Man sues Apple for potential hearing loss

Man sues Apple for potential hearing loss, this is the most assenine thing I have ever seen. If this goes anywhere could speakers that produce in excess of 100db be outlawed? I don't think so but it's food for thought.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102733_pf.html

They should throw this out and make the guy pay for all court costs. In addition, this idiot is going for class-action which means the plaintiffs would get $5 each and Apple would lose like $300 million... meanwhile there would be no recall and nothing would change... (ie. makes no sense no matter how you slice it).

Some lawyer pushed this to make money. He should have to share in paying the court costs as well. Idiocy and ruining this country.

If the judge doesn't throw this out - then you know why so many say that this country's judicial system is going down the tubes quick.

This is the same thing as that guy suing mcdonalds for making him fat. Or the lady suing them for getting burned with coffie. It seems that companies are supposted to be responsibble for people not having common sense. I mean did the guy think it would be a good idea to blast 100 db directly into his ear. Would you sit your hear on your floor standing speakers for hours on end and not think something detrimental is going to happen. My mother is no sound engineer but she always told me when I was young and jamming out to my headphones that if I listen to them to loud I would hurt my hearing. All you need is common sense to figure that one out. They should be shot.

And if we cannot have speakers over 100 db say good bye to live music.

All I can say is.... Well, I'm speechless. That has to go up there with the top ten dumbest lawsuits of all time.

It seems our ever vigilant lawyers will continue to look out for our best interests.

Particilarly when they think they can make megabucks from a huge company* by convincing a gullible jury that we're too stupid for our own good and it's everyone else's responsibility to protect us from oursleves.

This sentence from the article cracks me up.

"Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said."

So, I guess we can sue auto makers because we might drive their product reckelessly and hurt ourselves? ..or how about pencil makers because we might sharpen them and stick them in our eyes or ears? ...and the list goes on...

As I've always said, never confuse the law with justice.

*Of course, those that might "benefit" from the class action suit may only see a buck or two while the lawyer may make hundreds of millions.

Naves74 said:

Or the lady suing them for getting burned with coffie.

Click to expand...

I get your point, and this lawsuit is frivolous, but if you look at the facts of the "hot coffee" case, that one was a very worthy lawsuit.

That particular McDonald's intentionally kept the coffee WAY above safe temperatures, at a temperature that causes 3rd degree burns within 5 seconds. They had been aware of the problem for at least 10 years. On a *number* of occasions, coffee had been spilled by employees at the drive-thru window, causing full-thickness burns on a number of customers, requiring them to get skin grafts.

The coffee McDonald's was serving, at a temperature of 180-190 degrees was absolutely unfit for consumption and presented a very real danger, as evidenced by the many people who had received skin grafts due to its temperature. McDonald's testified that they intentionally served the coffee "unfit for human consumption".

McDonald's refused to pay for her treatment, then refused to settle for $200,000.

If there was ever a worthy lawsuit, this was it.

jonnythan said:

I get your point, and this lawsuit is frivolous, but if you look at the facts of the "hot coffee" case, that one was a very worthy lawsuit.

That particular McDonald's intentionally kept the coffee WAY above safe temperatures, at a temperature that causes 3rd degree burns within 5 seconds. They had been aware of the problem for at least 10 years. On a *number* of occasions, coffee had been spilled by employees at the drive-thru window, causing full-thickness burns on a number of customers, requiring them to get skin grafts.

The coffee McDonald's was serving, at a temperature of 180-190 degrees was absolutely unfit for consumption and presented a very real danger, as evidenced by the many people who had received skin grafts due to its temperature. McDonald's testified that they intentionally served the coffee "unfit for human consumption".

McDonald's refused to pay for her treatment, then refused to settle for $200,000.

If there was ever a worthy lawsuit, this was it.

Click to expand...

I never bothered to check the details of the lawsuit. Thanks for bringing this to light. If you had not, I would have continued to blame this person for the litigious outlook in America today.

On Topic---Stelle Awards---LONG

The Stella Awards

It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella
Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck
who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in
NM). That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous,
ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States.

Here are this year's winners:

5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded
$80,000. by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a
toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the
store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

5th Place (tie): 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda
Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the
wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving
a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut.
The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the
garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a
large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming
the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the
tune of $500,000.

4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500.
and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
been just a little provoked at the time by Mr.
Williams who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting
it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500. after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
argument.

2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the
bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This
occurred while Ms.Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the
ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded
$12,000. and dental expenses.

1st Place: This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot
Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football
game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70
mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back & make herself
a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and
overturned.

Mrs.Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the owner's manual
that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her $1,750,000.
plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the
basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons
around.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

Extremely frivilous! I think us Americans as a whole have lost a sense of personal responsibility. Isn't it common sense to not put your ear close to a 100 db siren? Same concept.

markw said:

"Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said."

So, I guess we can sue auto makers because we might drive their product reckelessly and hurt ourselves? ..or how about pencil makers because we might sharpen them and stick them in our eyes or ears? ...and the list goes on...
.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's sue all the speaker makers as the potential is there

twheeloc said:

The Stella Awards

.

Click to expand...

I just love these. Thanks Then they wonder why they, the sharks, have such a bad reputation. And the Jury, well, they much have checked their intellect at the door but that may not be their fault as the thinking jurors are dismissed in the selection process.

After a case I was a juror on the layer for the plaintiff told me he was going to dismiss me. I guess he didn't like my votes. The guy didn't get as much as they hoped to.

jonnythan said:

...but if you look at the facts of the "hot coffee" case, that one was a very worthy lawsuit.

If there was ever a worthy lawsuit, this was it.

Click to expand...

Please - read the faqs on it...
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

All McDonalds shoot for that temperature range and it is recommended by the national coffee association as optimal temperature. Basically, it is recommended by you that coffee shouldn't taste good, it shold be safe? Obviously that's just silly. Hot coffee is supposed to be hot - and the temperature is supposed to be where McDonalds has it for best taste. Even asking for money... geez... let alone winning a lawsuit.

Pure stupidity in this world.

BMXTRIX said:

Please - read the faqs on it...
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

All McDonalds shoot for that temperature range and it is recommended by the national coffee association as optimal temperature. Basically, it is recommended by you that coffee shouldn't taste good, it shold be safe? Obviously that's just silly. Hot coffee is supposed to be hot - and the temperature is supposed to be where McDonalds has it for best taste. Even asking for money... geez... let alone winning a lawsuit.

Pure stupidity in this world.

Click to expand...

"After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees."

Hot coffee is supposed to be hot. It's not supposed to be 30 degrees above the temperature at which it's possible to sip without getting second degree burns on your skin, which was the case here.

"But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court"

"Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously."

"Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before."

"an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800"

"Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat,""

"Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation."

"it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees"

"He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible."

""The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham."

190 degree coffee is 22 degrees from *boiling*. It causes full-thickness burns requiring skin grafts in *three seconds*. It's *impossible to safely drink coffee that hot*.

Give me a break.

I have an iPOD and man you would have to crank it in order to cause any hearing damage at all. I have a nice pair of Sony headphones that help mute outside noise. Half volume is loud enough to hear the music ona noisy bus...

~Bob

Naves74 said:

My mother is no sound engineer but she always told me when I was young and jamming out to my headphones that if I listen to them to loud I would hurt my hearing.

Click to expand...

You should sue your mother for not taking them away and giving you a 'time out.'

I'm going to weigh in on this one. I think Ipods should have some kind of volume limiter. There have been times when I've been walking to work and I bump my unit and the volume shoots way up.Most of the time, I have my hand on it in case that happens. (First Generation Model).

As far as the woman burned by the coffee at McDonalds, there's more to that particular story than the media often portrays. That particular McDonald's was cited by inspectors for serving coffee about the recommended temperature, the coffee lid was not secure when it was handed to the customer. And that woman had 2nd degree burns over legs and genitalia.

Don't depend on the news if you want information.

mpompey said:

I'm going to weigh in on this one. I think Ipods should have some kind of volume limiter. There have been times when I've been walking to work and I bump my unit and the volume shoots way up.Most of the time, I have my hand on it in case that happens. (First Generation Model).

As far as the woman burned by the coffee at McDonalds, there's more to that particular story than the media often portrays. That particular McDonald's was cited by inspectors for serving coffee about the recommended temperature, the coffee lid was not secure when it was handed to the customer. And that woman had 2nd degree burns over legs and genitalia.

Don't depend on the news if you want information.

Click to expand...

Where did you find that information then???

I also heard (from the news) that the coffee cup was between her legs when the lid came off. Was the award worth the damage?

Also, as a coffee drinker, the demand is for coffee to be served hot, very hot. Likewise, some people want to listen to the music LOUD.

This is right up there with tobacco, too much fat in food, etc. We live in a free society, where we have have choice and can choose to risk our health.

mpompey said:

That particular McDonald's was cited by inspectors for serving coffee about the recommended temperature, the coffee lid was not secure when it was handed to the customer.

Click to expand...

Actually, according to the link (which is a basically an edited story from WSJ that is used as an ad for a class action law firm) she had opened the cup of coffee to put in condiments.

I'm going to weigh in on this one. I think Ipods should have some kind of volume limiter. There have been times when I've been walking to work and I bump my unit and the volume shoots way up.Most of the time, I have my hand on it in case that happens. (First Generation Model).

Click to expand...

There should not be a volume limiter on portable players. There are many reasons why including the fact that different headphones play louder than others. As per your situation, is there no hold function on the first gen Ipod? I put my ZenMicro Photo on hold and I can't bump the volume. It also has a function called smart volume which keeps all of the tracks at the same volume so there is no difference in volume between songs.