Apple hit with class-action suit after girl drops, breaks iPhone 4's glass - Page 3

Originally Posted by Jingo

Only in America could someone sue another party for a mistake they made and get loads of dosh for it. Reminds me of the person who sued McDonalds because of coffee being hot and won - and countless other such stories. The guy should be ashamed of himself.

Originally Posted by Ecphorizer

As an American, I totally agree with your first sentence. Civil litigation has been the name of the game for lawyers trying to pay back their student loans for years.

However, and this observation is subject to scrutiny, the old lady in the McD case actually was quite badly scalded when the lid of her coffee popped open at the drivethru window. It turns out that McD pinches every penny and in this case, passes steam & water (over 212°) through coffee grounds since it is well known that the hotter the water & vapor, the less coffee is needed to get roughly the same case. That coffee was not what you get from a coffee urn at Denny's (or at home) and she deserved something more than a simply "sorry 'bout that, lady" from the drivethru drone.

Originally Posted by delany

Is suing Apple the right answer? Maybe not. But until someone in the US does something about silly advertising claims, what else can people do.

Originally Posted by Jingo

Only in America could someone sue another party for a mistake they made and get loads of dosh for it. Reminds me of the person who sued McDonalds because of coffee being hot and won - and countless other such stories. The guy should be ashamed of himself.

Originally Posted by Ecphorizer

They have. Ever see all the 6pt disclaimers at the bottom of the screen of drugs (and other things that aren't moron-proof)? I actually go in the opposite direction and think that all that warning stuff is a bunch of BS. We are human beings - intelligent reasoning human beings. We do not need to blame everyone else for our own carelessness and stupidity. And why is this suit-mania only in the US? Are we less intelligent than citizens of other countries? (please don't come across with a catty answer; you know what I mean!)

Originally Posted by Jingo

Only in America could someone sue another party for a mistake they made and get loads of dosh for it. Reminds me of the person who sued McDonalds because of coffee being hot and won - and countless other such stories. The guy should be ashamed of himself.

Originally Posted by Jcoz

I still dont know what a dosh is.

Do you?

Originally Posted by Ecphorizer

They have. Ever see all the 6pt disclaimers at the bottom of the screen of drugs (and other things that aren't moron-proof)? I actually go in the opposite direction and think that all that warning stuff is a bunch of BS. We are human beings - intelligent reasoning human beings. We do not need to blame everyone else for our own carelessness and stupidity. And why is this suit-mania only in the US? Are we less intelligent than citizens of other countries? (please don't come across with a catty answer; you know what I mean!)

Originally Posted by gabberattack

What a retard! I can't believe America is no.1 economy while it looks dumbies like this guy are multiplying here.

My house window glass broke after my neighbour's kid accidently kicked the ball in it. I am gonna class action sue window maker because when I had the old window it did not break after I kicked the ball few yeara ago.

What a moron, OMG.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Actually, the capuccinos and espressos served in McDonalds (in the newer McDs that serve them) are surprisingly good.

Better than the bitter nonsense you get at Starbucks, as far as my palate is concerned.

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

"20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."

If Apple actually claims this, then they are in trouble.

Originally Posted by doyourownthing

this sounds like the person that called 911 when mcdonalds had no mcnuggets to give to her

Originally Posted by Jonamac

I'm amazed at the lack of fair-mindendness in the comments on this. Of course we should all accept responsibility for our actions but this isn't what this plaintiff is arguing against. He is saying that the iPhone 4, in not withstanding a perfectly ordinary drop from 3 feet, is not fit for purpose. He is saying that the claims Apple have made about the durability of the glass used are misleading.

Why did Apple mention the hardness etc. of the glass? Because it left an impression to consumers that this was a device less likely to break if dropped, something people have always criticised iPhones for. I smashed the screen of my iPhone 3G in a freak accident (it also dropped just 3 feet onto concrete, I swear it took 30 seconds to fall, at least in my mind ). I continued to use the phone for the rest of its life-cycle as its functionality was not impaired but when I took it to the Apple Store to see what my options were they said my huge, eye-watering, crack down the centre of the screen was 'nothing'. They said they were usually much worse! They dealt with smashed screens daily. I am not a moron as so many have claimed one must be to drop something. I am one of millions of users worldwide who take my iPhone out of my carpeted home each day and expose it to the real world. Accidents happen.

By mentioning the newer, harder glass used in the iPhone 4 Apple implied this was a more durable phone, and it is quite clear that this is not the case. I LOVE my iPhone 4, I am more than prepared to look after it rather than have it made out of some garish plastic, but Apple shouldn't have tried to give the impression this was a tougher phone when it simply is not. As much as I love it, I certainly don't feel it could take the punishment my iPhone 3G could have; absolutely not.

This gentleman is angry that his phone smashed so easily, and I can see why it has upset him. A phone is an everyday use item and as such should be able to withstand reasonable knocks, like a child dropping it. This is not unusual in law. Apple love to sell their products as family-friendly. Passing his iPhone to his young daughter is something right out of a FaceTime commercial; he shouldn't have to feel nervous when he does it.

If I buy a car and the brakes fail if I go over a speed bump below the speed limit, that car isn't fit for purpose. I should slow right down for speed bumps and take extra care, but that's not the point. The point is the car should be able to take reasonable punishment that might very well come its way without catastrophic failure. It's my fault I wasn't cautious, but the car should take it as long as I don't make a habit of it and I am obeying the speed limit.

If this guy had dropped his iPhone off a ski lift and it had smashed, I don't think he'd be suing Apple.

Originally Posted by Gromit

I dropped my iPhone and it I was annoyed, but with myself.

It is glass, it is fragile.

Originally Posted by cmf2

After taking an engineering law course, I think the coffee one was rather legitimate.

It wasn't a guy, it was an old lady traveling with her grandson. The car was parked and the lady tried to add cream to her coffee, but the cup slipped and and spilled on her. Her grandson immediately got out of the car and pulled her out and dropped her sweat pants to prevent any more burning, but by that time she already had 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her legs and crotch area.

McDonald's instructed their franchises to serve coffee at a higher than industry standard temperature knowing that it could cause 3rd degree burns in under 10 seconds, while (going from memory here) a 3 degree drop in temperature (it might of been higher, but it was definitely less than 10 degrees) would increase the required exposure time to about a minute. The reason they served coffee at a higher temperature was to save money on coffee beans. They had basically determined that it was cheaper to pay for the occasional lawsuit than to lower the temperature the coffee was served at. The lady was only suing for her medical bills, but was awarded much more because of the deplorable practices McDonald's was engaged in as a corporation.

There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there, like the iPhone one, but I'd have to say that the McDonald's coffee one wasn't one of them. Had McDonald's served coffee at the industry standard temperature, that lady would not have been burned nearly as severely. McDonald's knew the risks but corporate greed overruled the safety of its customers.

Originally Posted by ltcompuser

Just in case you' re serious.

Dosh is money.

Originally Posted by Targon

LOL you muppets. Apple told us all it's super strong nearly indestructible. It's the same glass used in the windshield of military helicopters.

Either Apple is bullshitting about the type of glass used or their phone design is defective because his type of glass can can withstand impact severity far exceeding anything any consumer is able to expose the phone to.

Originally Posted by Jonamac

I'm amazed at the lack of fair-mindendness in the comments on this. Of course we should all accept responsibility for our actions but this isn't what this plaintiff is arguing against. He is saying that the iPhone 4, in not withstanding a perfectly ordinary drop from 3 feet, is not fit for purpose. He is saying that the claims Apple have made about the durability of the glass used are misleading.

Originally Posted by Targon

LOL you muppets. Apple told us all it's super strong nearly indestructible. It's the same glass used in the windshield of military helicopters.

Originally Posted by Targon

LOL you muppets. Apple told us all it's super strong nearly indestructible. It's the same glass used in the windshield of military helicopters.

Either Apple is bullshitting about the type of glass used or their phone design is defective because his type of glass can can withstand impact severity far exceeding anything any consumer is able to expose the phone to.

Originally Posted by Targon

LOL you muppets. Apple told us all it's super strong nearly indestructible. It's the same glass used in the windshield of military helicopters.

Either Apple is bullshitting about the type of glass used or their phone design is defective because his type of glass can can withstand impact severity far exceeding anything any consumer is able to expose the phone to.

Originally Posted by Swift

Thank you for the restatement of the facts. The "it's crazy!" version, sans facts, was started, I believe, by Rush Limbaugh. It's a question of belief. Facts are not relevant in his case.

In fact, I once spilled McDonald's coffee in my lap, before this case. I found out in an instant that it was very unusually hot. I rapidly stood up and held my pants away from my legs until it cooled, so I avoided the scalding I could feel starting during the first touch of the very hot coffee. It would be quite a different thing if I was a little old lady likely strapped into her seatbelt when the hot stuff hit her thighs and crotch.

Originally Posted by Jcoz

It could be 2x as strong as the glass in the 3GS, but the edges and corners of glass are ALWAYS weak points, not just weak points, but failure points.

The difference would be the coverage of the edges/corners

Originally Posted by Jonamac

I'm amazed at the lack of fair-mindendness in the comments on this... He is saying that the iPhone 4, in not withstanding a perfectly ordinary drop from 3 feet, is not fit for purpose. He is saying that the claims Apple have made about the durability of the glass used are misleading....

Originally Posted by Realistic

She placed the coffee in her crotch first, then proceeded to spill it. Sorry no sympathy for anyone who places any warm or hot liquid in their crotch regardless of the reason.

Originally Posted by cmf2

After taking an engineering law course, I think the coffee one was rather legitimate.

It wasn't a guy, it was an old lady traveling with her grandson. The car was parked and the lady tried to add cream to her coffee, but the cup slipped and and spilled on her. Her grandson immediately got out of the car and pulled her out and dropped her sweat pants to prevent any more burning, but by that time she already had 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her legs and crotch area.

McDonald's instructed their franchises to serve coffee at a higher than industry standard temperature knowing that it could cause 3rd degree burns in under 10 seconds, while (going from memory here) a 3 degree drop in temperature (it might of been higher, but it was definitely less than 10 degrees) would increase the required exposure time to about a minute. The reason they served coffee at a higher temperature was to save money on coffee beans. They had basically determined that it was cheaper to pay for the occasional lawsuit than to lower the temperature the coffee was served at. The lady was only suing for her medical bills, but was awarded much more because of the deplorable practices McDonald's was engaged in as a corporation.

There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there, like the iPhone one, but I'd have to say that the McDonald's coffee one wasn't one of them. Had McDonald's served coffee at the industry standard temperature, that lady would not have been burned nearly as severely. McDonald's knew the risks but corporate greed overruled the safety of its customers.

Originally Posted by Targon

LOL you muppets. Apple told us all it's super strong nearly indestructible. It's the same glass used in the windshield of military helicopters.

Either Apple is bullshitting about the type of glass used or their phone design is defective because his type of glass can can withstand impact severity far exceeding anything any consumer is able to expose the phone to.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In the suit, he claims to have owned an iPhone 3GS that fell from a similar height but did not break. As such, he's calling bologna on the Cupertino-based company's marketing claims that the iPhone 4 glass as "20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Actually, the capuccinos and espressos served in McDonalds (in the newer McDs that serve them) are surprisingly good.

Better than the bitter nonsense you get at Starbucks, as far as my palate is concerned.