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

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?

Web Site of Lawyers

[MyLongNickName]

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

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!)

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.

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: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: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: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: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.