Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Slapped With Wiimote Strap Lawsuit Once Again
GameCyteSean writes "GameCyte is reporting that a new class-action lawsuit has challenged Nintendo's Wiimote straps once more. Interestingly, the suit was filed by the same lawyer who led the original 2006 attempt, and now argues that Nintendo hid records of broken TVs from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. From the article: 'This doesn't seem like a spurious accusation, either. Attached to the court filing (PDF) as a matter of public record is the very evidence Nintendo allegedly tried to hide: actual, internal Nintendo documents (PDF) where customer service reps received complaints of cracked televisions and broken Wiimote straps — and the corresponding Monthly Reports that Nintendo was compelled to file with the CPSC as part of their agreement.'"
I'm in Australia and some of us refer to the new Wiimotes with the heavily padded 'jacket' and beefy strap as Americanized Wiimotes. Sorry to you Americans who have to live amongst these people.
For those interested, you can read IGNs article on The Top 10 Games That Might Make You Inadvertently Whack Your Friends in the Nuts. It only just came out last month.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Just like the idea of suing McDonald's for spilling hot coffee in your own lap, it sounds silly until you look at the pattern.
* The directions for the Wiimote encourage robust swinging of the control for various games, such as tennis, basketball, and exercise programs.
* Kids, whose coordination is not that good and whose hands are not that strong, are encouraged to play with these things. This makes such accidents far more likely.
* Nintendo had already received a number of complaints about the straps, but continued to sell the flimsy versions.
* Nintendo hid the complaints in the previous lawsuit, which is a violation of the relevant 'discovery' procedures that their own lawyers should have prevented.
* The new strap apparently also fails.
That's more than enough for a reasonable lawsuit holding Nintendo liable for destructions that they knew were not rare, and which they apparently lied about the existence of. It's not like throwing a brick: it's like a hammer with such a slick handle, it's likely to slip from your hands.
And as stupid as tort law seems when someone say, throws a wiimote into a television screen and blames Nintendo, there's an easy precaution. Nintendo could have put some clear warnings along with the wiimotes, something like "be careful not to let these fly out of your hands and break the tv, window, mirrors, or your commemorative plate collection."
You obviously don't own a Wii. Every game I've played has a goofy little screen that comes up when you start the game with a picture of a guy whacking his tv and the person behind him with the wiimote and a warning saying not to let the thing come out of your hand.
The McDonald's lawsuit - as the a Geek tells the story - has all the elements of an urban legend. "Don't bother me with the facts, son. I'm on a roll here." You sell coffee in a cheap foam take-out cup at a temperature that can put someone in the hospital for weeks or months if it spills. There had been incidents before and you know the danger. That is why McD's lost the case.
And just like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, it continues to sound silly even after becoming familiar with all the facts.
If you were actually familiar with the facts it would not sound silly.
The Actual Facts About The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
Wiki page on case
It should also be noted that Liebeck (the woman who received the coffee burns) initially sought $20,000 to cover her $11,000 in medical expenses and that McDonald's refused and offered her $800. And also that 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.
Corporations are not defenseless little orphans being picked on by frivolous lawsuits. They are soul-sucking goliaths of wealth and power that would willfully break the law and/or harm people if the reward outweighed the projected risk. Granted in the McDonalds coffee case it looks like it was callous indifference that prevented them from reducing the holding temperature of their coffee despite the number of burn incidents over the years until coming to a head in the Liebeck case.
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do
If you are serving coffee that hot, you are a poor host.
You don't serve coffee at 198 degrees. That's not 'Hot' that's dangerously hot.
She did not get 'millions', she got an undisclosed amount under 500K. Probably well under 500K. She want to sue for hospital expenses. The Jury awarded 7 million, but like all lawsuits, it was appeal several times.
you think 180 degrees is drinkable immediatly? Either you haven't thought about this at all, or you have a callus for a tongue.
FYI You can ask for hotter coffee in most places.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on