Apple Sued Over Potential Hearing Loss 754
freaktheclown writes "A man is suing Apple, claiming that the iPod can cause hearing loss for those who use it." From the article: "The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss,' according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana. The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer."
Stop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stop (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the post smacks more of frustration at living in a nation where the notion of such an idiotic lawsuit is even possible. Or possibly the poster doesn't live in the US. In that case I'll say "same goes for me."
I'm taking dibs on iRiver (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm taking dibs on iRiver (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm taking dibs on iRiver (Score:2)
Good call, but I think European iRiver players have a volume limiter in firmware - some EU regulation or other to prevent hearing damage.
So... I think I'll be suing Rockbox for removing that limitation and letting me pump ska into my ears without Brussels' interference ;)
Re:I'm taking dibs on iRiver (Score:4, Funny)
"There's no warning on the cold water saying it'll shrink! I yelled "Oh my god! Its shrinking, its going away!" My girlfriend ran in because of the screaming and just laughed at me. I thought my sex life was over. Judge, she calls me Turtle now. I can't go out to any clubs anymore.
If some idiot can sue and win over tripping over a crack on your property, yea, I could see you winning the above.
Re:I'm taking dibs on iRiver (Score:4, Funny)
It was his choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
In short he had the volume control and it was in his power to change it to the correct level for him.
It sounds all too like the person who burgled and empty house and fell though the rotten floor boards. Then he sued.
He shouldn't have had the volume high enough to damage his hearing anyway.
It seems like saying I should sue
I'm sure if he wins many more will follow though.Could this be the demise of Apple?
1983 called... (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't the same thing done over the Sony Walkman?
Re:It was his choice. (Score:2, Funny)
It seems like saying I should sue /. for keeping me a wake all night to try and get first posts.
And then you post and come in second.. Oh, the humanity...
Re:It was his choice. (Score:2, Interesting)
It sounds all too like the person who burgled and empty house and fell though the rotten floor boards. Then he sued.
The place I was working at 20 years ago (I know the time as I was working there when Challenger happened) had a burgler come through an air conditioning duct. He dropped in the darkness to the floor but caught one foot on a desk (ouch). He snapped his ankle. To make a long story short, he sued the company for not having decent night lighting and won a small amount of cash.
Re:It was his choice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It was his choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cases like these aren't generally successful as there is a lot of precedent, this same case has been tried against Sony for their walkman product.
The conclusion at the end of the day is that it's a difficult case to prove that the iPod caused your hearing loss, and not any of the other environmental factors in your every day life.. afterall there are many iPod owners without hearing loss.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:4, Informative)
Are you kidding? And let me guess: Linux invented the command line, Google invented XmlHttp, and BeOS invented the graphical operating system.
Earbud headphones have been around, and popular, for DECADES. Just because you weren't looking doesn't change reality.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about that statement for a minute, then explain it to me once again, answering the following question: how can REALLY low noise impair your hearing? Be specific, make sure you talk about the decibel level at which that REALLY low noise can impair your hearing.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get a bunch of scientists together and claim it's impossible.
I can get a bunch of "victims" together who claim that they lost 75% of their hearing from listening at REALLY low levels. They'll cry. They'll force the lawyers to yell the questions. They'll spend the court's time fiddling with hearing aids. They'll talk about how they lost their jobs and how their babies were run over by a bus because they couldn't hear the bus until it was too late. It'll be really tragic. And there's no way to prove they can still hear just as well as before.
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
During the trial, some ridiculous "public interest group" will send out a press release warning people of the hearing loss, even at REALLY low levels. It'll be in every newspaper and on every TV newscast. Slashdot will post it 4 times in 3 days.
Apple will settle the case for $10 per iPod. Lawyers will get $9.02 of it and Apple will give iPod owners 98 cents off their next iTMS music purchase.
They'll artificially limit the sound level on future iPods and put a warning label on them. They'll raise the price $20.
The lawyers will buy new houses and fast cars. Then they'll start looking for their next big score. (Maybe Apple will have a hit against earnings because of the case. Did they warn the shareholders sufficiently? I smell a shareholder lawsuit.)
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Funny)
If they do that, I'll claim that the lawyers caused me hearing loss.
What's your alternative, again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, the U.S. system has its flaws, and any oppositional model presents a jurist with seemingly crazy, contradictory information to work through, but I'm not stumbling across better models out there anywhere. What's your alternative? Solomonic wisdom dispensed by all-powe
Re:What's your alternative, again? (Score:3)
There are exaggerations in the post. This is effectively how courts work though -- or at least they CAN work that way. They've ceased to be an instrument of justice and are now used to steal and extort money from innocent defendants for the benefit of lawyers.
I didn't break the courts. I want them fixed. So I don't have to pay extra for every product I buy. So I don't have to be afraid I'll be t
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought a mini just before they were discontinued, but my other friends have bought the 20 gig, 40 gig, and nano versions of the ipod. None of their purchases came with rubberized earbuds that form a seal in the ear, all of them are regular bud types with the slip-on foam covers. So what are these earbuds you're talking about? Are they even sold by Apple? Made by Apple? They don't seem to be the default option that comes with the product so I don't really se
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Informative)
the medical profession now reckon that ANY overload of your hearing causes at least SOME permanent loss of hearing, so if you do regularly get a ringing in your ears, or if peaks of volume make your ears hurt, you're setting yourself up for big trouble later in life. My mother works at a charity for acquired deafness (people go go deaf rather than being born without hearing) and she says that whilst once hearing loss was associated with heavy industrial work with lots of noise, she's seeing younger and younger people develop the problem - it's no longer an elderly "disease"
So, moral of the story, resist the urge to increase the sound level as you listen - don't let it creep up. If you're listening in a noisy environment, consider noise-cancelling closed-cup phones, so you can listen at a lower level.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that is that earbuds have been around for years, probably a decade or more now, so there's been plenty of time to document such side-effects and make people aware of them, or pull such headphones off the market.
I don't get why people use those things anyways. They always hurt my ears (and I have friends bitch about that all the time as well), so I tend to use larger headphones that just cover my ears entirely. They do pretty much the same thing, and they're not a PITA to wear (though mayb
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Interesting)
In spite of his claim to the contrary, don't you think it's possible that his hearing loss might have had something to do with being the guitarist for "THE LOUDEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD" for four decades?
The guy was exposed to 90 - 110 db's almost nightly for most of his career. No matter what he says, that's the main reason he's nearly deaf now. If headphones damaged his ears, it's because
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Funny)
Guy 2: "What?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Eh? What did you say?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Ugh? YO! What did you say?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Whaaat?"
Guy 1: "Can you hea...."
Guy 2: "HEY! Yo! Hello?!"
Guy 1: "...r me now?"
Guy 2: "I'M LISTENING TO MY IPOD, CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER???"
Guy 1: "Awe, fuck this guy!" *click*
Guy 2: "I'M GOING TO TURN OFF MY IPOD NOW, CAN YOU SPEAK UP?"
*tone*
Guy 2: "Yeah, I'm doing good... you?"
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except those are no more likely than earbuds to damage your hearing. In order to cause damage, the volume has to be high enough to hurt. You ever hear something at 110+ decibels? Holy shiat, you deserve what you get if you cannot respond properly to pain stimuli.
And while I'm ranting... what about concerts? I went to an Aerosmith concert a few years ago, and the sound was so loud it was distorting in my ear. I mean... LOUD. Shouldn't we be suing them too? Especially since we can't turn down the volume in that situation.
Oh wait... personal responsibility. Almost forgot it existed. As it seems the person who brought the suit did as well. Either that or he's just looking for money. That might explain going after Apple instead of smaller fish. No, it can't be, he's definitely looking out for all of our best interests...
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Insightful)
And I totally agree that Mr. Patterson is a fruitloop. There's a volume control for a reason. And if I want to ruin my hearing, or say, I don't know, use an iPod for something
Examples of Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
She even brings enough for everybody.
When I got my iPod, I bought a pair of high end earphones form Shure. With them, I'm very comfortable listening at much lower volumes than with a regular pair of ear buds or headphones.
It's all about taking care of your own bo
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been using a pair of Etymotic ER-4S headphones for about five years now. In practice, I find Ety's are far safer than normal earbuds for just the reason you cite. Since the outer part of the earbud is essentially an earplug with excellent noise blocking, the headphone doesn't have to compete volume-wise with ambient noise. You get the same clarity of sound with a lower volume level due to this.
It's also worth noting that due to the Ety's proximity to the eardrum, they don't need to be very loud at all. Their drivers run intentionally quiet for this reason. For comparison, with conventional headphones or earbuds if I set them at a comfortable listening level then set them down on the desk, I find that I can still hear the sound to some extent. With Ety's, I can't even tell whether they're on unless the volume is particularly loud or it's *very* quiet in the room.
Of course, it's critical with any headphone, Ety's or otherwise, to train yourself to moderate playback volume for extended listening.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and as to the "now she's rich" part, that too is bogus. She initially asked for enough to recover her exact medical costs only. McDonalds refused so she sued for a larger amount. That amount was first granted, but then later was significanlty reduced. I forget what the final dollar value was but suffice to say it wasn't enough for her to go off and live a rich millionaire fantasy life.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Informative)
You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third d
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the guy has no case as he done it to himself: Limiting the (maximal) volume of the iPod, would also limit people with hearing disabilities from using it.
The guy is just an asshat for not having common sense: Hell, I could go around sueing the several clubs I visited in my teenyears, as the speakers certainly caused hearing loss... Then again, it was my -
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which, interestingly[1], is why the volume goes so high in the first place. Steve Jobs is partially deaf, and he tested the iPod before it was released.
[1] Or not. Mods, you decide.
Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh don't be ridiculous - I was using in the ear 'phones like that years before the iPod was available.
Don't play devil's advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Also, he evidently can not control himself to lower the volume because the warning that Apple ALREADY ships with the damn thing is not sufficient to alter his idiotic behavior.
Re:It was his choice. (Score:3)
Of course they knew - People who buy them want the ability to turn it up way louder than they would normally need... 80db for six hours a day may cause hearing damage, but your ears will recover from 80db for a fifteen minute commute to work.
But regardless of "knowing" that people could use their product in a dangerous manner, it still takes someone stupid enough to go around for long periods of time wit
Not the coffee hype again... (Score:5, Informative)
The McDonalds coffee suit has NOTHING to do with frivolous lawsuits such as TFA. Here are a few important facts about the McDonalds case:
1. McDonalds coffee was held at temperatures at 180 degrees, 40-50 degrees higher than normal coffee, which is hot enough to produce a 3rd degree burn in as little as two seconds.
2. The plaintiff, a 79-year old woman, spent eight days in the hospital recieving skin grafts for 3rd degree burns covering 6% of her body.
3. There were 700 similar incidents, including some as serious as the plaintiff's.
4. She only asked for a $20,000 settlement; McDonalds refused.
6. The actual compensatory award was $200,000, the other $2.7 million (2 days of McD coffee sales) was punishment for McDonalds' "reckless, callous and willful" conduct. This was later reduced to only $480,000.
There are some stupid lawsuits, but most of them don't win. And if you're going to argue the point with anecdotal evidence, at least research your anecdotes.
Uh oh... (Score:2)
ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure that sounds good and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only assume that you haven't paid attention to the goings-on in the US for the last, oh, two point five decades or so. There is no need to assume responsibility for your actions, as long as you can find a lawyer (you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one) to plead your case. The goal isn't to win a trial, but to win a settlement. Cash in, as it were. There's a whole industry built around these nuisance suits. The worst part is that the ones that do go to a jury trial are likely to be succesful anyway as the jurors apparently sit there thinking, 'Well, if we give this guy a big award, when it's our turn...' Entitlement mentality.
On top of that, you get the 'junk science' lawsuits. Dow Corning and the silicone breast implant bankruptcy is a prime example. There never was and is not any scientific evidence that silicone breast implants lead to any of the medical conditions (real or imagined) that were the cause of those lawsuits. I believe there are still silicone implants available, too (although DC is no longer maufacturing them).
Some times I think I went to bed last night in one timeline. A timeline where normal, common sense prevails. Yet, somehow I've woken up in another timeline. One where everything is slightly off kilter. Not enough to be grossly disorienting, but just enough to be maddeningly noticeable.
--
Sig sour
Blame the insurers (Score:5, Interesting)
I accidentally cut my finger open using a Leatherman tool, and had to go to the ER. When it came time to pay up, my insurance company sent me a letter asking where the accident occurred, what products were involved, and asking me to sue anyone who might be liable in order to recoup the costs. The letter really didn't have a checkbox for "It was my own stupid fault"; it just assumed that it would be possible to sue somebody.
I wrote "It was my own stupid fault" on the form and sent it back... but don't be surprised if you see someone suing Leatherman for making knives sharp enough to cut into fingers.
No personal accountability anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good idea!
I'll start suing the manufacturers of the various amplifiers, receivers, and speakers I've had over the past ~25 years of brutalizing my ears. And I'll name all the bands, especially Motorhead, who have given me pleasure in a separate suit!
My hearing probably isn't what it should be but the last thing I'd consider doing is suing the product makers.
written as the sweet sounds of Slayer fill my office...
Re:No personal accountability anymore. (Score:2)
written as the sweet sounds of Slayer fill my office...
So, what, you're suing Slayer, then?
Re:No personal accountability anymore. (Score:5, Informative)
Common sense isn't; apparently, it isn't a logical conclusion to think that plugging loud music directly into your ears could possibly lead to hearing loss. Who knew?
Oh, and from page 63 of the Apple user manual for 5th generation iPods: [apple.com]
"To avoid hearing damage, set your iPod volume to a safe level. If you experience ringing in your ears, reduce volume or discontinue use of your iPod. Warning: Permanent hearing loss may occur if earbuds or headphones are used at high volume. You can adapt over time to a higher volume of sound that may sound normal but can be damaging to your hearing. If you experience ringing in your ears or muffled speech, stop listening and have your hearing checked. The louder the volume, the less time is required before your hearing could be affected. Hearing experts suggest that to protect your hearing..."
Yadda yadda yadda. Basically, this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shenanigans (Score:4, Insightful)
First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.
Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.
There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...
Re:Shenanigans (Score:2, Funny)
...what? (Score:2)
Personal accountability is dead.
Re:...what? (Score:2)
I didn't. I only put it up to ten, and I still was damaged. (Mine goes to eleven).
Mailing the judge a salami (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mailing the judge a salami (Score:3, Insightful)
If it weren't his fault.... (Score:2)
If the problem was related to a bug in the iPod software whereby the volume would jump, or max itself out then I think he'd have a case.
Me, I don't really want Apple to add a volume restriction like they have on the European ones. It doesn't analyze the signal volume, it simply restricts the maximum volume the user can select. Thereby limiting the amount you can hear on an otherwise quite recording (of Classical music for example).
This is the kind of guy who would sue because he stuck his tongue on a metal
Re:If it weren't his fault.... (Score:2)
In other news, the suit has been amended to include a mysterious defendant who "triple-dog-dared" the plaintiff. More on this as it develops.
Re:If it weren't his fault.... (Score:2)
Crappier
I was raised as a poor sharecroppers son (Score:2)
Result: IPods get worse (Score:2)
Lawsuit reform anyone?
I'll wait 'til he wins and then I'll pounce... (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously frivolous. (Score:2)
Obviously that's not the case, so I'd be surprised if this suit gets any father than dumb headlines on slashdot.
Louder please! (Score:5, Interesting)
If I have a big pair of earphones on, then the iPod doesn't really have enough power to drive them. I have heard a rumor that a US firmware (as opposed to EU) will give it more volume (apparently the EU has a law that forces output to be capped at a *safe* level), but I have been unable to find any regional firmware at all.
Re:Louder please! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Louder please! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Louder please! (Score:3, Informative)
Earbuds can boost the signal by 20 dB. Lots of listening to loud music will cause, mostly, long-term damage, although it appears exposure when you are young causes more damage than the same exposure when you are old
Re:Louder please! (Score:3, Informative)
In a word, no.
Headphones span an impedence range of 32 Ohm (or maybe even less) all the way up to 600 Ohms and higher in the case of studio headphones. On top of that you have variations in the sensitivity.
This means that with some headphones you can deafen yourself with the output jack from an ipod, while others (AKG K-1000 for instance) you basically need a small speaker amplifier to drive them at reasonable levels.
Get a headphone amp (Score:3, Insightful)
this is what's wrong with america (Score:2)
People here are morons looking for a quick buck. I was amazed when I learned about the man who used his lawnmower to trim his hedges and then sued the lawnmower company when he hurt himself because there were no safetys or warning labels.
People need to start owning up to their own actions and stop expecting other people (in this case apple) to hold their hand.
I really wish judges could make the accuser pay for the legal teams of the other company for st
Only in the USA... (Score:2)
He'll probably make some money (Score:2)
I hope Steve Jobs doesn't give in and sticks this lawsuit into this guy's ass lik
Can I sue the RIAA now? (Score:2, Funny)
huh? (Score:2)
That said, I have a 60GB iPod Video which I use every d
Don't steal (Score:2)
Re:Don't steal (Score:2)
I remember reading a warning about hearing loss when I unpacked my iPod.
Maybe you should have to prove you can read before you buy one?
Fair trade, I think (Score:2)
slashdot (Score:2)
Sensitivity level of different headphones (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, at a given volume level on the portable player (say 75% of total) may produce 80 dB of sound output with Brand X headphones and 84 dB of sound output with Brand Y.
IMO if you damage your hearing it is your own damn fault. It is quite easy to tell if you are listening to something that is too loud. If your ears always ring after you listen to a couple of MP3's on your portable player, turn the freaking volume down, nimwit. Same deal if your ears bleed....
In Related News... (Score:2)
I'm tired of seeing lawsuits like this. (Score:2)
Apple countersues Patterson's Finger (Score:5, Funny)
His finger will be required to testify in court that it indeed did raise the volume beyond acceptable levels, his ears were also subpoenaed in to testify about their injuries.
Noone is sure about Patterson's brain, it has gone missing and possibly is living out of the country.
No Sticker = Cash Settlement!? (Score:5, Funny)
So basically, he's telling us that if there was a big sticker pasted on the side that said "Hey, Asshat, don't turn it up too loud, you will lose your hearing!" that everything would have been OK, and he would not have sued?
*sigh*
What an asshat.
kill the lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
The lawyers will argue that by bringing up all the product lawsuits we now have safer cars, and
other products. But lawsuits are still brought against companies whose products are missused by
stupid people. There has to be a limit some where.
ALL headphones, ear buds or over the ear types, can cause hearing damage by delivering a sound level
that's too high. Listening with speakers can cause the same damage too (while peeling the paint
off the walls and cracking the windows). I suppose a form of active feedback could be added to
headphones with a transducer to measure the sound level being delivered to the ear and back off the
volume before it reaches the danger point. Would consumers buy such a product? (that would be like
having a car that wouldn't go above 55mph by having a speed regulator. Some trucking companies actually
put such a gizmo in their trucks to keep their drivers honest). Would you like the government to demand
that makers of portable audio players put such a circuit into such players?
At some point our tort system exists only to make a profit for the lawyers and for "whiplash Willies" to
abuse the system for a quick buck. The small aircraft business was almost destroyed by product liability
lawsuits. Those cases involved 20-50 year old planes that were built before todays standards were
developed. How can you justify calling such a product "defective"? Should you be allowed to sue Ford if you were hurt when your 80 year old model "T"'s gas tank exploded today?
I hope Apple counter sues. (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple needs a witness I have been using my iPod for years and at full volume and I have not lost my hearing at all.
Annoying (Score:3, Funny)
This is slowly getting out of control...
Re:If Big Tobacco... (Score:2)
B: Prior to Apple's introduction of the iPod, the physics and biology of hearing loss due to loud sounds was well developed.
Re:If Big Tobacco... (Score:2)
Re:If Big Tobacco... (Score:2)
Besides, who would they pay, the guy that brought the suit and didn't even claim hearing loss?
Re:Didn't Pete Townsend come out this? (Score:2)
Re: except with McDonalds (Score:5, Informative)
No one, NO ONE else in that town or the surrounding area sold coffee anywhere NEAR that hot.
#2
If you spilt coffee on you from a restraunt or that you made yourself you would probably not even manage FIRST DEGREE burns These were THIRD degree burns, the kind your more used to seeing from actual fires and not boiling water.
#3
The city AND state had filed health warnings with McDonalds due to the complaints, which McDonalds prompty ignored.
#4
The lady inquestion only sued after McDonalds refused to cover her health expenses. (Which they HAD done in the previous two instances in this state.)
#5
A company memo existed that flat out said that it would be cheaper and better marketing slogun to be able to say they had the "Hottest Coffee" and pay off any lawsuits that would happen from burn victims then to lower the tempurature and lose the possibility of lording it over their competitors.
#6
And finally it was not the defendant who sued for millions, it was the jury who awarded it becuase it was "unspecified" and the jury specifically said 3million was picked because it was the sales for one days worth of coffee at McDonalds and the jury thought that they needed to prove the company memo wrong.
Re:Stupidity (Score:2, Funny)
The real problem with this kind of device is that you can damage your hearing a small amount. You then turn up the volume to compensate, and damage your hearing more. Going deaf by induction, if you like. I recall hearing about this in 1988 though, so it's not exactly news by any definition other than Slashdot's.
[1] An
Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupidity (Score:2)
I think a proper punishment should be weekly (or daily, depending on the stupid act) lectures in common sense.
Ofcourse guns can kill, ofcourse coffee is hot, offcourse a microwave is not for drying small pets... *DUHHHH*
I think they should call this law The Darwin Act
Re:who's liable? (Score:2, Informative)
McDonald's Coffee (Score:3, Informative)
The knee-jerk reaction to any seemingly stupid/frivolous litigation (or patent) is to assume that the summary = the case, when in fact things tend to be more complex.
There are a lot of details to the McDonald's case that the unwashed masses tend to not know:
Some important points:
"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle."
"[she] suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degre
Re:who's liable? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WARNING! (Score:5, Funny)
I got a great example with product warnings [dumb.com](agree, some are from Tesco, a UK company) but lot of them are from USA companies.
I love these:
Sears hairdryer:
Do not use while sleeping.
Nytol sleep aid:
Warning: may cause drowsiness.
Disposable razor:
Do not use this product during an earthquake.
Hand-held Massaging Device
Do not use while sleeping or unconscious. [O MY F GOD]
Microwave Oven:
Do not use for drying pets.
Anyway, better take a look at them, really funny... but makes you think... in a country where anyone can sue anybody for anything... what can you expect.
Re:Heaphone warnings (Score:2)
Isn't that what we already have? Mine clearly says "10" on it, and last time I checked, that was two.