Another stupid lawsuit!

[Jeff Matthews]

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."

HH. Close, but no cigar. If you read my long post in this thread, there was the balance of risk vs. utility. My MT-1200 has utility that outweighs the risk. The utility of having the "earbleeder" power is so you can turn it up that high and be in a distant room where you can still hear it loud, but not at ear-damaging volumes. There's no other way to do that with a single piece of equipment.

Switching to the iPod, there's no reason whatsoever to have it go as loud as it does because that volume should never be used under any circumstances, period. At least so the argument goes.

That's different, altogether. If there is zero utility to the dangerous feature, it is unreasonably dangerous.

If you follow me, it is okay to have things that are reasonably dangerous, but it is not okay to have things that are unreasonably dangerous. It is being alleged (maybe correctly, maybe not) that that extra volume the iPod puts out is the unreasonable feature because it has no utility at all and should never be used. Therefore, to make the product reasonably safe, the dangerous part of the volume should be removed, "governed out" or whatever.

If the cost to do so is minimal, there's no reason not to do it. Should the manufacturer thus not do it and let both morons and kids hurt themselves? You might have less sympathy for morons, but if you're gonna allow the product for morons, you'll be allowing kids to get hurt with it, too.

[TheEAR]

Jeff,

Like I said if it is a Walmart type store where people go with kids youare 100% CORRECT.No power tools or any dangerous mechanical device should be present,if they have power tools they should be attached and never powered. As families go shopping there. The lawsuit...you WIN.

Now if you take your klittle ones with you to a Home Depot and do not watch your kids YOU ARE THE responsible one.As you know very well its not a familly store but a renovation store selling DANGEROUS POWER TOOLS to RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE and PROS. Then you LOSE any lawsuit.

Simple common sense. No bias

[oldtimer]

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.

I think we all understand the history and theory of harmful product laws. Most of us have problems with responsibility vs. liability. Caveat Emptor is a Latin term, hence has been around since before the birth of Christ. Where does the concept of common sense intersect with manufacturer liability? I know that is what the courts are designed to resolve, but many times the verdicts don't make sense. Your example of a blade guard does little to clarify this issue. Obviously a power saw can cause serious damage when used improperly. So now lets take the average high end 12" chef's knife. These have been around for ages, yet there is no "blade guard" for these, and they are more common than a power saw. Put in the hands of "stupid" they are as dangerous as anything I would want to be around. I have used my chef's knife many more times than my power saw, and regardless that in my case no serious injuries have resulted as of yet, on average, the chef knife is a far greater danger (due to far greater usage) yet it has NO BLADE GUARD! When I whack the end of my finger off, will you get me lots of money from Henkels or Solingen for this oversight? Or will it be thrown out as frivilous like many other lawsuits that should be, but are not?

[codhead]

Okay, I'll take the bait...

"Okay, I just read the first article to educate myself better. It seems

the lawsuit is not necessarily claiming the guy had hearing loss. He's

just trying to claim, on behalf of all consumers, that the iPod is

unreasonably dangerous because it can play 115dB. He wants the iPod to

be re-designed or a software put into it to limit its output, like was

done with the iPod in France.

I

see nothing at all wrong with this suit. It seems to be a straight up

debate about risk of harm vs. utility - being whether the iPod is

unreasonably dangerous since it plays at 115dB which is alleged to be

unreasonably loud coming from headphones placed right up to the ear

canal.

Either the iPod is found to be unreasonably dangerous, or it is not."

Let's say my F150 can be driven at 115 MPH. This might kill me, as my

truck's suspension is not designed to negotiate a highway corner at

this speed. I'm not dead - but I could be. So I'm going to sue Ford.

And I'm going to claim, on behalf of all consumers, that the F150 is

unreasonably dangerous because it can be driven at 115 MPH. I want the

F150 to be re-designed or a governor put into it to limit its speed,

because something like this was mandated in a socialist European

country where individual responsibility has been ceded to the state.

I see nothing at all wrong with this suit. It seems to be a straight up

debate about risk of harm vs. utility - being whether the F150 is

unreasonably dangerous since it can be operated at speeds of 115 MPH by

inexperienced drivers who are not aware of the vehicle's limitations.

Either the F150 is found to be unreasonably dangerous, or it is not.

Kind of like the whole McDonalds coffee issue. Take the number of

injuries vs. cups of coffee sold. What's the injury rate? Almost zilch.

Yep, it was hot. Someone was careless, and got burned.

Ever hear of a device called a tea kettle? When that bad boy starts

whistling on the stove burner, what's the water temperature? A whole

lot hotter than a cup of McDonalds coffee. Do people get scalded making

tea? Yep. Do you think the injury rate is higher than people getting

burned by McDonalds coffee? Keep in mind there are more steps involved

in making tea. An exposed stove burner, pouring a hot liquid, handling

an uncovered container, etc.

Should we sue the tea kettle manufacturers for designing a dangerous

product? I've got a nice All-Clad tea kettle. Top of the line. And

guess what? There's not a single label on it saying "WARNING - HOT

WATER". No instructions came with it telling me how to use it either.

If handling a hot cup of McDonalds coffee is dangerous, making tea

would expose the consumer to danger on an almost unimaginable scale.

Back to the iPod. If the iPod was found to be unreasonably dangerous,

would the person that initiated the suit be entitled to any monetary

compensation, or would he receive a couple of free iTunes downloads and

a software upgrade like everyone else?

[TheEAR]

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."

At last someone with COMMON sense and the sense of RESPONSABILITY!

If the damage is caused by a third party to you,you ahve reason...all the reason to sue. If you cause the harm YOURSELF because you lack COMMON SENSE,sue yourself. Some goodie two shoes fail to comprehend.At least they play the ignorance card.

I have a BIG Krell amp and I will power my big Klipsch to the failing point...over 120dB at listening position...I will sue Krell and Klipsch for hearing loss. [][][][:$] hello I lack judgment and have an IQ of a lobster. Hell-O

[oldtimer]

Okay, I'll take the bait...

"Okay, I just read the first article to educate myself better. It seems the lawsuit is not necessarily claiming the guy had hearing loss. He's just trying to claim, on behalf of all consumers, that the iPod is unreasonably dangerous because it can play 115dB. He wants the iPod to be re-designed or a software put into it to limit its output, like was done with the iPod in France.

I see nothing at all wrong with this suit. It seems to be a straight up debate about risk of harm vs. utility - being whether the iPod is unreasonably dangerous since it plays at 115dB which is alleged to be unreasonably loud coming from headphones placed right up to the ear canal.

Either the iPod is found to be unreasonably dangerous, or it is not."

Let's say my F150 can be driven at 115 MPH. This might kill me, as my truck's suspension is not designed to negotiate a highway corner at this speed. I'm not dead - but I could be. So I'm going to sue Ford. And I'm going to claim, on behalf of all consumers, that the F150 is unreasonably dangerous because it can be driven at 115 MPH. I want the F150 to be re-designed or a governor put into it to limit its speed, because something like this was mandated in a socialist European country where individual responsibility has been ceded to the state.

I see nothing at all wrong with this suit. It seems to be a straight up debate about risk of harm vs. utility - being whether the F150 is unreasonably dangerous since it can be operated at speeds of 115 MPH by inexperienced drivers who are not aware of the vehicle's limitations.

Either the F150 is found to be unreasonably dangerous, or it is not.

Kind of like the whole McDonalds coffee issue. Take the number of injuries vs. cups of coffee sold. What's the injury rate? Almost zilch. Yep, it was hot. Someone was careless, and got burned.

Ever hear of a device called a tea kettle? When that bad boy starts whistling on the stove burner, what's the water temperature? A whole lot hotter than a cup of McDonalds coffee. Do people get scalded making tea? Yep. Do you think the injury rate is higher than people getting burned by McDonalds coffee? Keep in mind there are more steps involved in making tea. An exposed stove burner, pouring a hot liquid, handling an uncovered container, etc.

Should we sue the tea kettle manufacturers for designing a dangerous product? I've got a nice All-Clad tea kettle. Top of the line. And guess what? There's not a single label on it saying "WARNING - HOT WATER". No instructions came with it telling me how to use it either. If handling a hot cup of McDonalds coffee is dangerous, making tea would expose the consumer to danger on an almost unimaginable scale.

Back to the iPod. If the iPod was found to be unreasonably dangerous, would the person that initiated the suit be entitled to any monetary compensation, or would he receive a couple of free iTunes downloads and a software upgrade like everyone else?

Obviously they are entitled to a free cup of tea.

________________________________________________________

"I have had tea, lots of tea...and crumpets!"

[Jeff Matthews]

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.

And I will agree with your statement generally. But I doubt anyone should reasonably expect to receive third-degree burns requiring surgery from spilled coffee. Maybe a nasty blister, but come on.... 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts? That's all the way through the deepest layer of skin and the next thing is muscles, bones and/or organs.

That was the unreasonable danger created by McDonald's. It wasn't that coffee was hot. It was that it was way hotter than anyone would expect coffee to be.

We typically, as humans, adjust a proneness for safety based upon the risk we anticipate. If you knew a particular store's coffee was hot enough to burn a hole all the way through your skin into your organs, we might show up in the drive-through with a special, thermal protective suit on next time. But we weren't given fair warning about the extreme temperature of the coffee in the first place.

We all know coffee is hot, and yet we have all spilled it carelessly before. We all plan to be careful in the future, but I am sure we have all spilled coffee more than once. It's no wonder we handle hot coffee less carefully than we handle things we know to be deadly.

We don't expect the particular risk that McDonald's introduced by super-heating their coffee. Pure and simple. The danger was the spiller's fault, but not the extreme danger.

[oldtimer]

What about the knives Jeff, the knives!

[TheEAR]

Codhead and Oldtimer good to see more fellow Klipschers with universal common sense! []

[Jeff Matthews]

What about the knives Jeff, the knives!

Oldie, you missed my long post on page 1. Your knives cannot be made safer. Mfg. wins.

[TheEAR]

Jeff,

LOL you will keep playing the same old record over and over,playing the victimised song of victims of thier own stupidity. I said and will stand by my words,the so called cofee burn victims deserve a FREE coffe for one week each day,up to three times/*day. I would make this coffee myself,and make sure its as close to 100 celcius as possible. []

[codhead]

Mmmmmmmmmm. Crumpets (my apologies to Homer). []

[TheEAR]

What about the knives Jeff, the knives!

Oldie, you missed my long post on page 1. Your knives cannot be made safer. Mfg. wins.

And hot drinks can,by being slightly warm.Then they would no longer be HOT. []

Jeff tonight do not look for cement bags around the garage or I have a bad feeling you may start feasting on cement.

Man this is THE best thread of this YEAR! Its almost 1:30AM and I am still up posting! [<)]

[oldtimer]

What about the knives Jeff, the knives!

Oldie, you missed my long post on page 1. Your knives cannot be made safer. Mfg. wins.

So you are saying that if it is conceivable that a moron could cause injury to itself and technology exists somewhere on the planet that might have prevented this moron from injuring itself then the mfg is liable?

[TheEAR]

To all cement,hot drinks and sensless iPod blasting lovers and self mutilating irresponsible people,come on down the price is right.... I have a few choice words for you all...and for the admirers too. [:$]

[Jeff Matthews]

Where there appears to be room for disagreement is how hot the consumer should expect the coffee to be. Mentions of tea kettles at home are not convincing, even though the water is brought to a boil. That water is handled differently and not passed through a drive-through window in styrofoam cups to be held by people in moving cars. Come on, guys. Think this one through!

If YOU were passing hot liquids to the customers, would you knowingly pass them something THAT hot? If so, you're not using common sense. You just don't do that. It's dumb, and it's dangerous.

By the time coffee passes in styrofoam cups through a drive-through window into the hands of people who are in cars that will be moving, that coffee better be cooler than something that can burn a hole through every layer of your skin. It is expected to be at least that cool. All the other fast food chains have it substantially cooler.

If YOU are the one passing the coffee, wouldn't it dawn on you after say, the 700th injury, "Duh!!! Maybe my coffee's too hot, and I could serve it at 30 degrees cooler like everyone else? Duhhhh!!!!"

[TheEAR]

What about the knives Jeff, the knives!

Oldie, you missed my long post on page 1. Your knives cannot be made safer. Mfg. wins.

So you are saying that if it is conceivable that a moron could cause injury to itself and technology exists somewhere on the planet that might have prevented this moron from injuring itself then the mfg is liable?

LOL

And true to boot,but Jeff the helium ballon man will be back. Looking for any hole in the system to defend those lacking common sense, grey matter and responsability.

Ok Jeff next tome they see you at McDonald's your coffe will be checked,rechecked and served at 50 Celcius. Just do not sue them for serving HOT drinks...slightly warm! []

It is very unfortunate we live in a very UNPERFECT world,as most things are far from perfect and can cause harm.I for one may start my nitro engines inside and suffer from the toxing fumes! Damn toxic fumes they can kill me!

[oldtimer]

As I understand it, the company in question knew that the product was lava, yet did nothing to lower it. That still does not excuse someone from driving with hot lava in their lap in the first place. Where does responsibility intersect with liability? Why does BMW not have cup holders? (because you are in a car for driving, to get to point b from point a, not to enjoy a meal or hot coffee on the way).

[oldtimer]

So, to continue my last post, if this person was driving a BMW, would not she sue not only the lava dispensing company, but also the car manufacturer because they did not foresee that some customers would try to drive with hot lava in their laps, and therefore should have provided cup holders?

[Jeff Matthews]

It surprises me that you don't see responsibility as a 2-way obligation.

If you're driving down the road, and a person walks out in front of you (not having the right of way), are you going to keep driving because the person is obviously negligent? No. You have her in sight, and you will stop. It is your duty if you have a reasonable chance to prevent injury to a person who is him/herself being negligent.

Why would you not extend the same courtesy when passing super-heated liquids through a drive-thru when you already know those super-heated liquids have caused serious injuries to negligent people in the past?

Why don't you tell yourself "Sometimes I hand stuff to people that are negligent, and like Jack-n-the-Crack and Whataburger, I could serve coffee that is plenty hot without superheating it so that if there is an accident, my super-heated stuff won't make it even worse than it should be?"

Common sense, man! That's all it is. Not theory. Not pie in the sky. Just plain old common sense. If you don't have it, you don't deserve to be in business. Just stay being the guy who puts "secret sauce" on the Big Macs and let your employer have the duty to use common sense. []