backtop


Print 106 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Dec 21 at 5:42 PM

Nintendo must have seen this coming

As was bound to happen, law firm Green Welling LLP filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of the owners of the Nintendo Wii against Nintendo of America. The class action lawsuit contends that the Nintendo Wii is defective in nature due to the wrist strap for the remote.

The statement from the firm says that Nintendo is in the wrong as owners of the Nintendo Wii who supposedly followed the material that accompanied the Wii console experienced broken wrist strap causing the remote to leave the user’s hand. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that requires Nintendo to correct the defect and to provide a refund to the purchaser or to replace the defective Wii remote.

“Nintendo’s failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo’s own product warranty,” the statement reads. “The class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nintendo from continuing its unfair or deceptive business practices as it relates to the Nintendo Wii.”

The class action lawsuit now awaits approval from a judge. Nintendo has already responded to wrist strap worries with stronger materials and safety reminders. Last week Nintendo started offering free wrist strap replacements for all Nintendo Wii owners, allowing its users to upgrade to the safer and hopefully less accident-prone equipment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: bunch of idiots
By rushfan2006 on 12/20/2006 9:06:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Coffee is hot - if you don't know that you need to be put back in the padded room.


Post your source of this...I'm EXTREMELY curious.

Why? Because if you are bored enough and actually do some digging on this case as certain law sites on the net there is IN DEPTH information, including attorney study on the case and their comments. They even published the fact that the woman had 2nd degree burns.

What's more, I don't see the motive of why they'd report false information, they have no monetary gain by lying.



RE: bunch of idiots
By rushfan2006 on 12/20/2006 9:12:52 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry don't know why it quoted the wrong part..I meant the quote to be the part about how the case was a scam.

Anyway another comment...I'm fully convinced a HUGE reason why our country has no sense of accountabilty anymore is because of our highly litigious society and the fact that people constantly get rewarded for irresponsible behavior....so when you put it all together, is it any wonder the punks today (and yes I'm referring to MOST by not ALL of the kiddies between early teen to mid 20's especialy) have no sense of being responsible for thier own actions and disrespectful.



RE: bunch of idiots
By blckgrffn on 12/20/2006 10:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
This is still a dumb case when you want to bring up the issue of accountability.

1)McDonalds had been warned that their coffee was too hot by food inspectors. They ignored this, stating that their customers wanted the coffee hotter than the industry standard, and much safer, 160 degrees F.

2)The lady spilled it on herself and got 2nd degree burns and required surgery on her lap. Very pleasant, I bet.

3)McDonalds continued to say they didn't think this was an issue and that is why they lost still more cases. I have no idea if they serve their coffee cooler yet or not. My guess is yes.

This case is a staple of Biz law classes, and it is amazing how many people have no idea what actually happened. If you want to talk about people denying accountability, this is obviously the wrong suit to be talking about.


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
RE: bunch of idiots
By spluurfg on 12/20/2006 11:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
Have to disagree with you there. I think the idea is that she didn't know the risk when she accepted the cup, because it was a lot hotter than normal. Granted if you spill a cup of coffee on your lap it's not going to be pleasant, but I don't think McDonalds should hand out things that can cause injury so easily. It's kind of negligent (though I think the damages awarded were kind of excessive...) However I do agree with the fact that there are plenty of examples of fraudulent or unnecessary litigation.

Back to the topic: While Nintendo is in fact replacing the controllers free of charge, don't forget that there was a period of time in which using the controllers as instructed could cause injury or damage to property. That's a simple fact. Whether Nintendo should be liable... well... that's for a court to decide. But the 'you dropped the coffee/threw the remote it's all your fault' attitude just isn't logical.

This is why we have courts -- to decide what is fair, and dispensing with the process isn't a very nice option. We should instead work towards making the legal process less expensive and less time consuming, and to prevent harassment from utterly frivolous lawsuits. It's the process, not the system that needs work.


RE: bunch of idiots
By rcc on 12/20/2006 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is society wide. So too many parts of that "jury of your peers" will have that same baby sit me attitude these days.

This one is a lot easier than some trials tho. It's much harder to find a jury sized group of "athletes that have murdered their wives".

I know, a bit overboard, and very different processes of law, but some of this stuff just irritates the #$%@ out of me.

Lets just change the 4th grade ciriculum a bit. Thou shalt not loft any piece of electronics, tethered or not, which is moving at a velocity greater than 1" per second, or from a height in excess of 1"



RE: bunch of idiots
By Vanners on 12/20/2006 7:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you think it's a little naive to assume that justice is served in a court? Courts aren't about justice, they are about the law. These cases are won and lost on technicalities. Common sense is outlawed as it would replace the need for lawyers (at least the way they currently practise). This being the case, law suits where the litigent showed a lack of common sense are perfectly suited to the court environment and therefore succeed more often than not.

Examples of this can be found in cases such as an "alleged" burgler suing a home owner for injury sustained while he was "allegedly" carrying out a robbery. (sorry, I don't have the time right now to find a reference to one of these cases, but there are a stack of them so it shouldn't be hard to find if you are interested)

Anyway, the point is that you can't expect the obvious result in these sort of cases.


RE: bunch of idiots
By redbone75 on 12/21/2006 3:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
OK, exactly when is driving with a hot cup of coffee between your legs not an accepted risk on the customer's part? I've always had a problem with this case as it always seems to point to the wrong circumstances surrounding the issue, being the coffee being spilled while driving! It would seem that we in the U.S. have long since accepted that it is perfectly normal and safe to multitask while driving, forgetting the fact that we are moving an object that weighs at least a ton and a half at high speed! Speeds that our bodies were not meant to move at, no less. That this woman decided to place a liquid between her legs that is at normal temperatures hot enough to cause severe discomfort if spilled was overlooked is beyond me. Yes, McDonalds should have not served coffee that was as hot as it was, but


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/21/2006 9:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
You are not reciting the correct facts of the case. The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, was NOT driving. She was a passenger. The car was not moving. See background in Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%2...


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/21/2006 10:03:29 AM , Rating: 1
> "The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, was NOT driving. She was a passenger..."

So she didn't even get handed a hot cup by McDonalds staff...but by the driver of the vehicle? Even more reason to have tossed out this frivolous suit.

And let's not forget the reason this woman was burned so badly in the first place. After she spilt her coffee, her infirmity prevented her from getting up and doing anything about it, so the hot liquid sat in her lap for a lengthy period.


RE: bunch of idiots
By MrPickins on 12/21/2006 1:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Experts in the case testified that it would only take 2-7 seconds for coffee at 180F to cause 3rd degree burns.

Even an able bodied person would have problems undoing their seat belt, opening their door, and stripping of their soaking, scalding clothes in that short time.

You can call this lawsuit frivolous if you like, but an appeals court still felt the woman won her case.


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/20/2006 10:06:09 AM , Rating: 3
You all have been mislead by Republican anti-lawsuit propaganda. Do some research before you spew your irresponsible comments.

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_m...


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/20/2006 10:13:56 AM , Rating: 3
That site is pure propaganda...and quite amusing. I particularly like this bit:

"McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not..."

When society reaches the point where it demands a business warn a mature adult that "hot things can burn you", its time to tear it down and build a new one.


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/20/2006 10:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's scary how quickly everyone here stands up in defense of a major corporation. You'd think we were talking about suing some little old lady.


RE: bunch of idiots
By THEREALJMAN73 on 12/20/2006 10:44:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's scary how quickly everyone here stands up in defense of a major corporation. You'd think we were talking about suing some little old lady.


It's scary how quickly "everyone" thinks corporations are always wrong. Just because they might have deep pockets doesn't mean they are wrong or owe anyone anything.

Facts are people sue other people and companies every day because they want something for nothing. Not because anyone was actually wrong or did something they should not have.


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/20/2006 10:46:29 AM , Rating: 1
> "It's scary how quickly everyone here stands up in defense of a major corporation. You'd think we were talking about suing some little old lady.."

And that's the only reason she won. Not because her case had any merit, but because this large, major law firm jury-shopped, and found 12 people who felt sorry for a little old lady. Even though she herself is the one who requested a cup of hot coffee, who accepted it, and who spilt it upon herself.

The scary part to me is how many people are eager to accept that a "major corporation" must be to blame, simply because of who they are, and how much money they have.



RE: bunch of idiots
By MrPickins on 12/20/2006 1:08:46 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know about you, but I'd like to be warned if I was being handed a cup of liquid only 30 degrees below boiling...

People know coffee is hot. You don't seem to understand that the woman won her case because McDonalds coffee was too hot. Did you not read the line about it being unfit for consumption at the time of sale? How about a warning for that?


RE: bunch of idiots
By rcc on 12/20/2006 1:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that coffee is tradionally made with boiling water? 212 degrees F? The fresher, the hotter.

It's a hot liquid, you don't chug it or apply topically.

And no, I'm not advocating serving it at 200+ degrees. Just that we as responsible members of society need to exercize due care in our interactions with the world.


RE: bunch of idiots
By Lifted on 12/20/2006 11:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
You realize that the coffee was so much hotter than "normal" becuase McD's used the cheapest coffee they could get, and had to make it scalding hot as the inferior coffee tastes like shit and doesn't get absorbed by water unless it is scalding hot. THAT i s why she won the lawsuit. McD's set itself up for that one by thinking about it's bottom line more than the safety of it's customers. So they paid a bit for it in the end, but I'm sure they saved hundreds of millions over the many years they were using those cheap, inferior coffee grinds.


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/21/2006 4:52:33 AM , Rating: 1
> "You realize that the coffee was so much hotter than "normal" becuase McD's used the cheapest coffee they could get, and had to make it scalding hot as the inferior coffee tastes like shit and doesn't get absorbed by water...

This is sheer fantasy. McDonalds made their coffee hot because their customers demanded it so...and complained loudly, when McDonalds was forced to lower the temperature.

Every cup of coffee I've ever made has actually been hotter than the temperature McDonalds uses. 212F...boiling water. The notion that this coffee was "too hot" was a convenient fiction, used to sway a jury.


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/21/2006 9:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
McDonald's lost because they decided the coffee's taste was more important than safety of its customers. Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff, wasn't the first McDonald's coffee burn victim. McDonald's had many documented cases of burns from their coffee. They knew it was dangerous and refused to do anything about it such as place a simple warning on the cup.


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/21/2006 10:06:58 AM , Rating: 1
> "They knew it was dangerous and refused to do anything about it such as place a simple warning on the cup..."

Would a warning on the cup have prevented this woman from spilling it upon herself? Hardly.

> "McDonald's had many documented cases of burns from their coffee."

You serve a few billion cups of coffee, a few hundred people are going to spill it on themselves. That proves the vast majority of the public wanted their coffee hot, and were able to handle it without any serious risk.


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/21/2006 10:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, we get to the real issue: Was the coffee unreasonably dangerous if 700 hundred people had been burned over 10 years of serving millions of cups of coffee? The jury decided it was. If you disagree, that's fine.

About the warning, the law requires you to warn of unreasonably dangerous goods. The point I was trying to make is that McDonald's could have easily protected itself by including a warning. It would have made it much more difficult for the plaintiff to win.


RE: bunch of idiots
By FixitDave on 12/21/2006 9:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
This is quite a funny thread you have here.

Should nintendo replace the straps...I believe they should...but would there have been a case to sue the company if they didn't provide the straps in the first place...no straps, so no guarantee of protection to the remote or any items that it would come in contact with.

Since they provide these straps, they should have been made far stronger...maybe they should not have included them in the package, but sold very strong straps separately.

With regards to the MaC Ds thread...this could only happen in America, it should be made illegal to drive while drinking hot drinks and should be extended to other activities like smoking, eating etc.

I can just see the lawyers trying to win a case against Nokia as the user crashed their car and killed members of the public whilst driving and on the phone at the same time.

What's next...I stuck a knife in a plug socket and electrocuted myself, therefore I can sue the company that sold the knife...this is just stupid and we (the public) have to accept reasonability for our own actions.

America is a country that now relies on suing other people and companies because they know they can...it's just a great shame that this way of life is coming over to where I live (in England)...God help us all!!!


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/21/2006 9:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
Do you not know how to read? She was NOT driving. The car was NOT in motion. The devil is in the details.


RE: bunch of idiots
By FixitDave on 12/21/2006 9:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
Ok...she wasn't driving...calm down

Maybe we should all buy a stawberry milkshake (that isn't too hot or too cold), spill it on our clothes and sue Mc Ds because it stained the garment?

That is on the exact same lines as this...also, $2.6m award...jeeze, they offered to pick up the bill for the medical expences and no doubt add a little extra, but $2.6m...now let me think...was the lawyer working on a % of the payout...just typical greedy American people...but, this thread is about the straps and not Mc Ds.

Just had another thought...I ate Mc Ds for over a year and I'm over weight, unhealthy and have high blood preasure...I only eat McDs food...would I have a case against them????


RE: bunch of idiots
By FixitDave on 12/21/2006 9:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
sorry...$2.9M...


RE: bunch of idiots
By MrPickins on 12/21/2006 2:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
How can you can equate 3rd degree burns resulting in skin grafts with staining your clothes?

And FYI, the woman offered to settle for $20,000 (basically medical bills), but McDonalds refused.

Research before spewing BS.


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/21/2006 3:42:15 PM , Rating: 1
> "the woman offered to settle for $20,000...but McDonalds refused. "

And so would I have. Because it was her responsibility...and because paying her off meant opening the floodgates to every other negligent person in the future.

All extraneous points aside, the woman asked for a cup of hot coffee, she accepted it, and she spilled it on herself.


RE: bunch of idiots
By rcc on 12/21/2006 5:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Too late, been done. Don't remember what the outcome was, perhaps it's still in process.


RE: bunch of idiots
By FixitDave on 12/21/2006 9:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should nintendo replace the straps...I believe they should...but would there have been a case to sue the company if they didn't provide the straps in the first place...no straps, so no guarantee of protection to the remote or any items that it would come in contact with.

Since they provide these straps, they should have been made far stronger...maybe they should not have included them in the package, but sold very strong straps separately.


No comment on this though...would they have a case if no strap was provided?


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/21/2006 10:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't comment on the McDonald's case if you don't even know the facts. The parties ultimately settled out of court for an amount less than $600,000.

As for your Nintendo, it is an interesting question whether there would be a case if there were no straps in the first place.

See Verdict and Settlement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%2...


RE: bunch of idiots
By FixitDave on 12/21/2006 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yes...but they wanted to get $2.9M


RE: bunch of idiots
By encryptkeeper on 12/20/2006 10:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not republican by ANY stretch of the imagination but I think this lawsuit was a joke. If someone is doing something they shouldn't do with a product (i.e. try to hold a hot cup of coffee in your lap) then it should negate the manufacturer from liability. It goes back to the Wiimote straps and broken tvs. Nintendo can't be responsible for broken tvs due to people letting go of the Wiimotes any more than I can sue Wilson if I decide to play football in the house and wind up breaking a window.


RE: bunch of idiots
By encryptkeeper on 12/20/2006 10:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
I should have mentioned this in my original post, but it goes to precedent. People able to do stupid shit and blame it on a manufacturer just opens the door for more ridiculous claims and higher prices for the consumer. The judge that decided this case really didn't consider that.


RE: bunch of idiots
By kasey01 on 12/20/2006 10:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
You think prices would be lower if there were no lawsuits against manufacturers? Yeah right. You sound like the doctors and insurance companies who said premiums and in turn medical care would be less costly if we capped damages in medical malpractice suits.


RE: bunch of idiots
By encryptkeeper on 12/20/2006 10:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
It's common sense. I know these cases will NEVER go totally away, to assume that would be insane. But fewer cases would be fewer grounds to increase prices.


RE: bunch of idiots
By masher2 (blog) on 12/21/2006 4:57:24 AM , Rating: 1
> "You think prices would be lower if there were no lawsuits against manufacturers?"

This is nothing but common sense...which apparently isn't so common among some people. In any competitive market, companies lower prices as much as possible, allowing them to still make a profit (and sometimes even below that). The cost of civil suit payouts, and/or legal fees and insurance to guard against them, is a cost of doing business, and one that prevents them from lowering prices. If these costs vanished, would every manufacturer instantly lower prices? No, but some would...and their competitive advantage would force the rest of the market to follow suit.

In some industries, these costs don't simply add 10 or 20 percent to the product's price, but far more. For instance, the majority of the price of any ladder taller than 6' is due to litigation exposure.


RE: bunch of idiots
By Legolias24 on 12/20/2006 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nintendo can't be responsible for broken tvs due to people letting go of the Wiimotes any more than I can sue Wilson if I decide to play football in the house and wind up breaking a window

First off I think Nintendo is partly responsible. They designed a controller that was meant to be used in a manner in which you mimic the actions of say a sword fighter, bowler, tennis player etc. The strap, which while not intended to be the only thing that keeps the remote from flying around the room, should have been built strong enough to handle over eager individuals who might intentionally/unintentionally let go of the controller while playing their games. Didn't Nintendo make the claims of getting us up and out of our seats in order to play their games?!

I'm just sick and tired of reading comments that state "It's not Nintendo's fault" or "People are just stupid!" or "The controllers aren't being used right!". Seriously, this controller is being used in the manner in which it is intended (more or less). The fact remains that Nintendo didn't design a strong enough strap for a 'what if' scenario, (which is a pretty damn likely 'what if' scenario when you think about it), that takes into consideration how they want their controllers to be used!

As for the analogy, a football is intended to be used such that it leaves your hand/foot, if it wasn't then there would be a strap or some other restraint on it. The remote is not intended to leave your hand during game play, which is true; hence the strap...but wait, the straps are breaking so the remote does leave your hand. Why are the straps breaking? Well simple, they weren't designed properly.

And if something is not designed properly then that leads to; everybody all together now; DEFECTS in the design! (Dictionary.com defines a defect as several things including: An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure! From what I've read, the strap failed or was designed with the wrong purpose in mind which is still a failure of a design)

Personally tough, I think the lawsuit has no merit as Nintendo is already looking after the issue (cudos to Nintendo for addressing the problem so quickly...too bad they didn't figure this stuff out during product testing).


RE: bunch of idiots
By rcc on 12/20/2006 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound as if anytime the remote is released the strap breaks. I believe you will find that an error. I think you'll find that the same people are releasing the remote repeatedly until the strap wears enough to break.

Lets sue the rope manufacturer when our rope swings break! Oh, wait, those are too dangerous, we aren't allowed to use them anymore. That about made me want to puke when I heard it.

All, IMNSHO, of course.


RE: bunch of idiots
By Legolias24 on 12/20/2006 3:52:22 PM , Rating: 1
Nintendo said they will be replacing over 2 million straps (2.8 Million if my memory serves me correct). I don't know about you, but if a company is offering a replacement strap for all of their controllers then they are recognizing that there is a reasonable amount of probability that suggests the likelihood of the strap breaking is..well likely.

If your last paragraph is in relation to my post then I suggest you re-read my post. No where did I make the claim that anyone should be sued if an item breaks during operation. However, in the case of your "swing" analogy, if evidence can be found suggesting the swing chain/rope was of poor quality and not up to safety standards then yeah, sue the heck out of the swing manufacturer for endangering public safety! But I think you were writing that paragraph in relation to the article itself so please disregard this last paragraph of my post! :)


RE: bunch of idiots
By rcc on 12/20/2006 4:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but why is the question. Because we live in a sue happy society and it's good to be proactive. They discovered, as did we all, that normal usage wasn't what they thought it was, and implemented a fix. This doesn't necessarily mean they think it's reasonable, just that it's cheaper in the long run.

I on the other hand, have a pretty good idea about the common sense and manual dexterity of the average household these days, and I'd have made them even more substantial from the start. And, I'm sure my accountants would have squawked. (Listen to them, but never let them make decisions : ))

2nd para.. No, it wasn't targeted. It's just me complaining. I spent a year and a bit up in the Sacramento area where they actually have rivers. And was disgusted to find that you can no longer hang a piece of rope from a tree and swing out into the water. The police, fish and game, etc. people cut them down when they find them or confiscate the rope if you're still there. Don't think they cite, yet. So, the "rope" in question is typically 500-1000 pound test plain old nylon/poly or even manila rope.



RE: bunch of idiots
By JDub02 on 12/20/2006 11:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
And all of this has what to do with politics?

You can't argue the fact that this country is sue-crazy. People are always looking for a way to make money without working for it.

I heard a line that went something like .. You know how far a society has detiorated when what was once settled over the kitchen table is now settled in court.


RE: bunch of idiots
By Andrwken on 12/20/2006 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
They say you can't fix stupid, but we can try and make it so stupid people don't hurt themselves. As a programmer for automated manufacturing systems, it seems nowadays more programming is used to protect "stupid" people than to enhance the operation of said machinery. We spend more time taking any or all risk out of the equation rather than educating people on what not to do. So as a result, we get more lemmings running around burning their mouths on hot coffee, and more ridiculous lawsuits to compensate the ignorance. At least I know I won't be out of work any time soon, as they will always build a better idiot, and I will continue to design the better software to counter the idiot.

It seems Nintendo underestimated the "idiot" when they started marketing their machine to the masses, LOL! I feel their pain.


RE: bunch of idiots
By THEREALJMAN73 on 12/20/2006 10:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Post your source of this...I'm EXTREMELY curious.


I am sorry. I am the victim of an urban legend ><. I did a little research (not enough) when I posted my comment. Urban legend states that the case was false. I am sorry again.

In any event I still think the lawsuit is foolish. 1 in 2.8 million cups of coffee caused a "problem" and of those some people were driving while trying to add sugar and or cream. Hardly McDonalds fault.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki