And the worst part appears to be...
that this person wasn't necessarily even affected by the supposed 'flaw'.
In other words, let's bring suit solely because some other country (or court) was able to win a lawsuit just like this, not because logic dictates that it is wrong or improper, or that common standards have been purposely disregarded for a marketing ploy or for profit seeking.
Oh yeah...and let's make it a class action suit, so there might eventually be people in the suit that can possibly prove that they are so stupid that they ruined their hearing with an iPod (and totally without any responsibility on their part), so therefore a possibility exists that I might actually get some money out of this 'flaw'.
First of all, considering how long we (all third-world countries and above) have been collectively aware that long term loud noises, i.e. music, can cause hearing loss, this sounds like just another typical money-grubbing, underhanded, baseless-but-quite-possibly-profitable, do-anything-to-get-money-because-our-legal-system- is-so-screwed-up-that-we-can, example of our civil legal system at work.
So, if the court is to believe that this person is so 'logically challenged' that he actually didn't know, simply because this particular product didn't have a warning label, and that he can't connect the fact that ANY device that generates loud and repetitive noise MIGHT POSSIBLY have the same effect as one that did have a label. Well, then hopefully they also believe that no amount of money is going to help him get through life any better than he or she can now.
Also, this must be the kind of person that they put warning labels on lawn mowers for, so that they can actually understand (apparently, only possibe for them by reading a warning label) that it would be dangerous for him to hold on to the edge of the lawn mower body itself, and use it for hedging ("gee look honey, it says that if I stick my fingers right by the whirling sharp blades that I might lose my fingers...wow, I'd never have thought of that")!!!
My first gut reactions is that people like this will most likely show up soon on the Darwin Awards lists (after all, sharp knives, cars, electrical wall plugs, banana peels and HAND GRENADES don't all have labels on them either).
I also don't believe that attorney's that represent this kind of perversion of our legal system should be allowed to practic law.
Slashdot Mirror
And the worst part appears to be...
that this person wasn't necessarily even affected by the supposed 'flaw'.
In other words, let's bring suit solely because some other country (or court) was able to win a lawsuit just like this, not because logic dictates that it is wrong or improper, or that common standards have been purposely disregarded for a marketing ploy or for profit seeking.
Oh yeah...and let's make it a class action suit, so there might eventually be people in the suit that can possibly prove that they are so stupid that they ruined their hearing with an iPod (and totally without any responsibility on their part), so therefore a possibility exists that I might actually get some money out of this 'flaw'.
It almost makes one sick!
First of all, considering how long we (all third-world countries and above) have been collectively aware that long term loud noises, i.e. music, can cause hearing loss, this sounds like just another typical money-grubbing, underhanded, baseless-but-quite-possibly-profitable, do-anything-to-get-money-because-our-legal-system- is-so-screwed-up-that-we-can, example of our civil legal system at work.
So, if the court is to believe that this person is so 'logically challenged' that he actually didn't know, simply because this particular product didn't have a warning label, and that he can't connect the fact that ANY device that generates loud and repetitive noise MIGHT POSSIBLY have the same effect as one that did have a label. Well, then hopefully they also believe that no amount of money is going to help him get through life any better than he or she can now.
Also, this must be the kind of person that they put warning labels on lawn mowers for, so that they can actually understand (apparently, only possibe for them by reading a warning label) that it would be dangerous for him to hold on to the edge of the lawn mower body itself, and use it for hedging ("gee look honey, it says that if I stick my fingers right by the whirling sharp blades that I might lose my fingers...wow, I'd never have thought of that")!!!
My first gut reactions is that people like this will most likely show up soon on the Darwin Awards lists (after all, sharp knives, cars, electrical wall plugs, banana peels and HAND GRENADES don't all have labels on them either).
I also don't believe that attorney's that represent this kind of perversion of our legal system should be allowed to practic law.