1. Drat, how is it possible that this kind of lawsuit didn't happen in Florida first?
2. "He continues to suffer from both physical and mental conditions which will cause him to suffer pain, mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life," (which only a big bucket of money, minus my exorbitant fee, can assuage)
Seriously? You know, I really have difficulty imagining a psyche so fragile that the failure of a gadget and a non-sexual injury short of facial disfigurement or dismemberment, will scar a kid for life. I jumped into hot paving tar with both bare feet when I was that age, and I don't have any crippling fear of roads or construction equipment as an adult. I think if a kid is really so fragile that he can't handle the bumps and misfortunes of a normal childhood that has a few sharp edges, he needs to be taken away from his parents. Either he has a chemical or mental deficiency, or his parents are coddling and crazy to the point of stunting his emotional growth.
So, I feel that if the defendant has to fork over dough in an amount consummate with life-long mental injury, then that money should be held in trust for the exclusive use of the hospitals, care facilities, and foster parents he will be required to live with until he reaches adulthood.
It is always possible that there are understatements in the complaint, and the kid's penis was iTouch re-circumcised with a hot jet of plasma or his asshole filled with molten silicon and battery acid. If that is the case, I would have a different tune perhaps, but unless there is an extraordinarily understated injury, I call bullshit. It looks like profiteering to me, and such litigious bullshit hurts all of us, including the consumers that such lawsuits are designed to protect.
Ahhhhh, the U.S., Land of Litigious Cry Babies. 'OMG! My expensive toy singed me! It probably won't even leave a physical scar, only emotional ones! Oh woe is me, I must sue!!'
But ASSUMING the facts in the case are correct (a big assumption, I know) and the Apple product did, in fact, explode and/or catch fire then there's definitely a law suit - not on the grounds that someone should have warned them (that's insane) but because PERSONAL MUSIC PLAYERS SHOULD NOT CAUSE FIRES IN POCKETS!!!!
Second degree burns, properly treated, usually don't leave a permanent scar. I have at least six permanent scars (and two broken teeth) from various childhood mishaps and no desire to waste anyone's time with litigation.
It's not your fault you don't want to be ridiculously rich with no work at all, growing up to be a useless, worthless, parasite on those around you and society as a whole, with no work ethic, concept of value or hard work, and the ease of life knowing that nothing is your fault! I blame good parenting.
I heard a story once, of a County in Louisiana (I think) that was on 60 Minutes for having the highest law-suit rate, per capita, than any other county in the nation (you know, an actual fact, that could be researched by anyone).
Apparently, the county itself (or the People of X County, or whatever legal phrase they use), then followed suit (hehe) and filed a lawsuit for libel/slander.
Because, you know, it's totally acceptable to sue someone for saying something that's true. Next person that says I speak English poorly is in it for $5mil.
Indeed, the staff could counter-sue because of the mental distress to which this litigation has subjected them. Even if it is thrown out of court, they'll still have to spend hours defending themselves for negligently non-informing people that they might catch fire for using Apple products.
Me, I use several Apple products, and I have never, not even once, caught fire as a direct result of it. Caught fire, sure, but it wasn't the iPod...
I'm fine with a *littttttle* bit of a lawsuit here... get the newest glowing I-Toyz and maybe a bit of 'oops, sorry for the burning sensation' in terms of damages...
But 150K? That's a wee bit large.
Suing the staff of the store for not saying 'Oh yeah these things have a 0.0000001% chance of an explosion'. Redonkulous.
*nod* The "suing the staff" thing bothered me too. I mean, unless all 10 people sold the iTouch, en masse, with a group sing-along, it's pretty ridiculous to sue them all.
I actually believe the kid's story, as there were a series of similar incidents involving laptop batteries a couple of years back and yes, Apple was among the companies that had batteries from the "tainted" batch. The parents suing the store and the employees thereof rather than the manufacturer? That's what doesn't make sense to me. For that matter, if this is the tip of the iceberg in another case of defective batteries, I would think that Apple's PR people would want to join a suit on the family's side against the battery manufacturer.
It's not the lawsuit over the device catching fire that's the problem.
It's the *reasoning* behind suing the store and the employees - that they should have warned about this possibility? No, that's stupid. This is a case of faulty manufacturing and lousy quality control, not a missing warning label, and it's not the salesweasel's fault.
No they're not appropriate targets and that is additional silliness caused by scatter-shot lawsuits - basically you sue EVERYONE WHO COULD POSSIBLY EVEN VAGUELY BE INVOLVED juuuuuuust in case the other side pulls a fast one.
An actual lawsuit itself isn't exactly non-sensical - even if the target is foolish - but I have seen a few law suits (not too many, thankfully, because torts really really really aren't my thing) where you basically write down the name of everyone who was even vaguely connected to make sure it lands - especially in the case of a large company
I suspect some of that is punitive damages (which I've always had an issue with anywhere) but hey, they set a kid on fire. That's not a small thing. Anyway, these things are NEVER resolved in court (I wish they were then we could have some decent precedents set!) they're always bargained and settled out of court. And with any bargaining you start high so you have something to climb down from
My point is that while iPods should not spontaneously catch fire, people should not use minor misfortune as a reason to sue. They should inform iPod and everyone else who'll listen of what happened. If Apple has any sense they'd replace the iPod, the value of the clothes and throw in more product. Leave the courts to resolve serious matters, not this... spurious drivel.
Dude, combustible electronics and second degree burns are Serious Business, even in countries with public health and no-fault accident compensation. Jeez, the kid was lucky it wasn't his todger.
The weird targets of litigation and large amounts of money are more a product of the broken nature of US tort-law and public health in general than this particular case. $150,000 doesn't seem all that high in context, maybe she's hoping to settle.
I guess I'm just used to silly stories about their lack of a sane legal system, it no longer surprises me that they're suing each other at random. BTW, one for your collection: http://coilhouse.net/2009/03/13/sydneys-gay-and-lesbian-mardi-gras-in-tilt-shift/
I disagree. Consider the following childhood injuries:
I received a deep cut on the top of my foot when I tripped, barefoot, over some aluminum gutters or something a neighbor had left on the ground. Should I sue my aunt and uncle for letting me run around outside barefoot on neighbor's property? Should I sue the company that manufactures molded aluminum products for dulling the edges on their product? Should I sue the neighbor for leaving his stuff on the ground on his property?
I received a deep gash on my lip when I went sliding on my Crazy Carpet down the three-story-tall icy mounds of snow dumped into a lot near my home by the city. Should I sue my parents for letting me go sledding unsupervised? Should I sue the city for not fencing off the mounds of snow?
I required stitches to close a wound on my knee after I ran straight into a plate-glass window that I had mistaken for an open door. Should I sue the apartment building for not blocking off the window? Should I sue the adult walking me home for not keeping me on a leash?
None of those accidents had to happen but they did. Shit happens. I got over it.
Every time people sue over things like that life gets more complicated and expensive for everyone else.
Yeah, yeah. And I burned my eyebrows once playing with petrol, and any number of other stupid things. But, like I said, electronics aren't supposed to catch fire in your pocket, and I have the benefit of a public health system to fall back on. If that had happened to me as a child, I'm sure my Mum would have gone after somebody.
Once more, from the top:
Electronics are not supposed to catch fire in your pocket. Countries with public health systems expect somebody to be held responsible for hazards to the public. Countries which instead rely on private litigation to enforce public safety tend to start awarding large sums in punitive damages.
You don't sue your parents, they have no money.
You do sue the city, the company, or a whole bunch of people, they do have money. You pick your targets depending on your chances of success, not whether guys on the internet will laugh or shake their fists. Screw guys on the internet.
Even if you don't need the money for medical treatments, you sue anyway (unless you're stupid), because everyone wants money, no matter what country they live in. Got a lottery where you are? There you go.
Americans don't have some sort of genetic tendency for venality or being big sissies. They just live in a Dilbert cartoon of a country, and when you live in a crazy place, you do crazy things to get even or get ahead. If you expect large bodies of people to always act responsibly without some sort of set of rules (social or legal) to support such behavior, then you're dreaming, really. It's all very well to point and laugh, but if you're going to be seriously outraged, then your outrage is misdirected. This is the product of American Laws and American Institutions, not random irresponsible Americans.
See also (http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/3276233.html?thread=17048009#t17048009).
The US isn't really serious about government regulation of industry safety standards, so punitive damages are the only part of the law which has any real teeth. Random crazy court cases are the result of this Ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff approach, but it's better than nothing.
Apple might very well not settle. Apple undoubtedly has a permanent staff of corporate lawyers to squash complaints like this. Suing Apple would be costly, even though they're really the onces at fault for the burning iPod.
I expect we'd all like the Law to be sane and just, and to be enforced that way, but that just isn't the case here. This is probably more about making a case that has a snowball's change in hell, and although the law is supposed to be impartial, it really isn't when they've got way more lawyers and money than you.
Their lawyer probably told them that there was no way in hell they could beat Apple, but that they might be able to win against the store.
You make good points. I'm just shaking my fist at a world that has what I feel is a defective ability to assess risk and to deal with stress. I had thought that people have been just feeding off of each other's sympathy, each trying to appear more pathetic than the next in a sort of absurd victim's game. Now I wonder if this inability to roll with the punches might hold parallels to studies done on rats where stressful conditions cause rats to raise fearful young. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 01:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 01:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:29 pm (UTC)2. "He continues to suffer from both physical and mental conditions which will cause him to suffer pain, mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life," (which only a big bucket of money, minus my exorbitant fee, can assuage)
Seriously? You know, I really have difficulty imagining a psyche so fragile that the failure of a gadget and a non-sexual injury short of facial disfigurement or dismemberment, will scar a kid for life. I jumped into hot paving tar with both bare feet when I was that age, and I don't have any crippling fear of roads or construction equipment as an adult. I think if a kid is really so fragile that he can't handle the bumps and misfortunes of a normal childhood that has a few sharp edges, he needs to be taken away from his parents. Either he has a chemical or mental deficiency, or his parents are coddling and crazy to the point of stunting his emotional growth.
So, I feel that if the defendant has to fork over dough in an amount consummate with life-long mental injury, then that money should be held in trust for the exclusive use of the hospitals, care facilities, and foster parents he will be required to live with until he reaches adulthood.
It is always possible that there are understatements in the complaint, and the kid's penis was iTouch re-circumcised with a hot jet of plasma or his asshole filled with molten silicon and battery acid. If that is the case, I would have a different tune perhaps, but unless there is an extraordinarily understated injury, I call bullshit. It looks like profiteering to me, and such litigious bullshit hurts all of us, including the consumers that such lawsuits are designed to protect.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:35 pm (UTC)But ASSUMING the facts in the case are correct (a big assumption, I know) and the Apple product did, in fact, explode and/or catch fire then there's definitely a law suit - not on the grounds that someone should have warned them (that's insane) but because PERSONAL MUSIC PLAYERS SHOULD NOT CAUSE FIRES IN POCKETS!!!!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:40 pm (UTC)But suing the STORE?
And the STAFF of the store?
For not WARNING you that your "iTouch" could catch fire?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 02:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 03:00 pm (UTC)Apparently, the county itself (or the People of X County, or whatever legal phrase they use), then followed suit (hehe) and filed a lawsuit for libel/slander.
Because, you know, it's totally acceptable to sue someone for saying something that's true. Next person that says I speak English poorly is in it for $5mil.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 03:03 pm (UTC)People honestly wonder why I'd rather live elsewhere. Of course, it's likely some pretty extreme niavete to assume that stupidity is US-centric.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 03:11 pm (UTC)Me, I use several Apple products, and I have never, not even once, caught fire as a direct result of it. Caught fire, sure, but it wasn't the iPod...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 03:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 03:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 04:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 04:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 04:53 pm (UTC)But 150K? That's a wee bit large.
Suing the staff of the store for not saying 'Oh yeah these things have a 0.0000001% chance of an explosion'. Redonkulous.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 05:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 05:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 08:30 pm (UTC)I'm not from the US. Maybe there is some sort of American Moon-logic going on here as to why this is silly.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 08:35 pm (UTC)It's the *reasoning* behind suing the store and the employees - that they should have warned about this possibility? No, that's stupid. This is a case of faulty manufacturing and lousy quality control, not a missing warning label, and it's not the salesweasel's fault.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 08:37 pm (UTC)An actual lawsuit itself isn't exactly non-sensical - even if the target is foolish - but I have seen a few law suits (not too many, thankfully, because torts really really really aren't my thing) where you basically write down the name of everyone who was even vaguely connected to make sure it lands - especially in the case of a large company
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 08:40 pm (UTC)I suspect some of that is punitive damages (which I've always had an issue with anywhere) but hey, they set a kid on fire. That's not a small thing. Anyway, these things are NEVER resolved in court (I wish they were then we could have some decent precedents set!) they're always bargained and settled out of court. And with any bargaining you start high so you have something to climb down from
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 11:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 11:33 pm (UTC)The weird targets of litigation and large amounts of money are more a product of the broken nature of US tort-law and public health in general than this particular case. $150,000 doesn't seem all that high in context, maybe she's hoping to settle.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-13 11:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-14 12:06 am (UTC)Should I sue?
Date: 2009-03-14 01:22 pm (UTC)I received a deep cut on the top of my foot when I tripped, barefoot, over some aluminum gutters or something a neighbor had left on the ground. Should I sue my aunt and uncle for letting me run around outside barefoot on neighbor's property? Should I sue the company that manufactures molded aluminum products for dulling the edges on their product? Should I sue the neighbor for leaving his stuff on the ground on his property?
I received a deep gash on my lip when I went sliding on my Crazy Carpet down the three-story-tall icy mounds of snow dumped into a lot near my home by the city. Should I sue my parents for letting me go sledding unsupervised? Should I sue the city for not fencing off the mounds of snow?
I required stitches to close a wound on my knee after I ran straight into a plate-glass window that I had mistaken for an open door. Should I sue the apartment building for not blocking off the window? Should I sue the adult walking me home for not keeping me on a leash?
None of those accidents had to happen but they did. Shit happens. I got over it.
Every time people sue over things like that life gets more complicated and expensive for everyone else.
Re: Should I shake my fist and be outraged on the internets?
Date: 2009-03-14 09:10 pm (UTC)Yeah, yeah. And I burned my eyebrows once playing with petrol, and any number of other stupid things. But, like I said, electronics aren't supposed to catch fire in your pocket, and I have the benefit of a public health system to fall back on. If that had happened to me as a child, I'm sure my Mum would have gone after somebody.
Once more, from the top:
Americans don't have some sort of genetic tendency for venality or being big sissies. They just live in a Dilbert cartoon of a country, and when you live in a crazy place, you do crazy things to get even or get ahead. If you expect large bodies of people to always act responsibly without some sort of set of rules (social or legal) to support such behavior, then you're dreaming, really. It's all very well to point and laugh, but if you're going to be seriously outraged, then your outrage is misdirected. This is the product of American Laws and American Institutions, not random irresponsible Americans.
See also (http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/3276233.html?thread=17048009#t17048009).(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-14 09:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-14 09:26 pm (UTC)I expect we'd all like the Law to be sane and just, and to be enforced that way, but that just isn't the case here. This is probably more about making a case that has a snowball's change in hell, and although the law is supposed to be impartial, it really isn't when they've got way more lawyers and money than you.
Their lawyer probably told them that there was no way in hell they could beat Apple, but that they might be able to win against the store.
The American Dream
Date: 2009-03-14 09:34 pm (UTC)No, that's my dream, and I expect royalties dammit. Dream Piracy is Theft! :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-15 01:32 am (UTC)Re: Should I shake my fist and be outraged on the internets?
Date: 2009-03-15 12:40 pm (UTC)