There is much more to the case than that and the jury found that that the plantiff was 20% responsible for her injuries, so that was taken off the settlement.
I'm sorry the lady injured herself. However, I would have cited more than just 20% responsibility on her part. She, not McDonalds, put the coffee between her legs to doctor it up? and Hello! What was her lame ass son doing???? He couldn't help out? Probably to busy stuffing his face. And why would a presumably adult of 79 years of age put any cup of any hot liquid between her legs? What, does she also run with scissors or go swimming within 30 minutes after eating?
I was watching a tv program about the Autobahn in Germany and there was a German driver with a puzzled look when asked where were the cup holders in his car. His reply, I'm driving so fast that I need my concentration on driving. The following is my own commentary... American concentration on driving - HA! The American driver's attention is diverted with shaving, putting on make-up, eating, drinking, listening to the radio, talking to passengers, bitching out the kids, pushing away the dog, talking on the cell phone, text messaging, looking at a street map and in some cases, although not Mrs. Liebeck, fixing up your coffee! It makes any one wonder what is the primary function when one gets in a car and turns on the ignition? That nasty word personal responsibility is rearing it's ugly head again.
Thankfully, they are still serving coffee at the same temperatures as they were before so we aren't getting dealt an inferior tasting cup of joe as a result.
Worrying about inferior food? You are still talking about McDonald's, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
Good idea with better cups and lids.
I hate the warning thing. Warnings only work when there are few of them, so it has to be selective - once you get a lot then you don't read them.
I want to see the important warnings! Perhaps someone needs to successfully sue for too many warnings before they'll reduce. It's like Apple's labels on boxes - simple, clear.
ps. I went to the doctors the other day - they had about 30 letter-sized "important notices" above the reception. It took me 10 minutes to read them :-/
It is a bit silly. Warnings are pretty meaningless, most people just don't read them, it's just a way to limit liability. Coffee is supposedly pretty safe at something like 160 F, but a major restaurant association claims that coffee tastes best when served at 190 F, not that I know, I can't stand it at all. The best way is to use cups designed to make sure that the cover actually has a positive closure is really the best thing. Cup lids can be annoying sometimes
I'm sorry the lady injured herself. However, I would have cited more than just 20% responsibility on her part.
There is a level to which a company has to be responsible for the stupidity of their customers. This level is constantly n flux as determined by the courts. Reading more on the case there was a British case that tried to use the 'testing that it takes 12-15 seconds for 180° F liquid to cause 3rd-degree burns and it was thrown out as "unscientific".
PS: This reminds me of the old SNL skits from the 1970s starring...
Toy maker Irwin Mainway (Dan Aykroyd) would appear on this talk show and hopelessly defend his company's extremely dangerous products such as "Bag O' Glass", "Bag O' Vipers", "Bag O' Sulfuric Acid", "Mr. Skin Grafter", "Pretty Peggy's Ear Piercing Kit", "Doggy Dentist", "Chancellor Tron's Secret Police Confession Kit", "Johnny Switchblade Adventure Punk", and "Chainsaw Teddybear". A sketch frequently aired by SNL on their Halloween retrospective special had Mainway defending Halloween costumes such as a military outfit that included an actual working rifle ("very popular in Detroit!"), an entirely black and non-reflective uniform called "Invisible Pedestrian" (which had a warning on the package that read "NOT FOR BLIND KIDS"), an airtight plastic bag that was to be affixed over the head with a rubber band called "Johnny Space Commander Mask," and an oil-soaked costume called "Johnny Human Torch", which came complete with an oversized lighter. Each sketch would end with the host (Jane Curtin) condemning Mainway's products, while Mainway would make pathetic attempts to show how more commonplace toys/clothing were equally harmful.
There is much more to the case than that and the jury found that that the plantiff was 20% responsible for her injuries, so that was taken off the settlement.
This is the first problem I have with this case. If you spill something then frankly how is it McDonalds fault? If you are at home painting the house and trip over the paint can is that your fault or the paint manufactures? In both cases the materials are being supplied in traditional containers, a cup for the coffee and a can for the paint. People should be familiar with both and frankly if you can't handle them maybe you shoulnt be buying them in the first place.
Quote:
The main issue the jury seemed to have in Liebeck v. McDonald's is the lack of adequate labeling on the package, not the temperature.
Even this is a load of crap. Any reasonable person ordering coffee knows that the stuff is served hot. Personally I never liked coffee but grew up around people that did drink it, you weren't considered to be a good host if you didn't serve it HOT. Most of the time that meant coffee hot off the stove after percolating. The vast majority of people in this world expect their coffee to be hot when served so there can be no basis for needing a warning.
Quote:
Liebeck's lawyers stated that it would take least 12 seconds (had to look this fact up) before 3rd-degree burns would occur from 180° F coffee.
I understand that getting burned hurts, I have several years experience in a foundry so I know all about burns. The question is why does the temperature of the coffee even play a role in this case. The socially accepted way to serve coffee is hot, which due to it being water means something less than the boiling point. In other words you are going to get burnt if you spill a fresh cup of coffee on you no matter what.
Quote:
Making better cups and lids. and having larger warnings are how companies are dealing with these lawsuits. Thankfully, they are still serving coffee at the same temperatures as they were before so we aren't getting dealt an inferior tasting cup of joe as a result.
For now anyways! One day a lawyer will make the argument that the product is deffective by design and effectively have it banned. The problem is this nothing in this world is perfect, no mater what one does with a cup and cover people will find ways to burn themselves. We need as a society learn to place blame were it belongs because eventually everything we find enjoyable in life will be banned as unsafe.
Now you may argue that that is a bunch of crap but think hard about everything the consumer products safety arm of government has banned in the last few years. It is certainly a system that has gotten out of control. Out of control at both the state and federal levels.
I use to think the coffee thing was ridiculous, but then I heard the facts in law class. The fact that McDonalds instructed their franchises to heat the coffee 20º hotter than other places so they could save on coffee beans despite knowing that this greatly increased the severity of the burns blows me away. McDonalds was of the attitude that it was cheaper to pay whatever lawsuits that came up than to lower the temperature of the coffee by 20º, a message had to be sent.
If you knowingly put your customers at an increased health risk to slightly bump up your profits, you should pay. This obviously doesn't apply to the apple lawsuits which are a joke.
I use to think the coffee thing was ridiculous, but then I heard the facts in law class. The fact that McDonalds instructed their franchises to heat the coffee 20º hotter than other places so they could save on coffee beans despite knowing that this greatly increased the severity of the burns blows me away. McDonalds was of the attitude that it was cheaper to pay whatever lawsuits that came up than to lower the temperature of the coffee by 20º, a message had to be sent.
If you knowingly put your customers at an increased health risk to slightly bump up your profits, you should pay. This obviously doesn't apply to the apple lawsuits which are a joke.
I don't think that your professor is correct. I'm sure their are 'other' places that serve their coffee less hot, but it's been shown that all the major chains did?and still do?serve coffee at the same basic temperature that McDs. If the case was so absolute you have to ask yourself why the plaintiff was deemed 20% liable. As for the the cost of lawsuits vs. the cost of reducing product quality/doing a recall is common among all companies.
you can thank the lawsuits for Apple to fix your iPhone 3G issues.
Because of these legal lawsuits, this is why Apple for the first time listed the BUG Fixes... normally firmware releases are 'bug fixes' without any other info.
Stop complaining people and thank the people who had the nerves to go up against Apple and get them back on there feet and get you off IPhone 2.0, 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 beta!
2.1 is now much better and I thank the people trying to sue Apple...
One day a lawyer will make the argument that the product is deffective by design and effectively have it banned. The problem is this nothing in this world is perfect, no mater what one does with a cup and cover people will find ways to burn themselves. We need as a society learn to place blame were it belongs because eventually everything we find enjoyable in life will be banned as unsafe.
I remember reading (n the mid 1990s) of an agreement between local councils that all children's play areas would not contain play ground structures that were more than 2 feet off the ground. This was to ensure the kids were safe (and avoid lawsuits).
Way to start someone's life by teaching them they don't need to be careful.
Playgrounds are reasonably safe... when I have kids I want them to have a reasonably safe environment where it's possible that they will occasionally get hurt (as long as the damage is temporary it's fine :-)). They need to (safely) experience the fact that heights are dangerous... so that when they climb a tree or walk near a cliff they know to be careful (from experience, not theory!).
I wondered if someone would eventually sue because the government over-protected their child, who got severely hurt in the real world.
you can thank the lawsuits for Apple to fix your iPhone 3G issues.
Because of these legal lawsuits, this is why Apple for the first time listed the BUG Fixes... normally firmware releases are 'bug fixes' without any other info.
Stop complaining people and thank the people who had the nerves to go up against Apple and get them back on there feet and get you off IPhone 2.0, 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 beta!
2.1 is now much better and I thank the people trying to sue Apple...
Thank you people.
I'm unclear on your point.
Are you saying that the lawsuits have gotten Apple to list many of the specific bug fixes, as oppose to just fix them and release the updated software? If so, that would have no bearing on the quality of the bug fixes and Apple has listed the actual fixes when doing more than minor point release. For example, 2.0.2 to 2.1, as opposed to 2.0.1 to 2.0.2. You can see this at the link below.
Or are you saying that Apple is releasing bug fizes more frequently because of the lawsuits? If so, then you should check out the iPhone version history below to see that Apple is quick to update their software.
I don't think that your professor is correct. I'm sure their are 'other' places that serve their coffee less hot, but it's been shown that all the major chains did—and still do—serve coffee at the same basic temperature that McDs. If the case was so absolute you have to ask yourself why the plaintiff was deemed 20% liable. As for the the cost of lawsuits vs. the cost of reducing product quality/doing a recall is common among all companies.
She was partially liable because she was the one who spilled the coffee, basically due to her age and the slippery nature of styrofoam (the car was parked, and she tried to put cream in the coffee). If you read the link on the first page, you will see that mcdonalds did indeed serve their coffee much hotter than others. A quick google search will also show that.
McDonalds was at fault because they served coffee that was hot enough to soak through sweat pants and create 3rd degree burns (done to the bone) in about 20 seconds whereas it would take coffee from other places over a minute to have the same effect (enough time for an old lady to get her pants off and avoid serious injury).
Edit: McDonalds has since lowered the temperature at which they sell their coffee, based on what I have read anyway. So it would be the same as other chains now.
"When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees."
She was partially liable because she was the one who spilled the coffee, basically due to her age and the slippery nature of styrofoam (the car was parked, and she tried to put cream in the coffee). If you read the link on the first page, you will see that mcdonalds did indeed serve their coffee much hotter than others. A quick google search will also show that.
McDonalds was at fault because they served coffee that was hot enough to soak through sweat pants and create 3rd degree burns (done to the bone) in about 20 seconds whereas it would take coffee from other places over a minute to have the same effect (enough time for an old lady to get her pants off and avoid serious injury).
1) "Others" means nothing. You'll have to back that up with companies and their policies for the temperature of their coffee as I've read very, very different things about the cases over the years.
2) Leibeck's lawyers argued that at 180° it would take 12-15 seconds and at 160° it would take 20 seconds. This was later found by other courts to be poor science.
3) The requirement to be "hot enough to soak through sweat pants" is 'not frozen'.
McDonalds was at fault because they served coffee that was hot enough to ....
So is there now a law that says how hot a coffee has to be to not be at fault if someone spills it? Is it the same maximum temperature for all beverages? Is there a similar law governing the internal temperature of hot pastries (you know when you bite in and they are scorching inside and you have to take a quick drink of water to avoid burning your mouth?).
It would just seem unfair that you can fine a company for a selling something at a temperature without defining that temperature. I wonder if they would be at fault if they'd advertised it as "scorching hot coffee".
ps.
It's like our internet provider (Optus) disconnecting people if they upload "too much", without defining how much is okay. In response to questions they say "we don't give an exact value, just make sure you aren't uploading too much".
Entrapment? Do you even know what this word means? I was not aware that Apple was law enforcement agency or that they were inducing you to commit a crime by purchasing an iPhone.
Let's recap:
1) No signal in Apple Store but you bought it, apparently, without reservation;
2) No signal when you got home but you still chose to keep the phone;
3) No signal and/or dropped calls for the entire return period but you again chose to keep the phone.
Sounds like poor judgement on your part. I would have returned the phone if I were unable to make and receive calls in an acceptable manner. At least you have not yet chosen to sue others for the judgements you made.
... Like I am that dumb... I tried returning twice and both times I was told I can return and get my money back but I am still in a two year contract.... So... Poor
Judgement... Eh... Tsk tsk on you. I had 1st gen iPhone and no
Problems. They admit it was slow so I expected it. I was happy. The new phone I cheked if my area had 3g coverage and at the apple store they said it would. And it does but only 1 bar. So it switches to edge always. I replaced it... Same problem. I tried to return but due to at&ts contract I can't without paying. So... I have been trapped by their contract. Yes enteappment was a bad word. Sheesh you knew what I meant.
it does but only 1 bar. So it switches to edge always
When we got the iPhone, at our office it was on 1 bar and would drop calls. Our problem was that it DIDN'T switch to edge... it worked great when we manually moved it to 2g though. Slow data but we had wifi. What I WANTED was just for the iPhone to see it was on our wifi network and switch to 2G automatically.
With 2.0.2 it showed 3 bars (on 3G) and didn't drop any calls anymore.
2.1 it shows 5 bars and works fine.
(not saying they shouldn't have taken your phone back - I think that if it's dropping calls then you have a case. Hopefully the software fixes will help you out).
The folks on 2.0.X are still screwing up the antennas.
This is why they are pushing so hard to get everyone upgraded.
Apple and AT&T would likely get in trouble but what I think should happen is AT&T should keep the 2.0.X phones from connecting on 3G until they are upgraded. This assumes that the cell site could some how tell what rev the phone is on.
Aaah, another get rich quick attempt. How come I dont see people sewing MSoft for releasing an OS that is incompatible, incomplete and unreliable to the public?
These guys are ridiculous, you don't like it take it back... people will sue over any lazy excuse to cash in. I don't remember seeing anyone suing Motorola for their crappy phones and they were crap.
Yes, that's better, don't do anything, so nothing improves ever...
Or you could just do as normal people do elsewhere in the world : complain without escalading to sueing. So, while you were busy doing either nothing or launching millor dollar lawsuits, we just complained loudly to Orange until they stopped locking the iPhone bandwidth and started working on their 3G network... Actually, they acted very fast, just a couple of week of blog and general Internet buzz was enough to get them moving. At the moment, you can enjoy 1.5 Mbs 3G network on the iPhone in about any major city, in the transports, on the highway or on holydays...
Comments
There is much more to the case than that and the jury found that that the plantiff was 20% responsible for her injuries, so that was taken off the settlement.
I'm sorry the lady injured herself. However, I would have cited more than just 20% responsibility on her part. She, not McDonalds, put the coffee between her legs to doctor it up? and Hello! What was her lame ass son doing???? He couldn't help out? Probably to busy stuffing his face. And why would a presumably adult of 79 years of age put any cup of any hot liquid between her legs? What, does she also run with scissors or go swimming within 30 minutes after eating?
I was watching a tv program about the Autobahn in Germany and there was a German driver with a puzzled look when asked where were the cup holders in his car. His reply, I'm driving so fast that I need my concentration on driving. The following is my own commentary... American concentration on driving - HA! The American driver's attention is diverted with shaving, putting on make-up, eating, drinking, listening to the radio, talking to passengers, bitching out the kids, pushing away the dog, talking on the cell phone, text messaging, looking at a street map and in some cases, although not Mrs. Liebeck, fixing up your coffee! It makes any one wonder what is the primary function when one gets in a car and turns on the ignition? That nasty word personal responsibility is rearing it's ugly head again.
Good idea with better cups and lids. I hate the warning thing.
Yeah, a real bitch if the warning was on the underside of the cup that you had to flip the cup over to read the warning!
Thankfully, they are still serving coffee at the same temperatures as they were before so we aren't getting dealt an inferior tasting cup of joe as a result.
Worrying about inferior food? You are still talking about McDonald's, right?
Good idea with better cups and lids.
I hate the warning thing. Warnings only work when there are few of them, so it has to be selective - once you get a lot then you don't read them.
I want to see the important warnings! Perhaps someone needs to successfully sue for too many warnings before they'll reduce. It's like Apple's labels on boxes - simple, clear.
ps. I went to the doctors the other day - they had about 30 letter-sized "important notices" above the reception. It took me 10 minutes to read them :-/
It is a bit silly. Warnings are pretty meaningless, most people just don't read them, it's just a way to limit liability. Coffee is supposedly pretty safe at something like 160 F, but a major restaurant association claims that coffee tastes best when served at 190 F, not that I know, I can't stand it at all. The best way is to use cups designed to make sure that the cover actually has a positive closure is really the best thing. Cup lids can be annoying sometimes
I'm sorry the lady injured herself. However, I would have cited more than just 20% responsibility on her part.
There is a level to which a company has to be responsible for the stupidity of their customers. This level is constantly n flux as determined by the courts. Reading more on the case there was a British case that tried to use the 'testing that it takes 12-15 seconds for 180° F liquid to cause 3rd-degree burns and it was thrown out as "unscientific".
PS: This reminds me of the old SNL skits from the 1970s starring...
There is much more to the case than that and the jury found that that the plantiff was 20% responsible for her injuries, so that was taken off the settlement.
This is the first problem I have with this case. If you spill something then frankly how is it McDonalds fault? If you are at home painting the house and trip over the paint can is that your fault or the paint manufactures? In both cases the materials are being supplied in traditional containers, a cup for the coffee and a can for the paint. People should be familiar with both and frankly if you can't handle them maybe you shoulnt be buying them in the first place.
The main issue the jury seemed to have in Liebeck v. McDonald's is the lack of adequate labeling on the package, not the temperature.
Even this is a load of crap. Any reasonable person ordering coffee knows that the stuff is served hot. Personally I never liked coffee but grew up around people that did drink it, you weren't considered to be a good host if you didn't serve it HOT. Most of the time that meant coffee hot off the stove after percolating. The vast majority of people in this world expect their coffee to be hot when served so there can be no basis for needing a warning.
Liebeck's lawyers stated that it would take least 12 seconds (had to look this fact up) before 3rd-degree burns would occur from 180° F coffee.
I understand that getting burned hurts, I have several years experience in a foundry so I know all about burns. The question is why does the temperature of the coffee even play a role in this case. The socially accepted way to serve coffee is hot, which due to it being water means something less than the boiling point. In other words you are going to get burnt if you spill a fresh cup of coffee on you no matter what.
Making better cups and lids. and having larger warnings are how companies are dealing with these lawsuits. Thankfully, they are still serving coffee at the same temperatures as they were before so we aren't getting dealt an inferior tasting cup of joe as a result.
For now anyways! One day a lawyer will make the argument that the product is deffective by design and effectively have it banned. The problem is this nothing in this world is perfect, no mater what one does with a cup and cover people will find ways to burn themselves. We need as a society learn to place blame were it belongs because eventually everything we find enjoyable in life will be banned as unsafe.
Now you may argue that that is a bunch of crap but think hard about everything the consumer products safety arm of government has banned in the last few years. It is certainly a system that has gotten out of control. Out of control at both the state and federal levels.
Dave
If you knowingly put your customers at an increased health risk to slightly bump up your profits, you should pay. This obviously doesn't apply to the apple lawsuits which are a joke.
I use to think the coffee thing was ridiculous, but then I heard the facts in law class. The fact that McDonalds instructed their franchises to heat the coffee 20º hotter than other places so they could save on coffee beans despite knowing that this greatly increased the severity of the burns blows me away. McDonalds was of the attitude that it was cheaper to pay whatever lawsuits that came up than to lower the temperature of the coffee by 20º, a message had to be sent.
If you knowingly put your customers at an increased health risk to slightly bump up your profits, you should pay. This obviously doesn't apply to the apple lawsuits which are a joke.
I don't think that your professor is correct. I'm sure their are 'other' places that serve their coffee less hot, but it's been shown that all the major chains did?and still do?serve coffee at the same basic temperature that McDs. If the case was so absolute you have to ask yourself why the plaintiff was deemed 20% liable. As for the the cost of lawsuits vs. the cost of reducing product quality/doing a recall is common among all companies.
Because of these legal lawsuits, this is why Apple for the first time listed the BUG Fixes... normally firmware releases are 'bug fixes' without any other info.
Stop complaining people and thank the people who had the nerves to go up against Apple and get them back on there feet and get you off IPhone 2.0, 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 beta!
2.1 is now much better and I thank the people trying to sue Apple...
Thank you people.
One day a lawyer will make the argument that the product is deffective by design and effectively have it banned. The problem is this nothing in this world is perfect, no mater what one does with a cup and cover people will find ways to burn themselves. We need as a society learn to place blame were it belongs because eventually everything we find enjoyable in life will be banned as unsafe.
I remember reading (n the mid 1990s) of an agreement between local councils that all children's play areas would not contain play ground structures that were more than 2 feet off the ground. This was to ensure the kids were safe (and avoid lawsuits).
Way to start someone's life by teaching them they don't need to be careful.
Playgrounds are reasonably safe... when I have kids I want them to have a reasonably safe environment where it's possible that they will occasionally get hurt (as long as the damage is temporary it's fine :-)). They need to (safely) experience the fact that heights are dangerous... so that when they climb a tree or walk near a cliff they know to be careful (from experience, not theory!).
I wondered if someone would eventually sue because the government over-protected their child, who got severely hurt in the real world.
you can thank the lawsuits for Apple to fix your iPhone 3G issues.
Because of these legal lawsuits, this is why Apple for the first time listed the BUG Fixes... normally firmware releases are 'bug fixes' without any other info.
Stop complaining people and thank the people who had the nerves to go up against Apple and get them back on there feet and get you off IPhone 2.0, 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 beta!
2.1 is now much better and I thank the people trying to sue Apple...
Thank you people.
I'm unclear on your point.
Are you saying that the lawsuits have gotten Apple to list many of the specific bug fixes, as oppose to just fix them and release the updated software? If so, that would have no bearing on the quality of the bug fixes and Apple has listed the actual fixes when doing more than minor point release. For example, 2.0.2 to 2.1, as opposed to 2.0.1 to 2.0.2. You can see this at the link below.
Or are you saying that Apple is releasing bug fizes more frequently because of the lawsuits? If so, then you should check out the iPhone version history below to see that Apple is quick to update their software.
I don't think that your professor is correct. I'm sure their are 'other' places that serve their coffee less hot, but it's been shown that all the major chains did—and still do—serve coffee at the same basic temperature that McDs. If the case was so absolute you have to ask yourself why the plaintiff was deemed 20% liable. As for the the cost of lawsuits vs. the cost of reducing product quality/doing a recall is common among all companies.
She was partially liable because she was the one who spilled the coffee, basically due to her age and the slippery nature of styrofoam (the car was parked, and she tried to put cream in the coffee). If you read the link on the first page, you will see that mcdonalds did indeed serve their coffee much hotter than others. A quick google search will also show that.
McDonalds was at fault because they served coffee that was hot enough to soak through sweat pants and create 3rd degree burns (done to the bone) in about 20 seconds whereas it would take coffee from other places over a minute to have the same effect (enough time for an old lady to get her pants off and avoid serious injury).
Edit: McDonalds has since lowered the temperature at which they sell their coffee, based on what I have read anyway. So it would be the same as other chains now.
Edit #2: http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
"When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees."
She was partially liable because she was the one who spilled the coffee, basically due to her age and the slippery nature of styrofoam (the car was parked, and she tried to put cream in the coffee). If you read the link on the first page, you will see that mcdonalds did indeed serve their coffee much hotter than others. A quick google search will also show that.
McDonalds was at fault because they served coffee that was hot enough to soak through sweat pants and create 3rd degree burns (done to the bone) in about 20 seconds whereas it would take coffee from other places over a minute to have the same effect (enough time for an old lady to get her pants off and avoid serious injury).
1) "Others" means nothing. You'll have to back that up with companies and their policies for the temperature of their coffee as I've read very, very different things about the cases over the years.
2) Leibeck's lawyers argued that at 180° it would take 12-15 seconds and at 160° it would take 20 seconds. This was later found by other courts to be poor science.
3) The requirement to be "hot enough to soak through sweat pants" is 'not frozen'.
McDonalds was at fault because they served coffee that was hot enough to ....
So is there now a law that says how hot a coffee has to be to not be at fault if someone spills it? Is it the same maximum temperature for all beverages? Is there a similar law governing the internal temperature of hot pastries (you know when you bite in and they are scorching inside and you have to take a quick drink of water to avoid burning your mouth?).
It would just seem unfair that you can fine a company for a selling something at a temperature without defining that temperature. I wonder if they would be at fault if they'd advertised it as "scorching hot coffee".
ps.
It's like our internet provider (Optus) disconnecting people if they upload "too much", without defining how much is okay. In response to questions they say "we don't give an exact value, just make sure you aren't uploading too much".
Entrapment? Do you even know what this word means? I was not aware that Apple was law enforcement agency or that they were inducing you to commit a crime by purchasing an iPhone.
Let's recap:
1) No signal in Apple Store but you bought it, apparently, without reservation;
2) No signal when you got home but you still chose to keep the phone;
3) No signal and/or dropped calls for the entire return period but you again chose to keep the phone.
Sounds like poor judgement on your part. I would have returned the phone if I were unable to make and receive calls in an acceptable manner. At least you have not yet chosen to sue others for the judgements you made.
... Like I am that dumb... I tried returning twice and both times I was told I can return and get my money back but I am still in a two year contract.... So... Poor
Judgement... Eh... Tsk tsk on you. I had 1st gen iPhone and no
Problems. They admit it was slow so I expected it. I was happy. The new phone I cheked if my area had 3g coverage and at the apple store they said it would. And it does but only 1 bar. So it switches to edge always. I replaced it... Same problem. I tried to return but due to at&ts contract I can't without paying. So... I have been trapped by their contract. Yes enteappment was a bad word. Sheesh you knew what I meant.
deleted
it does but only 1 bar. So it switches to edge always
When we got the iPhone, at our office it was on 1 bar and would drop calls. Our problem was that it DIDN'T switch to edge... it worked great when we manually moved it to 2g though. Slow data but we had wifi. What I WANTED was just for the iPhone to see it was on our wifi network and switch to 2G automatically.
With 2.0.2 it showed 3 bars (on 3G) and didn't drop any calls anymore.
2.1 it shows 5 bars and works fine.
(not saying they shouldn't have taken your phone back - I think that if it's dropping calls then you have a case. Hopefully the software fixes will help you out).
The problem is that not everyone is on 2.1.
The folks on 2.0.X are still screwing up the antennas.
This is why they are pushing so hard to get everyone upgraded.
Apple and AT&T would likely get in trouble but what I think should happen is AT&T should keep the 2.0.X phones from connecting on 3G until they are upgraded. This assumes that the cell site could some how tell what rev the phone is on.
These guys are ridiculous, you don't like it take it back... people will sue over any lazy excuse to cash in. I don't remember seeing anyone suing Motorola for their crappy phones and they were crap.
Yes, that's better, don't do anything, so nothing improves ever...
Or you could just do as normal people do elsewhere in the world : complain without escalading to sueing. So, while you were busy doing either nothing or launching millor dollar lawsuits, we just complained loudly to Orange until they stopped locking the iPhone bandwidth and started working on their 3G network... Actually, they acted very fast, just a couple of week of blog and general Internet buzz was enough to get them moving. At the moment, you can enjoy 1.5 Mbs 3G network on the iPhone in about any major city, in the transports, on the highway or on holydays...
The vitriol in here about the McD's case/frivolous lawsuits, the general pissiness and bickering it causes, is why I chose not to go to law school.
The old lady's burned crotch is why I drink iced coffee.