Round of Applause for our legal system!

[Hobbie3321]

/sigh its really unbelievable here.... read this

"John Kiel Patterson, a Louisiana man has reportedly filed a lawsuit claiming that Apple's iPod music player can cause loss of hearing to its users.

According to the complaint, Apple iPods can produce sounds of more than 115 decibels, a volume to which if exposed to more than 28 seconds per day, can damage the hearing of a person. The complaint goes on to say that the players, inherently defective in design are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss.

The suit goes on to say that Patterson bought an iPod last year but does not specify whether he did suffer hearing loss as a result of using the device. Moreover, Patterson does not know if the device has in fact damaged his hearing but according to his attorney, Steve W. Berman, that is beside the point of the lawsuit. The point being the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss!

Patterson wants the suit certified as a class-action and is seeking compensation for unspecified damages.

The lawsuit mentions that Apple was forced to pull the iPod from store shelves in France and upgrade software on the device to limit sound to 100 decibels and that the company has not taken the same steps in the United States. The complaint also mentions that the ear buds, which ship with the iPod, do not dilute the sound entering the ear and are closer to the ear canal than other sound sources and hence also contribute to noise-induced hearing loss.

Apple has sold more than 42 million of the devices since they went on sale in 2001, including 14 million in the fourth quarter last year. "

this is all from here

you can also check it out at google's news (Sci/Tech). Anyway, this is really sad... i cant believe how stupid this is

[pam123]

Anyone has the right to bring suit over anything, no matter how silly.
I think Apple just got it's own version of SCO vs IBM.
The ony thing tort reform does is shelter the insurance companies (and the people it cuts out are the ones who've really been hurt), not reform the system.
So guys like Patterson and his lawyers still flourish.

[Cricket]

It's like that lawsuit against McDonald's for selling hot coffee without the proper warning that the coffee is hot and the cover shouldn't be removed while operating a moving vehicle or the idiot may get scalded.

Cricket

[blue60007]

Well, I never knew that iPods could do that. That's a new one for me.

( )

They ought to have a fine for stupid lawsuits. I bet the government would get rich pretty quick.

[Cricket]

I wonder if a class-action lawsuit has been brought against the car audio industry for supplying audio systems that can go way beyond 115 decibels in a confined space? I mean aren't there a lot of young drivers who have hearing problems already because their stereos can be played too loud?

Cricket

[rspassey]

If the guy wins or they settle or something and he makes any money off of it - I commend him, nonetheless, he might be on to something. While it may seems stupid, he could also be helping stop a whole generation of hearing impared (sp?).

[Hobbie3321]

Originally Posted by Cricket I wonder if a class-action lawsuit has been brought against the car audio industry for supplying audio systems that can go way beyond 115 decibels in a confined space? I mean aren't there a lot of young drivers who have hearing problems already because their stereos can be played too loud? Cricket

yes, i think im gonna sue Sony, IBM, and alot of people... why? apparently their products emit radiation and thats bad and it may one day kill us

ALSO! cars contribute to "global warming" that will most likely kill us too... i think i can make tons of money off this...

[Cricket]

Yeah! We should sue the auto industry! Don't they know they make vehicles that when driven really fast into an immoveable object it can get smashed and the people inside could get hurt? I don't see any warning labels about that in my car..."Unsafe to drive very fast into an immoveable object. Please do not do that."

Cricket

[pam123]

Originally Posted by Cricket It's like that lawsuit against McDonald's for selling hot coffee without the proper warning that the coffee is hot and the cover shouldn't be removed while operating a moving vehicle or the idiot may get scalded. Cricket

Not true.
Here's the real story about what happened and why the lady won her suit : http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by pam123 Not true. Here's the real story about what happened and why the lady won her suit : http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Ahhh...thanks pam123. I only knew the Urban Legend version of that case.

Cricket

[Hi Ho]

There is a discussion about this over at Audioholics. It think it is an absolutely rediculous lawsuit. Suing for potential damages that can be preveted with common sense is absurd! If the lawers are going to be consistent, they would have to sue just about every loudpeaker manufacturer as well as the makers of amplifiers/receivers for *potentially* causing hearing loss.

This is my favorite quote from that other thread:

Particilarly when they think they can make megabucks from a huge company* by convincing a gullible jury that we're too stupid for our own good and it's everyone else's responsibility to protect us from oursleves. This sentence from the article cracks me up. "Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said." So, I guess we can sue auto makers because we might drive their product reckelessly and hurt ourselves? ..or how about pencil makers because we might sharpen them and stick them in our eyes or ears? ...and the list goes on..."

[HAL9000]

I figure a person should sue for something stupid.. and then because it gets put in the media, sue the lawyers for taking the case because now you're ridiculed.

Hmm.. now that has me thinking.... if that ever happens, I'll have to sue the person for using MY idea.

[mbossman2]

the only folks who benefit in class action suits are the lawyers who get the contigency fee based upon a percentage of the total award.

the individual plaintiffs end up getting a pittance (ie Chavez vs Netflix), each plaintiff gets an upgrade to the 4 DVD's a month membership or a 1 month free membership...the lawyers get up to $2.6 million.

what I would like to know is how you can sue if you have not been "injured". exactly what is his standing here?

definition of tort:

A body of the law which permits an injured person to recover compensation from the injuring party.

[pam123]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 I figure a person should sue for something stupid.. and then because it gets put in the media, sue the lawyers for taking the case because now you're ridiculed. Hmm.. now that has me thinking.... if that ever happens, I'll have to sue the person for using MY idea.

Not bad, now copywrite your IP!

[David M]

Apple needs to counter sue the guy for being so stupid that he does not know to turn the volume down when it is loud. Will Apple now be required to give IQ tests before it can sell an IPOD to someone?

[Strider]

It's a stupid lawsuit I agree, but if the guy wins he'll be laughing at all us on the way to the bank.

[mbossman2]

this type of suit is why a "loser" pays provision should exist, maybe give the judge discretion or guidelines as to when it should be applied.

While there are many legitimate law suits out there, there are sufficient number of "lottery" lawsuits (keep filing, eventually you'll hit the jackpot) being filed (against corporations, people, etc)...those are cluttering up our court system...

[pam123]

There is a legal charge : Barratry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
Which could fit this case and get these morons out of Apple's hair.
No need to make new laws and wait for unintended consequences

[mbossman2]

a lawyer bring charges against another lawyer?

i think that is highly unlikely...


why is it that:
The USA has more PI lawyers than any other country (and I would be more than every other country combined)?
Why has an entire industry built up around it (encompassing not only the lawyers, but also into the medical profession and professional witnesses)?

We, as a society, are so quick to lay blame on others for our own actions. Take this suit...
did apple 'force' him to listen to the music that was too loud?
did apple ship the product with the volume preset at an unsafe level?
was the volume level unadjustable?
did the user by his own actions subject him/herself to the unsafe sound levels?
if he did then exactly how is Apple at fault here?

look at all the disclaimers on products now-a-days, they are on there because some ding dong was too stupid to realize (for example) that a heat gun designed to melt and strip paint and was not a hair dryer?
or a microwave oven shouldn't be used to dry a newspaper?

I can remember taking one of my nephews to the playground a few years ago and when one child didn't get his way, he screamed out (at the age of 6) "I'll sue you"...when such a behavior is ingrained at such a young age that is truly scary.

[mairving]

It really is just a matter of a something for nothing mentality. Hmm, the guy notices no warning sticker on the Ipod. Hmm, Apple has been doing quite well lately. Hmm, I want to get a piece of that 'Apple Pie'.

Pretty soon Ipods and everything else for that matter will come with stickers pasted all over it.

*Warning - can cause permanent hearing loss.
*Warning - do not operate will driving.
*Warning - just because it says Apple, please don't attempt to eat.
*Warning - risk of electrical shock if you put AC adapter in mouth and plug into outlet.
*Warning - can cause severe bowel irritation if crammed up butt.

Ad infinitum.

[doctorgonzo]

With many lawsuits, the plaintiffs do have to pay court costs if it is thrown out of court.

I know very little about this lawsuit, but one thing did jump out at me: Apple is selling a version of the iPod in France that limits its maximum volume. That seems to show that they are aware of possible problems at some level.

That said, I fail to see how an iPod is different from anything else like a Walkman or Discman that also plays music.

[David M]

Nuisance lawsuits which have absolutely no merit are another reason we need legal reform which one political party is strongly for and another party is strongly against. All they do is tie up our legal system wasting the taxpayers money. The only clear winners are the attorneys especially when the case is done on a contingency basis.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by David M Nuisance lawsuits which have absolutely no merit are another reason we need legal reform which one political party is strongly for and another party is strongly against. All they do is tie up our legal system wasting the taxpayers money.

There's no need to turn this into a political debate. The merits of lawsuit reform are highly debatable depending on what kind of "reform" you are talking about.

One reason that other countries don't have as many lawsuits is because they have strict regulations on products, so that faulty products are prevented from going to market in the first place, removing the need for lawsuits.

If you take away a consumer's right to sue, while not providing for regulations that prevent the manufacture, sale, and use of products that can harm people, you are left with a situation where companies can put no effort into safety and efficacy and only consumers bear the costs. That's not an improvment in my opinion.

[David M]

We sell our products overseas and we purchase products from overseas yet this country has far more lawsuits per capita than any other country in the world. I do not think that "inferior" product quality or design is why this country is lawsuit happy. We simply do not have inferior product quality here. This country has safer products because it is so lawsuit happy. Companies which sell products here go through extreme lengths to avoid product liability suits by either not manufacturing certain items (items which could be sold in other countries) which could bring a lawsuit or making the item so idiot proof that it can be sold here. Look at the safety standards of cars sold in this country versus the safety standards for cars sold overseas...There are pleanty of cars sold only in Europe which could never be sold in the states because of inferior safety standards.

The reason we are so lawsuit crazy is because people here see a lawsuit as they see the lottery. You file a lawsuit hoping to make money and there are absolutely no negative consequences for filing an illegitimate lawsuit..and pleanty of money to potentially gain.

No, there should not be any hinderances to for filing a legitimate lawsuit where there are REAL and demonstratable damages.

BTW...I never mentioned any particular political party. Legal reform does come down to politics unfortunately...and what is the most common profession in politics?...Lawyers!

[mbossman2]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo If you take away a consumer's right to sue, while not providing for regulations that prevent the manufacture, sale, and use of products that can harm people, you are left with a situation where companies can put no effort into safety and efficacy and only consumers bear the costs. That's not an improvment in my opinion.

there is a distinct difference between taking away the right to sue and implementing rules that discourage lawsuits like the above.

you can of course regulate, regulate, regulate industries and products, but when you do you can stifle innovation, which is just as bad...

The point is that there has to be a happy medium between to the 2 sides...unfettered law suits allowing non-quantifiable damage awards are slowly starting to strangle the courts and industry. While no one wants to eliminate a person's right to seek redress thru the courts, there should be away to limit liability to actual quantifiable damages. Nebulous pain and suffering awards in the millions are unreasonable and do nothing but entice more people to seek their fortune thru the courts rather than the more traditional means.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by David M You file a lawsuit hoping to make money and there are absolutely no negative consequences for filing the suit..and pleanty of money to potentially gain. No, there should not be any hinderances to for filing a legitimate lawsuit where there were REAL and demonstratable damages. BTW...I never mentioned any particular political party.

No, that's not always true. If you lose, then you can be liable for all legal costs: yours AND the defendants. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen.

Just because you didn't mention one particular party doesn't mean you message isn't abundantly clear. This is the U.S.: There is only "one party" and "the other party".

The costs of lawsuits are overblown by a media that likes to latch onto the highest-profile and the silliest cases in order to drive ratings. You never hear about cases like the woman in Florida who found herself a quadruple amputee after giving birth and had to sue not because of malpractice, or because she thought the doctors did something wrong, but because the hospital wouldn't let her see her medical records. She had to sue because they wouldn't tell her why they did what they did.

This person isn't going to be "winning the lottery" by suing. Most people who sue for damages don't. They want a semblance of their
lives back.

Originally Posted by mbossman2 While no one wants to eliminate a person's right to seek redress thru the courts, there should be away to limit liability to actual quantifiable damages. Nebulous pain and suffering awards in the millions are unreasonable and do nothing but entice more people to seek their fortune thru the courts rather than the more traditional means.

There's a big problem with that: if you limit it to quantifiable damages, you create a situation where companies have the incentive to do the wrong thing.

Say a company has a product that they expect may kill or injure 10 people per year due to a flaw in its design or manufacture. And let's say that the cost to fix this is $1 million a year. As long as the "quantifiable damages" caused by these deaths or injuries are less than $1 million a year in terms of payouts, the company has a financial incentive to ignore the flaw and just pay off when people are injured or killed.

Companies can and do make these actuarial decisions all the time. Does that make it right?

[David M]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo The costs of lawsuits are overblown by a media that likes to latch onto the highest-profile and the silliest cases in order to drive ratings. You never hear about cases like the woman in Florida who found herself a quadruple amputee after giving birth and had to sue not because of malpractice, or because she thought the doctors did something wrong, but because the hospital wouldn't let her see her medical records. She had to sue because they wouldn't tell her why they did what they did.

That is a legitimate lawsuit Doc. She has every right to her medical records. The discussion though, as I see it, is about illegitimate and frivolous lawsuits.

I am not saying that most lawsuits are frivolous. I would imagine that the vast majority of them are not. All I am saying is there needs to be acurb placed on the lawsuits that are making a joke out ot of our legal system, tieing up the courts with stupidity and jacking up the cost of living for hard working Americans. Not to mention sending American business and jobs overseas where they don't have to worry about nonsense lawsuits.

This is where the real damage occurs. Who is paying for all these nonsense lawsuits?...not the corporations. They just pass on the increased cost of doing business to the consumer. It all ends up back in the consumers laps. The insurance companies are not the losers either. The insurance companies just raise their premiums and ultimately it gets charged back to the consumer via the companies which have to raise their prices to the consumer to cover their increased insurance premiums. Lawsuits are not hurting the big guy...they are hurting everyday ordinary people by jacking up the cost of living. We ordinary people just dont see the higher everyday prices because we are so used to seeing them. If though, many of these nonsense suits were stopped, I am sure that the consumers dollar would go much further than it does today.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by David M If though, many of these nonsense suits were stopped, I am sure that the consumers dollar would go much further than it does today.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. If all "nonsense suits" disappeared, I really, really doubt that everything sold in this country would be discounted to reflect that the hidden lawsuit premium has disappeared. No, I think costs to the consumer would stay the same, but profits and compensation for CEOs would go up.

I didn't see Exxon giving consumers a break in light of their record-breaking profits.

[mbossman2]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo This person isn't going to be "winning the lottery" by suing. Most people who sue for damages don't. They want a semblance of their lives back. There's a big problem with that: if you limit it to quantifiable damages, you create a situation where companies have the incentive to do the wrong thing. Say a company has a product that they expect may kill or injure 10 people per year due to a flaw in its design or manufacture. And let's say that the cost to fix this is $1 million a year. As long as the "quantifiable damages" caused by these deaths or injuries are less than $1 million a year in terms of payouts, the company has a financial incentive to ignore the flaw and just pay off when people are injured or killed. Companies can and do make these actuarial decisions all the time. Does that make it right?

But on the converse side, allowing unfettered damage claims entices people to file with the hopes of hitting the home run.

the law must be objective and consistent...but many of these lawsuits rely on juries to decide and they can (and do) make awards based upon their feelings rather than their facts and that leads to outrageous awards.

on the consistency side: attornies and their clients can and do shop their lawsuits around looking for the most generous jurisdictions with the highest dollar awards. Its now possible that you could be injured by company A based in CA, in your home state of NE and yet file suit in NY because NY's laws have lower standards on actual fault and their juries tend to grant higher awards.

it is a convoluted, confusing, inconsistent mess...and it needs to be addressed and corrected but lobbiests for the trial lawayers fully realize that the chaos that is the current state of affairs actually benefits them so they have no incentive to move to a more fair and equitable system and all the incentive to continue with the status quo.

You are absolutely correct that the dice should not be loaded against the consumer and for the company, but the reverse also has to be true.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by mbossman2 the law must be objective and consistent...but many of these lawsuits rely on juries to decide and they can (and do) make awards based upon their feelings rather than their facts and that leads to outrageous awards.

There's simply no way for the law to be objective and consistent, though. If you somehow put objective or consistent payouts onto certain types of injuries, for example, then you run into the situation that I described before: where companies have a financial incentive to do the wrong thing.

The whole point of punitive damages is to prevent companies from acting in a cold, calculating way and simply choosing to harm people when it is in their financial interests to do so. Punitive damages do exactly what it sounds like: it is designed to punish the company for their mistakes. And depending on how egregious the mistake is, the punitive damages change appropriately. The only way to determined punishment is by a jury, who can take into consideration all the facts of a case and use their common sense and the sense of the community to decide the appropriate punishment.

Take two companies. One makes a flawed product due to inadequate design or testing, but once the flaw is found tries to reasonably correct it. The other also makes a flawed product, but upon discovering this fact, seeks to cover it up and assure the public that it is safe, all the while knowing that it is not. I think that for almost all people, the second company in this example acted in a far more malicious manner and is deserving of greater punishment. The problem is that people have to decide this; there is no way to put this into objective and consistent law.