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

13468916

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 302
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 102 of 302
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post


    Just in case you' re serious.



    Dosh is money.



    I figured using the context, its just I've heard seemingly 1000 phases for money, never heard that one...was just effing around mostly.
  • Reply 103 of 302
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Targon View Post


    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.



    What may be an issue is the failure to protect the edges. It could be exactly the same glass as helicopters, but how likely is that glass' edge going to hit pavement?



    Not bloody likely.
  • Reply 104 of 302
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post


    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.



    I'll agree with you when you show me where Apple has stated that the iPhone would survive a drop from 3 feet.



    Yes, Apple made marketing claims which you (and this person suing) interpreted to mean something which they do not. They are technical claims that I bet can be backed up both scientifically (in the hardness case) and verifying the type of glass used (in the helicopter glass claim).



    I don't see this suit going very far.
  • Reply 105 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Targon View Post


    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.



    And as has been said, if I drop a helicopter, the windshield will shatter. Silence this foolishness.
  • Reply 106 of 302
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Targon View Post


    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.



    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
  • Reply 107 of 302
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Targon View Post


    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.



    Please show me where Apple said that the glass is "super strong nearly indestructible".



    Quote:

    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.



    Can you back up your claim? Please provide your credentials demonstrating your expertise on this subject matter.
  • Reply 108 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    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.



    Commercial drip coffee brewers have a water temp of between 205-210 degrees F pre brew chamber and 190-195 degrees F post brew, this temperature has been proven historically to provide the best tasting brew. If you happen to get a cup that has been poured from a just brewed pot then 190 or so is what the temp will be. McDonald's doesn't tell the franchisee how hot to hold coffee at, the local board of health does and the rules vary by location. Of the locations/standards I have seen it appears that somewhere between 130-140 is the desired temp. This is for sanitation/safety purposes BTW. Note that new water heaters caution you about setting water temps above 120 to protect from scalding....this is how lawsuits happen.
  • Reply 109 of 302
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    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



    The difference between a phone surviving or not is most likely related to the impact area and the angle of impact. Most phones probably survive and she was just not one of the lucky ones.
  • Reply 110 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post


    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....



    Where the F--- do you get off being all logical and reasonable???

    Take your fair-mindedness over to MacRumors. This is AppleInsider; when Apple is slighted, you circle the wagons and blast away.



    Get with the program!
  • Reply 111 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


    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.



    I disagree. They were serving scalding hot coffee, there's no reason for it but to save a few bucks. Liquids as hot as they were selling are dangerous. They're like little thermal grenades with a cheap plastic lid.
  • Reply 112 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    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.



    There is no way in physics that a liquid heated to even 10 degrees above standard serving temperature for coffee could cause third degree burns! Third degree burns involve deep tissue destruction and charring, usually requiring skin grafts! Please recheck your sources on that because those temperatures do not make sense, nor the claim of causing third degree burns.
  • Reply 113 of 302
    Consumer Reports will have its revenge!!!
  • Reply 114 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Targon View Post


    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.



    It never occurred to you that while it is the same glass treatment used to create the iPhone, the glass used for these other purposes is much thicker now did it? You just blindly assumed that the windows designed to take direct impacts were the same 1mm thick glass on the iPhone now didn't you. Logic fail. Funny how I have had numerous phones of all different constructions that have cracked, broken, shattered and ceased to function when dropped from the usual height, but not once did I assume that I had to sue someone because I was clumsy at the moment. What a tool I've been!! I could be rolling in dough right now from Nokia, Samsung and RIM!!!!!





    By the way I toss my iPhone across the room onto a table or shelf a couple of times a day and haven't broken it yet. Maybe just maybe the plaintiff neglected to mention that he STOMPED on it several times before the stupid thing shattered. I don't really care - it may well have been a simple uncased drop. That is immaterial. But you need some serious logic refreshers to regain some sensibility in your postings.
  • Reply 115 of 302
    There is an applicable statute of limitations for this variety of glass action litigation. Where, as here, the case comes only subsequent in time to Plaintiff's alleged dropping of the iPhone4, it is very obviously tardy. Suit dismissed.
  • Reply 116 of 302
    Another customer trying to get a free Iphone. No smartphone is breakproof. If he bought the phone for a child perhaps a better case would have helped.
  • Reply 117 of 302
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Glass action? That's funny!
  • Reply 118 of 302
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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."



    This is another thing that bothers me. It's like he basically admits that he is not careful with his gear.



    I've had cell phones since the nineties and I have only dropped a phone once. I guess I am one of those funny people who takes care with my stuff.
  • Reply 119 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    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.



    What a way to save your own hide. Proclaim Starbucks is inferior based upon sound observations of your own opinion.
  • Reply 120 of 302
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jingo View Post


    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.



    That was a little different... some food services industries have long used super-hot water for their coffee because it allows them to use less coffee. There is no reason to give someone water that is next to boiling...
Sign In or Register to comment.