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.