Comments on: Store Employees Included in Exploding iPod Lawsuit

By: chmood

chmood — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:31:48 +0000

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?

By: jsk

jsk — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:24:18 +0000

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?

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:33:00 +0000

“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!

By: Brian Kaempen

Brian Kaempen — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 06:08:27 +0000

@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

By: Thom

Thom — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:45:02 +0000

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.

By: RGKahn

RGKahn — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:06:39 +0000

“…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.

By: Joe Anonymous

Joe Anonymous — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:05:34 +0000

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.

By: Reginald W, Edmonton, AB CANADA

Reginald W, Edmonton, AB CANADA — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:42:59 +0000

@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.

By: kirasaw

kirasaw — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:34 +0000

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.

By: Stupified

Stupified — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:48:42 +0000

What was the kid doing with an iPod at school, anyway?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:46:40 +0000

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.

By: percy44

percy44 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:43:57 +0000

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?

By: Bob Forsberg

Bob Forsberg — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:15:46 +0000

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.

By: Mathue

Mathue — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:24:41 +0000

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?

By: JOHN DOE

JOHN DOE — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:53:09 +0000

TO BAD ITS CALLED A IPOD TOUCH NOT ITOUCH