In Shakespeare’s Henry VI one of the characters, “Dick The Butcher” said, “First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers.” An iPod owner has filed a federal lawsuit against Apple, claiming the device cause hearing loss in people who use it. What’s next? Let’s sue Oprah because she promoted a fiction book as non-fiction?
The San Jose Mercury News quotes from the suit that portable music players are “inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss.”
The suit was filed on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana. He’s probably of the same Patterson’s who wear “Runs With Scissors” t-shirts.
McDonald’s gets sued because their coffee is too hot. Hot coffee is supposed to be hot. Hot coffee should not be spilled onto exposed skin.
Has Mister Coffee or Folgers been sued? It must be the brand names that attract goofy lawsuits. McDonald’s has also been sued by fat people for making them fat.
Now Apple gets sued for because the iPod causes hearing loss? Can we sue Jay Leno because he makes fun of President Bush. Yes. That’s what makes America so much fun.
It’s also what makes the country a laughing stock. It’s all that freedom. We should sue to have less freedom. No, wait. That’s why we elected a Republican president.
The iPod lawsuit says such music devices can produce sounds of more than 115 decibels (that’s loud) which can damage the hearing of a person exposed to the sound for more than half a minute per day.
Rock concert goers beware. Children of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and Rolling Stones concerts, beware.
To be fair, Apple provides a warning with each iPod. It says, “Permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume.” Duh.
Apple should add this phrase to every iPod box: “Warning. You may not purcahse or use the iPod and then sue us for any reason whatsoever, forever, and ever.”
Amen.
I have a difficult time sympathizing with people who sue McDonald’s because they’re too fat. Or the coffee was too hot. It’s like blaming Hooters for adultery.
In many European countries, the loser in a civil court case pays the legal costs of the winner. That’s an idea whose time has come.
Simply, (and crudely) put, this person is fucking stupid.
I disagree. The lawsuit wasn’t brought out of stupidity. It was brought out of greed. Apple is now perceived as ripe for the picking (ouch!). When our value system puts the almighty dollar at the top of the totem pole, then all other values—such as personal integrity and responsibility—take a back seat.
Well I personally feel this is a frivolous lawsuit. Before I predict an outcome, I know Sony and others were also sued in the past for similar reasons. Does anyone know the outcomes/precedents of those past suits?
I do not agree with this lawusit, but I do think Apple should include a feature where parents can limit the volume on an iPod. Kids often do not know that loud sound for long periods of time will kill your hearing. For that matter, many parents are not educated in these matters either. Completly lowering the output as Apple did in Europe is not necessarily the answer though, because many people hook an iPod to external speakers, as opposed to headphones.
You can tell that this particular lawsuit is completely frivolous because the lawyer has actually said that he is not sure if Apple’s iPod has caused the Plaintiff any harm. Based on this alone, I would be surprized if the court does not dismiss the case, as the Plaintiff cannot prove his injuries. Moreover, we do not sue automobiles that can go over a hundred miles an hour, when the typical maximum speed limit is much less
PS:
One comment on the MacDonalds lawsuit, where the woman sued MacDonald’s for being burned. The lawsuit seems silly on the surface, but if one actually read the details of that case, he or she would learn MacDonald’s actually made the coffee hotter than they were legally allowed to do. In other words, MacDonalds broke the law by serving dangerously hot coffee.
When all is said and done, the woman only walked away with a hundred grant after the appeal process was over (although she originally was awarded millions). For MacDonalds that was like paying a penny for breaking the law. The woman suffered third degree burns all down her legs.
I think he’s gonna have a tough time getting anyone to give him too much. Hearing loss sucks, but he can’t prove he spent too much money on it or that it hurt him emotionally.
Terrin,
I read that case, and it’s still stupid. She put the cup in her LAP, and spilled it by pulling the lid off, in a MOVING car. Millions of other people manage to negotiate the pitfalls of handling hot coffee every day, and thanks to that stupid woman and her ambulance-chaser, one of these days we’re not going to be able to buy a hot drink anywhere.
-jcr
JCR. Two things. You may have read the case, but you forgot the facts. First, the car was not moving. The car was pulled over in the McDonald’s parking lot, and the burned woman was the passenger in the car, not the driver.
You can find an overview of the facts of the McDonalds case at:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
Second, when you get your McDonald’s coffee you, as presumably a reasonable person, might expect it to be hot. You, however, are not likely expecting it to be scalding hot, whereby the coffee’s contact with your skin for several second would cause you to have third degree burns (this is where your skin falls off, like with a grease burn). The lady spent 8 days in the hospital receiving skin graphs.
Moreover, McDonald’s was warned over 700 times the coffee was too hot. Its own scientist said the coffee was dangerously hot, and above the tempurature most places kept their coffee. McDonalds serving coffee that hot was negligent because it 1) knew people drove with their coffee (e.g. it is a drive through), and 2) people repeatedly told them it was too hot.
If that is not a case of negligence, I do not know what is.
JCR, let me add one point. The fact, that millions of people are able to drive around without recieving third degree burns and spending eight days in the hospital should tell you this was not a normal situation. Either the woman was negligent or McDonalds was. Both courts that heard the case sided with the woman (even though the second court lowered the award). I assume some of the judges or jury members have drunk coffee before and drove.
This woman is american isn’t she?
Read the facts before siding with negligant business owners, and hyper conservative republicans wanting to take advantage of people (don’t get me wrong, i am for dumping all lawyers at the bottom of the ocean). The hot coffee case was truely result of a corporations neglegance and treating customers like statistics, so customers strike back:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
I don’t really care how hot the coffee was, but from what I’ve heard it was about 190 degrees. Coffee is made with boiling water. If you didn’t know, water boils at 212 degrees. If you were smart you would wait a while for it to cool off before you took the lid off. She obviously wasn’t. She’s either stupid as hell or just wanted to make some money. Actually both of those reasons are probably true. If I spilled it on myself I wouldn’t blame McDonald’s because they didn’t spill it on me. If you think I’m wrong then you’re fucked up in the head.
So, MJC I guess in your book it is OK that McDonald’s broke the law. Fact is that it was legally required to keep the coffee at a particular temperature. It didn’t. This is even though it had been repeatedly warned that the coffee was too hot and being served above the legally required temperature. I would guess that your one of those hypocritical people who wanted Paris Hilton to do the time since she did the crime. Here, however, where MacDonald’s repeatedly broke the law, had been repeatedly warned that it was dong so, and eventually injured a woman, you don’t want it to pay.
Moreover, I drink coffee while driving all the time. I am willing to take the risk because even though I know I could get burnt, I do not expect to receive third degree burns, or spend three days in the hospital. I do not expect this because I have spilled hot coffee on me a few times and know that it generally is not served hot enough to do that type of damage. However, MacDonald’s served its coffee way above what was safe or legal. Even its own expert testified to that effect.
Furthermore, you don’t know anything about coffee. Coffee is not supposed to be made with boiling water, as that makes it bitter. It is supposed to be made with water at about 195F. Water boils at 212F. Moreover, preferred serving temperature (and legally required serving temperature) is quite a bit lower (ranging from 140F to 160F).
See:
http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/techprogram/abstracts/3583.htm
McDonalds said during discovery that it held its coffee at between 180 and 190F. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Your free to continue being an idiot.
Thank you, Terrin, for making this case clear.
So many people live by the assumption that nothing is worth exploring; they know everything they need to know.
A poor understanding of the MacDonald’s lawsuit is a classic example of default position of arrogance and ignorance taken by many people. They ignore the obvious—-a judge allowed the case, and a jury granted damages after hearing the evidence—-because they think they know enough based on a sound bite.
Yet, few people could describe what laws apply to food standards in restaurants.
On appeal, this case still held up in court: the damages were set at $480,000.
This was a valid tort case all the way around. Also, it’s a important Ethics case taught in Business Administration degree programs.
Anyone still confused about MacDonald’s corporate culture ought to read ‘Fast Food Nation’ by Eric Schlessinger.