By DAN GOODIN, Associated Press Writer

 

SAN FRANCISCO - A Louisiana man claims in a lawsuit that Apple's iPod music player can cause hearing loss in people who use it.

 

 

 

Apple has sold more than 42 million of the devices since they went on sale in 2001, including 14 million in the fourth quarter last year. The devices can produce sounds of more than 115 decibels, a volume that can damage the hearing of a person exposed to the sound for more than 28 seconds per day, according to the complaint.

 

The iPod players are "inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss," according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana.

 

The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer. Patterson's suit said he bought an iPod last year, but does not specify whether he suffered hearing loss from the device.

 

Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said.

 

"He's bought a product which is not safe to use as currently sold on the market," Berman said. "He's paying for a product that's defective, and the law is pretty clear that if someone sold you a defective product they have a duty to repair it."

 

An Apple Computer Inc. spokeswoman, Kristin Huguet, declined to comment.

 

Although the iPod is more popular than other types of portable music players, its ability to cause noise-induced hearing isn't any higher, experts said.

 

"We have numerous products in the marketplace that have the potential to damage hearing," said Deanna Meinke, an audiology professor at the University of Northern Colorado. "The risk is there but the risk lies with the user and where they set the volume."

 

The Cupertino-based company ships a warning with each iPod that cautions "permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume."

 

Apple was forced to pull the iPod from store shelves in France and upgrade software on the device to limit sound to 100 decibels, but has not followed suit in the United States, according to the complaint. The headphones commonly referred to as ear buds, which ship with the iPod, also contribute to noise-induced hearing loss because they do not dilute the sound entering the ear and are closer to the ear canal than other sound sources, the complaint states.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_...le_ipod_lawsuit

Bad lawsuits usually get thrown out of court, but usually nobody hears about that. Ive talked to people who still think McDonalds had to pay for making people fat. When in reality, that lawsuit didnt even make it to trial.

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that the ipod isnt defective...the answer lies here:

 

"The risk is there but the risk lies with the user and where they set the volume."

:banghead :banghead society is so screwed up sometimes every thing is a lawsuit

It'll be awesome when this guy goes to file the suit, the judge throws the case out, and his lawyer will be asking him for a check.

 

This guy is an ass.

attention whore

You could have at least waited for it to actually affect someone. I mean, not only are you stating that a device designed specifically for listening purposes could affect your hearing (big mental leap of faith there), you are mentioning that it could maybe possibly somewhere down the road have the chance of causing you to go deaf.

 

Social Darwinism needs to kick in.

did somebody say something?

Bad lawsuits usually get thrown out of court, but usually nobody hears about that. Ive talked to people who still think McDonalds had to pay for making people fat. When in reality, that lawsuit didnt even make it to trial.

 

 

Pertaining to McDonalds and all other fast food restaraunts..I believe they passed a bill to stop that specific type of lawsuit. (where they blame fast food restaraunts for their weight problems) What I cannot get over is the lawsuit (forgot the name of the case) where a female sued McDonalds and rewarded millions in a settlement simply because she had spilled coffee onto herself. That is f***ed up.

Loud music causes hearing loss, congrats to this guy for figuring that out.

I'm surprised he isn't also suing because using the click wheel too much has the potential to make you need to crack your finger, which could eventually potentially result in arthritis.

Bad lawsuits usually get thrown out of court, but usually nobody hears about that. Ive talked to people who still think McDonalds had to pay for making people fat. When in reality, that lawsuit didnt even make it to trial.

 

 

Pertaining to McDonalds and all other fast food restaraunts..I believe they passed a bill to stop that specific type of lawsuit. (where they blame fast food restaraunts for their weight problems) What I cannot get over is the lawsuit (forgot the name of the case) where a female sued McDonalds and rewarded millions in a settlement simply because she had spilled coffee onto herself. That is f***ed up.

No offense dude, but this is another example about how misinformation from the media and other sources causes the public to get the facts wrong. This in turn causes people to come up with wrong conclusions.

 

It was dismissed from court:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds.

 

Im not sure what law youre referring to.

 

What I cannot get over is the lawsuit (forgot the name of the case) where a female sued McDonalds and rewarded millions in a settlement simply because she had spilled coffee onto herself. That is f***ed up.

 

Stella Liebeck is the case. Not as f***ed up as you think if you look at the facts of the case, which the media usually never reports.

 

1. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

2. By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

3. Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds.

 

4.Coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.

 

5. The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation.

 

6. McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee(at this high temperature) for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail.

 

7. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks. Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee.

 

8. Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

 

 

As far as the part about her recieving millions of dollars, another mistruth:

 

She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

 

 

I know it seems counter-intuitive that coffee can be too hot. But there is just no reason to make coffee at a temperature that causes severe third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. You can give people a better chance with they spill coffee on themselves by reducing the temperature and still not sacrificing hot coffee. McDonalds didnt even pay that much in this case. About half a days worth of coffee sales.

Flyingmollusk thanks for the case. She was originally awarded 2.7 million but yes it was reduced to $480,000.00 in punitive damages. Still a lot of money. I am not disputing the burns however who is really negligent here?

 

Isn't this about negligence? McDonalds did have a lid on that coffee cup when it was handed to her grandson then to her. She decided to remove the lid so she can put cream and sugar in it as her son was driving. What would of happened if she drank that coffee? She would have burned her mouth. People burn their mouth quite often from soup, pizza, and yes even coffee but you do not see them going around and suing. I think she was negligent in the way she handled that coffee cup and accidentally spilled coffee on her self. Who hasn't spilled coffee accidentally in work place or at home? It was an accident but she chose to sue a major corporation. If it was some small neighborhood diner I'm sure it would not have gone this far.

Flyingmollusk thanks for the case. She was originally awarded 2.7 million but yes it was reduced to $480,000.00 in punitive damages. Still a lot of money. I am not disputing the burns however who is really negligent here?

 

Isn't this about negligence? McDonalds did have a lid on that coffee cup when it was handed to her grandson then to her. She decided to remove the lid so she can put cream and sugar in it as her son was driving. What would of happened if she drank that coffee? She would have burned her mouth. People burn their mouth quite often from soup, pizza, and yes even coffee but you do not see them going around and suing. I think she was negligent in the way she handled that coffee cup and accidentally spilled coffee on her self. Who hasn't spilled coffee accidentally in work place or at home? It was an accident but she chose to sue a major corporation. If it was some small neighborhood diner I'm sure it would not have gone this far.

 

Agreed that people should be careful. But the problem is that McDonald's put their coffee at a temperature that was unnecessarily high and that was causing third degree burns within seconds. They werent even giving people a chance. When a company gets complaints and they know that they are acting in a manner unnecessary and they continue to do so, they put people at risk, unnecessarily.

 

And I think the jury found Liebeck 20% liable for her injuries.