iPod Touch explodes in a child's pocket

[Airbot]

Apple's iPod Touch is one of the hottest devices around and unfortunately for one youngster it got so hot that it exploded in his pocket.

The mother of a child living in Cincinnati is suing Apple and ten unnamed retail employees for "gross negligence and recklessness, as they supposedly conducted themselves maliciously and fraudulently when selling the iTouch".

more:neowin

 

[96accord]

Damn that sucks! Looks like someone is trying to get ALOT of $$

 

[dmex]

Damn that sucks! Looks like someone is trying to get ALOT of $$

Shes asking for $150,000... I get the feeling thats not a huge amount

 

[96accord]

Shes asking for $150,000... I get the feeling thats not a huge amount

my reading FTL

yes $150,000 is not bad @ all these days.

 

[Dragonfly]

"nylon/spandex underwear" for males? What a world...

 

[Lordbob75]

This is just another example of American stupidity. And greed. Its pathetic.
As stated in the article, the low melting point of Nylon is 374 degrees Fahrenheit. How the HELL could you NOT notice something like that in your POCKET!?!?!?!?!?!
The fact that they are suing for "supposedly conducted themselves maliciously and fraudulently when selling the iTouch" is stupid. I think the company should counter-sue for them being dumbasses. I would fully support that.

If I was the judge, I would throw it out, give all charges to the idiots, and tell them to have the kids nervous system checked, because he obviously could not feel 374 degrees of heat in his pocket.

I think it is much more likely the kid was messing with his iPod, trying to mod it or something else, and accidentaly lit it on fire.

~Lordbob

P.S. Sorry, I was tired and this pissed me off after I finished laughing. Feel free to censor if need be.

 

[angryman]

Great, a product fails and a parent goes on a tangent.

Just another example of the intelligence of some people, and the sad, pathetic ability we all have to breed, regardless of our IQ.

 

[smarteyeball]

It's not apple's fault this kid loaded up his ipod with hot tunes.....

Seriously though, if a device exploded on me I'd be happy with my money back plus a few freebies for my "emotional distress".

 

[Barman58]

On a serious note ...

It is important that this type of case does get to go before the court, assuming that the evidential details are enough to warrant it.

There have, I believe been other reports of battery problems with iPod devices, and unfortunately large companies often only act when a legal requirement is placed on them. This is not an attack on Apple, before anyone suggests that, as the same would apply if it were a Zune Player or something from one of the other large players.

As for the amount of damages sought I believe this to be in the realms of a token amount when compared to some suits in recent history.

The thing that worries me is that although the youngster involved here has suffered, totally unacceptable distress, If this is an inherent fault then the next person could be even worse off.

 

[ExNavy11]

I have to disagree with some of you. First off, I am the first person to get angry when I see some of the lawsuits people file and actually win. Like the McDonalds one several years ago when that lady spilled coffee on herself, i heard she got millions from that. Or the lady that put her camper on 'cruise control' and went to the back of the camper thinking it was on auto pilot. Of course it crashed and amazingly she won a million or so in a lawsuit. That sort of stuff is just beyond insane how those type of things were even allowed in court.

But this is different. If indeed, his Ipod 'exploded' and caught him on fire, I have no problem with him looking for cash. Who would ever expect their Ipod to explode and catch you on fire?! I am not saying he is intitled to millions, but Apple should fork over some money to pay for expenses and what not. Your Ipod should never catch you on fire. I dont think there are any warnings or conceptions that it would ever happen.

 

[smarteyeball]

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"

 

[Lordbob75]

I think it is much more likely the kid was messing with his iPod, trying to mod it or something else, and accidentaly lit it on fire.

I repeat.

On a serious note ...

It is important that this type of case does get to go before the court, assuming that the evidential details are enough to warrant it.

There have, I believe been other reports of battery problems with iPod devices, and unfortunately large companies often only act when a legal requirement is placed on them. This is not an attack on Apple, before anyone suggests that, as the same would apply if it were a Zune Player or something from one of the other large players.

As for the amount of damages sought I believe this to be in the realms of a token amount when compared to some suits in recent history.

The thing that worries me is that although the youngster involved here has suffered, totally unacceptable distress, If this is an inherent fault then the next person could be even worse off.

I do agree with that. If there truly is a flaw in the iPod (you would think they would have caught this) then it does need to be fixed. I think that the mother claims he will suffer emotional distress and stuff is just pathetic. That is just trying to get more money. If my iPod exploded in my pocket, I would be pissed, but not emotionally damaged (as if I'm not already :shock. True, this is a token amount, but thats not the point.
Another problem here is not the iPod, but Li-ion batteries. These CAN and WILL explode if subjected to certain amounts of heat and / or puncture / stuff.

I think it is much more likely the kid was messing with his iPod, trying to mod it or something else, and accidentaly lit it on fire.

Again. I believe he was messing with it, and it blew up on him in his lap NOT pocket. They changed the story to benefit themselves.

~Lordbob

P.S. Again, sorry for the anger. This is just stupid and pisses me off.

 

[angryman]

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.

 

[johngalt]

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.

 

[angryman]

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..... :sarc: 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.)

 

[Lordbob75]

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..... :sarc: 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.)

Thanks for playing the Advocate John.
I didn't think about the heat containment verses rising and escaping.

However, as I said before, Li-ion batteries don't just explode (or burn, catch fire, melt, get to 374 degrees) spontaneously. Something had to have happened to it.

I disagree with the need for a consumer alert. If we did that, then ANYTHING with a Lithium-Ion battery would have to be recalled.
EVERYTHING.
As far as I can tell (just from what I know; I could be wrong) this HAD to have been caused by the Li-ion battery (correct me if I am wrong here). And once again, they don't just 'splode.

~Lordbob