Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Sued Over Potential Hearing Loss

Yeah, another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions and choices.

With the logic this case presents, then why is it legal for alcohol beverage makers to produce bottles that contain enough alcohol to kill you if consumed in one sitting?
 
nichos said:
Patterson's suit said he bought an iPod last year, but does not specify whether he suffered hearing loss from the device.

So what does he want to accomplish? IANAL, but don't class action suits usually result in a small payout to the people involved?
Click to expand...
YEs the only people who make $$ are the frikin lawyers who encourage this sort of crap. This is the part of the reason why things like healthcare in the US is so out of wack expensive. GD lawyers, most all of them should be shot and not allowed a decent burial. Sorry, did that just come out of my mouth???
 
betbest1 said:
Isn't it interesting that Apple doesn't warn people about potential hearing problems, but all iPod- and iTunes-related literature says "Don't Steal Music". They're more worried about protecting their profits than their customers.
Click to expand...

Huh? Apple ships a warning with each iPod that states “permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume.”
 
max_altitude said:
There's already a thread on this here.
Click to expand...
This one was made first. ;)

And yeah, big warning right there. Put there to stop frivolous lawsuits just like this. Guess the guy is blind as well (although they have brail instructions available if need be). Sometimes I wish they weren't there. The people who need to read them most don't anyway. I'm a big believer in natural selection when it comes to (supposed) adults.
 
could people get any greedier (is that a word?), seriously, i think my new profession is going to be sitting around my house and think of things i can sue people about....maybe the postal service, i did recieve a small but painful paper cut due to the way the mail man put the mail in my mail box....ridiculous!
 
nichos said:
So what does he want to accomplish? IANAL, but don't class action suits usually result in a small payout to the people involved?
Click to expand...

Small payout to the people, HUGE payout to the lawyers.

Timepass said:
You all are just complaining because it is apple getting sued. I mean come on if it was M$ getting sued you would be cheering......

I cannt do it. This guy is an idoit and it is his own stupid fault for playing it 2 loud.
Click to expand...
I disagree on the first part, but agree on the second part. If Microsoft was sued because someone hung themselves with their Xbox controller, then I'd stand by Microsoft.

I'm against human stupidity more than I am against Microsoft. :)

Jaffa Cake said:
Actually, I strained my eyes a little reading all the white text people were adding to their posts.

You'll be hearing from my solicitor. :cool:
Click to expand...
Command+Option+Control+8
That'll be $142. Thank you.

solvs said:
And yeah, big warning right there. Put there to stop frivolous lawsuits just like this. Guess the guy is blind as well (although they have brail instructions available if need be)
Click to expand...
Not to be mean... but how do you use an iPod if you are blind? Seems a bit hard. I guess I could see using the Shuffle... but not the other iPods...:rolleyes:
 
MarkCollette said:
Asking someone to turn the volume down themselves is insufficient, because with background music, you might only notice it's too loud too late.
Click to expand...
Even in that case, the user should take it upon themselves to get educated about preventing hearing damage. When the iPod isn't the only source of noise in the environment, Apple has very little control over whether the user has it set at a safe volume. It's not like they can predict every potential circumstance where a user might turn up the volume to overcome background noise.
 
Mechcozmo said:
Not to be mean... but how do you use an iPod if you are blind? Seems a bit hard. I guess I could see using the Shuffle... but not the other iPods...
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised. I remember watching a woman who was blind use a Mac for the first time on Night Of The Tiger. She seemed to be able to get around pretty well, without any help. I'm sure blind people use iPods just like anyone else.

Now deaf people on the other hand... ;)

(oh, and I spelled braille wrong... :eek: sorry)
 
Counterfit said:
Even in that case, the user should take it upon themselves to get educated about preventing hearing damage. When the iPod isn't the only source of noise in the environment, Apple has very little control over whether the user has it set at a safe volume. It's not like they can predict every potential circumstance where a user might turn up the volume to overcome background noise.
Click to expand...

plus while iPods don't have AVLS, they do have Sound Check if someone wants to unify the volume levels of their music library
 
Its not americans that are greedy that cause this...

What has happened is nimrods like the plaintiff in this case have become decidedly UN-American and there are quite a few of them residing here now. They think that life exists to take care of them when the American spirit is more pioneering. Most Americans are good, hard working, honest people and jerks like this guy lower our collective EQ and our reputation. Get a job pal! Stop being so litigious. And remember. Lawyers can only sue someone AFTER they knock the P*ss out of you for being a jackass..... And unless the stupid lawsuits stop, I predict that good, average every day Americans may take the kid gloves off and start telling these people to their pathetic, whiny , greedy faces that they arent welcome here.....
Oh- and by the way. I felt the same way when the woman sued mcdonalds over hot coffee, and would feel the same way if someone sued microsoft over their xbox making them fat because they play videeo games too much. Also think the dork who ate Mcdonalds food 24X7 and supersized all his meals is a complete waste of a perfectly good piece of personal space. People need to get back to taking personal responsibility for their actions. With lack of personal responsibility comes moral bankruptcy, and with moral bankruptcy comes decay......
<whew> my rant is over.... carry on.....
:D
 
To me that like the someone sueing because they were driving really fast in there car and jumped out the window. What? No warning label?

Fine, I'll look into the sun for an hour and then go try to sue someone because I went blind and an no one told me it was bad.
 
Counterfit said:
Even in that case, the user should take it upon themselves to get educated about preventing hearing damage. When the iPod isn't the only source of noise in the environment, Apple has very little control over whether the user has it set at a safe volume. It's not like they can predict every potential circumstance where a user might turn up the volume to overcome background noise.
Click to expand...

I think I adequately explained how, no matter how in-the-know a user is, without proper AVLS functionality, they can't guarrantee to protect themself from the iPod. It's certainly out of the realm of this lawsuit to include environmental hearing loss.

I don't think this lawsuit is frivolous. I think it's opportunistic.
 
humantech said:
Oh- and by the way. I felt the same way when the woman sued mcdonalds over hot coffee, and would feel the same way if someone sued microsoft over their xbox making them fat because they play videeo games too much. Also think the dork who ate Mcdonalds food 24X7 and supersized all his meals is a complete waste of a perfectly good piece of personal space.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you people are lumping in the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit with actual real frivolous lawsuits. Her coffee was scalding hot, and spilled on her, in a way that was klutzily her fault, but yet quite likely to occur. The problem wasn't that she got slightly hurt, but that she got 2nd or 3rd (I can't remember which) degree burns, it was so hot. Ie, had she drank it, and not spilled it, she would still have been quite hurt.

I'm saying that there are degrees of responsibility on all sides. A person buying a product has the responsibility to purchase and use it properly. And manufacturers have a responsibility to make their products safe given standard operating modes.

For example, when I see signs on nature trails, by cliff edges, telling people to not fall off the cliff, I think how retarded that is. But, if there's a particular section of the trail that's atypically treacherous, then maybe that does warrant a sign.

For something like the iPod, I can understand making it so that it can make your ears bleed, because some people like red stains on their shoulders. But, I think that by default it should be setup so it can't hurt you. And there's just no excuse to not do that, given the prevalence of that feature in the marketplace.

If you disagree with me on this, then I suspect you're more of an Apple fanboy, and less of a rational consumer.
 
CoMpX said:
I hate when people sue over their own stupidity. :mad:
Click to expand...
This bugs me. Sure hope the courts work and he gets nothing.

This would put all types of portable music systems at risk -- not just iPods.

Talk about stupidity. Gee, I didn't realize that was what the volume control is for...

Sometimes I prefer the Japanese system. Say you walk into a resturant and bang your head on a beam. They would say you are an idiot and be more careful next time. In the US, the person might end up owning the establishment.

Lawyers...
 
This is just one example of what is so wrong with the court system today. A case this stupid should not even be heard. There are so many REAL important cases that get put off because the docket is so full of crap. People have to accept the risks of the products they use, or don't use them at all. Even if Apple didn't put warnings on their products, even if an iPod had an uncontrollably high deafening volume, do you HAVE to use one? Are you being forced to purchase one and ruin your hearing? Who's holding a gun to their head?
Uhhhgg...
 
:eek: The things people do to earn a buck or two,

However, let's wait till the courts throw this out before criticizing too much. It is everyone's right to make a case of something. If not, the US would not be a free country. There are many countries in the world where people don't have the right or opportunity to sue when they feel they have been wronged.

Also don't forget, it is partly because of class-action suits that companies nowadays make a lot of effort to always think about the "what-ifs". Again, in many countries there is no stimulus for government, companies or individuals to be responsible for their actions.

Let the courts decide, that's what they are there for.
 
What is wrong with some people! Any Mp3 Player and or Any musical device can give you problems!:mad:
 
iBlue said:
good grief! a lot like blaming forks and spoons for your big fat butt.

people amaze me.
Click to expand...

I agree. So does this case mean that if you buy a lightbulb and stare at it and go blind, you can sue the company for making it too bright?! It's sickening what people will do for money.
 
MarkCollette said:
I think I adequately explained how, no matter how in-the-know a user is, without proper AVLS functionality, they can't guarrantee to protect themself from the iPod. It's certainly out of the realm of this lawsuit to include environmental hearing loss.
Click to expand...
Somehow, I have the feeling that anyone who isn't in-the-know about AVLS would just keep it off and crank it anyway. Even with it, if someone uses different headphones, or headphones with an amp, or if they use the iPod while in a loud environment (which you probably shouldn't be doing anyway), there's no guarantee that they won't experience hearing loss, but under those circumstances, would Apple still be even remotely liable?
 
Counterfit said:
Somehow, I have the feeling that anyone who isn't in-the-know about AVLS would just keep it off and crank it anyway. Even with it, if someone uses different headphones, or headphones with an amp, or if they use the iPod while in a loud environment (which you probably shouldn't be doing anyway), there's no guarantee that they won't experience hearing loss, but under those circumstances, would Apple still be even remotely liable?
Click to expand...

Well, if they do sue Apple, under those circumstances, I'll just strangle them to death with their earphone cord, and say that it's not my fault, because Apple made the earphone's unsafe :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back