Several unnamed employees of the Kenwood Towne Centre (Ohio) Apple store have been named as co-defendants in a defective product lawsuit filed by the parents of a child who was allegedly burned when his iPod touch “caught on fire” and burned his leg. The employees, named only as “John Does (1-10)” in the lawsuit, are accused of negligently failing to inform the plaintiffs that the iPod touch “would need to be inspected for defects” after its purchase. The employees also failed to inspect the device themselves, and failed to provide any instruction sheets or warning. The youth, identified only as “A.V.” in the lawsuit and the son of Lynette Antrobus, suffered second-degree burns to his leg, “and was otherwise caused pain and suffering,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit say the boy continues to suffer “pain, mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life.” He lost the value of his clothing, the lawsuit states, and the value of the “Apple iTouch (sic).” The family asks for $75,000 in compensatory damages, and at least $75,000 in punitive damages, plus court and attorney’s fees, and another $75,000 in “special damages.”Throughout the lawsuit, the involved product is termed an “Apple iTouch,” instead of the correct name “iPod touch.” The company being sued is also incorrectly identified as “Apple Computer Inc.,” when, in fact, the company dropped the “Computer” part of its name in January 2007.
The full name of Lynette Antrobus’ son is not given in the lawsuit, only that he is a “minor child.” Both Antrobus and her son live in Kentucky, the lawsuit says.
According to the lawsuit, the child was at his school desk in a Kentucky school when he heard a “pop,” and realized his iPod touch had “exploded and caught on fire.” He ran to bathroom and removed his pants, and his mother soon arrived to take him to a doctor for treatment.
The lawsuit claims that, “Defendant Apple Computer, Inc. and Defendant John Doe 1-10 defectively designed the subject product and its component parts.” The use of “John Doe” is a common method of naming lawsuit defendants who are not known to the plaintiffs when they file the lawsuit, but who may become known later during discovery and depositions.
More pointedly, the lawsuit states, “Defendant Apple Computer, Inc. and/or Defendant John Doe 1-10 negligently, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and with gross negligence manufactured and prepared and distributed the subject Apple iTouch referenced herein for sale and/or distribution to Plaintiffs.”
The lawsuit claims that Apple failed to train the employees, “on the sale of the subject Apple iTouch to business invitees, customers, and/or patrons like Plaintiffs so as to prevent injury to the customers or third parties like Plaintiffs using the Apple iTouch sold, including but not limited to the subject Apple iTouch.”
Furthermore, “When the subject Apple iTouch left the control of Defendant Apple Computer, Inc.’s Apple Store, the foreseeable risks associated with its design or formulation exceeded the benefits associated with its design or formulation of said product,” the lawsuit states.
Given all the allegations, the iPod touch, “was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner,” the plaintiffs said.
Download (pdf) a copy of the complete lawsuit.
Here is the sales receipt for the 16 Gb iPod touch, as included in the lawsuit court filing. Plaintiff Lynette Antrobus received a six percent discount on the purchase, apparently because she is a corporate or government employee. Antrobus paid $300 in cash, and the receipt shows she was owed 67 cents in change.
This is the receipt e-mailed to plaintiff Lynette Antrobus when she purchased the iPod touch that she claims later exploded and burned her son.
E-mail this story
Related posts:
Loading ...
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
TO BAD ITS CALLED A IPOD TOUCH NOT ITOUCH
I feel for the kid that something happened to the Touch. However, the idea that a salesperson has to explain that a device might be dangerous is really silly. Do we next explain to every car buyer that they could be killed in an accident? Do were explain that the toaster we buy might short out and burst into flames, burning down our house?
Another bloodsucker in our legal system milking “Big Pockets”.
Only when plaintiffs are required to pay the defendants costs to defend themselves after loosing its case will this silliness stop.
Giving this case attention only encourages other leaches to hitch a ride on the money train.
Apple dropped the word “Computer” from its name not “Company”. [Thanks…corrected--Gary]
Cars do not drive themselves over cliffs or into walls.
The Apple product was not supposed to spontaneously catch fire. They should be held liable in such an event.
I’m not sure if two hits for 75k qualifies as ‘bloodsucking’. Companies the size of Apple waste more than that without raising an eyebrow.
What price would any of you put on damage to your own children?
Considering the small amount of damages asked for in the suit, it looks like she’s hoping for a quick settlement to get cash in her pocket. I hope Apple fights her and she doesn’t get a dime.
What was the kid doing with an iPod at school, anyway?
It will be interesting to see if there was any modifications made to the iPod Touch that caused this. I haven’t heard of any other Touchs exploding and catching fire. Of course Apple may settle this quickly in return for an NDA on the settlement and the actual Touch so they can determine the cause. If it goes to trial then a tear apart of the Touch could be made public as part of discovery.
@kirasaw
I’m sure I’ve seen an iPod Touch taken apart to show off the insides of the unit. Most everything is. The new iPod Shuffle is on AppleInsider, so what would the big deal be about showing the inside of a burnt out iPod Touch?
Any product can be defective in its manufacture and cause problems. examples are the batteries from Sony for a pile of computers.
Any product can be defective in its design and cause problems. example is the Ford Pinto and whatever GM car on the gas filler tube that would cause a fire/explosion hazard in an accident.
Any product can be abused to make it cause problems. I can’t point to a specific problem but I know as an ex-computer tech that crossing certain wires can make for interesting times with electronics.
Until such time as this were to go to trial, none of us would know what the real issue is/was.
Apple has insurance for these types of things and it is sometimes cheaper/better to pay out/settle the suit than it is to fight it. Other times it is better to fight it out. Apple and/or the insurance company looks at it to determine which way to do this.
Either way, Apple will likely be able to get hold of the iPod Touch to be able to determine what the problem with it is. Did it overheat while on in an enclosed pocket? Were there other things in the pocket that accelerated the fire? Did a liquid spill on the iPod cause it to short?
If the child ran to the washroom and then took off his pants, then it was not likely a major fire (flames, etc) but might have gotten very hot like the batteries on the bottom of laptops have a tendency to do, and with no ventilation in the pants pocket, possibly got VERY warm. What type of burn was received, only those who have seen the “burn” know for sure.
Not enough information to know whichever way for those of us in the peanut gallery.
Sorry, but damages of $225 K for a second degree burn and some lost clothes is completely absurd. Second degree burns are completely healed in 2 weeks. Since virtually all kids get burns in their lifetime, there should be no emotional damages except for the damage of having blood-sucking leeches as parents.
And suing the store employees is totally absurd and will be thrown out. If there were a serious, known risk, they might have a point, but there was no known risk of iPods burning up. It could happen to anything with a lithium battery.
Is Apple liable? Sure (although it’s actually the battery manufacturer who will probably pay the damages since they probably indemnify Apple). But a quarter million dollars for a relatively minor burn is stupid and greedy.
“…are accused of negligently failing to inform the plaintiffs that the iPod touch “would need to be inspected for defects” after its purchase.” What does that mean exactly? Store employees did not explain this to the customer? Why would they explain that to the customer? Inspected by whom? The Store? The Customer? The FCC? Inspected for what? Have no clue, The complaining client of the shyster lawyers as no clue either. I have been buying products from apple for about 24 years now, since the first Macintosh and have never been told it needs be to inspected post purchase.
I agree with Joe Anonymous.
Having that type of parent for the rest of his life might be more damaging to the kid. I can imagine them tormenting the kid now about how he is going to be scarred for life because of it and how the kid just wants to get back to his friends. Maybe the new car will make the parents happy but I doubt the kid could care.
@percy44: Yes the family is entitled to something. They bought an iPod that ended up hurting their child and that’s not what the device was intended to do. But to include employees of a retail store for the manufacturing malfunction is ludicrous. That’s like blaming a Nike employee for the deplorable conditions the shoes are made in. The employees are completely downstream of where and how they were made. For all intents and purposes, store employees are robots programed to sell items, even though I NEVER think of any Apple employee as such.
Sue APple, get something for the obvious damages, but leave innocent people out of this.
-Brian
“He ran to bathroom and removed his pants”
The real insanity here is that the boy was so inhibited that he couldn’t get out of his pants before running to the bathroom first. How nuts is that?
Let me tell you, if my pants were on fire, they’re gone!
Hmmm…
Shouldn’t Apple notify the administrator of this gov./corp. account that it is being abused by an employee for personal uses? Or does this minor actually work for a corp. or gov. entity?
they seem to feel that Apple should have pro-actively counseled them on the likelihood of their new purchase *EXPLODING*…should they have been warned it might swim away, as well?