Tera Patricks' Tera Talks - Is Your iPod Too Loud? Sue Apple

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.

Terrin says:

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

Posted by Terrin on Friday, February 3 2006 at 11:04 am

Terrin says:

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.

Posted by Terrin on Friday, February 3 2006 at 11:15 am

John C. Randolph says:

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

Posted by John C. Randolph on Sunday, April 2 2006 at 7:53 am

Terrin says:

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.

Posted by Terrin on Sunday, April 2 2006 at 9:24 pm