find reasonable, unless they specifically warned against such usage. Did the manual say, "Warning: wrist strap will not restrain remote under vigorous usage", or such?

The fact is, the Wii remote was intended to be manipulated in a more vigorous manner than is a camera, and it's possible Nintendo may be found legally liable.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Ambitwistor]

By the way, nobody was "throwing" the Wii remote (as far as I know); it slipped from their grasps.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy it. If the games can be played without vigorous force then the users are just stupid if they toss it through a wall or whatever.

Unless Nintendo specifically said "wave it as HARD AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE ..." in the manual then it's hard to infer that that was the intended use.

This is the same bullshit that led to the insertion of "take a break" warnings because rejected smacktards would sit and play EQ for 39 days straight before keeling over and dying. ... arrrg

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Ambitwistor]

Unless Nintendo specifically said "wave it as HARD AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE ..." in the manual then it's hard to infer that that was the intended use. I don't think it requires "waving as hard as humanly possible" in order for it to slip from your grasp. It just requires sweaty hands. And you can't deny that all of Nintendo's advertising depicts extremely vigorous usage; in light of that, it's not totally unreasonable for a consumer to expect the thing to stay on their wrists when emulating the kind of gameplay that Nintendo's own marketing condones.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny...I bought an item for my son in the summer. It was made of a somewhat slippery wooden material, fairly heavy, and capable of causing significant damage if thrown across the room.

One time, while playing a game with it, my son let it slip from his grasp, and it flew over and gave me a fairly nasty bruise on the leg.

I should darn well sue those bastards! It didn't have ANY strap on it at all, nor ANY safety instructions.

That's the LAST time I let my kid use a baseball bat...obviously I'm too stupid to follow some simple safety precautions

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Thraxen]

And it won't leave your hand if used as directed. I've got a Wii and and my strap still has the band around it. I don't even use the damn thing. And guess what? Not once has it left my hand unless I was setting it down or handing it to another person. The strap should be viewed merely as a convenience to help guard against accidental drops... the same as any strap on any portable electronic device. Nintendo should not be held liable for some dumbass throwing the Wiimote across the room.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Ambitwistor]

And it won't leave your hand if used as directed. How was it directed to be used, and how does that compare to how it was advertised as being used?

Not once has it left my hand unless I was setting it down or handing it to another person. Well, that's nice, but that's irrelevant to the question of Nintendo's legal liability, which doesn't have anything to do with how you, personally, happen to use it.

The strap should be viewed merely as a convenience to help guard against accidental drops... As I said to Ahnteis, that may be how you think it ought to be viewed, but from a legal standpoint, what matters is what the operations manual says the strap is for, and how that relates to both its recommended and advertised use.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Tetrad_of_doom]

what's just as important is what they said in the operations manual that came with the Wii. Does anyone know?
I got a Wii at launch, the following is from the Wii Operations Manual pg. 19 under the section "Wearing the Wii Remote Wrist Strap":

CAUTION - Use the Wrist Strap
Wii gameplay with the Wii Remote can involve rapid or vigorous motion. Please use the wrist strap to prevent losing your grip on the remote and causing damage to the remote or surrounding objects, or injury to other people.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Gothic_Walrus]

You mean that we're not supposed to throw the DS?

Oops. >_>

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[AusIV]

If you shouldn't be dropping it, you probably shouldn't be throwing it, no matter what "it" is.

Re:My CAMERA has a strap

[Ambitwistor]

Poor analogy. Baseball bats are not intended to be used in the home. For a device that is intended by the manufacturer to be used in the home, more safety precautions are necessary. Morever, Nintendo explicitly specified in the instruction manual that use of the wrist strap is necessary to prevent accidental damage to nearby objects. If they felt compelled to state that, then they knew there was a real risk of that kind of accident happening, and thus it is their legal responsibility to build a safe device. The manufacturers of other devices which have safety straps, locks, etc. are held responsible for the quality of those measures; why should Nintendo be any different? The wrist strap is a safety device, one that Nintendo themselves stated should be used, but it does not work as intended.

Not quite right

[Programmer_In_Traini]

that kind of makes me laugh but since you're touching my line of work I feel compelled to at least specify that most lawyers do not act and/or sue people on their own good will or for their own profit for that matter.

A lawyer requires a client with a problem to act. A client comes, enquires about something bugging them and the lawyer offers advices on the course of action. Not always but sometimes it ends up in a suit against a company or a person. I should also point out that the lawyer does not decide of the settlement the client seeks, that's entirely up to the client, he may however give his own opinion on the amount the settlement should be. Believe it or not, most of the time, the lawyer advise for a lower settlement simply because most of the time the case isn't big enough to justify a big settlement (talking about $100,000+ here).

also, greedy lawyer is hardly right, the lawyer really gets a SMALL fraction of the settlement. In long and hard cases, sometimes the lawyer will agree with its client to take a percentage of the settlement rather than a fixed hourly rate (more common). When that happens, the lawyer may receive more IF 1) he wins the case and 2) the judge agrees on the settlement (he may revise it down himself).

You would be surprised how little money a lawyer gets compared to what his/her clients gets.

Re:Not quite right

[Hijacked Public]

A client comes

I know the forthcoming example does not implicate all lawyers, but my brother's son drove an ATV into the side of a barn and screwed himself up quite a bit. There was an article in the local paper about it, because my brother is kind of well known in the community, and he had no shortage of lawyers calling his house offering to help him ease his pain and suffering. For months afterward he would have people come into his shop, ask how his son was doing, then hand him a business card identifying themselves as personal injury attorneys.

As with this particular lawsuit, the bad side gets a lot more press than the good side. A few baseless class action lawsuits and you have people decrying the entire legal system. A few bottom feeding attorneys and you get thousands of bottom feeding attorney jokes.

Re:Not quite right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, those poor starving lawyers. Let's start an online petetion to Bono and get him to raise awareness for lawyer poverty. :)

Re:Not quite right

[mypalmike]

Believe it or not, most of the time, the lawyer advise for a lower settlement simply because most of the time the case isn't big enough to justify a big settlement (talking about $100,000+ here).

We're not talking about an individual slipping on the ice at Walmart here. This is a large class action lawsuit. And the class size isn't the number of people who actually express interest in the suit, it's the number of people affected according to record. Let's see, 1 million Wii consoles times, say, $30 per controller plus "damages" and interest. Let me see. Carry the two, add 3... Divide by 10. Well, it comes out to "big settlement".

also, greedy lawyer is hardly right, the lawyer really gets a SMALL fraction of the settlement.

In class action suits of this size, 25% is the typical cut. I'd hardly call that "SMALL". The class members will get a coupon for a new controller plus a game maybe. Once you divide out billable hours, the lawyers often end up with thousands of dollars per hour.

I know a few lawyers. The one who works class action cases lives in a Beverly Hills mansion.

Re:Not quite right

[Programmer_In_Traini]

oh eh, you're pumping numbers with air here, making them big balloons.

>> it's the number of people affected according to record.
indeed.

>> Let's see, 1 million Wii consoles times, say,
1 million ? now where does that come from ? You only need 10 names to be entitled to a class action.

so let's retake that equation...

10 * 30 = $300 + say ... $100 in damage and interest per claimant, that's $1,000 in addition to the $300 for replacements

so what we're saying here is that a class action can range from anywhere between $300 to $300m

but to make it $300m you need 1 million people, that's a LOT of people and an online petition will not do because you need their signature.

Of course big class action suits = big payoff for the lawyer (if he wins), you wanna know why ? because that's a lot of work, especially when the case is incertain. Just getting everyone to sign can be a pain and that's before the suit actually begins. Free work!

Shall i start accounting a VERY rough estimate for that kind of work ? always starting with a million claimants here...
*cracks fingers*
*whips out calculator*

- Take the time to actually meet the people and convince them to sign
I'm gonna put a low average of 5 minutes here. as in everything with some people it takes more time and with some it takes less.
so 1/20 * 1,000,000 = 50,000 hours of work ACK!

eek... just getting the signature is 50,000 of work. add with that a very low hourly fee for a lawyer of $100 and you've got a cost of $500,000 BEFORE the lawyer even begins filing a suit. Add to that countless sleepless night revising that, ordering it, documenting it, registering all that and you end up with a TON of work and you're not even started with the suit.

Ok, so the suit is accepted, now what ?

then start adding all the court audition you gotta go to, keep track of, listen to other attorneys, do more research as they will try to break your claim. and god knows in big trials like this it takes time.

but let's say.... a total of 60 days. not in a straight line nor contiguous. merely an average of 8 hours of work per day would mean the whole thing required 480 hours of actual work during the process.

480 * 100 = $48,000 being the actual lawyer fee.

what you dont seem to realize is that the lawyer takes all the risk here. BECAUSE he is on percentage, if he doesn't win, he gets nada, sometimes he gets a base fee but that's rarely the case because usually people agree on percentage fees because they can't afford lawyer fees to begin with.

I'm not saying 25% is right (its a lot) but you should know that percentages are always set in proportion with the work required to even get the settlement sought.

and, like i said at the beginning, you're puffing numbers here. In real life this is not the bulk of the work, more often than not, those you see in the papers and tv do not represent the rest (Jack Thompson anyone ??)

Those lawyers you mention that lives in beverly hills or other fancy places like that, they're not the majority, that's obvious otherwise everyone would be a lawyer.

Its very hard to be a lawyer, you make a lot of enemies and it is a lot of work. I'm not saying lawyers poor people, deserving pity and whatever. of course not!

im repeating myself here but you can't put all class action in the same basket just as much as you can't put all lawyers in the same basket.

Lawyers make a decent living but not because they charge excruciating fees but rather because they are fairly few of them but a big demand. why are there so few lawyers ? because its hard and nerve racking.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/07/11/careerjournal- lawyers-not-one-of-the-eight-best-careers/

lawyers have one of the highest burnout rate, did you know ? All people see about lawyers is the guy in court spitting accusation and wearing a nice robe but i can assure you there's a lot more to it than it seems.

Re:Not quite right

[Cederic]

lawyers have one of the highest burnout rate, did you know ?

Good.

Sorry, you expect fucking sympathy?

Re:Not quite right

[Wisconsingod]

The three most hated professions in the united states are pretty constant (they are usually in the top 3)

• Lawyers

• Insurance Agents

• Car Salesmen

However, whenever we have trouble in our lives we usually turn to one of these three people first. Why is that?
I believe it is because they are easy to blame, and there are a select few out there that give the rest a bad name.
Stop blaming them for your problems and thank them for keeping your problems from being worse than they are.

Re:Not quite right

[ucblockhead]

It's a scam, in my opinion. The lawyer gets lots of money, and the company usually gets off with a coupon, which is essentially saying "we screwed you, so you get to save on more of our products". I was on the "winning" side of three class action settlements and in each case, what the customers got in return for being screwed was essentially worthless. Once, I got $75 off mortgage fees if I were to take out a new home loan with a company that screwed me out of loan fees on my original one. How's that "justice"?

Sure, the lawyer gets "25%", but only because the coupon is treated as cash in all the reports.

If I had my way, class action settlements would be required to include only actual cash to the people being sued for. No coupons or other crap like that.

(In cases where the suit actually has merit...this one seems idiotic to me.)

Re:Not quite right

[zCyl]

also, greedy lawyer is hardly right, the lawyer really gets a SMALL fraction of the settlement.

For many class action suits, the lawyers involved seem to use the same spectacular accounting math used by the movie industry. A settlement will be agreed upon between the lawyers which will be something utterly useless, like every owner of a Nintendo Wii gets a free coupon for 10% off the purchase of a second Wii Console, and then the 25% profit for the lawyers will be computed out of the value of 10% of the cost of a console. In the end, Nintendo then actually profits if anyone actually redeems the coupon, the lawyer gets tangible cash, and the customer has to spend more money to get anything of value, making it no reward at all.

In arrangements like that, the only people who DO benefit are the lawyers who filed the suit.

(Not that it seems like Nintendo is much at fault here. If they hadn't included any strap in the first place I don't think people would be suing Nintendo after throwing a remote through their wall. If I buy a tennis racket and throw it through my car window, that's my fault.)

Re:Not quite right

[rtechie]

"In class action suits of this size, 25% is the typical cut. I'd hardly call that "SMALL". The class members will get a coupon for a new controller plus a game maybe. Once you divide out billable hours, the lawyers often end up with thousands of dollars per hour."

In many class-action suits the percentage is a lot closer to 60% (or even 100% effectively) because of weaseling with fees and bribes. Even worse, lately the class-action lawyers cut deals to completely screw their clients. What consumers will get out of this lawsuit is likely a cupon for a DISCOUNT on more Nintento products. Effectively, the class-action lawyers will settle for what amounts to a ADVERTISEMENT for the people they're suing. How is this serving the client? It's not. But these same settlements also pay much or all of the lawyer's fat legal fees. This is the "bribe" I'm talking about. If all the MONEY goes to the legal fees for the lawyers and the rest of the settlement is ADVERTISING for Nintendo, how are the lawyers not getting 100% of the REAL settlement?

"I'm gonna put a low average of 5 minutes here. as in everything with some people it takes more time and with some it takes less."

All Wii owers are ASSUMED to be part of lawsuit. The lawyer obtains a registration list from Nintendo and then mails out form letters to all the registered users. He will NEVER talk to a single client. In fact, people don't even have to respond to the form letters. If you read these letters you'll notice that you have to reply (in writing) to OPT OUT. So in practice, all the lawyer has to do is send out the form letters and then remove those who reply from the suit. Again, he'll never talk to a SINGLE client.

"then start adding all the court audition you gotta go to, keep track of, listen to other attorneys, do more research as they will try to break your claim. and god knows in big trials like this it takes time."

What trial? The goal isn't to get this to trial, it's to get a "settlement" that gives the lawyers a bunch of legal fees. The'll on'y go to trial if they lawyers think it will get them more money.

"what you dont seem to realize is that the lawyer takes all the risk here. BECAUSE he is on percentage, if he doesn't win, he gets nada, sometimes he gets a base fee but that's rarely the case because usually people agree on percentage fees because they can't afford lawyer fees to begin with."

Whine, whine. Bitch, moan. If he didn't think the case was likely (as in 100% likely) to succeed, he wouldn't pursue it. I hear this all the time from liability lawyers. And whose fault is it that the general public can't afford legal fees? The lawyers.

Lawyers make a decent living but not because they charge excruciating fees but rather because they are fairly few of them but a big demand. why are there so few lawyers ? because its hard and nerve racking.

So let me get this straight: Lawyers create a byzantine legal system (most politicians are lawyers) which is highly stressful, expensive, and generates mountains of paperworks and then BITCH about it? Boo fucking hoo. Maybe lawyers should make some tiny efforts towards simplifying the system before they bitch. But they never will because the system as-is makes them shitloads of money. There are not a "few" lawyers in the USA. Per capita were have WAY more than any other Western nation. It's just that our byzantine legal systems REQUIRES a lawyer for anything remotely related to the legal system. Nobody has an hope of navigating the system without extensive training. Whose fault is that?

The three most hated professions in the united states are pretty constant (they are usually in the top 3)

* Lawyers

* Insurance Agents

* Car Salesmen

This is because these professions have a LONG history of dishonesty. Life insurance is the biggest scam going. During actual disasters insurance companies often try to weasel out of paying (look

Re:Not quite right

[mypalmike]

Agreed. The only nitpick I'd have is that you say the lawyers never talk to a single client. There is one or more "lead plaintiffs", who is representative of the class, and does actually talk to the lawyers. It's often one person. They get a bonus cut of the settlement for taking the initiative to be lead plaintiff. But it's true that all the other class members are handled by mass mailing. The law firm hires a company to handle the grunt work of mailing and claims processing. The image of a lawyer making a million phone calls or licking a million stamps is pretty funny though.

And don't get me started about car salesmen! :)

Re:Not quite right

[winwar]

"Why is that?"

Because we need legal advice when we have problems, probably paid for insurance in case something bad happens, and need a car?

"I believe it is because they are easy to blame, and there are a select few out there that give the rest a bad name."

Well, some of them deserve it. Granted it's only 99% of them that give the other 1% a bad name. :)

Meanwhile...

[Cosmo-san]

In other news, Nintendo has filed several lawsuits against Inertia, Momentum, and Acceleration. When asked, the only response Nintendo gave was "DURHUR".
Word is that the three basic principles will settle out of court using their E-Z Hand Crisco stock dividends, which have skyrocketed since the Wii's release.

In all seriousness, I realize that it is fun to wave a Wiimote around. But when it flies out of your hands, do not blame others for what is your mistake. If a baseball bat flies out of my hands when I swing, I don't sue the manufactuer, I take responsiblity.

Exclude?

[Tom]

Can one explicitly exclude oneself from a class-action lawsuit?

I mean, these guys are bringing a suit "on behalf of the owners of a Wii". I won a Wii and I very much want to make it very clear that they are not acting on my behalf, nor with my consent, and quite the contrary.

Can I write to the court? Is there any way to say "whoever they say they're working for, I'm in that list but they're not my friends" ?

Re:Exclude?

[FunWithKnives]

I believe that you can exclude yourself from any class-action by sending a written or typed letter to the lawyer or firm that is bringing suit. I don't think that the letter needs to be notarized, but it might add a bit more "umph" to it just the same. Then, just keep a copy of the letter in your records, in case anything ever comes of it.

XaviX

[HTH NE1]

Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?

You know, the XaviX(*) system uses controllers that you swing toward the screen for bowling, baseball, tennis, and golf.

And I did think that it was rather crazy that they show people swinging miniature bowling balls, baseball bats, tennis rackets, and golf clubs in the direction of plasma TVs in their TV ads. That was my very first thought on seeing the ads.

I haven't heard any reports of people actually damaging their equipment with those game systems. Maybe they have better restraint systems, but I doubt that's why. I'd bet that either the XaviX systems aren't as popular amongst the accident prone or that Nintendo just has deeper pockets (or both).

(*) Site uses Flash over substance.

Stupidity at its Worst

[w00ten]

Unfortunately, Nintendo will probably lose this one. Has anyone seen the videos of the straps breaking? These people are doing absolutely crazy things with the wiimote. Here are my observations: 1) The person is pretending that they actually are throwing a fastball in Wii Sports Baseball. Solution: Don't be stupid. You don't need to pretend that you are throwing a 90 MPH fast ball. All you need to do is a soft, yet solid throwing action to accomplish the exact same thing. 2) People are letting go of the Wiimote Solution: Same as above. Those wrist straps have some slack on them, in order for them to become taught and to break, you would have to lose your grip on the wiimote in the first place. I personally tried to break the light looking string that attaches the strap to the wiimote... I could not do it with my bare hands. My thought was that it looked flimsy. It is not flimsy by any means. If I was to put enough force on the string with my bare hands to break it, my skin would lacerate before the string would break. There is no defect. People are just morons and are abusing the product.

My DS has a strap

[Anonymous Coward]

My DS Phat has a strap maybe I should sue because I dropped it on my toe. once. I mean it hasn't caused it to explode out of my hands or anything but it must mean that nintendo is guilty by putting the strap on in the first place then right? I LIKE AMERICAN LAW/LOGIC!

There are no defective wrist straps.

[ubikkibu]

There are a lot of sweaty, spastic, lying Wii owners, however.

Re:There are no defective wrist straps.

[WilliamSChips]

Oh yeah, then why did Nintendo consider using a stronger strap originally?

Obese idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with you American obese idiots?? I hope you all die from flying wii-motes, so the rest of the world can continue enjoying the Wii.

Feck!

Straps on tennis rackets?

[4D6963]

This whole Wiimote strap thing just made me wonder, why do Wiimotes fly as tennis rackets hardly ever fly? You've never seen a wrist strap on a tennis racket because that type of thing just doesn't happen.

So why does the Wiimote fly away from their owners' hands that easily, although they are way lighter than tennis rackets? Is it that the plastic they're covered with is too slippery?

Re:Straps on tennis rackets?

[Anonymous Coward]

The remotes really aren't slippery at all, but there are a few differences between the wii-mote and a tennis racket and the typical users

1) Tennis rackets typically have a rubberized grip or some sort of grip tape applied. The remote isn't that slick, but rubberized grip sleeves are available.
2) The added mass of the racket makes it difficult to swing you arm as hard as some people are doing with wii-motes
3) Most tennis player's probably have better grip than a drunk person playing with a Wii
4) Most tennis player's are constantly wiping off their sweat, at least between games
5) Most tennis player's don't expect a wrist strap to hold their racket to their arm, since they don't have one in the first place

Also, I think most of the Wii accidents are happening with pitching in baseball and with bowling, not tennis. People don't seem to realize that the accelerometer circuits have a built in max speed that you can't pass, no matter how hard you swing.

Re:Straps on tennis rackets?

[eepok]

Some mod this guy up.

Wilson and Nike would laugh themselves around their corporate offices before they go to court against a similar claim.

If you can't hold on to the game unit, do not play the game. If you can't grip the steering wheel, do not drive. If you cannot grip the bat, do not play baseball.

Re:Straps on tennis rackets?

[BladeRider]

Racquetball rackets have straps and the same type of grip as a tennis racket. Probably has to do with the proximity of your fellow players.

Re:Straps on tennis rackets?

[grumbel]

### This whole Wiimote strap thing just made me wonder, why do Wiimotes fly as tennis rackets hardly ever fly?

Tennis rackets have special grip tape, are thicker at the bottom, weight more, are often held with two hands and last not least you are supposed to hit a ball with them, which will absorb a lot of the energy you put into your swing. Most importantly however tennis rackets are not advertised and meant to be used inside in front of multi thousand dollar tv sets. If your tennis racket goes flying you pick it back up, no big deal, if Wiimote goes flying at max speed it will going to hit something and hit it hard.

The problem is very simple: Nintendo did either not do enough testing under real world conditions or tested with a non-final product (i.e. wrist strap might have been changed in the final product), so the faulty strap got into the hand of the consumers. Its Nintendos fault and they are already fixing it by offering new wrist straps, so I don't see much point in the lawsuit, especially since it doesn't talk at all about the broken TVs.

And before somebody tells again that you shall not swing like a madman, why the hell is Nintendo advertising the Wiimote then that way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE4Q5yqW9wM

Help us stop this!

[SilentJ_PDX]

Are there any lawyers out there that can tell us what we can do to stop this nonsense? Can we register a complaint against the class action? Can we submit 'friend of the court' statements or something saying that this case is stupid.

Cause and effect

[frovingslosh]

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand

So the wrist strap broke, all on it's own, and that caused that remote to leave the user's hand???? This spontanious breaking of writs straps is amazing, as is that it would cause users to then release the remote from their hands. Or could there be another more likely sequence of events?

Tell the lawyers what you think:

[Anonymous Coward]

Go here and tell the lawyers what a bunch of scumbag vultures they are:
http://www.classcounsel.com/news/wii.html

how hard are people swinging this

[anothernumber]

i have a wii, and while my friends and i have gotten fairly worked up during play, none of us have come close to breaking a strap or launching the thing out of our hands. my sisters boyfriend has a wii as well, apparently he has launched it into the ceiling, but he wasn't wear the strap at the time. i'm curious as to how many of these accidents happened during proper usage. these are probably the same people that would have punched their televisions when the powerglove came out.

while i wasn 't brave enough to do with my new shiney toy, it someone else decided to see how much effort would go into breaking one of these "faulty" straps.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/ nintendo-wii-straps-are-actually-quite-solid-22232 6.php/

Throwing controllers?

[insomniac8400]

I doubt Nintendo's instructions tell you to throw the controller because it has a wrist strap. Nintendo should have never even put a wrist strap on this thing, but instead just warned people not to throw the controller.

Insuarance Companies

[Venner]

Also, IIRC, she just wanted McDonalds to cover her medical expenses (because her insurance company was being difficult) and indeed it was her insurance company who asked for so much more money (since under her policy, there was a [very common] subrogation clause removing her right to sue and giving it to them.)

absolutely retarded

[Piata]

sent this to http://www.classcounsel.com/

The frivolous class action lawsuit you are bringing against Nintendo is despicable. Nintendo is already voluntarily replacing straps at no charge, when the only people that are actually breaking the straps are complete and utter morons.

I have owned a Wii, with two wiimotes since launch and have had zero problems. I don't even understand how you could break the strap unless you were using the device completely inappropriately.

I wish there was some way to hold you, the lawyers, accountable for such blindingly foolish lawsuits that are driven by greed rather than valid and ethical complaints that result in injury, damage or loss of property.

Re:absolutely retarded

[GweeDo]

You can email them at: gw@classcounsel.com

I sent the following:
The lawsuit that you are trying to bring against Nintendo for people that can't figure how to hold onto a remote controller is appalling. You are a perfect example of why people dislike lawyers. Nintendo has created a device that when used properly is no harm to anyone at all and won't break. The moment people opt to use it incorrectly things might go wrong. If I throw my DVD remote at you and it injures you should we be suing Sanyo? Beyond the fact that Nintendo has created a perfectly safe device, they are even going out of their way to make people happy by offering a completely free and timely replacement program to have stronger straps for people that don't understand you don't throw a remote at your dog/TV/grandma.

Again, you decision to try and pursue this just shows why people enjoy lawyer jokes so much, it is because in cases like this, they are simply true.

-Nathan

Re:absolutely retarded

[elhedran]

I went less with "you are stupid" and more with "this is how easy it is to prove you are stupid". I think quoted emails are less effective when sent in bulk, so I'll just list the points.

• No game asks you to do more than a slightly moderate swing
  
• Hooking the controller up to a blue-tooth enabled PC will show that the motion sensors saturate well short of the speeds needed to break the strap, something like six times less.
  
• This isn't the first product that required someone to move and object around inside. It is preceded by a number that don't even have wrist-straps.
  

They will lose, it would be nice if they costed society a little less money to do so though.

Re:absolutely retarded

[zobier]

They will lose, it would be nice if they costed society a little less money to do so though.

Won't they have to pay for the wasted time if they lose?

Re:absolutely retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at this from the point of view that you wish to be in effect. (Ie. Lawyers shouldn't bring forward cases in situations where they believe the client is an idiot) You believe you have been done wrong by someone else (regardless of whether it is true or not) You go to a Lawyer and ask them to represent you in court. Lawyer refuses to represent you, judging your case on the spot. You go home feeling there is no justice in the system because you couldn't even have a trial. If this situation occurs then it is no different to a lawyer judging the outcome of your case. Their job is to advise you on your legal rights, and then proceed with directions given by the client. Not to judge which decision is correct in a legal dispute. Would you feel there was justice in a system where you weren't given the opportunity to bring a legal action to court if you believed you were wronged, regardless of how incorrect you are? It is the lawyer's job to represent the client's case to the best of their ability in the most favorable light, as per instructions of the client. Of course they can give advice to the client to not proceed, but ultimately the decision is up to the client.

Re:absolutely retarded

[AK Marc]

Their job is to advise you on your legal rights, and then proceed with directions given by the client.

That is incorrect. Their job is to protect the system first. It is essentially illegal for a lawyer to bring a case to court they believe to be frivolous. Though, that rule is rarely enforced.

Re:absolutely retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the address and template. I sent a similar email but removed the animosity towards lawyers bit and added a few snippets I've read from other /.ters.

Here's mine:

The lawsuit that you are trying to bring against Nintendo for people that can't figure how to hold onto a remote controller is appalling. Nintendo has created a device that when used properly is no harm to anyone at all and won't break. If a bowling ball should slip from my hand on the back-swing, and it injures you, should we be suing the manufacturer of the bowling ball? OF COURSE NOT! Beyond the fact that Nintendo has created a perfectly safe device, they are even going out of their way to make people happy by offering a completely free and timely replacement program to have stronger straps for people that don't understand you don't need to operate the remote as if trying to throw a baseball at 90 miles an hour. The strap is to keep the device from falling, NOT to keep it from being thrown.

Sincerely,
Man with Common Sense

E-mail I just sent to Green Welling, LLP

[Krentz]

"I own a Wii and have had no problems with the unit. No reasonable person using the Wii in a normal matter would ever have a problem with it. This class-action suit is obviously a cash grab as a response to media overhyping and reflects badly on Green Welling (or whatever the company name is). Hopefully this asinine case will be thrown out as the judge sees it for the sheer exploitation that it is. I would like to opt out of the case if possible, because as a Wii owner, I wish to have no part in this shameful display of shady business practices. My Name, Wii owner." Hopefully many others will do the same. The last thing us Wii owners need is less Nintendo support in the US. We're already getting the crap end of the Virtual Console downloads (curse you Casltevania IV!).

tasty != safe

[Anonymous Coward]

how does the statement that it tastes best at the temperature refute the statement that it's an unsafe temperature?

He should count himself lucky

[dmatos]

that it didn't end up jammed in his urethra.

But Wii is so realistic

[EmbeddedJanitor]

that if you lose a tennis game you do a John McEnroe and throw the tennis raquet on the ground.

stfu

[Arlo]

stfu

-nuff said

Camera isn't used like the Wiimote

[xswl0931]

Does your camera instruction manual tell you to wave your camera around? If not, then that's not a good comparison. Nintendo designed the wiimote to be waved around, they could have had some grip material on the remote rather than slick plastic.

Re:Camera isn't used like the Wiimote

[Yvan256]

Flashlights can also be waved around but most don't even include a strap at all.

Re:Camera isn't used like the Wiimote

[Anonymous Coward]

Waving around a flashlight makes the flashlight useless for its intended purpose (i.e. lighting an area). Flashlights can be waved around, but they are not intended to be waved around. Even if/when it is a appropriate to wave a flashlight around (e.g. lighting a larger area temporarily with a smaller flashlight), a gentle wrist movement will suffice. Anything more cannot conceivably be called "normal use" of the flashlight.

This is a far cry from the Wii remote, which is intended to be used as a faux golf club, sword, and et cetera - as evidenced by Nintendo itself which makes available, advertises, and utilizes this feature. The Wii remote is provided with a strap intended to keep the remote in your hand. If, through normal use, the strap breaks, the remote flies, and something breaks, Nintendo should be held responsible.

That said, it seems highly unlikely that these straps break during normal use, and that if they do, that the force generated from "normal use" would result in physical damage to people or property.

Re:Camera isn't used like the Wiimote

[fabs64]

Oh ffs, what of those torches that you shake to charge?
What about shake'n'bake pancakes? those things are really heavy when filled up, you could probably do some real damage to someone if you tried hard enough.
People do NOT need to be instructed in common-sense, and rewarding those who don't have it is a pretty stupid sociological model.

Wrong

[fencehouse]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Umm, actually I pretty sure it was the remote leaving the user's hand that caused the strap to break, not the other way around. No where does it say it is ok to throw the remote.

Let's wait to see the facts

[xswl0931]

I don't think you can call it a bogus claim yet. The Wii is targeted towards a larger range of players than the existing consoles. This means that kids or grandparents who don't have a strong grip could be playing the Wii. If the strap was designed well enough based on Nintendo's expected usage of the Wiimote, then why did they redesign the strap already to make it sturdier? Based on the commercials of people playing the Wii, I can see how an average player COULD use enough force for the Wiimote to fly out of their hands and EXPECT the strap to protect them.

Re:Let's wait to see the facts

[CokeBear]

If they don't have a strong grip, then how could they have thrown the remote hard enough to break the strap? I've tried throwing it (and I can throw a fastball) and I have not been able to break the strap (original; not replacement)

Re:Let's wait to see the facts

[ozbird]

A possible scenario: Moron does not use wrist strap, lobs unrestrained controller at TV. Strap then "breaks" to cover their ass. A materials scientist should be able to analyse the failure mode of the strap to determine whether excessive force was used (stretching, tearing etc.)

That said, a failure is not completely out of the question. I had an Agfa camera when I was a kid, whose wrist strap failed after only a few months of normal use, as did my brother's. The strap was attached to the screw head by a split metal tongue passed through a metal ring, and splayed to lock it in place. This hadn't been done properly/sufficiently, so the prongs simply pulled through. I got a replacement strap, and made damn sure the prongs were fully splayed - no problems for years after that, including after being passed down to younger cousins.

Re:Let's wait to see the facts

[AK Marc]

If the strap was designed well enough based on Nintendo's expected usage of the Wiimote, then why did they redesign the strap already to make it sturdier?

Every person that's ever bought a car should sue the maker of those cars, since ones coming off the line for 2007 are safer than the 2006, which are safer than the 2005... Any improvements are obviously an admission of negligence. No wonder corporations will claim stupid things like "smoking doesn't cause cancer" long after it is known to. If they know it does or know it doesn't, the simple fact is that making something safer makes all sorts of morons come out of the woodwork claiming "see, it must have been defective because they changed it."

Nintendo's mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

The suit is stupid, but Nintendo shouldn't have included the strap in the first place.

Giving people the strap gives them an expectation that they're "safe" in case they let go of the remote. No strap, no false expectation of safety.

one question...

[Anonymous Coward]

how hot is 100 degrees celsuim in celsius?

Re:one question...

[Anonymous Coward]

100 Celsius? It's 212 F. Boiling temp of water.

Who's with me?

[Soul-Burn666]

Lets make a class action lawsuit against bat and ball makers worldwide.

It is known balls and bats, especially together, are extremely dangerous.
Who hasn't heard about balls breaking windows, TVs and hitting poor little kids on the head?

Join with me and lets sue their asses!

It has the same probability of success as this stupid lawsuit.

Abuse privledges, lose privledges...

[RexRhino]

I think that lawsuits should be banned in the United States. I realize that a lot of innocent people actually do file legit lawsuits, ones they probably deserve to win. However, there is no fundamental right to sue other people, in the same way we have a right to freedom of speech or whatnot... because lawsuits are not a natural right inherent in human nature, but something we only get through the legal system.

Clearly the American people have abused that privledge, and so that privledge should be revoked. Some innocent victims might not be able to recover damages from a guilty party who deserves to pay, but that is just the price society has to pay if it can't learn to handle the privledge of lawsuits in a reasonable and responsible manner. We all pay for these lawsuits, because the cost of the lawsuits are hidden in the costs of our goods and services... and it is very clear, the number of innocent people being victimized by the legal system directly or indirectly are outnumbered by the people being helped.

What else can I say

[lowell]

STUPID PEOPLE FUCKING SUCK

Canada Eh!?

[sevwolf11]

I am glad to be a Canuck, this kind of S*** would not even be considered up here. I have many friends south of the border, and they show me that not all Americans are dumb s***s who are greedy to sue anyone and everyone. But there have been many a dumb case I have heard of, and this one ranks right up there with Wii'tarded. Our court system is different here, and I am starting to appreciate it a little more... tho not much!

Ought to just stop making wrist straps

[SkeptAck]

Probably worse for the average user not to have a wrist-strap at all, but better for Nintendo not to have anything that anyone can claim to be defective.

Nerf controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a PS2 wireless Nerf controller at the store and thought that Nintendo could really use something like that. Then flinging the Wiimote around could be part of the actual gameplay!

The real problem

[petehead]

After playing the Wii, I figure the real problem is that the wiimotes are smooth. The underside is smooth plastic that does get slippery with a little palm sweat from some playing. I felt it moving around a bit, though I was nowhere close to throwing it.

Nintendo should have had thicker straps and either ridges or a rubbery type material on the bottom of the wiimote. But they shouldn't be sued for not having them.

Where does it end, you ask?

[Skye16]

It ends where we drag these people out of their houses and lynch them with their own intestines. As for when it ends - well. I hope sometime soon.

McDonalds Coffee Incident

[Anonymous Coward]

The McDonalds coffee case didn't have to do with a woman "SPILLING" coffee on herself even thought that's how it was reported. The cup used to hold the coffee was manufactured to hold hot liquids, however the coffee temperature was much higher than the cup was rated for. The bottom of the cup fell through releasing the coffee onto the lap of the woman. McDonalds was told repeatedly by the cup manufacture that the cups temperature rating was lower than the temperature of McDonalds coffee but McDonalds ignored them which resulted in this accident happening. This is why the court case was won.

As for the Nintendo case, class action lawsuits have little to do with getting money for the plaintiffs "John Q Public" the only people walking away with money in their pockets are the lawyers. The only reason for a class action lawsuit is to punish a company that does wrong and refuses to correct it, which isn't the case here, this case is simply a shake down by a greedy lawyer.

cause and effect?

[mattcoz]

"the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand"

No, the remote left the user's hand and caused the wrist strap to break.

Under normal usage, this should never be a problem. The strap itself is not defective, the users are.

I think it's stupid too, but I was wondering...

[Sleeping Kirby]

Among all of us geeks here, there's got to be one or two physicists. Can someone do a measurement of how much force/energy it takes to break those straps? And then calculate how much energy/force/speed has be to be in the remote before the remote has enough energy break said strap. Now, here's the fun part. Assuming it "slipped" out of the user's hand, how fast would that arm have to move before there is enough energy (remember to take into account friction of a person's fingers and hands) invested into the remote to: A) break free from the static friction of a normal human hand and B) Break free of the remote's strap and C) Still be traveling fast enough to break windows and TV screens (assume CRT). I haven't done any measurements, but when you do a numerical measurement... it doesn't seem likely unless this didn't even really happen and someone did this on purpose for a lawsuit. Yes, I like the WII and plan to get one... but the physics... I mean... it just doesn't add up unless you purposely cut the rope and swung it real hard with an open fist.

Re:I think it's stupid too, but I was wondering...

[TrashGUY]

they forgot to mention that the users had the remote attached to a brick...adjust your caculations for a little additional mass...

Re:I think it's stupid too, but I was wondering...

[Firehed]

Well once I get my replacement wrist strap, I'm going to have some safe experimentation with the original Wii strap. You know, videotape myself throwing it like an idiot would during gameplay (though towards a padded object of sorts, like a pillow) and see how many blatant fucktard moves it takes before the strap breaks. I'm sure it's more than one, and I'd wager that most people who have broken their strap so far have failed to grasp the concept that it's meant only as an *emergency* retention device.

Re:I think it's stupid too, but I was wondering...

[TrashGUY]

I think there is some Teen Age Mutant Ninga Turtle game out that only these few people have. The actually use the remote as they navigate the the game as our beloved orange turtle michaelangelo.

Letter to Nintendo and Green Wellings

[CyberGrex]

What someone should do is create a website where people can electronically sign a document that at the end of a month or two is sent to Nintendo and Green Wellings showing how many people think that Nintendo has done everything correct so far in replacing straps and that this class action lawsuit should not happen. I know the EFF has electronic signatures all the time, but I'm no lawyer so I wouldn't even know where to start. I would be willing to host such a document though I think Nintendo has done everything right so far in replacing the straps for anyone who wants them. I have a Wii and personally the controller has slipped out of my hands one time and the strap didn't break. I hate to see these lawyers ruin a company who has done the right thing to the consumer so far.

Knock it off.

[Grendel Drago]

McDonald's sold coffee at a temperature significantly higher than other restaurants, and had received seven hundred complaints of coffee burns over the preceding ten years. Despite the case's standing in popular culture, it really didn't go down like that. Though the woman was found partly responsible, the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

Re:Knock it off.

[Orange Crush]

the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

The hot coffee suit is one so often pointed to when discussing stupid lawsuits I had no idea it actually had merit. Learn something new every day. Thanks for that.

Re:Knock it off.

[KDR_11k]

"Hot coffee lawsuit" makes me think of Jack Thompson.

Re:Knock it off.

[Don853]

This, listed as a reference from the Wikipedia site, suggests that the case is indeed as ridiculous as it sounds at face value.

As an irrelevant aside, when I worked at Wendys in high school, the tap water could get up to around 170 degrees, which isn't much cooler than the allegedly too-hot temperature for coffee.

Re:Knock it off.

[Laur]

Despite the case's standing in popular culture, it really didn't go down like that. Though the woman was found partly responsible, the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

Try reading Overlawyered for a different take on this. Basically, the popular belief that the suit was ridiculous is pretty much correct. The coffee was not defective, many other restaurants (such as Starbucks) still serve coffee that hot. Besides, McDonald's even had a warning label on the cup.

Re:Knock it off.

[Anonymous Coward]

170 is hot enough to put you in the hospital with horrendous burns in nearly no time flat. Here is a link of time to burn for LESSER temperature water: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_hotwatr_hhg.h tm

170 is a ridiculous temperature for liquids intended for human contact.

Re:Knock it off.

[KingSkippus]

You mean the article that keeps referring to those who believe that Stella Liebeck had merit as "the left" and "liberals"?

It sounds to me like the guy is more interested in pushing some kind of agenda than making an honest evaluation of the case based on its legal merits or lack thereof. Even if the guy is right, he's sure not helping his argument.

Also, it sounds to me like his main point is that the judge should have thrown the case out instead of letting it go to a jury trial. I'm sorry, but although sometimes juries can be stupid, I'd trust a jury much more than I'd trust a judge any day.

/had a judge once tell me, "You don't have a right to a jury trial" over a traffic offense, though it's clearly stated in the Georgia state constitution that I did
/had same judge tell me after finding me guilty, "You know you never had a chance, right?"

Re:Knock it off.

[jedidiah]

Most companies will not sell you a cup of coffee hot enough to give you 3rd degree burns under any circumstance. Not only is it dangerous to the customer but it also harms the product. Beyond all of that, McDonalds already had been sued numerous times over the same issue and chose to suppress information on the matter rather than warn their customers or fix the problem.

Nintendo has actually been doing right by customers effected so far.

Re:Knock it off.

[jedidiah]

I will take your shill site and raise you a genuine litigator that's also a coffee snob.

McDonalds does infact keep their coffee hotter than Starbucks. People drink Starbucks because they use quality beans, don't abuse those beans too badly and then don't drastically overuse them. Starbucks also offers plenty of additives to the point where you need not even know you're drinking coffee.

People fork over London-esque prices over to Starbucks not because "it's hot" but because they actually like to TASTE the things that they eat and drink.

Being able to do permanent skin damage to yourself doesn't even enter into it.

McCoffee would be a shining example of how the standard American brew bears little resemblance to what the rest of the planet thinks is coffee.

Place it in the same category as Budweiser and Velveeta.

Re:Knock it off.

[kalirion]

From the link:

Misleading: McDonald's sells billions of cups of coffee. There had been 700 complaints over hot coffee in the previous decade, which translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million, with only a small fraction of the complaints reflecting injuries as severe as Liebeck's. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.

Now I am not a statistician, but something about these comparisons seems wrong somehow. He appears to be saying that 1 in 24 million cups of coffee results in a burn complaint, and comparing that with, say, 1 in 4 million Americans being killed by lightning in a given year. #complaints/#cups does not quite corellate with #deaths/year. Wouldn't a reasonable comparison be if the latter statistic was in the form of "1 American is killed in X million lightning bolts over the US"? Either that or on the coffee side, compare the number of Americans who will complain of McD's coffee burns a year?

How am I supposed to trust that site if they give us apples and oranges comparisons?

Re:Knock it off.

[phxbadash]

This argument might have merit if Starbucks coffee didn't taste like shit.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

You people are ridiculous.

Coffee at whatever temperature is for drinking, not for pouring in your crotch. McDonalds should never be liable for misuse of their coffee, regardless of the temperature.

You can injure yourself with any temperature of coffee by doing various things with it:

- pouring it in your crotch
- spilling it in the winter so it eventually freezes into slippery ice, then slipping and breaking your hip (Maybe it was too cold? It would have taken 2 minutes longer to freeze if it was regular McDonald's extra-hot coffee! I'm suing for $10 million!)
- loading up a syringe with it and injecting it
- pouring it in your nose so you asphyxiate (McDonald's fault because the coffee cup was too big?)
- dropping it on someone from a tall building
- or just drinking it instead of watching the road

You can make a reasonable case for this lawsuit if the woman was injured drinking the coffee. Since she injured herself misusing the coffee by spilling it on her crotch, there's no way this is McDonald's fault. They shouldn't have to pay a penny, the suit should have been thrown out, and she and her lawyers ought to have been severely sanctioned.

Re:Knock it off.

[KKlaus]

IANAL, but..

I have to agree with the above replier in that, without respect to whether the case itself was justified, overlawyered did not offer a particularly impressive argument. The writer's main points are basically that Starbucks also served hot coffee (the "but she did it too...." defense that kids use to exonerate themselves, not too good there) and that coffee is "supposed" to be served at the 180-190 degrees McDonalds did. He bases that second claim on a reccomendation by the National Coffee Association, which is not unreasonable, but I suspect that their reccomendation is made for instances where spilling should not be an issue (i.e. your home or a sit down cafe) and therefore is purely for taste and not any issue of safety. Those sort of ommissions that attempt to make his evidence come off as stronger than it is (occurring throughout the post), really lower the quality of the argument and point to some possible - my_beliefs > truth - issues.

It _is_ hard to gauge the actual merit of her case, because she won based on the jury's assertion that the warning on the coffee did not sufficiently convey the danger involved, and that's inherently maybe too much of a personal judgement call, but having said that, I was hoping for a more science or law oriented discussion, and getting one that basically said, people like hot coffee, starbucks does it too (although they are also on the receiving end of suits), doesn't really add a lot to the discussion. The debate is on safety and reasonable danger, not anything else.

I mean really, If I sued Sony over a Li-ion battery catching fire and burning my house down, "hey other people sell them too" is not a suitable defense there, and its not a suitable (nor interesting) defense here.

Re:Knock it off.

[tgibbs]

Although a lot of people have argued that the ruling was faulty based on the fact that the temperature was not extraordinarily hot for coffee (which it wasn't) and that many people like coffee this hot (which is true), the court clearly considered not just the temperature of the coffee, but all of the circumstances under which it was served. So while the temperature of the coffee might be perfectly appropriate for coffee served at a table in a ceramic cup, MacDonalds was serving it at that temperature in a styrofoam cup that softens under heat. The cup is stabilized by the rigid lid, and is fine as long as the lid is firmly in place, but it has a tendency to suddenly collapse with even fairly gentle pressure on the sides if the lid is removed. And they were serving it this way to people in automobiles, with separate sugar that required the buyer to remove the lid. A "contents are hot" warning hardly alleviates the hazard, because that does not really convey the nature of the hazard. Perhaps a warning more along the lines of "Warning, cup may suddenly collapse and spill hot contents if lid is removed" would have given MacDonald's more protection from liability. Serving the coffee cooler would have been one option, but hardly the only one; they could also have chose to use a rigid cardboard cup that is not prone to softening and collapse. Even then, the court only found MacDonalds to be partially at fault.

Re:Knock it off.

[ElleyKitten]

Spilling coffee is an accident that one can assume will happen often when you hand it to people driving cars. Would you think that car manufacturers shouldn't be sued for malfunctioning air bags because car accidents are a misuse of their products? Coffee should not be served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. I'm not sure if you can even drink it at that temperature.

Re:Knock it off.

[PeelBoy]

True, but that doesn't make it any less stupid. What, so she only planned on spilling MOSTLY hot coffee in her lap? If she only got slightly less than 3rd degree burns everything would be fine and dandy? She wasn't planning on 3rd degree burns maybe just something in the 2nd degree range?

She would have sued even if the coffee was just normal hot. Spilling coffee in your lap and getting burned is spilling coffee in your lap and getting burned. It sucks. The coffee being normal tempature only makes it suck slightly less. The fact is you still burned the shit out of your crotch and it fucking sucks. It's your fault not the coffees and not Mc Donalds.

Mc Donalds coffee being too hot and this woman spilling coffee in her lap are two different issues in my opionion (unless the coffee burned her legs off and now she is stuck in a wheel chair).

Mc Donalds wasn't in the right for having super hot coffee. They should be spanked and forced to make slightly colder coffee. This woman doesn't deserve their money for that shit. I've burned my tongue on their coffee too. Where's my money?

If Mc Donalds personally kicked the cup out of her hand and made it spill in her lap then I'd say she had a right to sue. She spilled it in her own damn lap.

Re:Knock it off.

[PeelBoy]

So if a beer company made a beer that had slightly more alcohol than normal and a person guy super drunk and crashed (killing an innocent family in the process) does that make it the beer companies fault for having .2% more alcohol than expected?

Re:Knock it off.

[Moofie]

So, if she'd suffered second- and third-degree burns to her mouth and esophagus, instead of her crotch, she'd have a case?

That makes sense.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

Coffee should not be served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds.

What business is it of yours (or of anyone else)?

How about 3rd degree burns in a longer time? How about 2nd degree burns in seconds? How about minor scalding? How should it be prepared to make it safe to pour in a syringe and inject it? Or to pour in your nose and breathe it? Or to pour on the ground and not freeze into a slippery puddle?

How is spilling it on the ground less of an ordinary accident than spilling it on your crotch?

I'm not sure if you can even drink it at that temperature.

What difference does it make if you can drink it at that temperature? How is that relevant to spilling it on your crotch?

Congrats on being a greedy trial lawyer and/or a tool of greedy trial lawyers.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

So, if she'd suffered second- and third-degree burns to her mouth and esophagus, instead of her crotch, she'd have a case?

If she got them by using the coffee as designed -- by drinking it -- then maybe. It would at least be a question worth seriously considering.

Re:Knock it off.

[Moofie]

She was trying to take the lid off the cup of coffee. That doesn't strike me as using the coffee in a non-designed manner.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

She was trying to take the lid off the cup of coffee.

And then she spilled it. She did that all by herself. No McDonalds employee spilled it on her. Spilling the coffee was 100% her fault, and McDonalds did not intend it to be spilled any more than they intended it for injecting via syringe.

Re:Knock it off.

[Laur]

The cup is stabilized by the rigid lid, and is fine as long as the lid is firmly in place, but it has a tendency to suddenly collapse with even fairly gentle pressure on the sides if the lid is removed.

It is fairly obvious that the cup is soft and that the lid is helping to keep it rigid, a warning to that effect really shouldn't be necessary. AFAIK, cardboard cups suffer from the same problem, they are also not very rigid without the lid. However, most people are bright enough to not open a container containing hot liquid directly over their genitals. I don't know about you, but I usually lean forward and hold the cup over the vehicle floor, or the center console, or anywhere else that is not directly over my body. Furthermore, most people won't sit in the hot liquid for 90 seconds while it is burning them. Millions of people deal with hot liquids in flimsy cups in vehicles every day without problems, indicating that there really isn't an "unreasonable danger" associated with it. The woman spilled her coffee. It happens, but it really is no one's fault but her own.

Re:Knock it off.

[Moofie]

Actually, according to the court, she was 20% at fault for spilling the coffee, and McDonalds was 80% at fault for serving napalm in a styrofoam cup.

Re:Knock it off.

[Blkdeath]

McDonald's sold coffee at a temperature significantly higher than other restaurants, and had received seven hundred complaints of coffee burns over the preceding ten years. Despite the case's standing in popular culture, it really didn't go down like that. Though the woman was found partly responsible, the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

The coffee was most certainly not defective. Moreover, their injury rating is somewhere to the tune of "just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold" per year. That's 23,999,999 cups of java successfully consumed per year without incident.

Face it; the lawsuit was frivolous. She did not take any due care to prevent the liquid from spilling in her lap and the verdict was the result of the jury sympathizing with an elderly woman who experienced serious pain and discomfort. These kind of lawsuits are a great example of how our society is losing all sense of personal responsibility.

Re:Knock it off.

[Skreems]

He also neglects to mention that the "complaints per customer" number at that particular restaurant involved in the scalding lawsuit was much, much higher than that national average. If I remember correctly, that one franchise had been keeping their coffee hotter than most other McDonalds did, which led to this problem in the first place, and had received complaints not only from customers, but from employees injured as a result. Still chose not to change their practices, which led to them losing this suit.

Re:Knock it off.

[tgibbs]

It is fairly obvious that the cup is soft and that the lid is helping to keep it rigid, a warning to that effect really shouldn't be necessary.

Actually, it is not that obvious until your first experience of a catastrophic cup collapse

AFAIK, cardboard cups suffer from the same problem, they are also not very rigid without the lid.

They are, however, much more rigid that a styrofoam cup filled with very hot liquid, and they do not dramatically become less rigid when the contents are hot, so the customer is less likely to get an unpleasant and scalding surprise.

However, most people are bright enough to not open a container containing hot liquid directly over their genitals. I don't know about you, but I usually lean forward and hold the cup over the vehicle floor, or the center console, or anywhere else that is not directly over my body. Furthermore, most people won't sit in the hot liquid for 90 seconds while it is burning them.

If you've ever had a styrofoam cup collapse on you, you know that the sudden collapse of the cup can cause the liquid to squirt out several inches. And I don't think anybody suggested that the woman in question was sitting in a hot puddle for 90 seconds (in fact, liquid in a puddle cools rapidly by evaporation and is not dangerously hot after a few seconds). As I understand it, however, the hot liquid soaked into her clothes and undergarments. So how fast can you strip off all of your clothes, starting out belted in an automobile?

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

Actually, according to the court, she was 20% at fault for spilling the coffee...

And that's all that should matter. If she's at fault even 1%, she shouldn't be able to collect damages.

There's no room in this world for "I spilled coffee on myself, give me $8 million". If the courts are an injure-yourself-for-profit venue, then they should all be closed immediately.

Re:Knock it off.

[Laur]

Actually, it is not that obvious until your first experience of a catastrophic cup collapse

It's not obvious to you that the cups are pretty flimsy, and you ought to be pretty careful when handling them? Anyway, I'm not sure what your basing the "catastrophic cup collapse" on, according to the Wikipedia description of the case "She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap." No mention of a "catastrophic cup collapse," just someone being not particularly bright.

They are, however, much more rigid that a styrofoam cup filled with very hot liquid, and they do not dramatically become less rigid when the contents are hot, so the customer is less likely to get an unpleasant and scalding surprise.

Again, according to the case description the cup strength didn't seem to have much to do with the accident. It's likely that the result would have been the same if the cup was made out of cardboard.

And I don't think anybody suggested that the woman in question was sitting in a hot puddle for 90 seconds

Actually, the case descriptions say this very thing. From Wikipedia and the Overlawyered link: "Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her."

As I understand it, however, the hot liquid soaked into her clothes and undergarments.

Yes, as the link says, she was wearing cotton sweat pants, which absorb and hold liquid very well. This is unfortunate, but it is hardly McDonald's fault.

So how fast can you strip off all of your clothes, starting out belted in an automobile?

Sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car? I haven't timed myself, but I'm sure it'd be way faster than a full minute and a half!

Re:Knock it off.

[Moofie]

There are plenty of spurious lawsuits. However, dispensing coffee that's a) too hot to drink safely and b) too hot to taste like coffee even when it's cool is irresponsible.

So you and I will continue to disagree, and the courts will continue to mediate disagreements.

Re:Knock it off.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be damned if you slam velveeta

Re:Knock it off.

[jesboat]

Indeed, the fault is not entirely McDonald's. Liebeck was found 20% at fault (Wikipedia), and damages were reduced accordingly. Coffee served at that temperature would cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds (ibid), and, according to the testimony of a McDonalds, was not fit for human consumption (because it would burn the mouth and throat.)

So, basically, it would have scalded her in far less than 90 seconds.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kreigaffe]

Starbucks coffee is too hot, too.

And I may be odd but I like to, you know. Taste my coffee. You can hold all that crap to hide the flavor, I like it, thanks.

Standard American brew is not McDonald's coffee. Starbucks might be close, but meh.

Standard American brew would more likely be gas station coffee, or truck stop coffee, or diner coffee. Which generally isn't all that bad, and I've never run across any that's too hot to drink. Unlike Starbucks, which I can't stand, because it burns the SHIT out of my tongue if I try to drink if before I let it sit for 10-15 minutes.

Re:Knock it off.

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

People drink Starbucks because they use quality beans, don't abuse those beans too badly and then don't drastically overuse them.

I call bullshit; Starbucks coffee tastes terrible! People go to Starbucks because there's one on practically every corner, there's furniture to sit on, wireless Internet access and very good brand awareness.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

And teaching people to injure themselves for a quick profit is responsible? Or is it teaching people that they don't have to bear the consequences of their own choices (or their own mistakes) that's responsible?

The courts will continue to function as long as there's a huge bonanza of profit in it for the greedy lawyers who control them. And as long as those lawyers donate to the political campaigns of the candidates that skew the rules in their favor.

It's legalized theft. I'm against it because stealing is wrong, even when a judge or jury says "go ahead".

Re:Knock it off.

[Blkdeath]

She was trying to take the lid off the cup of coffee. That doesn't strike me as using the coffee in a non-designed manner.

Which she did improperly and in an unsafe manner. I can think of a dozen things off the top of my head that I could "try to do" that would certainly cause me grave injury but let's be realistic here. She had options. She chose the least sensible method to mix the cream and sugar into her coffee. She got burned. Feces occurs. Thousands of people are injured every day while doing things improperly, and thankfully most of them don't initiate frivolous lawsuits.

Re:Knock it off.

[Moofie]

So, just get rid of all product liability lawsuits? Corporations can do no wrong?

Or should we present them to Your Majesty for judgement? If so, I'm going to need your home phone number.

Re:Knock it off.

[Anonymous Coward]

And because some towns (like mine) don't have any other coffee shops that stay open late because, ironically, they were driven out of business by Starbucks.

Re:Knock it off.

[Dolohov]

While they will not generally serve at that temperature, it does not harm the product -- optimal extraction temperature for coffee is around 190 degrees, and thus freshly brewed coffee will be that hot. Really what they ought to have done was add cream and sugar for the customer, as the cup loses most of its structural stability when the user attempts to remove the lid. (That's when most spills occur, because without the lid, small changes in force can create large changes of shape even in a styrofoam cup)

Re:Knock it off.

[tgibbs]

It's not obvious to you that the cups are pretty flimsy, and you ought to be pretty careful when handling them? Anyway, I'm not sure what your basing the "catastrophic cup collapse" on, according to the Wikipedia description of the case "She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap." No mention of a "catastrophic cup collapse," just someone being not particularly bright.

Yes, the cup spilled. The question is why it spilled, which is not addressed in the Wikipedia entry. But to anybody who has actually handled a styrofoam cup filled with very hot liquid, the source of the accident is quite obvious. The styrofoam becomes very soft, but it is not apparent because the top stabilizes it. The situation described, with light pressure on both sides of the cup, is exactly that which causes the cup to collapse, and the collapse occurs suddenly upon removal of the stabilizing lid. The liquid squirts out at right angles to the pressure (so it is not surprising that the hot coffee between her knees ended up in her lap). It is not easy to anticipate unless you have experienced it or specifically been warned against it. Basically, styrofoam cups are not really suitable for dispensing very hot liquids, especially with a cover. (It's not so dangerous when the cup is uncovered; it cools more rapidly, and you can more readily feel how soft the cup is when you pick it up, so you are less likely to accidentally apply enough pressure to cause it to collapse and spill). Cardboard cups are much, much safer.

Actually, the case descriptions say this very thing. From Wikipedia and the Overlawyered link: "Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her."

And once again, if you understand how hot liquids behave, you realize immediately that it was not the puddle, but the liquid absorbed into her clothing that did the damage.

Yes, as the link says, she was wearing cotton sweat pants, which absorb and hold liquid very well. This is unfortunate, but it is hardly McDonald's fault.

I don't think that it is surprising that the jury concluded that a reasonable person ought to be able to anticipate that a spill of scalding hot liquid in the confines of an automobile is likely to do damage, not necessarily in every instance, but often enough to be worth taking reasonable precautions to prevent--such as reducing the temperature of the coffee or using a stronger cup. Particularly since this was not the first time somebody had been hurt in this way.

Re:Knock it off.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Most companies will not sell you a cup of coffee hot enough to give you 3rd degree burns under any circumstance.

False. Unless the drink is below 120 F it can cause third degree burns. Consult a paediatrician. Hell, consult a website of one. Trust me, at 120 F, all hot drinks generally taste like tepid ass. Or don't trust me and try one yourself. Be honest and post your results.

Before you mention the amount of time, hot coffee lady wore this coffee for 90 seconds. Coffee a shade hotter than 125 F would have caused her serious burns.

>Beyond all of that, McDonalds already had been sued numerous times over the same issue and chose to suppress information on the matter rather than warn their customers or fix the problem.

The majority of which were settled as they were regarding idiot employees dumping coffee on customers, a very different situation. Few to none of the settlements were over customers choosing to wear the coffee instead of drinking it. If there were hundreds of cases of the customers being paid out dumping coffee on themselves, you'd have a good point. As it stands, well, you don't.

Re:Knock it off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the case's standing in popular culture, it really didn't go down like that. Though the woman was found partly responsible, the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

Sorry, how exactly do you think that the coffee being hot makes it defective? Coffee is supposed to be hot. Anything over about 120 degrees can give you third degree burns if you hold it against you, as that lady did. The lady is clearly a moron -- she sat in a puddle of burning coffee for over a minute. OVER A MINUTE. How stupid can you be.

This is cited as a frivolous lawsuit because it clearly IS. Coffee is NOT defective if it's hot. It doesn't matter how hot the coffee is -- coffee is supposed to be hot. They could serve it at a boiling temperature of 200 degrees and I'd argue that's perfectly fine. If you spill it on yourself, that's your own fucking fault. Just like if you spill some hot water on yourself while cooking.

Re:Knock it off.

[RockModeNick]

Though I agree with the parent that they use good beans, I have yet to have a cup of coffie from starbucks that was not horribly scortched. Every single cup I've had there was burned, at every starbucks I've been too.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

So, just get rid of all product liability lawsuits?

That would be better than the system we have now. I'd prefer a fair system though. Something with assumption of risk restored and some sort of a loser pays to prevent these kind of lawsuits from ever reaching a court.

Or should we present them to Your Majesty for judgement?

Because I'm against theft? There used to be a lot of people who were against theft and outright injustice, especially as part of a government-enforced regime to benefit a few elites (lawyers in this case). It's taken almost two generations of fomenting hate and envy to trick folks like you siding with them so they can take what they want.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

The debate is on safety and reasonable danger, not anything else.

Coffee is safe for people who are responsible with it and don't spill it on themselves.

Re:Knock it off.

[Kohath]

A "contents are hot" warning hardly alleviates the hazard, because that does not really convey the nature of the hazard.

Really? When someone warns you that something is hot, what do you think they're trying to say?

"Warning, cup may suddenly collapse and spill hot contents if lid is removed"

"so be careful removing the lid so you don't spill it. And if you do spill it, don't just sit there and let it burn you for a long time. Because the contents are hot and hot things burn and a burn is an injury and injuries are bad so we're warning you because we want to prevent injuries. Also, contents are a liquid and if you tip the cup far enough, the liquid will fall out of the cup in a way that a solid like ice cream might not. So leave the cup upright, don't spill the liquid because it's hot and hot things burn."

Re:Knock it off.

[fabs64]

Starbucks tastes good? huh?
Just because it hasn't been sitting in a coffee pot all day doesn't make it good :-P
Where I live (Melb. Aus) I'd place starbucks pretty close to the bottom rung of espresso coffee.
Though I guess it doesn't help that I don't like sweet drinks so am unlikely to buy any of their crazy-talk mocha style drinks.

Re:Knock it off.

[kilonad]

They scorch it so the flavors hold up better once a metric asston of sugar and milk are added. Coffee brewed to taste good when served black makes for a terribly weak drink if served as a latte or a cappucino.

Re:Knock it off.

[tgibbs]

Really? When someone warns you that something is hot, what do you think they're trying to say?

The problem was not that a customer might be unaware that coffee is hot and can scald; what the customer might well not know is that styrofoam becomes very soft when the contents are that hot, and that the sides of a styrofoam cup may suddenly collapse when the lid is removed, spilling its contents into your lap.

Re:Knock it off.

[DarkProphet]

And that's all that should matter. If she's at fault even 1%, she shouldn't be able to collect damages.
In this particular lawsuit I agree with you, however that is not true for every negligence suit. It really does depend on the situation. Perhaps McDonald's should have been forced to pay even if they were only at 1% fault? The legal system is set up to allow the judge to make that decision based off circumstance, with a bias toward consumer protection since that is the nature of the lawsuit. In the hot coffee lawsuit, I agree with the 'fault percentage' that judge assigned to the plaintiff and defendant. (20% and 80% respectively, if I recall...)
I don't agree with the dollar amount the the defendant had to pay, though.


There's no room in this world for "I spilled coffee on myself, give me $8 million". If the courts are an injure-yourself-for-profit venue, then they should all be closed immediately.
Again I agree, but it almost begs the question -- are you an American? (I am.) If so, you are damn idealistic, and I admire that. But I believe the real problem is that the judge is almost forced to reward the plaintiff if the complaint has even a shred of legal legitimacy, in order to avoid setting a precedent that allows businesses to unfairly insulate themselves against real, honest to God negligence suit. If that is in fact the choice the judge REALLY has to make, then acquiescing to the plaintiffs cause is really the best option, every time. To do otherwise may conflict with consumer protection laws for all I know. This is only my opinion, just food for thought.

I agree with everything you've stated in this thread, and have used the same statements in a similar argument. With that said, I've heard the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit stated as such:

1) Lady spills hot coffee on herself, incidentally burning the hell out of herself. There doesn't appear to be any warning label on the container.
2) Lawyer hears this story and suggests a lawsuit because McDonald's didn't explicitly indemnify itself with a 'proper' warning label
(ala the Surgeon General's Warning required on cigarette packs).
3) Profit!

I don't know whether there was really a warning on the coffee cup at the time of incident or not, but it certainly sets the stage for profitable frivolous lawsuits.

My guess is that what is happening with Nintendo is that the law firm representing the Class Action heard of someone breaking their TV with the Wiimote, thumbed through the Wii manual and failed to find any verbiage to the tune of:

"Do not whip the Wiimote around like a wildman and/or complete idiot. Such actions may cause irreversable damage to the Wiimote and/or surrounding property. Nintendo and/or its affiliates cannot be held responsible for any damage resulting from use of the Wiimote inconsistent with the recommended guidelines."

Then what probably happened is that with loophole in hand, the law firm decided to start a Class Action suit against Nintendo for negligence, because Nintendo did not explicitly indemnify itself.

I haven't been able to find a Wii of my own yet, so I don't know exactly what the Wii manual says. Anyone please feel free to correct me.

As an aside, I've scanned through many EULAs in my day as a computer nerd, and every single one of them has had indemnification verbiage of some sort. With such a practice becoming commonplace in the tech sector, explicit indemnification could possibly be interpreted as the de-facto standard. If that is the case, then is it really a surprise that Nintendo is being sued for failing to provide the proper CYAs?

Re:Knock it off.

[Squozen]

Don't forget that Melbourne is one of the best coffee cities in the world, mate. :)

Re:Knock it off.

[kongit]

well since he already did, I guess you're going to hell. Please fasten your seat belts and enjoy the ride. Buh bye.

Re:Knock it off.

[totally bogus dude]

Gross.

Re:Knock it off.

[Loquis]

Quite agree, Starbucks are to coffee as McDonalds are to steaks.

Re:Knock it off.

[xtracto]

Nah, people go to Starbucks because the number of choices available make them feel they have the power of "the choice" when they ask for a Caramel Macchiato with chocolate sprinkles soya milk and two shots of expresso. They feel powerful =o).

Personally I find that the only coffee you get in starbucks is the one you add after they serve your drink (when you add the sugar and other niceties). I preffer Costa or Nero.

And about the McBurnt lady I think it is one of the dozens of examples of how fucked up the USA legal system is. It is talked in Mexico with other examples like if a thief gets into your home and your dog bites him he can sue you for some stupid damage and also that if they do clean the floor on a super market and you happen to slide and fall because they do not put a sign, then you can also sue the supermarket...

That is (in my opinion) the culture of the whining citizens... Just learn to take care of yourself and learn some common sense (uh coffee is hot oh noes I think I should be careful but why dont I just put the cup between my legs! oh noes I got burn ohn noes lets sue and get a million dollars...).

Re:Knock it off.

[ElleyKitten]

Coffee should not be served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds.

What business is it of yours (or of anyone else)?

Uh, as a person who has ordered coffee before I think it is my business how it is served. Some of the other lawsuits involved McDonalds empoyees spilling the coffee in people's laps as they attempted to pass it into the car. I would prefer not having to go to the hospital for merely ordering breakfast.

I'm not sure if you can even drink it at that temperature.

What difference does it make if you can drink it at that temperature? How is that relevant to spilling it on your crotch?

If coffee can cause 3rd degree burns on your crotch, then I would assume it could burn you if you drank it. Why would I want a drink that would hurt me to drink it? There's no reason to serve drinks that hot.

Re:Knock it off.

[Oranse]

Coffee tends to taste burned when it stands too long in the pot with the warming plate on. I usually shut off my brewer almost immediately when the water is used up. Coffee doesn't get burned if it's instantly brewed, and even better if it's from freshly ground beans. I don't know about Starbucks, they haven't arrived to Finland (yet).

Re:Knock it off.

[RespekMyAthorati]

And why the hell shouldn't MacDonalds coffee be hotter than other places? The coffee in a lot of other places is about as hot as dishwater. It's been even worse since that stupid lawsuit.

Every case is founded on some basic legal principles.

In this case, the basic principle was:
When any adult engages in stupid or irresponsible behavior, then that person is 100% responsible for the outcome.
Not 90%.
Not 99%.
100%.

And, driving with hot coffee between your legs is definitely stupid and irresponsible.
Therefore, MacDonalds was not responsible at all.

American tort law is completely full of shit.

Re:Knock it off.

[Anonymous Coward]

This comes very late in the conversation. But I have a friend who's dad used to work in P&Gs coffie devision. He'd always complain that Starbucks' beans sucked. When they started out they didn't know what they were doing and over-roasted their beans. Since they cultivated a high-end brand people came to believe that the burnt beans were what's good.

Re:Knock it off.

[RockModeNick]

Nice to see a Fin on /., I used to play Batmud and half of the players or so are Fins, you should hear me curse someone out in broken Fin, Perekele vittu helvetti, lol ;) My family uses a stovetop perculator and pours into a glass vaccume carafe, to preserve the temperature without adding burnt flavor or bitterness.

Re:Knock it off.

[jedidiah]

They still oversoak their beans but they don't do so to nearly the same degree as the like of McDonalds.

McDonalds are even more prevalent. Yet people would rather spend 10x on the Starbucks product.

While Starbucks still sucks, they manage to suck remarkably less.

Re:Knock it off.

[jedidiah]

By American standards, Starbucks is fucking wonderful.

If you were paying attention you might have noticed me reference the whole Budwieser/Velveeta thing.

I have owned a Wii since the UK Launch

[TAZ6416]

Played it a few hours a night since then, sometimes with friends, several times drunk. And how many straps have we broke? None. We have done this by HOLDING ON TIGHT TO THE FRIGGING REMOTE. Jesus weep, I can't believe how stupid some people are, although the greediness of lawyers isn't a shock.

I have however fell on my arse while playing Baseball because I was stupid enough to stand on our wooden floor in just socks, but you don't see me suing my wooden floor company, or the blokes who make my socks.

Jonathan

Re:I have owned a Wii since the UK Launch

[Trifthen]

Hey, that's an awesome idea! Socks never come with warnings that wearing them will make hard flat surfaces dangerous to walk on due to reduced friction! I'll be rich!

breech of warranty

[szembek]

I'm sure the warranty simply offers a replacement in the case of defects.... which they've already done. Therefore this case is merit-less by default.

Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[GodInHell]

Not just third degree burns, third degree burns on her genitals.

Still, the important point isn't the severity of the actual damages - it was that McDonalds was serving coffee that would BOIL YOUR STOMACHE if you drank it immediately. The INTENDED USE was potentially LETHAL. This wasn't "hot coffee" it was a danger to the public.

We could choose to describe any industrial accident as "just" a natural consequence of doing buisiness... the distinction of merit is that the act which has caused harm is of value only to the buisiness, and is a danger to the public.

The word "balancing test" comes to mind.

-GiH

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[fitten]

Yeah... because it's unreasonable to expect hot coffee to be hot. Nor should you expect to have to wait for hot coffee to cool down to a temperature that you can ingest it safely before actually ingesting it, despite the fact that it is made with water that is near or above the boiling temperature of water. You should treat it just like you do hot cheesy pizza... you should, as fast as you possibly can, shove as much of it into your mouth as you possibly can as soon as it comes directly out of the oven, regardless of the fact that it is very hot after being cooked in an oven that is significantly over the boiling temperature of water.

"Balance" is realizing that coffee is hot and letting it cool down before you drink it. "Balance" is realizing that you shouldn't always do things from the seat of your car (while driving or otherwise in such a tight, cluttered place) involving very hot or otherwise dangerous substances.

Seriously... thinking ahead is just something people have lost the ability to do.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[GodInHell]

McDonald's heated their coffee to obscene heats (used preasure to keep it from flashing to steam) while pressing it through the grounds in order to save money on grounds. We do something similar with espresso - but espresso runs through open air for a few inches in a tiny trickle - this allows it to cool. Any home coffee maker or espresso machine produces coffee that is safe (if uncomfortable) to drink straight from the pot. This would kill you.

Again, the whole reason that case succeeded (remember, this was a jury trial) was that McDonalds was producing a product that was abnormally dangerous for a product of its type. We expect coffee to be hot, not lethal. If you can't grasp that distinction, then imagine the following little play - your mother stops to order coffee from Starbucks - on the way out of the store (after adding milk and sugar, all that) she sips her coffee.. the heat of the liquid sears her lips, causing them to bubble and begin to fill with puss immediately. Her tounge and the back of her throat are also burned. Her airway is closed off and she has trouble speaking with her tounge which hurts to move. As she tries to ask for help the coffee slips and splashes over the person next to her - this coffee is so hot that through his clothes this man is burned baddly enough to be hospitalized.

McDonald's settled several suits involving injuries to the mouth and stomach out of court. This particular suit caught so much attention because the woman was hospitalized.

Here's a quick summary:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. See this site for some detail. Highlights include:

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail; and,

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior "callous." Moreover, "the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict." Id. You don't have to care for the welfare of others. I choose to.

-GiH

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[KDR_11k]

What is McDonalds supposed to do, make the coffee and let it stand around for two minutes before handing it to the customer?

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck 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. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

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. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[fitten]

You don't have to care for the welfare of others. I choose to.

I choose to not attempt to open cups of hot liquid by jamming it in my crotch, holding it between my knees, and trying to remove the lid. I further choose to not do such things while in the confines of an automobile.

It's unfortunate that she was burned but rarely does a single event happen in a vacuum. One can usually find an entire sequence of poor choices and judgements along the way.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[LordVader717]

The situation you described seems more like an "accident" with molten metal than hot coffee. The simple fact is that water (coffee) can't be heated to more than 100 degrees Celcius, and even if it is pressurized, it must have cooled down to less, otherwise it would be spitting all over the place.
She suffered the injuries because she spilled the coffee in an unlucky position, not because there was a cup of death served to her by the evil people at McDonalds

People have accidents with hot beverages at home all the time. Just because you purchased it from a restaurant doesn't make it any less your own fault.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[Armadni General]

It is apparent that you failed both a) your very first elementary-school chemistry test and b) your thermodynamics test.

Liquid water can easily be heated to greater than 100 degrees Celsius. Boiling occurs not at a fixed temperature, but rather at the point at which the pressure of the substance becomes greater than the pressure of the surrounding air. Try it at home--heat water for a few minutes on a gas flame. No steam? Shut off the flame. The reduction in surrounding heat will lower the temperature and thus the pressure of the air, and the water will steam--after you shut off the flame. Thus we learn that when the air is compressed, more energy (higher temperature) will be required to boil a liquid.

The suit alleged that McDonalds' coffe was kept at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. So, to make the previous paragraph irrelevant...nobody in this situation had coffee that was over 100 degrees Celsius.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[Fizzl]

And McDonalds serves the coffee in pressurizzed styrofoam/cardboard cups?
Damn, gotta get some of that. I could use some lightweight vessel cabable of keeping liquids pressurized well over natural boiling points.

All the McDonals in my country serve coffee from open pots btw. I can imagine they could hold it over 100C in some kind of serving machine.

If I buy coffee, my first assumption is that it is about 100C when poured. If it is a soft cup with a lid, my first instinct is definitely NOT to apply pressure to the cup and remove the stiffest part of the structure, removing the tension holding the cup together.

The lawsuit is bogus, retarded and meritless. Even if they serve the coffee in hottest possible temperature the could, it's still the lack of forethought by the dumb bitch who scalded herself.
I understand that she was mighty pissed off with the hospital bills and felt that SOMEONE should pay them instead of her. For some reason there is some intuition that tells that SOMEONE should pay atleast the bills, because she already got so severely punished for her stupidity by having life long scarring.
But no. The fault lies with the woman completelly. Yes, it's tragic she got burned so severely and is stuck with huge hospital bills, but there isn't magical SOMEONE around this story who should share the blame, even if you have a huge multinational evil hamburger chain involved.

Stop touting that the woman was somehow less of fault. Even if the cup held burning thermite, provided that that's what she bought, it's still her fault. Even if McDonalds served their burning thermite at 5800C instead of the more popular 5400C.
Even if it was cold tomato juice, she would have still spilled it in same fashion. Now should SOMEONE pay for washing her clothes and cleaning the car?
Didn't think so.

PS. Sorry. It got a bit long winded, but I'm just so sick of this piece of shit of lawsuit and the idiots defending it.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[arose]

It does not matter how the coffee was prepared. What matters is that the temperture of the coffee when served was obviously below boiling point. Ordinary consumer water kettles let the user dispense boiling water (as in 100C and 212F) there are water kettles for use in cars--would you find it reasonable if people sued the manufacturers of those after pouring boiling water onto themselves?

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[LordVader717]

I did include the bit about pressurisation in my comment, and said that if it was stored in a pressurised container, as soon as it is poured in normal atmouspheric pressure, it will have to be under 100C or would explode.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[GodInHell]

Use according to custom of "open and obvious" dangers is generally not recoverable. In this case, McDonalds served coffee well in excess of expected or normal tempature. They admitted at trial that the product could not be safely used as a customer would expect to use coffee from another vendor. McDonalds corporate HQ mandated that coffee be served at 180-190F, that is 50-60 degrees hotter than the industry average. Third degree burns would occour within seconds of contact, 2-6 to be specific.

It is also a common myth that the lady in question was driving, or in a moving vehicle (both hazardous activities) she was the passenger (her grandson was driving) and they had parked so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee.

As a note to the fairness of the system, the jury applied a theory of contributory negligence to divide the cost of actual damages (around $150,000) between the lady and McDonalds (20/80 split). The large reward came from punitive damages after evidence was produced that McDonalds knew that several other accidents had occoured, that people had been hospitalized and recieved major and permanent scarring as a result of their conduct, and that their conduct was outside of the normal behavior for a restaurant of their type and scale. The judge reduced the penalty to within the scale generally approved of by the supreme court, somewhere between 2 and 4 times the actual damages. Again, to impose a sense of scale, McDonalds began by refusing the woman's offer of a $20,000 payment to recover for her hospital bills, which McDonalds refused. Records of buisiness at that time showed that McDonalds made over 1.3 Million dollars per day from coffee sales alone.

The message and intent of the court (theoretically the Jury) was to tell McDonalds to lower the tempature of their coffee and put up a warning stating that the beverage could not be consumed as sold (again, above and beyond "normal" coffee). McDonalds briefly lowered the tempature of their coffee - but it is now served at those high tempatures again with several warnings - and importantly - coffee cups that have been designed not to fracture as easily - in keeping with the unusual heat of the product they contain.

If you want a sampling, go down to McDonalds, get a fresh cup of coffee, and stick your finger in (just the tip). You can do that with starbucks for a few seconds without getting burned. My torts prof challenged us to do this to prove the same point I'm trying to make.. you may be suprised how badly it hurts, and how quickly it burns.

-GiH

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[arose]

What happened to the nice little rant about overheated water used in coffee preperation that is somehow creating superhot coffee?

McDonalds corporate HQ mandated that coffee be served at 180-190F, that is 50-60 degrees hotter than the industry average.

Why should I believe you when other sources say that industry organizations recomend the same or similar temperture?

Records of buisiness at that time showed that McDonalds made over 1.3 Million dollars per day from coffee sales alone.

So how man of the hundreds of thousands of poeple daily are injured of this product that couldn't be safely used as expected?

If you want a sampling, go down to McDonalds, get a fresh cup of coffee, and stick your finger in (just the tip). You can do that with starbucks for a few seconds without getting burned.

Siping it will cause lips to fill with puss immediately (as you stated previvously), yet you suggest I put my fingertip in it? How about using a thermomether that not only prevents burning ones skin but also provides greater accuracy? Other sources claim that Starbucks coffee is just as hot, as I don't have either around I can't verify. How one could drink significant quantities of a liquid that burns as badly as you describe (you have done the test yourself right?) is a mystery to me.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[GodInHell]

I'm rehashing the facts as presented in the discussion above this. You don't have to take my word for it, there are plenty of resources available on the net - in journals - and in the court documents. (I can't link to the latter two because they are locked inside subscription systems, but there should be alternate methods of access if you're interested enough to look. I didn't use them as direct reference here).

I did perform the test - and it did burn the heck out of my finger (I had expected it not to, since I used to be on your side of the fence about this case). About 15 minutes later it was cool enough to drink.. if still uncomfortable. I think most people that drink McDonalds coffee regularly will be familar with the sensation of burning your tounge when you don't wait long enough... it takes a day or two to go away - but dosen't cause real harm if you sip only a little bit and don't let it sit on your tounge... which reflex action handles for you.

The only concise reference to starbucks tempatures indicates that if you order your drink "extra hot" it comes at 180 degrees

Late Update: Starbucks does indeed make "extra-hot" lattes for those who request one, according to a company spokesman. "[T]hey will receive a beverage at approximately 180 degrees. Starbucks milk-based beverages are normally prepared at temperatures between 150-170 degrees," Alan Hilowitz told me in an email. Here

I'm sure I could dig up their official specs with enough effort, but.. work calls.

I suspect you're going to disagree with this post as well - so let me head you off: of course you have the right to disagree what is reasonable - but try to remember that there were 12-14 citizens who listend to the testimony from both sides in this case and came to the determination that McDonalds willfully and knowingly created a danger to the public. You may find this site more to your likeing, which indicates that the NCSA does recomend serving coffee that hot, but the linked sites go on to mention that most restaurants don't do this because it's dangerous when you're using a styrofoam cup that retains heat.

-GiH

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[arose]

About 15 minutes later it was cool enough to drink.. if still uncomfortable.

This brings up the question of how coffee bought in a drive through is normaly consumed--right away or at the final destination. You would need to have different coffee (with different cups so that they don't get confused) to statisfy both behaviours.

I think most people that drink McDonalds coffee regularly will be familar with the sensation of burning your tounge when you don't wait long enough... it takes a day or two to go away - but dosen't cause real harm if you sip only a little bit and don't let it sit on your tounge... which reflex action handles for you.

You are in fact saying that, yes, McDonalds clients do have a reasonable expectation of coffee beeing that hot (through expierience if nothing else) and yes, it isn't all that dangerous for normal consumption.

If this is reasonably acurate 150F isn't much safer. As far as juries go--innocent people have been sentenced to death with "shadow of doubt" burden of proof, it may be a good system overall, but it's not anywhere near perfect.

Re:Genital Burns & Lethal heat.

[Fizzl]

Just have to add one thing,eventhou no-one will ever read this:
If you think the idiot should be rewarded and the evyl corporation punished... Maybe you could be part of the jury?
Ornot?

I donät know. You USA'ians are just a bunch of stupid sheeple for me. Here, walk into this meat/bone separator and you will be immortall like the chicken here.

I FUCKING HATE LAWYERS AND JUDGES

[Anonymous Coward]

THEY SUCK MY FUCKING COCK

Consumers.. suck my fucking cock

balifs, such my fucking cock

court recorders, suck my fucking cock

all you dumb motherfuckers who dont know how to hold a wiimote, SUCK MY COCK

you money hungry fucks, who will only get a strap replacement while lawyers get rich, SUCK MY COCK

Did I miss anybody?
 

Re:I FUCKING HATE LAWYERS AND JUDGES

[WilliamSChips]

Yeah, you forgot the people who don't like getting cancer from asbestos.

You also forgot the people who were told that smoking was perfectly healthy and then got lung cancer.

So yes, you forgot quite a few people to fucking hate. Because if it weren't for frivolous lawsuits like this we'd still be sucking down asbestos.

mod parent up

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

+10, not a freaking retard.

I just want to believe...

[gmezero]

...that somehow this is just a marketing gimick.

Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Has any wondered why this is like the only console ever to not have setups in the stores where people can play? I think Nintendo knew that they had cheap straps and they were trying to cut corners where they could. There is a statement from the head guy saying that he had originally wanted a $100 system. Just a thought.

Re:Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen it setup in the local game stores. So your statement is inaccurate.

Re:Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in controlled environments.

This has to be some sort of joke

[Madnessx9]

"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty."

The Wiimote is fine it is just the idiots using it
Common sense goes along way in this world it is such a shame 90% of this world lack it

Anything is defective if people put enough strain on the device.
I have had my wii from release day and well.. i have never had the wiimote slip out of my hand.. but then again i'm not a moron and i don't throw it like im trying to kill somebody with it

Magical pants!

[Grendel Drago]

No, but putting a styrofoam cup of even warm coffee between your legs is the quintessential act of stupidity, and she was paid for it. What would have happened had it not been so hot it scalded her? A lawsuit for her dry cleaning expenses?

If your messy sweatpants require you to undergo two years of medical treatment costing eleven grand, I think I'd be okay with you suing about that. Because you'd have magic pants.

Two days.

[Grendel Drago]

I think it was either two days' profits or two days' sales of coffee (the original multimillion dollar award, not the reduced settlement); there's also been a proposal in California for the State to take a portion of tort awards, but that brings with it its own raft of problems. Perhaps punitive damages could be doled out with the proviso that the recipient had to designate charities (to which they had no connection) to receive the money anonymously.

Does not compute

[CODiNE]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

So basically the lawyers are claiming that the remote was firmly IN HAND when the strap somehow magically broke itself, which then caused the holder of the remote to let go of it, further causing expensive property damage.

This is a new era of legal blame-shifting, no longer is "The devil made me do it" required in court, you can now simply say "The wrist strap made me do it".

Nintendo Won't Lose

[banuk]

.... They'll settle like any other big corporation in this situation.... they'll settle so that they can hush this up quickly rather than let it drag on and be bad for business.... the lawyers will call it a moral victory while lining their pockets, and the world will see this in the future (9 months from now) that Nintendo lost

Wrist Straps - Too Innovative For You?

[Bones3D_mac]

The inclusion of the wrist strap may have actually been *too* innovative for the user. Instead of it being just a typical remote like the ones we've been using for the last 30+ years, the Wii controller gave users an unspoken excuse to be lazy or irresponsible in handling it, simply because the wrist strap gave them that extra freedom.

If the Wii controller had never had a wrist strap in the first place, doesn't it seem obvious that the users would simply be more cautious in its use entirely out of habit?

The lawsuit may have *some* merit to it, but for a much, much different reason than the one being used in this case.

She was seventy-nine.

[Grendel Drago]

If the coffee was that hot, why sit in the flaming puddle of coffee for 90 seconds?

Feel free to conduct an experiment on some random 79-year-old women to see how sprightly they are when you start charring their flesh. I'm not really used to seeing septuagenarians leaping out of cars, but perhaps your experience has been different. I guess she didn't want to get out of the car, right? Because if I'm watching the skin peel from my thighs, I know my first thought is, "another forty-five seconds and it's lawsuit time!"

tort

[mottie]

only in the USA could a lawsuit like this even be considered..

Can we counter-claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about law, but can the class of non-retarded Wii owners sue the moronic ones for damages?

My Wii experience

[archammer2]

I'm a big guy. Not exactly a star athelete, but I can throw pretty hard when I want to (or need to). I also have big, sweaty hands, particularly when holding a controller for any length of time.

I play without a wrist strap. I've never had a problem. And, yes, I get into it.

As a bit of a personal test (after horrible images of my wiimote snapping from its strap, becomming entient, flying around my room and breaking my TV passed through my head) I put the strap on and let the wiimote hang from my wrist. Looked fine. I bounced it up and down a bit. Still fine. Considering the wiimote wouldn't get more than a couple inches from my hand if I screwed up, this was good enough for me.

BUT! The strap is pretty thin. But, this also begs the question, why didn't people make better straps for themselves upon seeing how thin the straps were and hearing all the horror stories? A length of yarn would have worked, for crying out loud.

Plus, Nintendo's replacing all the wrist straps! (I'm keeping mine, thank you very much) They're pretty much saying "We realize you're getting a bit more into it than we thought you would. And we don't want anyone to get hurt, so we're replacing your straps at no charge." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're doing it for free.

This greatly reminds me Weird Al's "I'll Sue Ya"...
If only there was a "Don't be a dumbass" law...

Incurious, rather.

[Grendel Drago]

I don't think people are stupid, so much as ignorant. The problem is that ignorance becomes fashionable, because knowing stuff is for four-eyed intellectuals who never get laid. Combine that with people not wanting to look stupid, and you have a perfect recipe for people never asking questions---which is, after all, how all of us learned this stuff in the first place.

Message sent to Green Welling LLP

[RandUser]

My problem involves litigious companies taking action regarding frivolous and, dare I say, mind-bogglingly ridiculous assertions. Such as claiming that Nintendo of America is somehow responsible for the few customers incapable of controlling their own body.
        Disregarding the very clear warnings instructing users to _not_ let go of the controller, Nintendo makes no assertions about the ability of the wrist strap to prevent powerful forces from breaking them. The wrist strap is intended for no other _explicit_ purpose than as a handy way to have the controller hang from your wrist during periods of inactivity.
        To further ignore that Nintendo has already improved the wrist straps (and created a replacement program) in lieu of these zealous users when they have no obligation to due so demonstrates how petty and ignoble Green Welling LLP is. I will take whatever opportunities I may have to express my extreme displeasure in your company.

Thank you for your great effort in reading this,
RandUser

Why oh why..

[SpacialCoogs]

This just reminds me of how everything has warning labels on it now. Pretty soon every pencil is going to have a message carved into it telling us not to poke our eyes out.

Wrong.

[brunes69]

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be kept and served at 120-140 degrees F for optimal taste. You can find this with a quick google search, or ask any coffee lover.

140 degrees F is going to cause burns if left on exposed skin for any reasonable period of time. If you do some reading, you'll find out the actual series of events was this:

1. Woman in rush orders hot coffee at drive through
2. Instead of asking for a carry tray or putting it in car cup holder, she elects to keep it between her legs
3. Due to her being careless driving, the coffee spills all over her lap
4. Instead of pulling over right away and cleaning up the mess, she keeps driving until she gets where shes going, 20-30 mins later.

Steps 2-4 are the cause of the burns, NOT step 1. And all of them are 100% the womans's fault, not McDonald's.

Re:Wrong.

[WilliamSChips]

Except McDonalds was serving it at 180 degrees. At this temperature it burns your skin. They were also serving it in cups so flimsy that when she tried to pull the cup open it collapsed on her. She's also 79 years old, she wasn't able to immediately clean up the mess, especially because she was wearing sweatpants. By the time those came off the damage would already be done.

Re:Wrong.

[Sancho]

Please stop the fud.

The woman was not driving, she was in the back seat.
The car was at rest when she was burned.
Given that the car was at rest, I doubt (but have no reference for) your supposed 'fact' that she kept going for 20-30 minutes.

Sites that support my version of events:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1107089

If you have contradicting sites, I'm all eyes.

Re:Wrong.

[LordVader717]

Then that's a problem the lady has to deal with. All McDonalds done was serve a hot coffee, at a perfectly reasonable temperature. The inujries resulted because of how she held the cup, and how she sitting, something that isn't McDonalds' responsability. I'm not blaming her if she wasn't able to jump up and pull down her pants, but what's McDonalds supposed to do, only serve cold coffee to elderly people?

No, she didn't.

[Grendel Drago]

She wasn't driving at the time, and the car was stopped. Please familiarize yourself with the facts of the case in more than the standard "talking points" fashion before pretending that you know what you're talking about.

Predicted result

[ucblockhead]

A settlement whereby the lawyers handling the suit will get $30 million and everyone who purchased a Wii before December 2006 will receive a $5 off coupon good on any Nintendo product.

Re:Predicted result

[British]

And how much is Sony paying the lawyers to do this? I wonder if this is an attempt to get the heat off the PS3, by making the Wii look bad.

Re:Predicted result

[ucblockhead]

Making the Wii look bad!? This story is free publicity for Nintendo. "Our consoles are so fun that people lose control!"

remember there's a human behind every attorney

[Anonymous Coward]

Always keep in mind that behind every frivolous lawsuit like this there's
usually a weenie, no self worth asshole that thinks they've been 'slighted' in some way.

Absolutely 100% stupid... isn't it?

whatever... /. is a waste of my time *sigh*

Re:diculous isn't a word!

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do you morons keep insisting that something can be rediculuous (i.e. diculous again).
The root word is ridicule (pronounced "RID ih kule"). It's a concept I think you need to experience, so I'm posting here to ridicule you.

Hint to mods: This post is informative/slightly amusing; parent is ridiculously "diculous" (whatever that means).

No, I like this one.

[Grendel Drago]

For the "tort reform" crowd in general...

Private toll company manufactures a bridge without guardrails, rumble strips or anything of the sort. Just road, then empty air. Driver falls off the bridge, gets injured. Driver sues, complaining that private toll company should have done something like put guardrails on the bridge. Corporate bootlicking jerkwads come out of the woodwork on the internet, and gift us with such gems as: Under normal use, there's nothing wrong with the road--did the instructions say to drive off the edge of the bridge? I bet Driver fell off that bridge on purpose for all the money that jury's going to dole out. We should have let nature take its course and weed out the stupid people! Me and my friends have gone over that bridge a thousand times, and we never fell off.

The possibilities are endless...

Re:No, I like this one.

[MeanderingMind]

Except the difference here is there is a safety mechanism. The safety strap is like the guardrails on your typical bridge. No one expects the guard rails on a bridge to stop a car from driving off in a situation where they were driving unsafely (i.e classic movie chase scenes) and similarly no one should expect that similar excessive transgressions with the Wiimote can be prevented by the strap.

Both can and will prevent the vast majority of cases. Cars lurching somewhat or even strongly towards the open river will be forcefully corrected by the rail, and so too will the Wiimote maintain proximity to the hand that lost it.

The issue here is, did the strap break because of a defect which caused it to fail to sustain what should be a typical scenario, or was the user abusing a safety feature?

Re:A defect?

[owlnation]

I think people who were not really watching what they were doing broker their TV and want someone else to pay for it.

And I wonder how many people suddenly had top of the range plasma TVs too... or a borrowed receipt for same.

The whole thing is first class ambulance chasing. The sad thing about it is that this kind of selfishness weakens the impact of legal action overall and toughens and trains the corporate legal depts for genuinely serious actions.

Welcome to "Tort Law in America"

[WebCowboy]

If there was nothing wrong with the first strap then why did they correct it.

Welcome to the lovely world of tort law--keeping the ambulance-chasing lawyers of America employed for generations!

There WAS nothing wrong with the Wii-mote strap...IF it was used as intended and under the conditions encountered during product and focus-group testing. However, it is difficult to find product testers and focus-group participants that are total and complete moronic jackasses. Besides that, QA and market focus people often overlook the "total and complete moronic jackass" segment of the population.

In any case, it is quite clear that Nintendo underestimated the force that would be applied to the strap during the MISuse of the Wii-mote. Tort law is all about establishing "Duty of Care" (a special type of "guilty") and generally speaking it is assumed that the party being sued must prove that they have adequately/reasonably met their duty of care (that is, they are assumed guilty and must establish reasonable doubt to prove their innocence). Because of the way tort law works, once it became apparent that at least one "total and complete moronic jackass" could indeed cause personal injury or property damage through ANY sort of use of Nintendo's equipment (proper use OR OTHERWISE) that they were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to address the situation. Their designers and lawyers no doubt had meetings to discuss what would be the best courses of action and decided that a design modification and well-publicised voluntary recall would reasonably meet their "duty of care" obligations.

What is great about tort law (for the ambulance-chasing-scumball flavour of lawyer anyways) is that it provides a catch-22 that provides justification for a lawsuit REGARDLESS of the actions taken to resolve this sort of issue. For example, if Nintendo decided that the product design was fine as it was and merely added a bright, day-glow warning label then they could be sued for neglecting their "duty of care". OTOH, if they "do the right thing" and address their duty of care fully by doing a design modification and a product recall then it is an admission of a product defect and there is still enough justification for a lawsuit.

IANIAL of course...but if you are employed in a profession (doctors and engineers in particular) or are an entrepreneur (hotel, restaurant or manufacturing for example) you don't need to be a lawyer to know about tory law, because eventually you or someone you know will be a victim of tort law.

If people with IQs below room temp...

[TrashGUY]

were warned not use a product it would be alright. Seriously how do these people function enough to contact a lawyer. It really is a sad affair. About the coffe women. If it was hot enough to scald her to the point of getting burns, how did it not manage to melt a silly styrofoam cup... realy... Some people shoul dbe deported to afghan so they appreciate living.

Re:If people with IQs below room temp...

[VJ42]

If people with IQs below room temp... is that Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin?

;-)

Assumptions and other verbal abuses.

[GodInHell]

It's easy to blame the lawyer who's out there attacking some company you support (why do we support companies anyway? They'd all gutt us and hang our corpses to dry if it were legal and profitable). Here's the deal - lawyers act in an adversarial system - the system is built to encourage suits when a plausible cause of action arises. It is because of this system that your razor blades have safety guides and your car no longer has a straight steel steering rod that pierces your sternum when you rear end somebody.

Public safety is a prize for which I am willing to force corporations (even ones that make neat toys!) to defend their acts in court. Nintentdo admitted in the recall that they had considered the heavier duty cords and the potential danger to furniture and bystanders, but they built the system the way they did anyway. I think the system is alot of fun. I think that with enough buisiness, it won't matter that they had to recall the wrist-bands and pay for a few TVs. They will make their money.

We, we won't have to breathe in asbestos particles that some company figured they could get away with puting in packing material because lawyers don't sue lightly. We don't have to worry about car companies choosing not to properly seal gas tanks so our cars don't explode because they're allowed to weigh cost of life against cost of buisiness. This is the system we have, and if you live anywhere in the world you benefit from the improvements the U.S. legal system encourages in product safety.

-GiH

Drop a note to the legal counsel

[winomonkey]

I just went to the web site for the legal councel that is representing the poor and innocent Wii victims, filing a complaint against their company with the included online form. Nothing rude, nothing inane ... I simply informed them that I am opposed to their lawsuit, told them that it seemed frivilous, and that I would watch the proceedings and subsequent fallout with some interest.

I am neither a fanboy nor a complete idiot. I simply think that this whole case is a joke, and feel that the law firm, when taking cases concerning the public, should hear what the public thinks.

Self-Control Anyone?

[thelinuxjunkie]

I am calling everyone I know to get onboard a class action lawsuit with me. I am attempting to get a national suit against Good Year tires because I put them on my truck and I'm driving just like they tell me to, but the tread is wearing down. Something just isn't right and I feel they should replace the defective units...

Give me a break! Just because a few dozen people cannot control themselves while playing a VIDEO GAME doesn't mean Nintendo should pay for it! What will happen when these same people get older and forget to change their Depends, will they sue for the leakage they caused?

On the other hand, Nintendo shot themselves in the foot for 2 reasons...
(1) They included the strap. They should have left it off.
(2) The manual specifically states, wear the strap in the event you let go of the remote to prevent damage or harm to nearby entities... (paraphrasing)

If they had done nothing, nothing would have happened. Good thing they never included a strap on the GameCube remote, or tons of lawsuits would ensue... Everytime someone dies in spliter cell, I bet that controller goes flyin'...

Seperation of action and consiquence

[Temujin_12]

The American society seems to encourage people to be stupid.

Dead on. I don't know where it started (I've been told this book is a good read), but there seems to be an ever increasing drive to seperate our actions from their consequences. This pops up, in different forms, in many different areas of society:

-law - the 'cost' to hold someone responsible for their actions is getting higher and higher
-religion - people *love* religions that tell them there's no (or very limited) consequences for their actions
-free-speech - do I need to explain this one....

What's dangerous about this trend is that there is a certain breaking point (don't know if we've hit it yet or not) where freedoms in a society become meaningless as the actions they afford are trumped by the same society's desire to have no consiquences. Freedom implies responsiblity for one's actions. You can pick and choose between those two.

[pre-rebuttle]Don't take this as a doom-and-gloom post. I'm *not* saying everything about society is terrible. I'm just describing a trend that I notice across several aspects of society that doesn't seem to be going anywhere good.[/pre-rebuttle]

Re:Seperation of action and consiquence

[WilliamSChips]

-law - the 'cost' to hold someone responsible for their actions is getting higher and higher

Unfortunately, frivolous lawsuits get much more press than the out-of-court settlements of legitimate complaints.

They should have never added a strap.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's alot like helmets in sports. If a guy doesn't have a helmet, he behaves with the knoledge that doing something stupid might seriously injure himself or kill him. Give the guy a helmet and he starts acting like he's invincible, and does something that seriously injures himself or kills him.

A wimote strap, like a helmet provides saftey durring normal use. But of course there are those special people who think, "I can really whip this thing around, and it's OK cause I have a STRAP!"

lol?

[diabol]

god, this is just so damn ridiculous

Mr. Brains

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah so I played Wii Sports with my two eight year old cousins for an hour or two at our Christmas party the other night and they didn't throw my remotes. Ever.

And my remotes don't even have wrist straps on them. I took them off because they're irritating.

Some people are just really retarded.

Inevitable Conclusion to this Case...

[BTWR]

The inevitable conclusion to this case, even if Nintendo does somehow lose...

1) The thousands of "plaintiffs" will split a settlement, and get like $23.59 each (remember the CD "settlement?")

2) The lawyers will take 35% of the $10 million earnings.

Force

[jrmiller84]

One problem with people is that they tend to want to sling the wiimotes as if they are really doing the specified tasks. Slinging it as fast as you can to hit a baseball will over time cause wear I'm sure on the straps. Sure, swing them fast but don't be overzealous with it.

Frivolous lawsuits

[D H NG]

In a country where a kid who got drunk and passed out on the railroad tracks can sue the railroad for losing his limbs, anything can happen.

Re:Frivolous lawsuits

[slothman32]

Where did you read that he got drunk and hence fell?
The site only says, "a train".

Re:Frivolous lawsuits

[D H NG]

See this story.

Re:Frivolous lawsuits

[walnutmon]

Cameron: "I asked God, 'Why me?' 'Why this?'"

God: "Because YOU fell asleep on TRAIN TRACKS"

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.

[AWhistler]

Didn't even take a week!

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212152&cid=172 72268

not just the wiimote..

[martin100]

i need a suit against regular tv remotes as well. i throw them all the time. ordinary people dont put much force into those, but i really like to turn the shit out of the fucking channels.

Funny

[c00rdb]

Although I'm sure this will be considered flamebait (probably rightly so), I bet if this same exact story was posted on Slashdot, only pertaining to Sony and not Nintendo, everyone would be overjoyed and blasting Sony for it. Yeah, I understand many of you have played for hours upon hours and it's been real secure, but that anecdotal evidence that it's been real secure the entire time doesn't really mean anything. Oh, and don't tell me you KNOW Nintendo just went and had already started to replace the straps out of good intention. I'm sure they we're at least somewhat motivated by fear of a lawsuit like this in the sue-happy U.S.

P.S, I agree it is a stupid lawsuit.

You're welcome!

[Grendel Drago]

I'm just flabbergasted that someone responded with good grace when I corrected them. Happens to all of us---I vividly remember boldly asserting that copyright violation was not a criminal offense in the US and being soundly corrected; geoffspear still has me on his foes list because of that one.

My solution

[Guppy06]

If anybody reading this is having such a problem, I'd be more than willing to help you with your problem and take that defective console off your hands for you. I'm willing to take this burden in the spirit of Christmas.

No, you've got it backward

[snowwrestler]

The restaurants that continue to serve overheated coffee do so at their peril, and Starbucks in fact has faced lawsuits about it.

From a practical perspective there is absolutely no reason to serve coffee at a tissue-destroying temperature. The argument that people like hot coffee makes so sense since no one can drink coffee at that temperature without suffering serious burns. No one! People have to wait before drinking, and time of waiting represents exposure to a hazard, since any spill will scald them.

The only reason that restaurants continue to keep their coffee so hot is that it is cheaper to use equipment that heats continuously regardless of temperature. This can result in beverages being served that are literally at boiling point. If beverages were simply heated to an appropriate temperature and kept there, a) they could be consumed right away, and b) even if they did spill they would not cause serious injury. This is clearly a better way to do things.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[Laur]

From a practical perspective there is absolutely no reason to serve coffee at a tissue-destroying temperature.

From a practical perspective, if you spill something hot on yourself, you probably shouldn't just let it sit there for 90 seconds. Even if the coffee temperature was reduced, the woman would still be seriously burned. Any hot food (or anything hot, really) has the capacity to burn, yet people still manage to eat and drink hot things regularly without serious injury. Did you miss the statistic that only 1 in 24 million people a year complained about the coffee being too hot? The other millions apparently could deal with it just fine.

The argument that people like hot coffee makes so [sic] sense since no one can drink coffee at that temperature without suffering serious burns. No one! People have to wait before drinking, and time of waiting represents exposure to a hazard, since any spill will scald them.

So what? Pretty much all heated food or drink is prepared and usually served at temperatures higher than it can be immediately consumed. If McDonald's hands you fresh french fries which just came out of the fryer they will likely burn you too if you try to eat them immediately. Most people are smart enough to let hot food cool down before eating or drinking it, or if they do manage to burn themselves they don't blame others for their own mistakes.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[suffe]

But then you wouldn't have to buy something to eat while waiting for the coffee to cool down.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[lonasindi]

The McDonald's I worked at made coffee using metal vacuum pots, we brewed the coffee and removed the pot from tbe heat.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, part of the reason McDonalds kept the coffee at such a temperature was because they got many more complaints that the coffee was cold by the time the consumer got the chance to drink it. Not everyone that goes through the drive thru plans to devour their purchase before leaving the parking lot.
Many people would buy coffee for the entire office on their way to work. By the time this person got to work, the coffee was at a much cooler, but "tasty" temperature.
By the way, I can't stand coffee, tastes like burnt water!

Re:No, you've got it backward

[electrosoccertux]

When you've just gotten into an accident, and spilled the cofee all over yourself, and it has spilled onto your jeans, what are you supposed to do to remove it?

Point is McD's coffee was sold ~190F. ALL other resteraunts and fast foods server theirs ~140F. What's more, studies showed most people who buy their coffee like to drink it NOW, not after it's cooled down 50F.

There's simply no point in serving your coffee 50 degrees hotter than EVERYBODY else does, especially when that 50 degrees means a third degree burn.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[Anonymous Coward]

>There's simply no point in serving your coffee 50 degrees hotter than EVERYBODY else does, especially when that 50 degrees means a third degree burn.

Actually, the difference between 190 F burn time (About 1 second) and 140 F burn time (6 seconds) is not 1 second vs. never. It's only a difference of 5 seconds. Please, do not take this as internet gospel, ask a paediatrician. Liquids over 120 F are always to be treated as a burn danger (whether you are 1 or 100 years old), PERIOD. Again, a competent paediatrician (what the hell, even a first year medical science student) will agree, and might advise an even lower temperature in the case of dealing with people who are not adults.

To this point, while seconds do indeed count in an accident, the only sorts of car accidents I have witnessed people being able to exit their vehicle in under 5 seconds after the accident involve G forces low enough generally not to cause serious coffee spills. Actually, I'd say it's pretty rare to find anyone except trained race car drivers with race car harnesses who can exit their vehicles that fast. Never mind strip their clothes as well.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[walnutmon]

I am hoping that you are like me and check for replies well after the post...

First off, in car accidents where you can easily exit your car the G forces are too low to spill coffee? That is just blatantly wrong, I have spilled coffee in my car while coming to a quick stop, no accident. It doesn't take much speed or damage to knock a cup over, expecially if you are holding it between you legs. So please, correct yourself and please retract that absolutely absurd statement.

On to the more interesting point.

"Actually, the difference between 190 F burn time (About 1 second) and 140 F burn time (6 seconds) is not 1 second vs. never. It's only a difference of 5 seconds."

So I am not taking it as gospel, but I certainly do believe you. But that difference of five seconds doesn't require anyone to get out of their car and remove clothing. Liquid that is spread in a thin layer in atmosphere that is over a hudred degrees cooler will cool VERY quickly. One second later the tempeture is much lower, another second, much lower. Take a wash cloth, run it under as hot of water as you can stand. Take it out of the sink and put in on your face. It burns, now remove it for just one second and put it back, it is very comfortable, now put it back under the water as quickly as you can and put it back on your face, it burns again. Your face didn't get used to the temperature, at least not to discern the burning sensation from total comfort.

The bigger the difference between air and temperature the more dramatic this effect will be. If you have the ability to pull your clothes away from your body for just a moment this will ensure that you will not be burned. You will not be burned by a small film of water on the body, you have to be partially saturated for at least as long as the time it takes to do the damage.

So the difference between burning in 1 second and 5 seconds is EXACTLY what the problem is. If you STILL don't believe me then I guess you have to just try it to see for yourself. There is a huge difference. If the water is boiling you skin will seperate instantly. My roomate has a giant scar on his chest from when he dropped boiling water on his chest 15 years ago, his skin just fell right off. He was standing too, and wearing a T-Shirt, it happend instantly.

Re:No, you've got it backward

[splutty]

So what? Pretty much all heated food or drink is prepared and usually served at temperatures higher than it can be immediately consumed. If McDonald's hands you fresh french fries which just came out of the fryer they will likely burn you too if you try to eat them immediately. Most people are smart enough to let hot food cool down before eating or drinking it, or if they do manage to burn themselves they don't blame others for their own mistakes

The point here was that the coffee was actually too hot according to regulations. But anyway, McD's handing you fresh french fries which just came out of the fryer? Like that's ever going to happen....

Re:No, you've got it backward

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am hoping that you are like me and check for replies well after the post...

Sure I do! :-)

>It doesn't take much speed or damage to knock a cup over, expecially if you are holding it between you legs. So please, correct yourself and please retract that absolutely absurd statement.

Sure, I'll correct myself. I didn't give enough detail, and assumed some things (probably as McDonald's did, which explains some of the lawsuit). You shouldn't be holding HOT COFFEE while driving, it's unsafe (it's up to you, but it's still a stupid thing to do). It should be in a cupholder, with a lid on, where it belongs. I'm saying that in the case of the coffee being treated as coffee (instead of a cold drink) it won't spill in a minor accident. If it's being treated as a can of soda, well, yeah, you'll be sorry. Goes without saying, really.

>But that difference of five seconds doesn't require anyone to get out of their car and remove clothing. Liquid that is spread in a thin layer in atmosphere that is over a hudred degrees cooler will cool VERY quickly.

Oh, I'll agree with you on that. But here's the rub: This lady, for whatever reason, pooled the coffee in her crotch for 90 seconds. As long as the coffee is pooling there and not being exposed mostly to air, it won't cool down very quickly at all.

So, yes, if you didn't do something as stupid as this lady did (cupping the hot liquid) you'd probably be ok at 140 F and somewhat burned (but still not as ridiculously as this lady) at 190 F. Of course, again, if she had a normal reaction (The "OH SHIT I'M MELTING" (tm) reaction) rather than a peculiar reaction ("HMM, IS THIS THING ON???"), we wouldn't be discussing this, because she'd probably not have been burned badly enough for the jury to award such a ridiculous sum, and the case wouldn't become the canonical "Hot Coffee Lady" debate. :-)

Warranty is pre-emptive?

[SeaFox]

Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty.

That doesn't make any sense. The purpose of the warranty is to protect the customer if the device should happen to have defects in materials or workmanship, not guarantee it will be free of any to start with. Nintendo cannot guarantee there will be no issues whatsoever in any part of the system (especially at the MSRP of the Wii and when they don't even make all the components to begin with). Now if there is an issue, and Nintendo does nothing about it despite the warranty, THEN you have grounds for a lawsuit.

Mod up please

[PeelBoy]

There are warnings all over the screen before you play the game AND in the manual that comes with the system.

In order for what this guy said to be true a majority (more than 50%) of the people who own a Wii would have to be having this problem.

Half a million people broke their Wiimote straps and TV's from playing the Wii? That's news to me.

Nice logic except one small problem.

[PeelBoy]

"If enough people are having these problems, then it is "normal use", no matter how stupid you may think it is."

By enough you mean most right? For that to qualify it would have to be more than 50%. That's well over half a million people.

If half a million people had this problem the case would be won and over by now.

Nice try anyway man.

Third-degree scalding

[MS-06FZ]

Well, that's what happens in a third-degree burn caused by fire. But the relevant point of the "degrees" of burns is how deep and extensive the damage is. Scalding burns will create different types of damage but if the extent is the same (near-total destruction of the dermal layers in the affected areas) it's still a third-degree burn.

(What, practically, is the difference between having a section of your skin burned to the point of being dead, versus boiled to the point of being dead? Either way it's a serious burn.)

I read that link a few posts back about "debunking" the idea that the coffee case was a frivolous lawsuit (reinforcing the notion that the person who spills the coffee is at fault, that people like hot coffee, etc.) - it's interesting. Since I heard about the third degree burns I've mostly been of the opinion that McDonald's was sufficiently at fault that the case had merit. I still lean in that direction but that link gave me some things to think about. (My opinion doesn't change quickly, but it can change.)

MOD PARENT DOWN; OBVIOUS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who modded this idiot up? First, look at his name. Second, look at his posting history. Finally, shoot yourself.

Wrong-way-round

[GoRK]

I believe the instructions clearly indicate that you should wear the strap *and* not let go.

I fail to see how the strap could break and CAUSE the remote to leave the users hand. In fact, I don't see how it would even be possible for the strap to break under normal use while the user was holding the remote properly.

I do see how the remote leaving the user's hand (because it's thrown at full force) could CAUSE the strap to break.

On behalf of me?

[THESuperShawn]

I own a Wii, and, "No thanks". I don't want a lawsuit filed on my behalf, especially by lawyers that are going to take a large majority of any "winnings".

Not only does should the original strap hold (it has for me) under "normal use", Nintendo has already, on their own, started furnishing a stronger strap. Sounds like they are at least trying to me.

Anyone causing damage (to themselves, others, or some random object) while playing the Wii, well, obviously doesn't have enough common sense to be playing with this type of toy. The Wii-mote is not meant to be "flung around" in that fashion.

What next? Are we going to sue Louisville slugger when one of their bats, meant to be swung hard and not furnished with a strap of any kind, get lose and hit someone?

How much do you want to bet every "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe" law firm has been drooling to get this law suit filed "first" for the massive profit and publicity it will generate.

Between these types of frivolous lawsuits and the IP lawsuits, I am starting to wonder if lawyers are really starting to outlive their welcome.

Total douchebags.

[Kingrames]

Anyone suing Nintendo over this is purely doing it to hurt a good company that's making a great system and really bringing a lot of new stuff into the video game world. I hope the identities of the people bringing litigation against them are leaked so that they can really feel shamed about what they've done.

I called this first

[Cainjustcain]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208324&cid=169 86708

Slashdot Bias

[feepness]

Sony replaces laptop batteries: OMG! Stupid company!!!

Nintendo replaces Wiimote straps (and DS power adapters): OMG! Stupid users!!!

Companies make mistakes. Good on Sony and Nintendo for resolving them. Hopefully Nintendo will fix a few TVs as well.

Re:Slashdot Bias

[Chibi Merrow]

Here's the difference: In normal use (ie: sitting on a desk without even interacting with it), my laptop battery in the G4 notebook (which I haven't gotten replaced yet) sitting next to me could explode. Right now. Only by flailing around like an idiot and then letting go of my remote can my strap break on my remote. The first one is Sony's fault since the outcome has nothing to do with how the user uses the system. The second one is the user's fault since it has EVERYTHING to do with how a user uses a system.

Re:Slashdot Bias

[feepness]

. Only by flailing around like an idiot and then letting go of my remote can my strap break on my remote. The first one is Sony's fault since the outcome has nothing to do with how the user uses the system. The second one is the user's fault since it has EVERYTHING to do with how a user uses a system.

Your assumption is that all Wii straps perform the equally well. Some of them could have been defective and Nintendo obviously foresaw dropping them or why include the strap at all? Also, the vast majority of Sony's batteries had no problem. The number of Wii strap problems is FAR greater than the number of Sony battery problems. Lastly you failed to mention the AC adapter recall that Nintendo did as well. The human capacity for self-deception really amazes me.

Re:Slashdot Bias

[Chibi Merrow]

Your assumption is that all Wii straps perform the equally well.

No, my statement is no assumption. My point is that if people weren't using the thing improperly they wouldn't be having an issue, since if you don't throw the remote the strap can't break and the remote can't fly across the room. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. Likewise, if Sony batteries were only exploding after you started your laptop working on re-encoding your DVD collection then wrapped it in a blanket, I'd say it was your fault for being a complete jackass, not Sony's fault.

Nintendo obviously foresaw dropping them or why include the strap at all?

Yes. The straps prevent you from dropping the wiimote. What does that have to do with throwing the wiimote?

Lastly you failed to mention the AC adapter recall that Nintendo did as well.

Because I don't see anyone claiming that the AC Adapter failure was the user's fault, despite your claims otherwise. Could you find an example to prove me wrong? And since you brought it up, a choice quote from an article on the recall:

The problem has not caused any injury or damage yet

Why, exactly, did you bring that up again?

The human capacity for self-deception really amazes me.

I think you're projecting.

Re:Slashdot Bias

[feepness]

Yes. The straps prevent you from dropping the wiimote. What does that have to do with throwing the wiimote?

I can drop my TV remote. It doesn't come with a strap. You're reaching, but don't feel bad because you're not alone.

Re:Slashdot Bias

[Chibi Merrow]

Your TV remote also doesn't cost $40 and have impact sensitive accelerometers in it, either. I'm not reaching, I happen to know what I'm talking about. Especially after the last time I dropped a $2000 IS-900 hybrid inertial tracker and everyone stared at me in horror and my Boss just said "You know, they don't like that."

Accelerometers DON'T like being dropped. The fact that a $40 hybrid inertial tracker apparently survives being thrown into the wall at 50+ MPH is either a testament to the extreme luck of the people throwing them or a truly incredible design.

So yeah, it has a wrist strap the same as my DS and my Digital Camera: because they all may not survive a drop from waist height. Your remote, however, most likely will.

Nothing stupid about it

[tgibbs]

My gut is telling me these charming lawsuits are coming from a group of people (Homo Sapiens Moronicus) who think they're actually supposed to throw the Wiimote as a baseball or bowling ball, and the strap is supposed to keep it from getting away from you.

Class action suits are not filed by stupid people who accidentally threw their remotes. They are filed by smart, unethical lawyers who realize that Nintendo will give them a settlement to make them go away and avoid the bad publicity of a trial. The numerous individual members of the class (everybody who bought a Wii) individually receive a pittance--probably a discount coupon good for $5 off on their next Wii game--but the lawyer gets a percentage of the huge total, and goes home much richer for almost no work.

Backwards thinking.

[DeadboltX]

"...the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand"

This is backwards. The remote left the user's hand and caused the wrist strap to break.
This case should be thrown out of court.
It has just about as much merit as someone suing a free-weight manufacturer because a person was overzealous in his/her workout and threw a weight which in turn caused destruction to property.

Shit happens... I think

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend recently "lost control" of the Wiimote just recently while we were playing WiiBaseball. To her own admission it just slipped out of her hands. Thankfully the older "flimsy" strap did not break; thus saving our TV from an early retirement. Thanks to websites like http://www.wiihaveaproblem.com/ you can see that much of the failing of the Wiimote's strap is mainly due to alcohol. Most of the problems that have arisen are mainly due to wii sports mainly because of its overly exaggerated movements. Which don't really need to be overly exaggerated at all. I have to admit though... It is just on a few levels, extremely funny.

So many of the world's ills...

[cdrguru]

can be solved quickly and effectively through the liberal application of that near-magic substance ...

 

Duct Tape

Is this bogus?

[qazwart]

There COULD be valid suit if Nintendo knew about the defect, or should have, and produced no remedy.

Unfortunately, this suit is two days late. Nintendo is already shipping free stronger Wii wrist straps to all Wii owners.

Maybe this could be a suit for those whose controller knocked someone's teeth out, or broke a lamp or TV (there's been a few reported cases), but Nintendo has already promised to handle those on a case-by-case basis.

About 1 in 200 owners have experienced a broken wrist strap, so we are talking less than 1000 people with some sort of damage claims against Nintendo which they have already remedied with the free wrist straps.

Out of those, about 20 have claimed other damage ranging from a cracked light bulb, to a shattered mirror, to a broken tooth. Two reports are of damage the television, but the severity of the damage hasn't been determined.

Not a very big class for a class action suit. Sounds like a few lawyers out going fishing.

ObTag

[Anonymous Coward]

obtag: itsastrap

hehe.

Re:A defect?

[Falladir]

More like suing Mickey D's because their food is gone after you eat it.

No-Win-No-Fee Culture... Great.

[lattyware]

I think it's great.

• Stupid person spills coffee in crotch.
• Stupid person looses the ability to reproduce.
• Stupid people die out.

Win. Darwin 1 - 0 Laywers

But seriously, It's coffee, it's damn hot. You should be able to work out it'll hurt you if you chuck it on yourself. As for the Wii-motes, same thing applies. If you throw it, you are a dumbass, The strap is there if you are holding it and drop it, not so you can throw it.

Obligatory bash.org quote:

[crvtec]

Obligatory bash.org quote:

The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Sue SONY!!

[ponos]

I wonder, If it was the PS3 that had a similar problem, would people defend it in the same way? Nintendo seems to have an ungodly amount of good karma. Admittedly, you'd have to be an idiot to throw your remote at the TV, but then again failure of the material seems to be a real issue.

For what it's worth, the lawsuit doesn't sound ridiculous to me, especially compared to the "hot coffee" warning on starbuck and macdonalds cups (THAT does make me laugh!).

PS3=T3h r0x0rz, while Wii=T3h Sux0rZ

Re:Sue SONY!!

[TrashGUY]

If sony had a controller problem it would be around the lines that they shipped all the consoles out and forgot to package the controllers. You would then have to wait 6 months to then be able to purchase a controller.

Are they only seeking replacement wiimotes?

[JLeslie]

I don't see anything specific to them seeking monetary damages (obligatory IANAL). From Green Welling LLP's site:

The class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nintendo from continuing its unfair or deceptive business practices as it relates to the Nintendo Wii.The lawsuit also seeks an injunction that requires Nintendo to correct the defect in the Wii remote and to provide a refund to the purchaser or to replace the defective Wii remote with a Wii remote that functions as it is warranted and intended. If you would like additional information regarding the Nintendo WII Replacement Strap

I might be hopelessly naive but it seems that they are only seeking replacement remotes. Which I think Nintendo was going to do anyway...?

dangerous toys

[tomcode]

Normally I wouldn't think twice about Nintendo, but now that I know people are getting beaned on the head, and furniture is being smashed, I want one!

The lawyers are spreading...

[JasonJ75]

Injured man wins damages for sex overdrive - LONDON (Reuters) - A devout Christian who said an accident at work boosted his libido and wrecked his marriage as he turned to prostitutes and pornography was awarded more than 3 million pounds ($5.89 million) in damages Tuesday. Stephen Tame, 29, from Suffolk, suffered severe head injuries in a fall, transforming him from a loyal newlywed into a "disinhibited" character who had two affairs. He was in a coma for two months after falling from a gantry while working at a bicycle warehouse shortly after his marriage in January 2002. Doctors said it was a miracle he survived. Awarding him 3.1 million pounds in compensation at London's High Court, Judge Michael Harris said: "His life and the life of his young wife were shattered." His former employer, Professional Cycle Marketing, of Essex, had argued through their lawyers that his injuries were not as bad as suggested in court. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ e=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-12-19T162740Z_01_L1 9309213_RTRUKOC_0_US-HUSBAND.xml&WTmodLoc=OddNewsH ome_C1_%5BFeed%5D-2

asbestos

[WilliamSChips]

And if it weren't for this lawsuit system we'd still be sucking down asbestos. If a few people getting a free wrist strap and a few lawyers getting too rich are the price for not sucking down asbestos, then I'll pay the price.

Having a lack of forsight should be illegal!

[Mdentari]

Yes I'm talking to you Nintendo. Fanboi go home....and get a girlfriend while your at it. And no.. your mom doesn't coun't.

First wiimote fatality (video)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's staged...
http://one.revver.com/watch/121118

Really, how are these people doing this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a Wii, and during a Bowling match, right as I whipped the remote upwards, my palm was a bit sweaty and it slipped from my hand. Guess what? The strap caught it. It was a pretty fast 'throw' too. How hard are these people throwing their remotes in the first place?

The answer is simple

[RobertinXinyang]

Instead of trying to make a stronger wriststrap, Nintendo should be shipping the things without a wriststrap and a warning aginst any attempt to strap the controller to the user. The repair should be a bulliton to remove the wriststrap immediatly with an offer to replace the defective controller (one with a wriststrap) with an improved one (one without a wriststrap) to anyone who feels that they cannot safely remove the wriststrap by themselves.

Yes, this would be a less fun device; however, it should (IANAL) remove the liability. This is where we have come, we no longer design devices around function, or even real safety, we design them around potential liability.

Lawsuits

[Shadyman]

Can they sue, even though Nintendo issued a wii-call?

Re:If only stupidity were illegal ... baseball

[pbhj]

I just played my first session on a friends Wii tonight.

I got about 105 mph as a standard pitch with a flick of the wrist. About 150mph by trying for a fast pitch and pressing up on the D-pad (if that makes a difference?).

I didn't see any pitches less than about 90mph including curve- and screw-balls.

Weird.

Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is that only coffee at the temperature McDonald's sold it at could cause those burns, right?

Well, I guess what all the manuals about not being stupid with babies say about "150 F water causes burns in seconds" is a lie, then?

Or, in fact, are those manuals telling the truth, and the lady would have been seriously burned at any temperature that fresh coffee is served at internationally at all coffee stores.

If the manuals are lying, well, why didn't this lady (and/or other Americans) continue to sue them?

If the manuals are telling the truth, why did she win? It can't be because the coffee caused the burns solely due to the high temperature, as in this case you'd need to agree that all coffee from anywhere could cause them. Perhaps McDonald's coffee had a property apart from the temperature that caused the burns?

As far as the number of complaints goes, 700 complaints over 10 years is 70 complaints a year. McDonald's advertised in 1998 that there were 12,413 restaurants in the USA. That works out to a complaint:restaurant ratio of 0.56% per year. In other words, for even a single complaint to have been registered in your hometown within a decade, you would require 18 McDonald's in your hometown. That means that a McDonald's must operate for almost 200 years before the so-called hot coffee will actually generate a complaint.

I submit to you that if a store can remain in business selling hundreds of a product a day for TWO HUNDRED YEARS without complaint, the product is incredibly safe. Do you disagree?

Unfortunately, as so many people from outside the US will attest, in general the US population never learns math. This shows in the inability of US jurors to use a calculator to recognize the safety of a product that, even when in high distribution, causes safety issues only once every 200 years. As the wikipedia article points out, only one in every 24 MILLION cups of coffee was unsafe. If any other product were to have a safety margin this high, we would commend the effort put into its safety by the company. Imagine if only 1 in 24 MILLION cars had a defect resulting in injury. Just imagine!

But further, the burns this lady received would require 15 seconds of exposure to the coffee (as per the lawsuit). The "safer" temperature of coffee would require 20 seconds for identical burns. If you are in a situation where you would be unable to remove clothes that would present a burn hazard in 15 seconds, would you agree it is highly likely the situation could conceivably be the same 5 seconds later?

Now, wait a second, here is the kicker. Even if you don't agree about the 5 seconds, it didn't matter! Did you know this woman continued to wear her scalding hot clothes for 90 seconds? Yes, this is true, it is documented in the lawsuit. Water at only 125 F

But I'm not done with this yet. Your hot water heater, if it is relatively normal, has a maximum temperature of about 140 F. According to the complainant, this is the hottest coffee should be served at. Again, perhaps your preferences are unusual, but would you reasonably agree that filling a cup with instant coffee from your hot water tap would not present a pleasing tasting coffee? Most people will use a kettle for this purpose, and, if asked if they would use their hot water tap (if the water were assured pure), I think they would say the temperature simply isn't hot enough to enjoy the coffee.

Now, wait a second, here is the kicker. Even if you don't agree with anything I've said, logic still proves me right.

Facts:

- 90 seconds from start of incident to removal of hot liquid
- 140 F liquids burn in 6 seconds
- The plaintiff said that 140 F is the temperature coffee should be served at for safety and continued to prove this in court
- 90 - 6 = 84
- 84 = 93.3333% of 90

The plaintiff, in effect,

if this suit gets class action status...

[j0nb0y]

I am going to organize the largest class action opt out campaign in the history of class action lawsuits.

Re:if this suit gets class action status...

[alienpharaoh]

You can count me in!!!

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until the fucking coffee cools. Actually, too bad the coffee didn't give her the Darwin award.

Re:Simple solution

[WilliamSChips]

Yes, we all know what McDonalds should have done.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, she should have earned herself with the fucking darwin award with the coffee. You should do the same. GO FUCKING KILL YOURSELF FUCKTARD!!!!!!!

Re:Simple solution

[WilliamSChips]

Stella wasn't the one who served coffee forty degrees higher than it should have been served and she wasn't the one who used defective foam. You'd probably want to give the Darwin Award to people who were told "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Marlboro" too. Please go to fucking Somalia and leave me alone.

O Rly?

[wilgibson]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.
From what I can tell most of these incidents have involved Wii Sports. Pages 7 - 11 of the North American Wii Sports manual clearly state to "swing gently" for each individual game under the heading "Holding the Wii Remote." Given that Wii Sports accompanied the console they obviously didn't read all of the accompanying literature.

Even a 6 year old is smart enough not to let go.

[j741]

I bought a Wii. I took it to my friend's house and showed it to his 6 year old son. I handed him a Wii remote and started the 'Baseball' game in Wii sports. Immediately, and without being told to do so, he put on the wrist strap, and even tightened it. Then he said "what do I do", to which I replied "Throw the ball". It was amazing to watch a brief moment of thought cross his face followed by his arm coming back and then watching him go through all the physical motion of throwing the ball. But, this 6 year old kid who has never before seen or used the Wii, did NOT LET GO of the controller. This average child was smart enough to figure out that it was only a video game and that the controller was not something that should actually be thrown!

Now, if this child can use common sense then why not these "adults" who seem to be having a problem playing with this toy? After all, these aren't Lawn Darts we're talking about here.

I only hope Nintendo counter-sues the greedy lawyers. Maybe they can claim slander or libel against these lawyers.

No complaints here

[Private.Tucker]

Nintendo can keep my share of the class action lawsuit money (if there is some).

No issues here. Remote only slipped once from my hand, and original strap held its ground.

I've never been happier about a gaming system like the Wii. The games are great, the interactivity is great, and getting a party of friends to all play together on the system is so much easier - granted none of my friends are hidden idiots and don't get buck wild with the remote.

Only way I personally can see this remote being a problem is people using the remote like a fast-pitched underhand thrown softball while playing bowling. Obviously there are retards out there who do it.

Let the firm know how you feel!

[alienpharaoh]

My suggestion is to email the law firm and let them know how you feel! Their website is http://www.classcounsel.com/ and the email address is gw@classcounsel.com. It is just an idea. We should start a survey of registered owners that want nothing to do with the lawsuit.

You are a complete and total dumbass.

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

Nearly ten years later, critics of civil justice and juries continue to mock Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it. And Stella's injuries-which included 3rd degree burns across her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks-were no laughing matter.

Facts About the Case

• Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passengerseat of her grandson's car when she was severely burnedby McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffeethat was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through windowof a local McDonald's.

• Critics of civil justice often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

• The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and heldit next to her skin.

Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

• A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.

• Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.

• She was hospitalized for eight days,during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).

Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

• Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

McDonald's Attitude

• During discovery, McDonald's 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 Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
• McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
  • Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
  • Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Damaging Testimony

• McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

• The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

• Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

• Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

• McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

• McDona

Tinfoil Hat Time

[physicsnick]

Just watch, we'll soon learn that this is yet another viral marketing plan paid for by Sony. But first we'll have to endure the Wrist Strap Rap...

Makes you wonder

[ChromeAeonium]

Makes you wonder what kind of legal battle hell Sony would be in right now if they'd stuck with the boomerang design.

It was inevitable

[Omega45889]

This lawsuit was really inevitable. The stupidity, and greed in America is simply astonishing. There is really no way Nintendo can lose this.

C'mon mods

[snowwrestler]

I know you think it's dumb that people are suing Nintendo, but I'm certainly not a troll.

From a practical perspective, if you spill something hot on yourself, you probably shouldn't just let it sit there for 90 seconds.

Hot liquids are aborbed by clothing and held against the skin. The time to remove the burning agent is the time it would take to remove your wet clothes. How quickly can you get out of soaked jeans in a car seat?

Real world example: a few months ago my wife scalded herself while making tea when a glass pitcher broke. She was wearing boxer shorts. The front of both thighs received first degree burns that healed in a week, with one small exception: where the tea splashed onto the hem of the shorts. In that small area the burn was second degree, even though she took them off as fast as she could. (no, we did not sue anyone :-))

Even if the coffee temperature was reduced, the woman would still be seriously burned. Any hot food (or anything hot, really) has the capacity to burn, yet people still manage to eat and drink hot things regularly without serious injury. Did you miss the statistic that only 1 in 24 million people a year complained about the coffee being too hot? The other millions apparently could deal with it just fine.

This is just not true; temperature makes a difference. In kids for example a second degree burn is caused by 140F water in one second; at 130F it takes 10 seconds; at 120F it takes several minutes. All three temperatures will taste "hot". Furthermore the point is not how often accidents occur--that is affected more by cup/lid design than anything else, probably. The point is the potential severity of any individual accident.

So what? Pretty much all heated food or drink is prepared and usually served at temperatures higher than it can be immediately consumed. If McDonald's hands you fresh french fries which just came out of the fryer they will likely burn you too if you try to eat them immediately. Most people are smart enough to let hot food cool down before eating or drinking it, or if they do manage to burn themselves they don't blame others for their own mistakes.

Again, the point is not whether something is hot or not, the point is exactly how hot it is. We're certainly advanced enough as a society to consider situations in terms of actual temperatures.

Just a thought on the whole issue

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be redundant, I haven't read EVERY comment.

What if Nintendo *didn't* ship the Wiimote with the DS-esque wrist strap, they just left the bottom of the controller solid. No place for a little strap to loop though at all. It would invoke in any brain age 4 and up that "hey, although I'm 'pitching,' I shouldn't let go of the 'ball'." People who launched their Wiimotes through their TVs would then only be placed under the category of those people who throw controllers at the floor when they get pissed off, or pissed on by their girlfriend's roommate's dog. No expectation of safety. Kind of like people not having airbags. "Oh, the car didn't have an airbag and they died." If the car had airbags, which deployed and caused some burns and nasal bleeding (been there), then we sue the car company for that, even if the people in the car survive.

Now this would obviously bring out the "but there is a strap, and the expectation is that i can: " counter argument. The expectation is that if it does in fact SLIP out of your hands (you cannot tell me that RELEASE FROM and SLIP FROM are shades of meaning or close synonyms) the strap will prevent damage to people/animals/things around you. Why is there a strap, almost identical to the Wii's on my DS and PSP? If it slips from my hand, it doesn't crash five feet into the concrete. That's what i expect the strap to do, not keep it tethered to me if i swing it around to get attention.

Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

"the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand"

No. Letting go of the remote caused it to leave your hand.

The next New York Times Bestseller

[KrisCowboy]

John Grisham's next book - The Remote. It's about a small time lawyer who hits it big by suing console makers and video game developers. Due to some unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, he picks up a console for his kids and shit like that. Good story from Grisham - he'll spin some 500 pages.

Following instructions?

[ThePCJedi]

"Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand."

If they were following the material... they would have been holding on to the remote...

Justice Failed.

[Bazar]

The coffee was defective?
Hardly, unless by defective, you mean piping hot.

The coffee was designed to be served that hot, its what consumers as a whole, want the coffee served as, HOT.
People don't drive to MD just to have luke-warm coffee served.

Futhermore, he claimed it was defective because, if it was served at a lower temperature recommended by some association, it would of given her 15-20 seconds to clean up the spill, instead of the 9-12 seconds she had before being burnt. Unfortunately, she sat in the coffee spill for 90 seconds... she would of been burnt regardless.

If serving the hot coffee that consumers perfer is a crime because some association recommends otherwise, why did we stop at coffee, when its a well known fact that the food MD serves is below recommended standards of half a dozen associations.

I feel for the person burnt, but justice wasn't served that day.

Their coffee IS TOO HOT

[cheekyboy]

When its takes 25 mins to cool down to drinkable levels from venues temperature, theres something wrong.
When you cannot even hold the cup its really wrong.

When you can go to a real coffee shop and sip at it right away its good.

Either McDonolds do not know how to make coffee or their staff are dumb as turds dont read machine
instructions.

Small problem with your post...

[Builder]

just shows why people enjoy lawyer jokes so much

Bullshit - there are only two lawyer jokes. The rest are just true stories.

I never found that to be the case....

[cheekyboy]

I could always from 5 different coffee retailers drink their coffee while I walked with in 3 minutes of purchase, and mcDonalds,
well I hate to sit there waiting 25mins till I could drink it.

Technically, the REAL coffee places use MORE milk volume which cools down faster, and has more volume of h20 to absorbe the heat, and
their cups are larger perhaps also absorbing more heat. Starbucks coffee cups are thicker too.

McDonalds coffee uses less volume, perhaps 225ml, so theres more hot coffee to milk ratio there.

Can any coffee maker cafe shop workers explain better? Can we get Myth Busters to do this one?

Use 200lb rated fishing line

[cheekyboy]

Why not replace the strap link with 4 loops of 200lb shark fishing line!!!

Strong enough to survive a G force of 20

Additionally...

[foreverdisillusioned]

Also, the woman suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS on her genitals. I dunno about you guys, but if I slip up and spill some coffee on my lap I don't expect the resulting discomfort to actually require fucking SKIN GRAFTS.

They always seem to leave that bit out when they talk about the "stupid woman who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself." If I had to get fucking skin grafts for my penis, I'd sue McDonald's, too.

"class action", my ass

[AlHunt]

This is pure legal wrangling by some dirtbag law firm. "Class Action" usually means the consumer gets a "free" CD or some other trivial BS while the law firm(s) involved collect millions.

Two comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Wankers... and
only in America.

Can Democracy Help the Judicial System?

[saintory]

Looking through the responses to this, it would appear that there are a good number of people who see this and think "Greedy SOBs." My question then is can a large group of people who have not had problems support the Nintendo side of this and therefore push the legal system through peer pressure into setting a precedent that "This claim is invalid and only goes to show that there is greed cluttering the USA Judicial System?" It could then become the "Stupids Precedent" where if enough people aren't having this problem then the suit really is nothing but greed and frivolity on account of being stupid.

Or maybe I'm just another US Citizen who doesn't even understand his legal system and can only acknowledge that it's broken.

Macho assholes...

[Joce640k]

All the videos I've seen have shown people trying to be as macho as possible, would they swing anything else around like that and expect nothing to happen...? Thought not.

Next Year

[jlebrech]

Man sues Nintendo for ripping his arm off because the Wiimote strap wouldnt break, whilst spinning his arm at extreme velocities.

Studies

[CodemasterMM]

Nintendo actually did studies and research to do their best on making the straps appropriate (small enough to not bother a person, but large enough to keep the user from dropping it).

All that has to happen is Nintendo to prove that they actually did make time and go out of their way to study and research the wrist straps.

But seriously, who here has actually broken their Wiimore straps? I certainly haven't and I feel that anyone who did is a bit too hyper/exited or is a few fries short of a happy meal.

More evidence of lack of responsibility

[Rockhound06]

This is just one more in the incredible amount of evidence that people believe that they are not responsible for their actions. Citing failure of a device for causing harm that would not happen under normal use. People need to take responsibility for their mistakes... the remote was not meant to be thrown, the safety strap is to prevent you from dropping it not from tossing it across the room. If we all decide to accept some responsibility for the things that we do we would have far fewer lawyers out there looking to make a living off of our stupidity. I read in a recent article that in 2005 lawyers made $40 billion from civil suits... that is ridiculous. Yes some suits may have merit... but largely many of them dont, this one does not have merit. Hold on to the damn remote!

If only stupidity were illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Nintendo take the responsibility for weak wristed idiots. It's not their fault if people can't hold onto a controller as it is swung about. All I can say to those people complaining is, calm down, it's only a game.

lawyers phone number tattooed on their right arm.

[Convector]

It's probably more common for the number to be tattooed on the left arm, so that they can read it while dialing with the right.

temperature is not the problem

[blackest_k]

funny how this should come up today
I spilt Mcdonalds coffee in my car today (not as hot because I had let it sit for a while before hand) the problem really is the lids that they use. trying to pull the lid off requires significant initial force, followed by next to no force at all. This is bound to result in spilt coffee.

other coffee cups use much shallower lids which progressively release from the cup reducing the tendency to jerk the coffee cup. The Solution it seems is to improve the design of the mcdonalds coffee cup to provide a safe method of lid removal whilst retaining the positive feature of a lid that doesnt come off if the cup is knocked over.

something requiring a twist to lock or unlock would seem ideal, Hot liquids are not a problem we all handle them everyday its the methods available to handle them that is the problem.

A response from lawyers behind this class action

[Anonymous Coward]

So not only is this class action B$ we now have verification that it is being coordinated by the most idiotic ass-clown lawyers this world has ever known. Disclaimer: I fabricated the story about breaking my plasma, in the process attacking the lawyers in a manner that was designed to test their bullshit filter.

Here is what I emailed to gw@classcounsel.com:

Hello,

As a Nintendo Wii owner who has suffered loss of a plasma television, due to the wii remote strap breaking, I'd like to pursue being included in the class action lawsuit against Nintendo.

It is encouraging to see a group of lawyers who are willing to complement my unfathomable idiocy. While that may sound both self-deprecating and condescending I genuinely believe Nintendo will disregard my actions, and in turn your legal actions, as complete American idiocy. I'm encouraged that Green Welling is willing to take on this case on my behalf!

When I released the wii remote and it smashed into my plasma TV I thought I would be forced to absorb the costs of replacing the TV. Knowing that Green Welling does NOT consider my excessive wii remote swing and inadequate motor control to be the cause of said plasma TV loss is very comforting.

Please advise on how I might move forward with being formally included in this class action lawsuit.

thanks,
Anonymous Coward

Here is the response:

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Thanks for contacting us about our class action lawsuit against Nintendo over the defective wrist strap.

I'm sorry to hear that you're one of the many people that had the wrist strap break and that it caused serious damage to your plasma tv.

Currently we're in the process of talking to people like yourself to determine if they are interested in having us represent them in a lawsuit against Nintendo. One component of our lawsuit is to hopefully get Nintendo to set up a claims process by which they will evaluate claims for broken televisions, furniture, etc. and possibly provide some compensation for those that had their remotes turn into missiles and damage their property. While I cannot make any guarantees or assurances that Nintendo would agree to such a program or that they would eventually reimburse individuals, it is something we will try to pursue with Nintendo on behalf of our clients. If you're interested in getting involved please let me know and I can provide you more information. A question I'm often asked is, "how much will this cost me?" Our firm operates on a contingency fee basis and so we do not charge clients any fees, and we only recover if there is favorable outcome. Again, I can provide you with more details if you're interested.

I hope this information is helpful, please let me know if you have any other questions.

Kind Regards,
$Insert_Lawyer_Name_Here

i don't want to sue nintendo...

[sonk]

i played hours of wii and i didn't throw my wiimote. you really have to be stupid or have no coordination if it launches out of your hand. the colorful wiimote condoms nintendo sell are very good for grip. maybe nintendo should have included one with the system. this lawsuit is bogus.

What Frank Zappa said

[holgie]

The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
                                                                                          Frank Zappa

Golly

[d_54321]

Man, as if every other friend telling me I gotta get one of these Wii things wasn't enough.

I could have gotten in on this class action suit.

Now I REALLY wish I had a Wii.