Apple sued over fatal 'FaceTime crash'

[dizmo]

31 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

-snip-

From what I remember from Law, you cannot sue for land ownership, defemation, anything related to Government and a few other things. But yes, you can sue for a wide variety of things if you have the money and time.

The US has more litigation than the next two countries combined, so they are by far the worst offenders.

 

I did read up on it, and I still hold the same opinion. User error. Several coffee houses can, and do serve their coffee at the same temperature. The case summary I read said nothing of the lid being defective, but rather she spilled it while trying to add cream and sugar. You'll also notice that several other companies had similar lawsuits, however they came out on top.

As I said in another post, if I buy a shotgun, and accidentally blow my knee off, should I be able to sue the company?

No, of course not. It's my own negligence. The gun itself is not dangerous, user misuse is. Same as the coffee.

 

What temperature is McDonalds coffee served at today? Between 176 and 194 degrees.

 

You're more than welcome to your own interpretation.

 

 

 

[WkdPaul]

4 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 don't believe they have.

 

Except that's not how that happened. "Adam ruins everything" has a video explaining the case and after seeing the video I looked into it, very interesting read to say the least.

 

Not sure if this case is similar though.

 

Edit ; didn't realized you guys had already exchanged on that, lots of opinions flying around

 

[dizmo]

5 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Except that's not how that happened. "Adam ruins everything" has a video explaining the case and after seeing the video I looked into it, very interesting read to say the least.

 

Not sure if this case is similar though.

I replied in two other posts, but stand by my opinion.

Stupidity may have been the wrong words to use, user negligence would be more accurate.

[ARikozuM]

17 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I replied in two other posts, but stand by my opinion.

Stupidity may have been the wrong words to use, user negligence would be more accurate.

It's stupidity and ignorance. You know the consequences and go against them, so you're an idiot. 

 

Personally, I hope Apple wins the case, because there are legitimate lawsuits out there that should be dealt with for the right reasons. 

[dizmo]

9 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

It's stupidity and ignorance. You know the consequences and go against them, so you're an idiot. 

 

Personally, I hope Apple wins the case, because there are legitimate lawsuits out there that should be dealt with for the right reasons. 

Unfortunately we let the human element get into these situations too much.

A jury would see the pain they're in, and blame the company, which is by no means at fault, so that they get rewarded and hopefully it helps them heal.

Even if they did manage to alter the program to say, not be used while in motion, everyone would complain about that.

There's no winning.

 

[ARikozuM]

15 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Unfortunately we let the human element get into these situations too much.

A jury would see the pain they're in, and blame the company, which is by no means at fault, so that they get rewarded and hopefully it helps them heal.

Even if they did manage to alter the program to say, not be used while in motion, everyone would complain about that.

There's no winning.

 

It's just a matter of time until we need licenses for mobile tech or auto-pilot becomes federally mandated.

[Blade of Grass]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

From what I remember from Law, you cannot sue for land ownership, defemation, anything related to Government and a few other things. But yes, you can sue for a wide variety of things if you have the money and time.

You can sue for land ownership (quiet title suits are one example) and defamation is either libel or slander, both of which can be sued over. 

Edit: there are things you can sue the government for; Federal Torts Claims Act and Tucker Act both create allowances for citizens to sue the government, you can also sue for tax related things, and for patent infringement. 

Quote

The US has more litigation than the next two countries combined, so they are by far the worst offenders.

What is the population of those countries? How accessible is their legal systems to their citizens? Use of litigation is not inherently a negative thing; consider how little utilization the legal system is in authoritarian countries, is that a good thing? That's not to say that American's are using the system 'correctly', but instead that the issue is far more nuanced then you're lead to believe. 

Quote

Several coffee houses can, and do serve their coffee at the same temperature.

In this case, McDonald's did a survey of local coffee shops and found that they served coffee between 30-40 degree cooler. 

Quote

The case summary I read said nothing of the lid being defective,

You are correct, my mistake, mixed up her case and one about Melissa Pettigrew (similar case, but her lid wasn't attached properly).  

Quote

You'll also notice that several other companies had similar lawsuits, however they came out on top.

The specifics of their cases were not the same, hence they had different rulings, see below. 

Quote

As I said in another post, if I buy a shotgun, and accidentally blow my knee off, should I be able to sue the company?

No, of course not. It's my own negligence. The gun itself is not dangerous, user misuse is. Same as the coffee.

A gun in and of itself is dangerous - coffee is not. A reasonable person would not believe that a cup of coffee would be able to give 3rd degree burns over a large portion of their body, whereas they would see the inherent danger in a gun. Although I can go further to show why the situations are not comparable, I hope that's enough to illustrate it.

Quote

What temperature is McDonalds coffee served at today? Between 176 and 194 degrees.

That doesn't matter to the specifics of the case. But besides that, notice that McDonalds has changed their coffee packaging quite a bit to both reduce spills and warn customers of the temperature of the content. 

Quote

You're more than welcome to your own interpretation.

Keep in mind, there's far more to the case than McDonald's serving 1 coffee to 1 person who got a burn. Prior to the incident McDonald's had recieved over 700 reports of people getting burned from their coffee, including reports of 3rd degree burns. McDonalds was negligent and did little to remedy their situation, and at trial acknowledged that: 

1. They had known about the significant risks of severe burns for over 10 years 
2. Their coffee was "not fit for consumption" at the serving temperature
3. Customers were unaware of the severity of burns that could result from spilling the coffee
4. They did not warn customers about the extent of the risks
5. Coffee shops in the area sold coffee 30-40 degrees cooler

When looking at this evidence (keep in mind, the points above was not all the evidence in the case, instead it is just the evidence in which McDonald in some way shape or form acknowledged or directly brought forward), there is little to no way McDonald's could have gotten any other verdict. It shows a blatant disregard for the safety of their customers, and is against the very principle of our consumer protection laws - essentially, due to their negligence, she had a slam dunk case. Also to note, the jury did not find her completely without fault, instead they believed the fault to be split 80% McDonalds to 20% her, but again, the punitive damages award against McDonald's were because they were shown to not have done enough to protect their customers (especially with respect to the past burn victims), not to make her whole. One of the jurors went on to note that McDonald's was almost cavalier about the past burn victims and showed little to no acknowledgment about the severity of their injuries. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Blade of Grass

[SansVarnic]

Its another case of "Lets Sue Company A for making item B and was used in C event ......"

Lets Sue Spoon makers for making peolpe fat and have heart attacks.

Lets Sue Gun Makers for making a gun that was used in a murder.

Lets Sue Car makers for making the car used in a hit and run (yes it has happened)

Lets Sue Apple for making FaceTime and somebody used it while driving.

Lets sue McDonalds for making hot coffee ...........

 

 

On and On the world of stupidity never ends . . . . .  

[Zodiark1593]

5 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

It's just a matter of time until we need licenses for mobile tech or auto-pilot becomes federally mandated.

Anyone under the age of 30 and not disabled should be allowed only a manual transmission vehicle. In cities at least, this might fix your texting and driving as both hands are needed. 

 

Inb4wurstideaevar 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

Anyone under the age of 30 should be allowed only a manual transmission vehicle.

To be honest, I think manual should be a person's first car since, internationally, they're more common. It's a useful skill to know.

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, dizmo said:

Am I the only one here who sees that they're seeking damages, and that no decision has been made?

I highly doubt that anything will come of this, or that opens up every single app out there to the same kind of legal action.

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

 

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 don't believe they have.

 

 

8 hours ago, TetraSky said:

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.

 

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

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

@dizmo not quite - it would be like if you bought a gun that had a faulty safety switch, and then you blew a hole in your hip while holstering the gun. While America is definitely the land of frivolous lawsuits, there's no way to interpret the McDonalds lawsuit as anything other than being just.

 

The woman literally got 3rd degree burns. On her PELVIS!

Not for the faint of heart:

Spoiler

 

[Bensemus]

12 hours ago, dizmo said:

Sued and won millions,

She actualy won less than half a million. The jury wanted to award her millions but the judge stepped in and limited it to ~600k and then McD settled for most likely less. The women only sued cuz she was going to go bankrupt from her care for her actualy very severe injuries. She was only going to go bankrupt as she lived in the US and they wouldn't pay for her care. Had she lived in a country that had universal health care she wound never had sued.

 

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

@dizmo not quite - it would be like if you bought a gun that had a faulty safety switch, and then you blew a hole in your hip while holstering the gun. While America is definitely the land of frivolous lawsuits, there's no way to interpret the McDonalds lawsuit as anything other than being just.

 

The woman literally got 3rd degree burns. On her PELVIS!

Not for the faint of heart:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Everyone goes back to the defective bit, and it's just not true. That's why they still have the coffee at the same temperature. That's why several other companies brew their coffee just as hot. There's nothing faulty about it.

 

I never said that it wasn't unfortunate. Her age played a huge part in the severity of the injury. Not only that, but it's her own fault. Was the coffee hot? Yes. It's a hot beverage. Did she spill it in her own lap, attempting to put in cream? Yes.

 

While the lawsuit might not be frivolous in nature, I still don't believe it was warranted.

[myselfolli]

15 hours ago, dizmo said:

Am I the only one here who sees that they're seeking damages, and that no decision has been made?

I highly doubt that anything will come of this, or that opens up every single app out there to the same kind of legal action.

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

 

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 don't believe they have.

 

There's more to this,she suffered third degree burns because of the temperature and asked McDonalds to help her cover her medical fees. They offered her a food coupon. Which is fucked up if you ask me.

 

Go look it up, as I said, there's more to it

[dizmo]

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

You can sue for land ownership (quiet title suits are one example) and defamation is either libel or slander, both of which can be sued over. 

What you cannot sue for

You cannot sue for:

• matters involving ownership of land;
• matters involving wills, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment or defamation (libel and slander); or
• matters involving governments.

Unless it's different in Ontario, this is straight off the Alberta Courts website.

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

What is the population of those countries? How accessible is their legal systems to their citizens? Use of litigation is not inherently a negative thing; consider how little utilization the legal system is in authoritarian countries, is that a good thing? That's not to say that American's are using the system 'correctly', but instead that the issue is far more nuanced then you're lead to believe. 

It's # per 100,000. It's very early in the morning and I can't remember if that's the best way to compare countries or not.

It was amongst G5 nations. So. Pretty even playing field.

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

In this case, McDonald's did a survey of local coffee shops and found that they served coffee between 30-40 degree cooler. 

 

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

You are correct, my mistake, mixed up her case and one about Melissa Pettigrew (similar case, but her lid wasn't attached properly).  

In this instance they'd have every right to sue, as the company is clearly liable due to the improper use of the lid.

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

The specifics of their cases were not the same, hence they had different rulings, see below. 

A gun in and of itself is dangerous - coffee is not. A reasonable person would not believe that a cup of coffee would be able to give 3rd degree burns over a large portion of their body, whereas they would see the inherent danger in a gun. Although I can go further to show why the situations are not comparable, I hope that's enough to illustrate it.

Evidently that's not the case.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that no reasonable person would get a beverage made with very hot water, and think that it can cause burns? Do you boil water, and a minute later think you're fine to pour it over your body?
I think not.

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

That doesn't matter to the specifics of the case. But besides that, notice that McDonalds has changed their coffee packaging quite a bit to both reduce spills and warn customers of the temperature of the content. 

Packaging yes, yet temperature no.

What does that say? That it's not dangerous, and it was user error.

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Keep in mind, there's far more to the case than McDonald's serving 1 coffee to 1 person who got a burn. Prior to the incident McDonald's had recieved over 700 reports of people getting burned from their coffee, including reports of 3rd degree burns. McDonalds was negligent and did little to remedy their situation, and at trial acknowledged that: 

1. They had known about the significant risks of severe burns for over 10 years 
2. Their coffee was "not fit for consumption" at the serving temperature
3. Customers were unaware of the severity of burns that could result from spilling the coffee
4. They did not warn customers about the extent of the risks
5. Coffee shops in the area sold coffee 30-40 degrees cooler

Funny they say that, yet don't change the brewing temperature. Actions speak louder than words. Companies will say a lot of things when they're under the public spotlight.

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

-snip-

I mean don't get me wrong, yes it's horrible that it happened. Yes, I agree that in this case it wasn't frivolous. But I still stand by my belief of it being user error and not the fault of the company.

[dizmo]

9 minutes ago, myselfolli said:

There's more to this,she suffered third degree burns because of the temperature and asked McDonalds to help her cover her medical fees. They offered her a food coupon. Which is fucked up if you ask me.

 

Go look it up, as I said, there's more to it

Again, someone spilling something on themselves is not a reason for that entity to cover their medical expenses.

If it was a faulty lid, or it was spilled on her by an employee, completely different matter.

 

I did look it up. I stand by what I believe. I'm done with this topic.

[eyecantseeover24fps]

Ridiculous. A software company is not responsible for it's consumers that blatantly misuse their product.

[WkdPaul]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

*snip*

I did look it up. I stand by what I believe. I'm done with this topic.

Agreed, lets move on, this thread isn't about McDonalds hot coffee!

 

 

@dizmo is aware of the McDonalds coffee case and stands by his opinion, so if we could get back to the topic, that would be appreciated!

 

[SansVarnic]

A company [should not] be held liable for a product intentionally misused by the consumer.

There are several liability statues/laws in the US that cover what determines a company to be held liable but when a consumer is blatantly misusing a product the company should not be held liable for the actions of said consumer. The product was not the cause of the accident, the [driver's] inattentiveness and direct negligence of his responsibility in maintaining control the vehicle bears no weight on the product Apple created as it did not in any way impede the operation of the vehicle.

 

You cannot make a product with every conceivable liability built in. Apple is not at fault here, nor should it be held to that unreachable standard. No matter what you do to mitigate a products misuse a consumer will always find a way to do otherwise. Always.

[Joelbanks5]

They're dumb, it's obviously the cars fault for not being smart enough to stop for the careless driver, sue the car manufacturer! /s

[SansVarnic]

45 minutes ago, Joelbanks5 said:

They're dumb, it's obviously the cars fault for not being smart enough to stop for the careless driver, sue the car manufacturer! /s

Obviously /s

[Guest Kloaked]

On 1/3/2017 at 1:23 PM, suicidalfranco said:

ah yes, USA. All Makes sense now

I'd rather live in a country where you're able to sue anyone and not be beheaded for being gay, have your guns taken away due to phobias, have tons of violent immigrants raping and killing people because muh social justice, etc.

 

I'm not saying our systems are perfect by any means, but we have good ones. Quite frankly, they're the best.

[Zodiark1593]

4 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I'd rather live in a country where you're able to sue anyone and not be beheaded for being gay, have your guns taken away due to phobias, have tons of violent immigrants raping and killing people because muh social justice, etc.

 

I'm not saying our systems are perfect by any means, but we have good ones. Quite frankly, they're the best.

Agreed. Even if the bar is low, the court system is accessible. The judge will lend his ear, and if (the case is) found frivolous, will show the plaintiffs the door (or rather, his bailiff).

[Bensemus]

On 2017-01-03 at 4:06 PM, wkdpaul said:

Snip

I think Adam's video on YouTube simplifies it a bit too much. Today I learned has a much more in depth video on the topic which I think explains it better.