Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
State Farm Sues Apple For Over $75,000, Claims Defective iPhone Caused House Fire
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In diversity cases like this, the federal court will apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits. The procedural law will be federal, though.
Only Apple will end up paying millions in attorneys fees if Apple somehow pushes its attorneys to do millions of dollars worth of work. State Farm hired outside subrogation counsel, and that counsel will likely be paid a percentage of the recovery (and will only be paid if there is a recovery). Under no circumstances will State Farm be responsible for Apple's attorneys fees (and, no, Apple doesn't use its in-house attorneys for this. The in-house legal staff hires outside counsel and manages the outside firm's work).
Last edited:
Aha. Thank you once more. Very interesting. So.
Wisconsin law is:
895.047 Product liability.
(1) Liability of manufacturer. In an action for damages caused by a manufactured product based on a claim of strict liability, a manufacturer is liable to a claimant if the claimant establishes all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
(a) That the product is defective because it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product contains a manufacturing defect if the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the manufacture of the product. A product is defective in design if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the manufacturer and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. A product is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings only if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the manufacturer and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.
(b) That the defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to persons or property.
(c) That the defective condition existed at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer.
(d) That the product reached the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.
(e) That the defective condition was a cause of the claimant's damages.
Apparently after a Republican sweep of the legislature, the laws were changed in 2011 to make it harder to prove liability, by requiring the plaintiff to present an alternative design that would've made it safer.
If so, then that seems like a pretty difficult mountain to climb.
Eh. Not really. Just need an expert to provide an opinion that someone else's design is safer, or even that Apple's other or later products contain a safer design that was feasible at the time the 4s was sold. Then it's up to the jury to decide if it's more likely than not (50.00001%) that Apple could have used the alternative design for the 4s and that the alternative would have made it safer.
Now, for all those interested, compare the complaint with the requirements in (a) through (e). It's all there, and that's probably all that necessary at this point.
Also, note that the complaint makes references to investigations pinpointing the phone battery as the cause and excluding other causes. This is actually more detail than is necessary. But it's not surprising and is expected at some point in the case. It's called fire cause & origin, and it's a common thing to do in fires. The methodology is developed by organizations such as NFPA. http://www.nfpa.org
I thought that only applied if the claim was for defective design, not a defect in manufacturing.
Well I actually think if Apple was guilty they should pay. However, I'm not convinced on the selling of the 4s iPhone last year. TBQH I don't think Apple would sell a refurb 4s or a brand new 4s in 2016 in the US. It may be cheaper for Apple to just pay the claim which is what the Insurance company is probably counting on.
As pointed out several times, the phone was bought in 2014 when it was still being sold new.
The FIRE was in 2016.
My friend, you REALLY need to read the thread before posting
or how about if it was an insured replacement phone. i had verizon insurance for a while when i was traveling for work. i had to have my phone replaced and it was a refurbished phone. only not by Apple so the display and the battery were third party. i know this cause the phone stopped working at one point and the tech opened it to see if perhaps the battery connector was loose. i don't know that i would trust a carrier to put in a decent battery
[doublepost=1501051123][/doublepost]
the suit is trying to claim the fire is due to a manufacturing/design issue. how many fires have those phones had. and with that in mind how likely is it that Apple is guilty here.
One is sufficient given it was owned by the person who a fire investigator stated that that specific phone caused the fire. With that in mind Apple is guilty of nothing criminal but likely is liable for the fire given facts as stated being true.
State Farm says Thao bought a new phone. There is no indication it is a refurbished phone. They also claim the battery was never changed. I have questions about where Thao bought the phone as that would clear up some questions. Was it bought from a third party reseller? How old was the phone before Thao bought it? Did Thao put it in her back pocket and sit on it? Was it ever bent, even slightly? So many questions and so few answers.
This appears to be the fire: http://www.newrichmond-news.com/new...uses-significant-damage-1791-82nd-st-somerset
Last edited: