Apple sued over fatal 'FaceTime crash'

[Castdeath97]

2 hours ago, Abdul201588 said:

 

That's Why i said people who do those while driving are stupid... 

They are not stupid, they are ignorant. That's a big difference. Even the children can establish that using your phone while driving is risky.

[MorganO]

2 hours ago, Alexokan said:

If Apple settles they admit they had a part in killing the child. If they go to court and lose - they are partially responsible for the death of the child. If they go to court and win - they dodge responsibility. 

 

This doesn't look good for Apple regardless of how retarded suing them over it is. And having an attempted deactivation during driving in the past workings doesn't help their case. They basically acknowledge the danger, ignored it, and moved forward. 

but how is it apples fault if some random decides he wants to use his phone whilst driving?

[JoaoPRSousa]

Not this bullshit again...

[MorganO]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

On one hand, I think it is incredibly stupid to sue Apple for this. On the other hand, they did try to patent it so I really want to see them lose and hopefully stop with all their bullshit patents in the future.

but still isnt apples problem the person used the phone whilst driving though? just as it wouldnt be samsungs or lg etc

[MorganO]

1 minute ago, JoaoPRSousa said:

Not this bullshit again...

its retarded aint it 

[JoaoPRSousa]

1 minute ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

its retarded aint it 

 

Yep...

[MorganO]

Just now, JoaoPRSousa said:

 

Yep...

im triggered becuase if apple lose/settle it stirs too much shit up with other manufactures

[TetraSky]

It's stupid, but I'm kind of hoping they win just so it will give a blow to Apple(and other patent trolls) for patenting something, yet never do anything with it, other than preventing others from implementing such thing in their devices/sue anyone that dares to actually do something with it.

[jagdtigger]

Human stupidity at its finest... The police should fine the crap out these IQ outlaws(but unfortunately the police does some stupid things[Austria vs dashcam] too so idk).

Edited January 3, 2017 by jagdtigger

[AlwaysFSX]

39 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

but how is it apples fault if some random decides he wants to use his phone whilst driving?

It's not but because having nation-wide common sense is too hard, idiots have to be governed by laws.

[Blade of Grass]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

Leave it to the US to let people sue over such a stupid issue. "Something bad happened! There must be money somewhere in this.."

Most common law countries around the world let you file suit for almost literally anything. As far as I know, there is almost to no bar for a suit to be filed - it's just paperwork to be submitted, payment made, and paper served. 

Quote

It's like the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself after picking it up at the drive thru window of McDonalds. Sued and won millions, which resulted in the hot beverage warning on cups. Stupidity shouldn't pay off like that.

I would suggest you read into that case before judging it. The 79 year old plaintiffs received a coffee, served extremely hot, and with a lid that was not properly put on the cup. The women spilt the coffee while parked and received 3rd degree burns across her pelvic region; she was in hospital for 8 days afterwards receiving skin grafts and needed further treatment for 2 years. All she wanted was for them to cover her extensive medical costs, as evident from her willingness to settle the suit for almost exactly what she had lost due to the incident. Previous to this case McDonalds had received a large number of complaints of customers being burned by their coffee. 

 

And let's be clear, she never saw the $2.7 million she was awarded in punitive damages by the jury. The judge reduced the damaged in the first place, but in the end she settled the suit with McDonalds. 

Also, those were punitive damages; they were given to punish McDonald's for their wrongs and to coerce them to change their ways, not to make her whole. 

3 hours ago, Alexokan said:

If Apple settles they admit they had a part in killing the child.

That's incorrect. Numerous lawsuits are settled with a clause in the settlement being that they accept no responsibility. If you want examples, look at the recent Trump University suit. 

Quote

If they go to court and lose - they are partially responsible for the death of the child.

That's also not necessarily true. They can 'lose' and still not be found to have an responsibility in the death of the child.... Civil law is interesting. 

Quote

If they go to court and win - they dodge responsibility. 

Your assumption here is that they are in some way, shape, or form, responsible. But there are other alternative, they could win the suit by showing that they are not responsible; in which case how would that be dodging responsibility? 

I imagine Apple will try to get the suit dismissed, in which case their responsibility wouldn't even be assessed. 

[handymanshandle]

Suing Apple for someone elses stupidity? Nice.

 

I believe Apple holds no liability because it was no defect with their product or software. Human negligence killed their daughter, not Facetime. 

The proper party the family should be filling a suit against would be the driver that was distracted.

[8-Bit Ninja]

As the title states apple is being sued by " An American couple, whose daughter was killed by a driver allegedly using FaceTime on his iPhone". The lawsuit states that "the firm should have introduced a feature that disabled use of the video-chat application while driving"  and it points to a patent for a such feature for drivers filed by Apple in 2008.                                                  

 

Full story here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38496174

 

Now while losing your daughter at the age of 5 is horrible, i question the intelligence of the parents. For a start how would apple implement such a thing, the same way as Pokemon Go, where if you are moving fast you cant use it. While this would work, it also means if you are on a bus, train or in the passenger seat of a car you cant use the app dispite the fact that you using the app would pose no direct danger.  Further more what difference would this make, a majority of people are texting, or using something like Facebook, Instagram, snapchat etc... meaning even if apple implemented this it wouldn't do much, so by the parents logic phones should just disable themselves when they are moving at any sort of speed? 

[Jamtoad]

Anyway to get money out of a tragic situation

[WkdPaul]

3 minutes ago, 8-Bit Ninja said:

*snip*

That was posted already, I merged the threads. 

[8-Bit Ninja]

Just now, wkdpaul said:

That was posted already, I merged the threads. 

thank you 

[MorganO]

20 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

It's not but because having nation-wide common sense is too hard, idiots have to be governed by laws.

lol, 

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

lol, 

Well I'm not exactly wrong, unfortunately.

[MorganO]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

Well I'm not exactly wrong, unfortunately.

thats the sad part

[Lurick]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

It's like the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself after picking it up at the drive thru window of McDonalds. Sued and won millions, which resulted in the hot beverage warning on cups. Stupidity shouldn't pay off like that.

No, just no. I am so tired of people touting out this complete BS.

The woman suffered 3rd degree burns over 10% of her body in the genital region and she only took them to court after they refused to pay for just her medical bills. McDonalds had been warned NUMEROUS times that keeping to coffee at 190 to 200 degrees (which was done so people wouldn't get free refills) was burning tons of other people who brought similar complaints. McDonald's was sued for gross negligence because they ignored the warnings of many many other people, but of course actually learning about the reasoning behind the lawsuit would take up a few seconds of someones day and not cause mindless outrage.

[FakeNSA]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

 

 

It's like the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself after picking it up at the drive thru window of McDonalds. Sued and won millions, which resulted in the hot beverage warning on cups. Stupidity shouldn't pay off like that.

America. Fucking up the world bit by bit.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants The real story of that woman. If you care. She almost died! And mcdonalds had been serving dangerously hot coffee for a long time. This was less a "oh, Im hurt! Must sue!" as an action of trying to pay back her large medical bills. She tried to settle for just the amount that would pay for medical and her daughters loss of work for a long time caring for her (she was partially disabled for 2 years!), but mc instead offered $800 dollars, instead of the $10,500 of just her medical, and even more for the 18,500 she was seeking. That is why she sued.

 

 

Edit: Did not see the post above mine. Sorry for cluttering the thread!

Edited January 3, 2017 by Aelar_Nailo
Added text

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

thats the sad part

Yeah, which frustrates me because it should be fairly obvious how dumb using a phone for anything while driving is, yet so many people still do it. The only reason why there aren't more accidents is because of sheer dumb luck.

[pwn_intended]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

It's like the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself after picking it up at the drive thru window of McDonalds. Sued and won millions, which resulted in the hot beverage warning on cups. Stupidity shouldn't pay off like that.

America. Fucking up the world bit by bit.

I agree with the apple stuff you say, but the mcdonalds story you are referring to is actually not as straight forward.

 

I read quite a bit on this case since it was one of those groan worthy things when I first heard it.

 

McDonalds settled for untold amounts but also forced a gag order on the lady it happened to. The reason they settled is because at the time, the coffee was being served at something like 96C, which is the brewing temperature. A regular cup of coffee is server at 75C or lower. While uncomfortable if spilled, you will not get 3rd degree burns from that. The woman in question had severe burns all over her lower body from it.

Yes, coffee is hot (duh) but the problem is that their coffee was actually just waaaaay too dam hot to be safe.

[dizmo]

While yes, it was a very unfortunate incident, there are a few things one has to consider.

• Was the coffee too hot? Maybe for some. Go to any coffee house, or even Starbucks, and you can get you coffee served at the exact same temperature. It's not unsafe to them.
• There were other factors such as her age that were the reason she lots so much weight. Again, unfortunate, but not McDonalds fault.

Say I bought a gun. Say I accidentally shot my knee cap, rendering me disabled. Should I be able to sue the gun company?

Or is it my own negligence that resulted in my situation?

It's really no different. If used correctly, the gun is harmless. Just like the coffee. If drank properly, it's harmless as well.

 

In the end, this is a case of user error, plain and simple. Clearly the jury didn't see it that way, but sometimes it's hard to separate the human element from a case.

 

You're, of course, more than welcome to your own take on it.

 

@pwn_intended

@Lurick

@Aelar_Nailo

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Most common law countries around the world let you file suit for almost literally anything. As far as I know, there is almost to no bar for a suit to be filed - it's just paperwork to be submitted, payment made, and paper served. 

I would suggest you read into that case before judging it. The 79 year old plaintiffs received a coffee, served extremely hot, and with a lid that was not properly put on the cup. The women spilt the coffee while parked and received 3rd degree burns across her pelvic region; she was in hospital for 8 days afterwards receiving skin grafts and needed further treatment for 2 years. All she wanted was for them to cover her extensive medical costs, as evident from her willingness to settle the suit for almost exactly what she had lost due to the incident. Previous to this case McDonalds had received a large number of complaints of customers being burned by their coffee. 

 

And let's be clear, she never saw the $2.7 million she was awarded in punitive damages by the jury. The judge reduced the damaged in the first place, but in the end she settled the suit with McDonalds. 

Also, those were punitive damages; they were given to punish McDonald's for their wrongs and to coerce them to change their ways, not to make her whole. 

That's incorrect. Numerous lawsuits are settled with a clause in the settlement being that they accept no responsibility. If you want examples, look at the recent Trump University suit. 

That's also not necessarily true. They can 'lose' and still not be found to have an responsibility in the death of the child.... Civil law is interesting. 

Your assumption here is that they are in some way, shape, or form, responsible. But there are other alternative, they could win the suit by showing that they are not responsible; in which case how would that be dodging responsibility? 

I imagine Apple will try to get the suit dismissed, in which case their responsibility wouldn't even be assessed. 

doesn't matter what is stated, what matters is what is perceived by the public.