Slashdot Mirror
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."
then Nintendo would have a valid counterclaim.
Monstar L
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.
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.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Sigh, who didn't see this coming, knew it would only be a matter of time.
ONLY IN AMERICA
Que Pasa?
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...
Reality has a liberal bias
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.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
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.
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.
. . . 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?
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
> 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?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
Space for rent, inquire within
Presumably because nothing was damaged other than the unit itself.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
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.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
It's to keep me from DROPPING it, not to stop me from THROWING it.
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.
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".
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
Space for rent, inquire within
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.
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.
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)
Reality has a liberal bias
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.
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.
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.
"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 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".
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.
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".
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
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.
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?"
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
_ and_stella_liebe.html
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
You've also obviously never burned the roof of your mouth on a pizza.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.