1. Don't tornados only occur at (a) near barns AND (b) near trailer parks? That's what local and international media has clearly demonstrated. They never show overturned SUVs and wrecked Starbucks cafes ...And the trailer parks always got to have those weird wind-chime-sculpture-things. Presumably to warn them of tornadoes. Or maybe I'm thinking of that movie "Twister" with that deligthful Helen Hunt.
2. As for the iMac vertical line, yeah, the 17" white iMac got pwned pretty badly by that defect.
As compensation, going forward, Apple should provide one pair of fireproof undergarment for each iPod and iPhone sold.
All said and done I sympathise with the "explodee" and their suffering, if it has occurred. Pity I don't have faith in the insurance or legal system to investigate and compensate adequately, if necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
You have never done insurance claims, have you? This lawsuit doesn't have fraud written all over it, unless it is proven that the iPod is either not defective, or did not explode. Even if it is not proven, it is not fraud. Fraud is the willful intent to deceive someone. The plaintiff is simply making a claim for damages. I will review your points:
1) Not everything is a class action lawsuit, most are not. Class action only applies if a claim affects a large number of people, and the court approves the declaration of a class action. If this is the only iPod that exploded, then it won't qualify as a class action. It needs to be a large number of people
2) It charges all kinds of people because there are many different vendors involved in the making of an iPod. In a products liability case, you would want your attorney to file suit against all of them since it is not yet known what caused the iPod to explode. If you leave out one company, you have no claim against them. Apple designed the iPod, they didn't build them.
3) All lawsuits are short on detail. They are vague on purpose since it is not yet proven what caused the failure.
4) The attorney does know what the product is. Most items in a lawsuit are later abbreviated. The beginning of the suit most likely references the iPod Touch, and then says to be known later in the suit as iTouch.
You won't find any details regarding this case because most lawsuits are private. Not everything is disclosed to the public. It doesn't matter what pocket it was in, nor does it matter if it was on or off. If it is defective, it could still overheat. Who the hell wears nylon underwear??? You won't find pictures unless you happen to be on the jury. You are correct. A company is not liable unless a defect is found, and that is the reason for the suit. It will be proven in court if the iPod was in fact defective, or a component of the iPod was defective.
It will be proven in court if the iPod was in fact defective, or a component of the iPod was defective.
This is the only part I don't agree with. It SHOULD be proven in a court, but this one will get settled. Cases like this are horrendously expensive to litigate and it's far cheaper to settle - even if you never did anything wrong. Apple will buy the kid a new pair of pants and nylon underear and the mother a new SUV and it will all go away.
This is the only part I don't agree with. It SHOULD be proven in a court, but this one will get settled. Cases like this are horrendously expensive to litigate and it's far cheaper to settle - even if you never did anything wrong. Apple will buy the kid a new pair of pants and nylon underear and the mother a new SUV and it will all go away.
It will be settled if during the investigation it was determined that there was a defect. You would never go to a trial if you knew there was a defect and failed to settle when you had an opportunity. If Apple feels they have a strong case and there is no evidence of a failure, they will have reason to go to trial if the plaintiff continues to pursue the claim. A defective iPod claim would not be that expensive. You don't need many experts for that. Apple can recover costs if they win such a trial. The mother will receive nothing in this case. She is not the injured party. The settlement is for the minor, and it will be approved by the court in a Minor's Compromise. The minor would receive the settlement after he turns 18. The parents receive nothing. The claim will have minimal value because 2nd degree burns don't leave scars. 3rd degree burns do.
The judge should throw the case out and tell them to come back when they can get the product name right.
I think it's pretty douchey to be more concerned about the product name than whether or not the claims are true, as if legalism is more important than anything else.
In an unusual turn for such suits against Apple, the plaintiff is not only looking for a specific amount in advance of any trial, at least $75,000, but isn't seeking class action status to represent all iPod touch owners.
Unusual?!? Who writes these stories? If my pants caught fire and I had severe burns, I'd want my damages paid for, not some coupon off my next Apple purchase.
As compensation, going forward, Apple should provide one pair of fireproof undergarment for each iPod and iPhone sold.
All said and done I sympathise with the "explodee" and their suffering, if it has occurred. Pity I don't have faith in the insurance or legal system to investigate and compensate adequately, if necessary.
My PowerBook G4 from 2002 gets pretty hot on my lap. I would enjoy wearing fireproof pants in order to keep it on my lap! That is funny!
I worked in claims for 15 years, insurance companies do investigate and compensate adequately (although some don't when they should). They also defend their insureds when a questionable claim is presented. Scar claims have a high value and I had no problem paying fair compensation for scar claims, which were typically caused by major car accidents (lacerations) or dog bites/maulings. Other iPods have overheated, so it is possible. However, a 2nd degree burn generally heals without scarring.
Unusual?!? Who writes these stories? If my pants caught fire and I had severe burns, I'd want my damages paid for, not some coupon off my next Apple purchase.
It is unusual because most recent lawsuits have been class-action. That was the point of the comment. This one is not because the majority of iPod Touch models have not overheated causing a fire/explosion. Also, most lawsuits don't specify a demand for damages, they typically seek an unspecified amount to be proven in trial. Apple surely has policy limits higher than $75,000. It is also unknown as to how long this claim has been going on, or if the first notice of the claim was by the filing of a lawsuit, which does happen at times. Since a dollar amount was specified, this claim may have been going on for awhile with negotiations taking place but unsuccessful in settlement. The iPod may have overheated and exploded, and offers may have been extended, but I am guessing the 2nd degree burn did not cause any scarring, so the general damages (pain and suffering) is minimal at best, especially trying to claim emotional distress from a healed injury.
I think it's pretty douchey to be more concerned about the product name than whether or not the claims are true, as if legalism is more important than anything else.
I don't think he was being more concerned with the name than the potential for this to be a legitimate case, but the name does need to be corrected before this case can move on. In colloquial speak iTouch is fine. We use iDevice often on this forum to refer to the entire iPod and iPhone families, but it shouldn't be used in legalese.
Well, I'm on my fourth iPhone 3G for various failures, although Apple was kind enough to keep dishing me new ones through warranty. However, I have an iPod Video, 60GB that takes a beating on worksites of various dirt, drops and hits. Keeps on ticking. I had a blue and white G3, that I believe is still in operation to this day. I think they are making products in much higher quantity these days, and the failure rate would go up, even if the percentage didn't change. So if one in 10,000 fail, when you start making millions, it looks like the build quality decreased because there are more on the market to fail.
Still, though, Apple is not a stranger to battery fires, or shitty construction. I personally know of four iBook G4's, 14 inch, which the mainboard crapped out. And the replacement parts didn't last long either. For me, in NY, in my area, that seems like an awful lot of failures. Then again, maybe we just got them all here. But to say complete utter BS because someone thinks the build quality has decreased, is a bit harsh.
My brother had a 5G iPod in which the battery fried the screen while recharging (burned through, leaving a hole and serious scorch marks). The guy at the Apple Store Genius Bar knew right away what the problem was. The iPod was out of warranty, so we replaced the screen and battery; no problems since. He's an adult and the iPod was never abused. If the parts had been more combustible, there easily could have been a fire.
Apple's marketing the device to kids. Apple should pay up and figure out why it happened so it can warn owners and design it out of future iterations or stop sourcing from that manufacturer. They should appreciate the kid for being an effective product tester.
You post sounds fishy to be honest.
Apple do not replace Batteries and Screens on iPod, that costs to much in effort, they simply replace the whole iPod.
What a complete crock! I personally know dozens of owners of iMacs from the period that is alledgedly such a problem that "nearly all owners" have this so-called display problem. I've never seen it or even heard of anyone who has seen it. Can you spell "overblown to the point of insanity?"
The exploding iPod incident is toor ridiculous for words.
1. My second generation iPod Touch hasn't exploded, but it was defective. Folks, Apple isn't perfect about quality control.
2. I spent approximately nine years trying to convince my parents to consider a Mac, I would often bring and show my Powerbook and later my MacBook to push them. The Intel switch got to them and a little more than two years ago I was finally successful. They bought an iMac. There's something wrong with the late 2006 iMacs. (despite alansky's "if I haven't heard it, it doesn't exist" thinking above)
Their 20" late 2006 iMac has been dead since August ('08).
Now I'm in a new argument, trying to push the goodness of what they did see in the Mac against my uncle's pro Windows 7 stuff, while at the same time, admittedly questioning why I would spend so much time pushing Apple. There's no way on Earth my folks are going to fork over $899.00 for a product defect that I've read about in dozens of threads on Mac forums across the planet including Apple's own support forums and now here. And I don't blame them. I blame Apple.
So it's the cheap HP or Dell, or the flexibility of building one's own box versus the expense of an iMac. The expense of an iMac where the failure of one part ends the machine. Not a big deal with HP or Dell, and if you build your own box, it's the cost of the part.
Leopard is wonderful, but to deny the improvements in Windows 7... it's tough all around.
$899.00 to repair a machine that cost roughly $2,000.00 with upgrades they desired.
A machine I told them would last for years.
A machine that was treated better than I was as a baby.
But, if they hurt my child, both of which, and their spouses have Apple's, hurt them, or my grandchild?
By no fault of their own?
Apple will Pay!
Why?
Because, IT's the LAW!
Like it or not.
It's not demorcrank, or repulicank.
It's the law of tort.
You stupid f'n fan boys!
I am far from being a fanboy.
A. I own a pc I built myself, because I like the rewards and convenience building your own computer brings.
B. I dual-boot between Windows vista and Ubuntu
C. I supported the lawsuit filed over the sony batteries that were being used in Acer and Apple laptops.
D. I think Apple's hardware, while overall very good and very user friendly is still overpriced.
Lastly I was speaking out against the mentality that seems to exist where people want to blame the corporation first. Yes, by all means, lets hear the complete case and see where it goes. I have my doubts and thats what I was saying.
If this where a case such as the one with Sony batteries then yes, Apple should refund or replace any damaged products.
From what I heard on a local tech show in Houston, the kid had the ipod in his pocket sitting down in class, and he very well could have been sitting on it or putting some kind of external strain on it. Kids are notorious for not taking care of their electronics, especially American kids.
As it stands, there have been no other reported cases of this happening, and if other instances crop up, then I would start to doubt the stability of the product in question, otherwise it just seems like an isolated incident and not some malicious attempt by apple to hurt anyone or their kid.
It will be settled if during the investigation it was determined that there was a defect. You would never go to a trial if you knew there was a defect and failed to settle when you had an opportunity. If Apple feels they have a strong case and there is no evidence of a failure, they will have reason to go to trial if the plaintiff continues to pursue the claim.
Unfortunately, our system doesn't work that way. I've been in positions of responsibility for enough companies to know how it works. You ask the attorney, "How much is this likely to cost if we fight it?" You then make a settlement offer for something less than that amount. It happens all the time - which is why you get so many leeches filing scam suits.
If we went to a 'loser pays' system, the number of ridiculous lawsuits would plummet because there would be less incentive for companies to settle bogus suits.
People are so pathetic. I bet she is overweight and barely has a high school education.
I bet you are such a poor excuse for human being.
Regarding all this dare-not-touch-all-mighty-Apple crap this tread is oozing with... makes me wonder, if AppleInsider came up with story about Microsoft Zune or Creative Zen exploding in someone's pocket... what kind of response would that produce..? Anything comparable to this tread? I bet not.
Some of you people have completely lost your compass; it seems even those Scientology Masters could learn much from Apple... sad, sad, sad.
Comments
2. As for the iMac vertical line, yeah, the 17" white iMac got pwned pretty badly by that defect.
All said and done I sympathise with the "explodee" and their suffering, if it has occurred. Pity I don't have faith in the insurance or legal system to investigate and compensate adequately, if necessary.
You have never done insurance claims, have you? This lawsuit doesn't have fraud written all over it, unless it is proven that the iPod is either not defective, or did not explode. Even if it is not proven, it is not fraud. Fraud is the willful intent to deceive someone. The plaintiff is simply making a claim for damages. I will review your points:
1) Not everything is a class action lawsuit, most are not. Class action only applies if a claim affects a large number of people, and the court approves the declaration of a class action. If this is the only iPod that exploded, then it won't qualify as a class action. It needs to be a large number of people
2) It charges all kinds of people because there are many different vendors involved in the making of an iPod. In a products liability case, you would want your attorney to file suit against all of them since it is not yet known what caused the iPod to explode. If you leave out one company, you have no claim against them. Apple designed the iPod, they didn't build them.
3) All lawsuits are short on detail. They are vague on purpose since it is not yet proven what caused the failure.
4) The attorney does know what the product is. Most items in a lawsuit are later abbreviated. The beginning of the suit most likely references the iPod Touch, and then says to be known later in the suit as iTouch.
You won't find any details regarding this case because most lawsuits are private. Not everything is disclosed to the public. It doesn't matter what pocket it was in, nor does it matter if it was on or off. If it is defective, it could still overheat. Who the hell wears nylon underwear??? You won't find pictures unless you happen to be on the jury. You are correct. A company is not liable unless a defect is found, and that is the reason for the suit. It will be proven in court if the iPod was in fact defective, or a component of the iPod was defective.
It will be proven in court if the iPod was in fact defective, or a component of the iPod was defective.
This is the only part I don't agree with. It SHOULD be proven in a court, but this one will get settled. Cases like this are horrendously expensive to litigate and it's far cheaper to settle - even if you never did anything wrong. Apple will buy the kid a new pair of pants and nylon underear and the mother a new SUV and it will all go away.
This is the only part I don't agree with. It SHOULD be proven in a court, but this one will get settled. Cases like this are horrendously expensive to litigate and it's far cheaper to settle - even if you never did anything wrong. Apple will buy the kid a new pair of pants and nylon underear and the mother a new SUV and it will all go away.
It will be settled if during the investigation it was determined that there was a defect. You would never go to a trial if you knew there was a defect and failed to settle when you had an opportunity. If Apple feels they have a strong case and there is no evidence of a failure, they will have reason to go to trial if the plaintiff continues to pursue the claim. A defective iPod claim would not be that expensive. You don't need many experts for that. Apple can recover costs if they win such a trial. The mother will receive nothing in this case. She is not the injured party. The settlement is for the minor, and it will be approved by the court in a Minor's Compromise. The minor would receive the settlement after he turns 18. The parents receive nothing. The claim will have minimal value because 2nd degree burns don't leave scars. 3rd degree burns do.
The judge should throw the case out and tell them to come back when they can get the product name right.
I think it's pretty douchey to be more concerned about the product name than whether or not the claims are true, as if legalism is more important than anything else.
In an unusual turn for such suits against Apple, the plaintiff is not only looking for a specific amount in advance of any trial, at least $75,000, but isn't seeking class action status to represent all iPod touch owners.
Unusual?!? Who writes these stories? If my pants caught fire and I had severe burns, I'd want my damages paid for, not some coupon off my next Apple purchase.
As compensation, going forward, Apple should provide one pair of fireproof undergarment for each iPod and iPhone sold.
All said and done I sympathise with the "explodee" and their suffering, if it has occurred. Pity I don't have faith in the insurance or legal system to investigate and compensate adequately, if necessary.
My PowerBook G4 from 2002 gets pretty hot on my lap. I would enjoy wearing fireproof pants in order to keep it on my lap! That is funny!
I worked in claims for 15 years, insurance companies do investigate and compensate adequately (although some don't when they should). They also defend their insureds when a questionable claim is presented. Scar claims have a high value and I had no problem paying fair compensation for scar claims, which were typically caused by major car accidents (lacerations) or dog bites/maulings. Other iPods have overheated, so it is possible. However, a 2nd degree burn generally heals without scarring.
Unusual?!? Who writes these stories? If my pants caught fire and I had severe burns, I'd want my damages paid for, not some coupon off my next Apple purchase.
It is unusual because most recent lawsuits have been class-action. That was the point of the comment. This one is not because the majority of iPod Touch models have not overheated causing a fire/explosion. Also, most lawsuits don't specify a demand for damages, they typically seek an unspecified amount to be proven in trial. Apple surely has policy limits higher than $75,000. It is also unknown as to how long this claim has been going on, or if the first notice of the claim was by the filing of a lawsuit, which does happen at times. Since a dollar amount was specified, this claim may have been going on for awhile with negotiations taking place but unsuccessful in settlement. The iPod may have overheated and exploded, and offers may have been extended, but I am guessing the 2nd degree burn did not cause any scarring, so the general damages (pain and suffering) is minimal at best, especially trying to claim emotional distress from a healed injury.
I think it's pretty douchey to be more concerned about the product name than whether or not the claims are true, as if legalism is more important than anything else.
I don't think he was being more concerned with the name than the potential for this to be a legitimate case, but the name does need to be corrected before this case can move on. In colloquial speak iTouch is fine. We use iDevice often on this forum to refer to the entire iPod and iPhone families, but it shouldn't be used in legalese.
Complete, utter, bullsh!t troll.
There are kinder ways to say ^^^^^
Well, I'm on my fourth iPhone 3G for various failures, although Apple was kind enough to keep dishing me new ones through warranty. However, I have an iPod Video, 60GB that takes a beating on worksites of various dirt, drops and hits. Keeps on ticking. I had a blue and white G3, that I believe is still in operation to this day. I think they are making products in much higher quantity these days, and the failure rate would go up, even if the percentage didn't change. So if one in 10,000 fail, when you start making millions, it looks like the build quality decreased because there are more on the market to fail.
Still, though, Apple is not a stranger to battery fires, or shitty construction. I personally know of four iBook G4's, 14 inch, which the mainboard crapped out. And the replacement parts didn't last long either. For me, in NY, in my area, that seems like an awful lot of failures. Then again, maybe we just got them all here. But to say complete utter BS because someone thinks the build quality has decreased, is a bit harsh.
My brother had a 5G iPod in which the battery fried the screen while recharging (burned through, leaving a hole and serious scorch marks). The guy at the Apple Store Genius Bar knew right away what the problem was. The iPod was out of warranty, so we replaced the screen and battery; no problems since. He's an adult and the iPod was never abused. If the parts had been more combustible, there easily could have been a fire.
Apple's marketing the device to kids. Apple should pay up and figure out why it happened so it can warn owners and design it out of future iterations or stop sourcing from that manufacturer. They should appreciate the kid for being an effective product tester.
You post sounds fishy to be honest.
Apple do not replace Batteries and Screens on iPod, that costs to much in effort, they simply replace the whole iPod.
The exploding iPod incident is toor ridiculous for words.
2. I spent approximately nine years trying to convince my parents to consider a Mac, I would often bring and show my Powerbook and later my MacBook to push them. The Intel switch got to them and a little more than two years ago I was finally successful. They bought an iMac. There's something wrong with the late 2006 iMacs. (despite alansky's "if I haven't heard it, it doesn't exist" thinking above)
Their 20" late 2006 iMac has been dead since August ('08).
Now I'm in a new argument, trying to push the goodness of what they did see in the Mac against my uncle's pro Windows 7 stuff, while at the same time, admittedly questioning why I would spend so much time pushing Apple. There's no way on Earth my folks are going to fork over $899.00 for a product defect that I've read about in dozens of threads on Mac forums across the planet including Apple's own support forums and now here. And I don't blame them. I blame Apple.
So it's the cheap HP or Dell, or the flexibility of building one's own box versus the expense of an iMac. The expense of an iMac where the failure of one part ends the machine. Not a big deal with HP or Dell, and if you build your own box, it's the cost of the part.
Leopard is wonderful, but to deny the improvements in Windows 7... it's tough all around.
$899.00 to repair a machine that cost roughly $2,000.00 with upgrades they desired.
A machine I told them would last for years.
A machine that was treated better than I was as a baby.
I'm happy Apple is being sued.
I expect better from Apple.
So, Momma filed suit.
She's gonna hafto prove her case, for her child.
God bless her.
I'm an Apple fan.
But, if they hurt my child, both of which, and their spouses have Apple's, hurt them, or my grandchild?
By no fault of their own?
Apple will Pay!
Why?
Because, IT's the LAW!
Like it or not.
It's not demorcrank, or repulicank.
It's the law of tort.
You stupid f'n fan boys!
I am far from being a fanboy.
A. I own a pc I built myself, because I like the rewards and convenience building your own computer brings.
B. I dual-boot between Windows vista and Ubuntu
C. I supported the lawsuit filed over the sony batteries that were being used in Acer and Apple laptops.
D. I think Apple's hardware, while overall very good and very user friendly is still overpriced.
Lastly I was speaking out against the mentality that seems to exist where people want to blame the corporation first. Yes, by all means, lets hear the complete case and see where it goes. I have my doubts and thats what I was saying.
If this where a case such as the one with Sony batteries then yes, Apple should refund or replace any damaged products.
From what I heard on a local tech show in Houston, the kid had the ipod in his pocket sitting down in class, and he very well could have been sitting on it or putting some kind of external strain on it. Kids are notorious for not taking care of their electronics, especially American kids.
As it stands, there have been no other reported cases of this happening, and if other instances crop up, then I would start to doubt the stability of the product in question, otherwise it just seems like an isolated incident and not some malicious attempt by apple to hurt anyone or their kid.
Thats all.
--Eric
I'm just sayin'.
It will be settled if during the investigation it was determined that there was a defect. You would never go to a trial if you knew there was a defect and failed to settle when you had an opportunity. If Apple feels they have a strong case and there is no evidence of a failure, they will have reason to go to trial if the plaintiff continues to pursue the claim.
Unfortunately, our system doesn't work that way. I've been in positions of responsibility for enough companies to know how it works. You ask the attorney, "How much is this likely to cost if we fight it?" You then make a settlement offer for something less than that amount. It happens all the time - which is why you get so many leeches filing scam suits.
If we went to a 'loser pays' system, the number of ridiculous lawsuits would plummet because there would be less incentive for companies to settle bogus suits.
People are so pathetic. I bet she is overweight and barely has a high school education.
I bet you are such a poor excuse for human being.
Regarding all this dare-not-touch-all-mighty-Apple crap this tread is oozing with... makes me wonder, if AppleInsider came up with story about Microsoft Zune or Creative Zen exploding in someone's pocket... what kind of response would that produce..? Anything comparable to this tread? I bet not.
Some of you people have completely lost your compass; it seems even those Scientology Masters could learn much from Apple... sad, sad, sad.
If your kid did something stupid I would whack him/her right on the face.
That would show your level of intelligence.
Because then, you'd be worse off than wearing a SCAR!
...
I catch you touching ANY child, including your own, and you will surely wear a SCAR!
Don't DARE Me!
You're a wuss, for even thinking of harming a child!
And, you do it, SOMEONE WITH SENSE, WILL take you down!
M.O.
Enjoy prison, because you will be there soon if you carry out your threat on someone. That is the way it works in America.
Thanks, someone with a brain. Finally.
I read your later post as well. Explaining, somewhat, the tort system.
NEVER THREATEN A CHILD! NEVER HARM A CHILD!
Because, no matter how unwise retribution might be, it will still be sweet.
And, the court will recognize that mitigating circumstance.
M.O.
That would show your level of intelligence.
Because then, you'd be worse off than wearing a SCAR!
........
I catch you touching ANY child, including your own, and you will surely wear a SCAR!
Don't DARE Me!
You're a wuss, for even thinking of harming a child!
And, you do it, SOMEONE WITH SENSE, WILL take you down!
M.O.
Dude your posts are disturbingly violent!!
Could you cutout your over-the-top racist comments, please?! This is your second attack against this poster, and it's not appropriate.
This is a Mac forum where Apple enthusiasts share their thoughts...