Man Sues Apple Over iPod Hearing Loss

[Eli]

In other news.....man sues Circuit City for buying a computer and his arms hurt because he had to reach far to type on the keyboard.

[Koolslacker]

I hate people who like to make money by suing companies. I mean Apple made the ipod, but they didn't tell the person to listen to the music on full volume. I hope he doesn't get a single penny from company.

[Southern Patriot]

i didn't read the article........ but i am putting my bet he is amercian............

It's mentioned in the second line of the post!!!!!! How lazy can you be?

Apple Computer Inc. is being sued by a Louisiana man

:rofl:

wish apple would give me an Intel Powerbook for free. :( :p

There is no such thing as an "Intel Powerbook". The Intel-based Mac laptops are called a MacBook Pro.

[Nidonocu]

This another RTFM moment? o.- From the manual of the very first iPod and similar text is in every manual:

[Michael1406]

Yet another truly pathetic thing happening because someone is stupid.

"I'll turn it up full volume...yay. Wait, this hurts."

*Reads warning on iPod box*

*Doesn't turn it down*

"I'll sue Apple because I'm an idiot and can't read warnings properly."

They should actually punish the fool for attempting this, by never allowing him to use technlogy again.

[Southern Patriot]

I'm not making the "Wow only in America" point here, but...

Why do we generally hear a massive % more of these sort of cases from the US?

Does your legal system allow more scope for it or what?

Unfortunately, yes, it does. There have been efforts in recent years to pass laws that limit this kind of lawsuit, but many of them have failed (mostly because of lobbying from lawyers who tend to make a lot of money from this type of thing).

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

a good start!

[ECEGatorTuro]

Guys, don't get bent out of shape about this... the guy is a friggin' moron and no judge in their right mind would allow the case to play out in court.

The article only says he FILED a suit, that doesn't mean that it will actually go to court! Even if it did, Nidonocu has posted the manual and there is an obvious warning so this guy would lose in a heartbeat.

The only reason the McDonalds lady won the hot coffee suit (I hope she drives off a cliff) was because McD's had NO warning whatsoever on the coffee. That's the only reason why she won.

Remember, most judges will require some sort of preliminary evidence that will show some negligence from the defendant in some way and this is obviously not the case. Apple covered their ass perfectly in the manual. I hope the judge will throw the gavel at him and kick him out of the courtroom for having a lack of brain cells.

[Rikku]

Sad... There are so many more important and legitimate lawsuits that could be worked on right now... But no... We have to worry about the man who lacked enough common sense to turn his music down...

[fungusman]

to be honest if he has hearing damage and they make it quiter hes buggered.. i mean he wont be able to hear it.. :blink:

but really what moron doesnt know that high sound can damage hearing..

[Lasker]

and the funny thing about this lawsuit is that he can able to win, I remembered a lawsuit couple years ago about a chocolate chips or something like that, inside the man found couple of this chips with bad quality or taste and he was able to win the case for $30,000 dollars, so I'm not surprise if this case with apple will be win by this dumbass

[mikebeech]

There is no such thing as an "Intel Powerbook". The Intel-based Mac laptops are called a MacBook Pro.

ok, geez sorry man- i got it wrong :|

[LeeNIX]

He should sue anyone who smokes while hes there for damaging his lungs. Tard.

iPod aren't even the loudest mp3 players out on the streets.. (with standard headphones.)

[deck]

Guys, don't get bent out of shape about this... the guy is a friggin' moron and no judge in their right mind would allow the case to play out in court.

The article only says he FILED a suit, that doesn't mean that it will actually go to court! Even if it did, Nidonocu has posted the manual and there is an obvious warning so this guy would lose in a heartbeat.

The only reason the McDonalds lady won the hot coffee suit (I hope she drives off a cliff) was because McD's had NO warning whatsoever on the coffee. That's the only reason why she won.

Remember, most judges will require some sort of preliminary evidence that will show some negligence from the defendant in some way and this is obviously not the case. Apple covered their ass perfectly in the manual. I hope the judge will throw the gavel at him and kick him out of the courtroom for having a lack of brain cells.

Also remember that many judges in the US are just as dumb as that guy. There is a degree of common sense and reason involved here. MacDo should not have had to put a warning on a cup of hot coffee because by its nature, it is hot coffee!

The reason why there are so many warning labels everywhere is two fold; either some dumbass person with some dumbass judge figured that there ought to be 'Waring, shoes must be used for walking', or the companies are putting stupid warnings up in advance because they know that their buyers are morons.

[ECEGatorTuro]

Also remember that many judges in the US are just as dumb as that guy. There is a degree of common sense and reason involved here. MacDo should not have had to put a warning on a cup of hot coffee because by its nature, it is hot coffee!

Oh I agree with you 100% about the McD lawsuit. It was some old driving a sports car and decided to put a hot cup of coffee between her legs... she deserved it! And you're probably right, many judges are as stupid as this guy but that is what the prelimniary hearing is for. Once it is shown that Apple had warned the consumer in the manual, there is no case whatsoever.

The reason why there are so many warning labels everywhere is two fold; either some dumbass person with some dumbass judge figured that there ought to be 'Waring, shoes must be used for walking', or the companies are putting stupid warnings up in advance because they know that their buyers are morons.

Yeah... my favorite one was on my car winshield cover and it read "Warning: remove cover before driving" and the first thing that came to my mind was that some dumbass must have driven their car with the damn thing on. Unfortunately that is the norm in the US today you know? Companies now have to think every single possible misuse of thier products and adequately warn against using that way. It's amazing how much money corporations in the US spend on just their legal bills and legal research teams. I just think the whole legal system in the US needs a complete revamp. If there are two things I cannot stand, it's bad Miami drivers and frivolous lawsuits.

[Atmos42]

I can't BELIEVE that I'm going to actually defend a lawsuit, but here are the facts of the McDonald's case:

From http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tor...cles.cfm?ID=785

In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald?s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

By its own corporate standards, McDonald?s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald?s argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. However, a doctor testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees

As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years.[8]Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald?s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.[9]McDonald?s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.

I've defended it. I'm going to hell, I just know :(! :(

[brotherrabbit]

Firstly, Ear buds DO cause hearing lose.

Get that in your head .

[Matt T]

What a ****head. It's common sense to turn something down if it's too loud. I don't see how Apple can loose this one.

[zeta_immersion]

what an ass ... they do cause death but only if you cranck em up ... what a ****ing idiot .... read the ****ing label dumb ass

[Nexus]

Each iPod already ships with a warning label declaring that high volume can result in a loss of hearing, but to many that just isn't good enough.

He has no case, it has a warning label on it or is this guy illiterate. Just another frivilous lawsuit. It should not even reach the courts, but it will because of the greedy lawyer representing him, regardless of win or loss the lawyer gets paid, usually. Whats next having to sign an "Electronics EULA" when you buy the product. Why not shove it up his arse and claim the the product did not have a warning labelk on it "Do not place this device in any orifice".

[GUNNER]

THis person needs to be shot :angry: :angry: :angry:

I am so tired of DUMB A$$E$

It should not matter everyone knows that anything loud will destroy your hearing.

This guy probably goes hunting and does not wear hearing protection. I hope the judge throws him in jail for wasting his time.

[Oompa]

Gotta love how Apple is always singled out.

This just in, loud noises causes hearing loss/damage

any music player can cause hearing damage, people just single Apple out cause they have more money.

Well they are the most popular mp3 players. Lots of people have no clue what an mp3 player but know exactly what an iPod is...

[morphen]

Only in America(read USA) :p

Here i n norway a 13 year old girl lost her hearing on her left ear because of

creative's earbuds thats bundled with their mp3'players. Think it was crackling

or a big bang in it. she did'nt sue?

Only in america do people sue over things that everyone else in the world know

not to do.

Like the man that put his cat in the microwave to dry it. that idiot, and he won!

And the burglar then fell in the house he broke in to, and sued the man who owned it for

not secure a part of the house or somthing,and he won!

And the number of cases where people fall outside a shop, and sues the shop for

not taking care of a icey area... Why does this (mostley) happen in america?

And to every american in this forum...don't you thing lawsuites like my examples here

are stupid?

Oh,and, i hope i have'nt affended annyone,if so,sorry :)

[Quillz]

Only in America(read USA) :p

Here i n norway a 13 year old girl lost her hearing on her left ear because of

creative's earbuds thats bundled with their mp3'players. Think it was crackling

or a big bang in it. she did'nt sue?

Only in america do people sue over things that everyone else in the world know

not to do.

Like the man that put his cat in the microwave to dry it. that idiot, and he won!

And the burglar then fell in the house he broke in to, and sued the man who owned it for

not secure a part of the house or somthing,and he won!

And the number of cases where people fall outside a shop, and sues the shop for

not taking care of a icey area... Why does this (mostley) happen in america?

And to every american in this forum...don't you thing lawsuites like my examples here

are stupid?

Oh,and, i hope i have'nt affended annyone,if so,sorry :)

Yes, they are stupid. Everyone is agreeing with that. But I hope you realize that 99.9% of all Americans are smart and don't sue for frivolous reasons. Don't let the very stupid minority create a false stereotype.

[morphen]

hehe,well, those lawsuites are the reason for such warnings as "this bag is not a toy!" ;)

[ECEGatorTuro]

I can't BELIEVE that I'm going to actually defend a lawsuit, but here are the facts of the McDonald's case:

From http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tor...cles.cfm?ID=785

In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald?s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

By its own corporate standards, McDonald?s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald?s argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. However, a doctor testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees

As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years.[8]Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald?s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.[9]McDonald?s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.

I've defended it. I'm going to hell, I just know :(! :(

Wow, I definitely did not know the circumstances surrounding the case.

Now the question is, who is ultimately responsible for this? McD for having the coffee extremely hot (like it should be and people did complain when they turned down the temp) or the lady for putting it in her lap of a moving car?