iPod Touch explodes in a child's pocket

Obviously an inherent fault in any device is a bad thing. It's just that in this case the kid deserved it because he was wearing spandex undies

LAWYER: "Your honor, my client wishes to seek $150,000 dollars for emotional distress"

JUDGE: "On what grounds?"

LAWYER: "My clients spandex underwear nearly caught fire"

JUDGE: "Spandex underwear? Case dismissed"

I don't think the parent is wrong for looking to repair the damages (although if it sees profit, then I'm irritated. $150,000, in my opinion in regards to the damages and emotional distress is exactly that, profit digging.). I'm looking at the suing of apple *and* the 10 employees.

How is it the 10 employees fault's for it exploding? It was an accident. They are there to sell the product, they did not invent, create, or even package it or any of its componants.

10 years from now the kid will remember the day his ipod exploded, not because of that fact, but because his mom manipulated the system made a $150,000 payday, and paid for her new car, his (if she has any intelligence at all) education, and another ipod.

If we all knew the details of the suit then we would be in a better position to argue the merit (or lack thereof) of the suit.

Some points:

1) If it were in his lap then the area that started to burn would have been easily extinguished - from the description, if that is at all accurate, the heat remained mostly contained to the pocket - hence melting the underwear. In the open the majority of the hear would have risen, and unless of course the kid just sat their in fascination as the thing burned on his leg for several and then continued to watch it as it became uncomfortable, and then *continued* to watch as enough thermal energy was passed into (or through) his jeans or shorts or whatever and into the Spandex material to melt it / burn it, then the kid is stupid to begin with - however, most people are allergic to pain because it hurts....

2) If the kid's mother had already broached the subject about how the devices were known to get hot, and was repeatedly assured by employees that that was the older generation, or else that it would not occur with this new product, then she has every right to sue.

If you, as an employee, tell me something that discounts what I have read in periodicals and / or online, and I am then convinced that what I read was hearsay, only to find out first hand that the reports were true and the employees willingly and knowingly lied to me to make a sale, you bet your ass I am gonna sue you too. And everyone else who agreed with you in making the sale.

Sell me a lemon, and I don't make lemonade - I make you pay for it.

And, considering that there have been plenty of *frivolous* lawsuits (as mentioned in the commentary underneath the article about the woman and McDonald's coffee) I'd say this is nowhere near frivolous. This is a product that is *meant* to be carried on your person, and what easier way to do so than in a pocket? Yet, if it is dangerous when carried like that, then there should be a consumer alert. If there isn't, the company that is making *millions* (I say it should be close to half a billion USD by now) should be willing to part with a mere .3% of their profits.

If my total profits of a product I sold was $100, and someone sued me for $0.30, do you think I would be pissed? And that on top of the fact that it was my manufacturing process that caused this and my negligence that ignored such reports in the past rather than posting a consumer alert?

Get real. Let's learn the facts first - I just played a great example of Devil's Advocate here to show you that you can' just run off and say she was or was not justified without knowing *all* the facts.

johngalt said:

If we all knew the details of the suit then we would be in a better position to argue the merit (or lack thereof) of the suit.

Some points:

1) If it were in his lap then the area that started to burn would have been easily extinguished - from the description, if that is at all accurate, the heat remained mostly contained to the pocket - hence melting the underwear. In the open the majority of the hear would have risen, and unless of course the kid just sat their in fascination as the thing burned on his leg for several and then continued to watch it as it became uncomfortable, and then *continued* to watch as enough thermal energy was passed into (or through) his jeans or shorts or whatever and into the Spandex material to melt it / burn it, then the kid is stupid to begin with - however, most people are allergic to pain because it hurts....

2) If the kid's mother had already broached the subject about how the devices were known to get hot, and was repeatedly assured by employees that that was the older generation, or else that it would not occur with this new product, then she has every right to sue.

If you, as an employee, tell me something that discounts what I have read in periodicals and / or online, and I am then convinced that what I read was hearsay, only to find out first hand that the reports were true and the employees willingly and knowingly lied to me to make a sale, you bet your ass I am gonna sue you too. And everyone else who agreed with you in making the sale.

Sell me a lemon, and I don't make lemonade - I make you pay for it.

And, considering that there have been plenty of *frivolous* lawsuits (as mentioned in the commentary underneath the article about the woman and McDonald's coffee) I'd say this is nowhere near frivolous. This is a product that is *meant* to be carried on your person, and what easier way to do so than in a pocket? Yet, if it is dangerous when carried like that, then there should be a consumer alert. If there isn't, the company that is making *millions* (I say it should be close to half a billion USD by now) should be willing to part with a mere .3% of their profits.

If my total profits of a product I sold was $100, and someone sued me for $0.30, do you think I would be pissed? And that on top of the fact that it was my manufacturing process that caused this and my negligence that ignored such reports in the past rather than posting a consumer alert?

Get real. Let's learn the facts first - I just played a great example of Devil's Advocate here to show you that you can' just run off and say she was or was not justified without knowing *all* the facts.

Couple things:

I agree she needs to seek damages if what happened was the truth. She has medical bills for the burns, and I am sure the kid was traumatized for a very short period, even though as I mentioned years from now the only thing remember will be money, and ipod going "pop". But $150,000? Frivolous, YES.

I think most of us are aware that we need to see all the facts, and regardless of the fact there is a post on the internet about it, we can't be in the courtroom, although I hope I remember to see if its justified or not.

As for the loss of profits, thats not what I was saying. Its the moral and principal. So it has nothing to do with if its justified or not.

Suing an employee who's job it is to sell you product is classic procedure these days, something I won't ever agree with. The company trained them to do this, and through experience, they believed what they were telling the customer. You can't possibly think they wanted to pass on this product knowing of the consequences. They are paid to sell, and again, I am going to point out they had no hand in manufacturing, packaging, or creating the product. They were told it could play music. Thats it. If a person is not intelligent enough to move to another model because the one she wants is cheaper, and makes that choice regardless of what she has heard..... Not to mention myself as a parent would never give my child something with this kind of information... but then I research before I buy, and understand not all people do and rely on sales knowledge.

A consumer alert needs a set required amount of incidents before being made public. It has not reached the required amount as of yet, prompting the company to continue sales... although I am sure they are looking into the rare happenings. Also, whoever supplied apple with the battery for its item needs to list these details, unless Apple made the battery from scratch as well.

So, keep in mind, Devil's Advocate, don't doubt everyone in one slot, or you make the same mistake you look to bring attention to.

(ps. Not trying to start an arguement, just clarifying my post as it seems some of it was off center in your eyes.)