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 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


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














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