Another stupid lawsuit!

[codhead]

Anyone remember the early Sony CD players? I've got a D-9 Discman

that'll blow the doors off any of the new portables. As a matter of

fact, it's as loud as my iPod and my little portable headphone amp

combined. I've seen these referred to as "pre-lawsuit" models, so Sony

may have been through what Apple is now experiencing.

The new Sony models come with a circuit called "AVLS" (Automatic Volume

Limiting System) which can be switched off. When enabled, it will keep

the volume at a more reasonable level. Can't help but wonder if this

was in response to a lawsuit as well - or maybe out of fear of one.

My new Discman still won't play half as loudly as the old one - even with the AVLS switched off.

On the bright side, the new Discman will play about a dozen CD's on 2 AA batteries, and the D-9 won't even play 2 CD's.

[Champagne taste beer budget]

I've got to go with the consumer side on this one.

What if by some physics magic, it were suddenly possible to produce a home stereo system that could produce 150dB of clean sound for under $200. Not headphones, but living room/bedroom systems at 150dB.

Would anyone here buy one for their 6 yr old child just because it sounded great at 90 dB and was inexpensive? What about if it came with a warning in HUGE letters right on the faceplate that said NO NOT PLAY OVER LEVEL 4 ON THE VOLUME KNOB OR YOU WILL GO DEAF?

My daughter will be 6 next month. She can't read yet. I know she wouldn't get one, but I'm sure others would, and within a year the company would be so bowled over with lawsuits they'd be shut down by legal fees alone.

I wish I could figure out how to limit the volume on her cheap personal cd player, but it's all digital, just a louder and softer push button. Maybe I'll just set it to an acceptable volume and super glue the button in place.

Why not make a 2 wheel electric scooter that'll do 100 MPH?

Or a chemistry set that has all the ingredients to make bombs or PCP?

You'd know better than to use it. I'd know better than to use it.

My daughter wouldn't. A warning label doesn't make it ok.

[st. patrick]

Well said Jeff. And I thought I hated all attorneys. Maybe there's a couple of good ones out there.

Michael

Michael, good buddy, don't make me come all the way back there to b*tch-slap you!

I am a lawyer, and a damn good one at that. I am trying hard to maintain a professional attitude in what has become a "business", as are many of my brethen.

The law and people who practice it are just like every other facet of life: some are good, honest and noble people trying to reach a high ideal; there be some that are just treading water and making no waves; and there be some that ought to be shot. Some are men, some are women, some are white, pink, blue, green, straight, gay, lost-in-between, etc.

You use a camera, pornographers use cameras: should we view all of you the same? I think not, and I dare say you would be offended if anyone suggested we should.

[Jeff Matthews]

Michael was just kidding. He's really a great guy. He has a good sense of humor.

[Jeff Matthews]

For those of you who are tort-reformers and want to know what really happened in the McDonald's coffee case, here's a link:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

I think the facts of that case warranted the verdict to let McDonald's receive a little message to cool the coffee down a little.

Think of the $2.7 million verdict against McDonald's in terms of the effect it has on conduct. By way of analogy, when you go over the speed limit by say, 10 mph, you get a ticket, correct? For the average person, what's the relation of the traffic fine to income? I'd say it's a couple days' pay.

That's what the verdict was to McDonald's..... a couple days' sales on just coffee, alone. The amount, to McDonald's, was much like a routine traffic ticket to us. Just a little punishment to send a message to be more careful in the future. No big deal.

Considering McDonald's had 700 prior serious coffee burn cases (showing it was well aware of the danger by the hot coffee) and considering McDonald's coffee was typically 185 degrees fahrenheit, while the competitors' coffee was around 155 degrees, and considering 185 degree coffee was vastly more likely to cause serious 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting surgery (which occurred in this case and many others) as compared to 155 degree coffee that everyone else sells, why not "fine" McDonald's and send a message to cool it down a little? After all, it knew of the problem and stated it had no plans of changing anything. Apparently, McDonald's needed a little "push." 2 days' income from coffee sales wasn't out of line.

So, what's so terribly awry in our legal system that the coffee case shows us? Anybody think one way or the other?

[TheEAR]

Now this garbage is too much. First some loser spills hot liquid in a fast food joint sues and winns.After some lunatic sues some company because they did not place a label DO NOT EAT on cement! Now this!!!

Proof the justice system is rotten beyond rotten.

I the law worked this low life BS'er would lose all rights and be certified STOOPID. Now let me sue Klipsch because thier RF7's in a small room can cause hearing loss! [] lets sue planet Earth because we can drown in the rivers and lakes and oceans!

Sue sue sue,sue anybody anytime to make a buck and get cheap publicity.All the people who sue with no serious reason should be jailed or at least pay fines so high they would regain reason.Some people should have more brains and work for thier money and they would not need to sue because of the absurd .

.

[TheEAR]

For those of you who are tort-reformers and want to know what really happened in the McDonald's coffee case, here's a link:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

I think the facts of that case warranted the verdict to let McDonald's receive a little message to cool the coffee down a little.

Think of the $2.7 million verdict against McDonald's in terms of the effect it has on conduct. By way of analogy, when you go over the speed limit by say, 10 mph, you get a ticket, correct? For the average person, what's the relation of the traffic fine to income? I'd say it's a couple days' pay.

That's what the verdict was to McDonald's..... a couple days' sales on just coffee, alone. The amount, to McDonald's, was much like a routine traffic ticket to us. Just a little punishment to send a message to be more careful in the future. No big deal.

Considering McDonald's had 700 prior serious coffee burn cases (showing it was well aware of the danger by the hot coffee) and considering McDonald's coffee was typically 185 degrees fahrenheit, while the competitors' coffee was around 155 degrees, and considering 185 degree coffee was vastly more likely to cause serious 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting surgery (which occurred in this case and many others) as compared to 155 degree coffee that everyone else sells, why not "fine" McDonald's and send a message to cool it down a little? After all, it knew of the problem and stated it had no plans of changing anything. Apparently, McDonald's needed a little "push." 2 days' income from coffee sales wasn't out of line.

So, what's so terribly awry in our legal system that the coffee case shows us? Anybody think one way or the other?

Oh please I will cry. I do not like McDonald's but these "victims" have zero sympathy from me. Now lets sue companies who make water boilers and styrofoam cups,as the "victims" can get burned.HELLO its not HOT cofee for nothing. Only in America

[TheEAR]

I've got to go with the consumer side on this one.

What if by some physics magic, it were suddenly possible to produce a home stereo system that could produce 150dB of clean sound for under $200. Not headphones, but living room/bedroom systems at 150dB.

Would anyone here buy one for their 6 yr old child just because it sounded great at 90 dB and was inexpensive? What about if it came with a warning in HUGE letters right on the faceplate that said NO NOT PLAY OVER LEVEL 4 ON THE VOLUME KNOB OR YOU WILL GO DEAF?

My daughter will be 6 next month. She can't read yet. I know she wouldn't get one, but I'm sure others would, and within a year the company would be so bowled over with lawsuits they'd be shut down by legal fees alone.

I wish I could figure out how to limit the volume on her cheap personal cd player, but it's all digital, just a louder and softer push button. Maybe I'll just set it to an acceptable volume and super glue the button in place.

Why not make a 2 wheel electric scooter that'll do 100 MPH?

Or a chemistry set that has all the ingredients to make bombs or PCP?

You'd know better than to use it. I'd know better than to use it.

My daughter wouldn't. A warning label doesn't make it ok.

Stop blowing things out of proportion. The iPod earbuds can reach around 115dB not 150. Your analogy is ...off base. And why now sue all speaker makers who make speakers capable of over 115dB sustained output,Klipsch would have problems.

Any brainless humanoid can plug cheap earbuds in any portable and suffer HEARING DAMAGE if the volume is pegged to the max for too long.Lets sue all makers,yes lets sue them because we are too simple minded to use our little,tiny brains.

Very clever way to make a buck and pretend to be victims.

[Ray Garrison]

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Ear.

The loser didn't just spill hot liquid on theirself, they spilled liquid that was served at *185* degrees F (85 degrees C) which is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts, surgery, and will leave permanent scars.

Is there any reason to have the coffee that hot? It's dangerous to the staff, to the customers, you can't possibly drink it until it cools, and a simple mishap can cause serious and, should it be spilled on, say, a youngster in a car seat, life threatening injuries. And this had happened over and over in the past, and they had not corrected the problem. I think a wake up call was completely in order.

[TheEAR]

I don't know if a law suit is appropriate in this case. But sometimes hearing loss can occur because of circumstances beyond the user's control. When I was in college, I met a guy who had just had surgery to restore his hearing. Seems he fell asleep listening to music with headphones and his idiot roomie cranked up the volume on him. The fact that Apple makes something that is capable of producing volume levels that are known to cause permanent hearing loss is just asking for trouble.

Read IRRESPONSIBLE people should not use power tools,or any gear that can cause any for of damage if MISUSED. Lets give these poor sots a special WHITE jacket with long bands and tie them up.Yes place these people in a room with foam and rubber protection.Or they may sue if they fall. [:$]

Gunns kill,lets sue gun makers.You know a gun can kill. DOH

[TheEAR]

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Ear.

The loser didn't just spill hot liquid on theirself, they spilled liquid that was served at *185* degrees F (85 degrees C) which is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts, surgery, and will leave permanent scars.

Is there any reason to have the coffee that hot? It's dangerous to the staff, to the customers, you can't possibly drink it until it cools, and a simple mishap can cause serious and, should it be spilled on, say, a youngster in a car seat, life threatening injuries. And this had happened over and over in the past, and they had not corrected the problem. I think a wake up call was completely in order.

You are free to do so.

I would give a big $0 to the spill "victim". End of story,to me to get money you EARN your way by working and showing your knowledge not snailing around suing to get money.Free loaders have no sympathy from me.All they would get is a swift boot wwith a steel cap to where the sun does not shine.

[Jeff Matthews]

EAR talks a big talk, but the minute he, his wife, daughter or whomever he's supposed to stand up for gets injured seriously by a dangerous product, I bet as stupid as the user was with the product, he'll be in an attorney's office. []

EAR: my daughter walked past a buffer in a store that was left on and the spindle caught her hair and ripped her scalp right off (this is actually a case I had).

Attorney: Dude, you're a dumba$$. Take better care of your daughter. And if your daughter wasn't taught to stay away, that explains why stupidity runs in families. Get a life. Better yet, get a job, and quit wasting my time!

[Jeff Matthews]

Or how about this one:

EAR: Yeah, I was driving home from a friend's with my family at 1:00 a.m. We were perfectly sober and everything, and all of a sudden, this drunk driver plows into us, and my child was killed.

Attorney: You should know there are drunk drivers on the road at night. Get a life! To me, to get money you EARN your way by working and showing your knowledge not snailing around suing to get money.

[TheEAR]

Jeff,

No,the case you state is not like the sensless suing some do. A store is a place to shop and MUST BE SAFE to all customers and thier kids. You are right to sue these people.And in this case my sympathy to you and your family.

Its the sensless "I played the music at full blast and did not notice it was too loud" that I will never back.

[TheEAR]

Or how about this one:

EAR: Yeah, I was driving home from a friend's with my family at 1:00 a.m. We were perfectly sober and everything, and all of a sudden, this drunk driver plows into us, and my child was killed.

Attorney: You should know there are drunk drivers on the road at night. Get a life! To me, to get money you EARN your way by working and showing your knowledge not snailing around suing to get money.

Here again your point does in NO way reflect IRRESPONSIBLE and CARELESS use of products. So a moot point

Just common sense the drunkard should get life in prison as HIS IRRESPONSIBLE ACTS have led to the deaths or serious injury of others.

Now lets see...I buy a JeffPod made by Jeff the floating Helium guy,and then drop it on my toe,then start having mobility problems..I sue the shirt off your back?

See at least lets be fair here,if there is reason to sue,sue them. May justice prevail. Byt when IRRESPONSIBLE ...MISUSE of product is done YOU are the sole responsable.

[Jeff Matthews]

EAR, but where's the real difference? The damage was nontheless unexpected.

Even though the stores have a duty to make the place safe, we all KNOW stores are run by people, and people are human and do not always make everything safe. Since you know that, isn't it your fault?

[TheEAR]

Lets revise this one more time...and use COMMON SENSE

You where in a store with a child,its is a store correct? Any store must be safe,and not have any mechanical aparatus running that could cause damage to visitors. IT IS THEIR FAULT

If you were in a Home Depot and your child ran away and used a power tool and inflicted serious injury .Then I would have to ask and "Sir as a RESPONSIBLE parent where were you when your child was running in this store? Why dont you watch your child when you KNOW well this is a store that sells power tools?"

Its like bringing a child to a wood saw mill and letting it play around. YOU would be the sole RESPONSABLE for any accident.

[Jeff Matthews]

I see your point to some degree, but to complicate matters further, the idea is to put a duty on manufacturers to design safe products, and when they discover them to be unsafe in some respects, they must make a reasonable endeavor to continue to make them safer.

We don't permit manufactures to not make products safer unless they want to. We force them to. They are in the best position to do it. We are not.

They can and do easily install blade guards on electric saws. If they put an electric saw on the market without a guard and found that people were routinely doing "stupid" things and hurting themselves with the exposed blade, they need to make an effort to re-design it with a safety feature (such as a blade guard). They can't just sit back and keep calling end-users "stupid" when they can readily protect against stupid, yet serious accidents. That's the law, and it is right that it is.

If this was not the law, we would be at the mercy of sloppy manufacturing practices that place profits over safety, with no incentive for corrective actions.

[Hardhead]

No offence, Jeff, but you're spouting personal injury lawyer rationalizational B.S. If I manage to dump hot coffee in my lap, I would expect to get burned (that's the way the world works, and all the p.i. attorneys in the world can't change it), and next time I'll be more careful.

If I turn up the volume of my stereo too loud, I would expect some hearing loss, as should you. Since you don't trust anyone to keep from turning the volume knob past their own good, the tort police will be at your house first thing in the morning to take your Crown Microtech 1200 amp and your Klipschorns away from you. NO ONE should be allowed to own such an amp and speakers, right? After all, 310 watts/channel at 8 ohms into a speaker capable of 104 dB at 1 watt produces WAY more than 115 dB SPL. It's for your own good! I can hear it now, "Throw down your amp and come out with your hands up!"

There's a big difference between being a victim because of what someone else does and being an idiot because you don't have enough sense not to be. There's a price to pay for being an idiot, and plaintiff's tort lawyers are forever trying to shift the payment of that price to someone with deep pockets so the lawyers can collect 40% of the action. Personal injury law makes a lot more sense if you remember: "Follow the money."

[Jeff Matthews]

Lets revise this one more time...and use COMMON SENSE

You where in a store with a child,its is a store correct? Any store must be safe,and not have any mechanical aparatus running that could cause damage to visitors. IT IS THEIR FAULT

If you were in a Home Depot and your child ran away and used a power tool and inflicted serious injury .Then I would have to ask and "Sir as a RESPONSIBLE parent where were you when your child was running in this store? Why dont you watch your child when you KNOW well this is a store that sells power tools?"

Its like bringing a child to a wood saw mill and letting it play around. YOU would be the sole RESPONSABLE for any accident.

Now, I see you coming around to some deeper thinking. You are correct to ask that question. But that's not the last question. What if the tool was right behind the parent, and while the parent was reading the instruction label on a product, the child got injured from the power tool left within her reach? Why did the store make power tools easily accessible to children? They could be placed out of children's reach. No parent watches a child 100% of the time, and it is quite likely that there are many decent, responsible parents who momentarily take their eyes off their children and are shocked and horrified the instant the terrible event happens.

Your question is valid, and so is mine. In this scenario, the law calls for jury questions that allow the jury to apportion fault. The jury could say it is 100% the parent's fault, or the jury could say 50/50, 60/40, 20/80, 0/100, etc. That's fair enough. Just because a suit is brought does not always mean a person who is at fault gets something for nothing.

The scenario you pictured, I am sure, is where the child is allowed to wander Home Depot aimlessly and get into things. Why should't Home Depot be charged with a duty to foresee this might happen? Heck, they're in the store business. It cannot be said that wandering, mischievous children were never expected to enter a Home Depot. They can, and should expect it to happen, anticipate serious injuries where they might occur, and take precautions, as would any responsible steward when inviting the public into his/her place of business. In fact, Home Depot does on both counts, and it's right that way.