Another stupid lawsuit!

[ranjith]

I used to work at Second Cup when in high school, its sort of like a Canadian equivalent of Starbucks (except with better espresso creations). We have this machine that dispenses REALLY hot water to make tea. My co-worker once put her hand right under the hot water because she was looking at the customer and talking to him. All I heard was a scream, I turned around her hand was burnt and she was just about to hit the counter, she had fainted. I was at the espresso machine and I dropped whatever I was doing to catch her in time. But I remember her hand was quite badly burnt, but I know for a fact that it was her negligence that caused the injury. Would she have any right in pursuing a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the hot water dispensing machine, I think not.

[Jeff Matthews]

Ranjith. Refer her to me. Just kidding.

Actually, she might have a case. It all depends on whether there was a reasonably safer alternative to improve safety that was economically available. That's the law, like it or not. But it's been that way for over a hundred years, and all the brains in the world like Codhead's and yours and everybody else's have debated this stuff for decades, yet the law stands as it is. Maybe because after hearing all the issues and thinking about it in a serious way, it was decided at least by a majority that the law should be this way.

I take it now that Codhead and you would claim to be intellectually superior (at least in terms of common sense) to a majority of judges and legislators on what the law should be. []

EDIT: Humbly, I must add, my last sentence sort of defeats my tax position in my signature. [:$]

[Champagne taste beer budget]

Wowsa, the things I miss when I go to bed with my wife on Valentines day!!

Mr EAR, and others, once again I bring to your attention my 6 yr old daughter. I know not to do stupid things. (Usually, doesn't mean I don't listen to myself sometimes!) She, on the other hand, simply does not have the capacity at this time to understand the concept of long term hearing loss due to excessive volume. Can you give me a good reason why the iPod SHOULD be able to produce such high dB levels when designed and intended to be used ONLY as an inner ear device? I don't want to make it sound like I condone frivilous lawsuits, quite the contrary, but I don't see why Apple would want to expose itself to such a suit with no good reason.

OK, I started writing this before 8, it's now almost 10:30. I hate when work gets in the way of play, I've completly lost any train of thought I had earlier. Thanks to all for such a fun, interesting thread.

[TheEAR]

The Apple iPod earbuds reach around 115dB and this is the NORM for this type of device. And you would have to sue ALL prtable earbud makers to be fair. And besides sue Klispch as manu of their larger speakers can generate over 120dB in room when pushed,this to can cause severe hearing loss.

Second as a RESPONSIBE PARENT and a person who uses COMMON SENSE you test the device before letting a child use it. This is not a toy for little kids ir designed for very young kids.Apple has no obligation to check if infants will use it and lose hearing beacause parental supervision was non existant. So your point is weak

People your points may be valid in your eyes but common sense is something many woulod need in larger doses.

Talking about lack of common sense(I will use this term untill you sue sue sue types all gain some)one person I know let a 7 year old use a dangerous nitro car,then the child started the thing inside the house to try! They almost had a tragedy happening.Who is responsible here? The careless parents,for lack of supervision.

[Jeff Matthews]

The Apple iPod earbuds reach around 115dB and this is the NORM for this type of device. And you would have to sue ALL prtable earbud makers to be fair. And besides sue Klispch as manu of their larger speakers can generate over 120dB in room when pushed,this to can cause severe hearing loss.

Second as a RESPONSIBE PARENT and a person who uses COMMON SENSE you test the device before letting a child use it. This is not a toy for little kids ir designed for very young kids.Apple has no obligation to check if infants will use it and lose hearing beacause parental supervision was non existant. So your point is weak

People your points may be valid in your eyes but common sense is something many woulod need in larger doses.

Talking about lack of common sense(I will use this term untill you sue sue sue types all gain some)one person I know let a 7 year old use a dangerous nitro car,then the child started the thing inside the house to try! They almost had a tragedy happening.Who is responsible here? The careless parents,for lack of supervision.

The parent is not a necessary factor into the equation. These iPods are sold directly to any kid that shows up in a store with cash - period.

EAR, I never have heard you state that manufacturers need to use COMMON SENSE when designing a product. Do they, or do they not? If they do, what would be COMMON SENSE in designing a set of earphones when hearing damage is a known issue to the manufacturer, but not necessarily to kids who buy them?

[ranjith]

Jeff,

Just curious, whats the bottomline on this guy with his case... do you think its sensible that hes taking Apple to court? I mean, the line between an unsafe product and irresponsible use of a product is VERY fine, and in this case I think he crossed over to "irresponsible use". just my opinion

[Jeff Matthews]

I was going to actually get to the bottom line but took lunch first.

For all you guys who sound "aggravated" at this lawsuit, my opinion is that your opinions will be vindicated. The problems the named plaintiff has are:

(1) He's an adult (I believe),

(2) Class actions require a plainitff who is similarly situated with all the class members, and the courts will not see all class members as being similarly situated to the plaintiff (some are kids, etc.),

(3) This guy does not affirm he actually suffers hearing loss as a result of the iPod,

(4) As a plaintiff (with no certain injury), he can now avoid injury by keeping the volume down or not listening at all - something quite different than a member who unknowingly caused irreversible hearing damage, and

NOW FOR THE BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG (5):

(5) Class actions (although having their many virtues) are currently disfavored by the public, so they get shot down early on before giving people much of a chance to develop them.

This guy, I predict, will go down in flames.

Now, if the plaintiff was a 6 year old who actually had suffered irreversible hearing damage, and if the class was re-defined to exclude those who ought to be considered "morons" as a matter of law, the case might have a much better chance.

Just my 2 cents.

[ranjith]

"This guy, I predict, will go down in flames.

Now, if the plaintiff was a 6 year old who actually had suffered irreversible hearing damage, and if the class was re-defined to exclude those who ought to be considered "morons" as a matter of law, the case might have a much better chance."

agreed, and case closed.

[TheEAR]

The Apple iPod earbuds reach around 115dB and this is the NORM for this type of device. And you would have to sue ALL prtable earbud makers to be fair. And besides sue Klispch as manu of their larger speakers can generate over 120dB in room when pushed,this to can cause severe hearing loss.

Second as a RESPONSIBE PARENT and a person who uses COMMON SENSE you test the device before letting a child use it. This is not a toy for little kids ir designed for very young kids.Apple has no obligation to check if infants will use it and lose hearing beacause parental supervision was non existant. So your point is weak

People your points may be valid in your eyes but common sense is something many woulod need in larger doses.

Talking about lack of common sense(I will use this term untill you sue sue sue types all gain some)one person I know let a 7 year old use a dangerous nitro car,then the child started the thing inside the house to try! They almost had a tragedy happening.Who is responsible here? The careless parents,for lack of supervision.

The parent is not a necessary factor into the equation. These iPods are sold directly to any kid that shows up in a store with cash - period.

EAR, I never have heard you state that manufacturers need to use COMMON SENSE when designing a product. Do they, or do they not? If they do, what would be COMMON SENSE in designing a set of earphones when hearing damage is a known issue to the manufacturer, but not necessarily to kids who buy them?

If the iPod's target market is kids(6-12)then YES Apple would be wrong not to limit the output with the SUPPLIED EARBUDS.As you know Jeff you can buy very efficient earbuds that will seriously damage your hearing from ANY portable unless its output was almost non existant.

And you know it. You buy Dynaudio Contour speakers to go with your receiver and the output(SPL) you will get will be poor. Now buy large Klipsch speakers to go with the same receiver and BOUM the output(again SPL) jumps to levels harmful to any living being.And hearing loss is very real.

[TheEAR]

"This guy, I predict, will go down in flames.

Now, if the plaintiff was a 6 year old who actually had suffered irreversible hearing damage, and if the class was re-defined to exclude those who ought to be considered "morons" as a matter of law, the case might have a much better chance."

agreed, and case closed.

There you nailed it right on.

I may file a class action against any LOUD SPEAKER makers,because it can damage my hearing [] Har me Trey ...hear me? Because I do no ;longer hear anything from one ear and I am called TheEAR.The single monophonic ear that hears all...from one EAR!

OT: I hate the way the new forum works.The old forums were much better.

[Jeff Matthews]

Yep, we agree on this particular case. But I still say you guys are missing the boat by trying to analogize home stereos (where the distance of listener to speakers is variable, making SPL's to which one is exposed variable) vs. the iPod, where the distance of the speaker to the ear is pretty much fixed.

Although this was my prediction with this lawsuit from the beginning, I thought some thoughtful discourse was in order. Why? Because many were wrong to say the concept of iPods being unreasonably dangerous is ludicrous. What we have is the right concept for a good case - but with the wrong plaintiff and class definition.

[codhead]

Just because an iPod is capable of producing 115dB, youre not always

going to get this kind of output. Depending on the level of the

original recording and the type of music, you'd probably be lucky to

hit 90 dB on some material.

Anyone who has ever operated a changer knows this all too well. If you

select random play, chances are you'll be adjusting the volume knob

with great regularity.

I also don't agree that just because a kid can buy one of these, that

the parents should be absolved of their responsibility. A kid can also

buy a slingshot, a pellet gun, or a machete. If you saw little Johnny

walking around with a 2-foot knife, would you say "kids will be kids",

or would you take it away before he plays "samurai veterinarian" with

the cat?

Hearing loss is gradual. If Johnny somehow manages to sneak that gold

Double Eagle out of your coin collection, fences it, buys an iPod,

loads the software, rips your Black Sabbath collection and rocks out,

there'll still be time for an intervention.

After a good whipping and the associated twinges of guilt, the parent

can feel free to substitute a cheap set of open ear headphones, and go

back to neglecting little Johnny.

No lawsuit required.

[TheEAR]

Jeff,

The plaintif is not certified dumb,has the right to vote,the right to think ? Right Right,so he can only lose hearing if HE gets careless,childish and is IRRESPONSIBLE to the extreme. His lawsuit attempt is/was pathetic.

I guess he said "Lets try,maybe we can win $$$$$$ not working for them and playing victims"

Some people are pros at playing victims and passing for mistreated beings.They abuse the system and the worst part they get away with it!

[TheEAR]

Just because an iPod is capable of producing 115dB, youre not always going to get this kind of output. Depending on the level of the original recording and the type of music, you'd probably be lucky to hit 90 dB on some material.

Anyone who has ever operated a changer knows this all too well. If you select random play, chances are you'll be adjusting the volume knob with great regularity.

I also don't agree that just because a kid can buy one of these, that the parents should be absolved of their responsibility. A kid can also buy a slingshot, a pellet gun, or a machete. If you saw little Johnny walking around with a 2-foot knife, would you say "kids will be kids", or would you take it away before he plays "samurai veterinarian" with the cat?

Hearing loss is gradual. If Johnny somehow manages to sneak that gold Double Eagle out of your coin collection, fences it, buys an iPod, loads the software, rips your Black Sabbath collection and rocks out, there'll still be time for an intervention.

After a good whipping and the associated twinges of guilt, the parent can feel free to substitute a cheap set of open ear headphones, and go back to neglecting little Johnny.

No lawsuit required.

Again common sense. But no,wait,the kid or adult is so dumb he/she does not know there is a VOLUME knob! And will set it to MAX and leave it there,find the LOUDEST song and press REPEAT! And sue

Little Johnny knew the lawsuit would make his father rich,so he played dumb. []

[Jeff Matthews]

Aw, guys! You're having way too much fun.

Kid gets money for X-mas. Kid goes to Best Buy and gets iPod. Kid listens to iPod. Parent knows kid listens to iPod, knows it plays music, has never heard how loud it plays, has never heard iPods play that loud, and has no reason to give it a second thought.

Come on! Do you REALLY expect a parent to take the headphones away from the kid to find out how loud it goes? Maybe audiophile parents, yes-maybe, but that's about it.

If you do, I must say you live in another world. You are Monday-night quarterbacking. You expect perfection where it does not exist, and not even you yourself can deliver that same degree of perfection that you would demand of others.

You are the kind of guys that just thinks you know too much, and stupid things never happen to you because you're too smart.

Maybe you've never seriously been hurt. Maybe you think you don't need to worry about these things because you're so smart with all that COMMON SENSE. Just wait, you'll see what I mean somewhere. It might not happen to you, but you'll see something close to home that will change a little of this so-called "morality" of yours. Life is not that short.

There will come a point in your lives where something adjusts your sense of right and wrong - just enough to maybe acknowledge that there is a reason the law says manufacturers must anticipate that their products will be subjected to reasonably foreseeable uses that place a duty on them to re-design as opposed to only inserting warnings in literature.

[TheEAR]

Having fun,you bet. Why not have fun at the expense of a few tools who play dumb and dumber while they seek one goal,easy fast money.Because that is the only way they will get it.

Now Apple did not sell chainsaws or RPG's to kids with the label "Ages 5 and up",or did they.

To end this(if you wish to continue,I have no problem)argument you buy an iPod,Walkman,Discman,iRiver or any portable and in ear earbuds can cause hearing loss if used by a tool with smelly mush for brain. You buy a radial saw,chainsaw and you can end up with severred limbs. You buy a gun and you can kill someone by accident! The buyer is responsible for the proper use or in this case IRRESPOSIBLE usage of the product.

Its not a case of burns,damage caused by faulty operation of the device.In this case you have 100% entitled to monetary compensation.

The ignorance / victim card is one poor abused card.

[Jeff Matthews]

Fortunately, the law is not as you would have it. Otherwise, manufacturers would have little incentive to consider safety issues, and many products would never be improved - like child-proof bottle caps, lighters, etc.

I'd rather there be an incentive out there on manufacturers to make safer products than to have a policy that allows less safe products that injure and kill people.

Even if the person is dumb, I don't like to see him get hurt or killed when for a few cents more, or a few bucks more, if any, he wouldn't have hurt himself. Just my 2 cents.

[Jeff Matthews]

By the way, if the standard was as you would have it, what if all tire manufacturers knew of a better design to prevent dangerous blow-outs, but did not implement it because of the cost, the hassle, or whatever? Instead, they just all inserted warnings that said "Be careful. These tires are prone to blow-out."

In order to stay competitive, no manufacturer was willing to be the first to introduce the new safety design because of cost and fear they might lose market share.

So, all of them tacitly agree that the best course is to stay with the old technology that is prone to a higher rate of blow-outs. As long as they provided a warning, would that be okay with you?

Would you be content to not have the chance to buy a safer tire for your family and yourself? When you had a blow-out and someone in your family was killed, would you tell yourself "Gee, oh well, it's tragic, but they told me the tires were prone to blow-out."?

Or maybe along the same lines you would reason "I guess if I wanted safe tires, I was always free in America to start my own tire company."

I don't know what your reasoning would be. But if you can reason past that and consider it acceptable..... well?

[TheEAR]

Jeff,

No no and no,not so fast.You are very quick to draw your own conclusions,you go to the extreme. Products for domestic use have to be as safe as possible within reason(a knife that does not cut is not a knife we agree on this at least).

But products to be totally dumb proff would be irritating to the majority of users who happen to own and use parts of thier jello floating in their skull.Like the iPod that would limit the output of any earbuds to 100dB to prevent Joe Blow from damaging his non audiophile primitive hearing.

There is safe and crazy,unrealistic safe,and even then these people would find a way to get hurt and sue anyway.Microsoft keyboards now come with WARNING labels,as some pop tart attempted to sue them and maybe won because the keyboard caused arm/hand pain/stress. [] .

Make even a pilow and some lunatic will find a way suffocate someone with it!

That does it,I am going to cross the street and go to HomeDepot to drink some detergent....and sue them from not telling me it was not a soft drink. [:$] When the judge asks why i will say I was thirsty and the yellow coloring made me think it was lemonade(this is IF I survive).

[Ray Garrison]

Quite the continuum here.

If Apple were making iPods that could play at 130dB I'd have no uncertainty about whether they were doing something wrong. If we arbitrarily draw a line at (fill in dB level) there will be some recordings, ironically usually those that are better recorded, mastered and produced, that will not play loudly enough because their increased dynamic range (even on an iPod) means that the average volume level is much lower than normal, and restricting the output level so the average recording won't exceed 100dB means those recordings might be averaging 85dB. What to do...

Ford sold Pintos that exploded upon rear impact for years, knowing full well about the problem.

Firestone sold tires that had the annoying habit of throwing their tread.

Merck sold Vioxx for years after they knew it occationally killed people.

400 billion domestically manufactured cigarettes are sold every year (per www.ftc.gov ).

The new top end Corvette has over 500 horsepower.

I can turn on the gas burners on my stove even if the pilot light is not lit.

My hot water heater's top thermostat setting produces temperatures in excess of 150 degrees (I measured it when I moved in here.)

Many states won't let you ride your own motorcycle, by yourself, unless you're wearing a helmet.

There's no minimum age for a pilots license.

You can get married at 14 but can't go to an X rated movie until you're 21.

Who draws the lines?