NationStates Jolt Archive

Man Sues Apple Over Potential Hearing Loss

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.>>LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_us/apple_ipod_lawsuit;_ylt=Ap7U6rigmcDUtUP.acXPhwus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-)

Seriously people like this needs ot be put in clinics with the same people who blame McDonalds for making them fat after they stuffed their face with their burgers for years, and the smokers who at the age of 80 say hey i've been smoking for 50 years and I don't know how I got lung cancer so im going to sue, and of course the old ladies who sue mcdonalds because they burned themselves with HOT coffee. :sniper: :sniper:


Sorry to go off on a rant there, but it's just plain common sense. Keep the volume down on the ipod you won't go deaf. Am I the only one who thinks this is retarted?

"Just plain common sense" doesn't come into play when you want a lot of money, man. Take, for instance, my habit of assuming that cars further away from me will stop when I enter the crosswalk in my area. Logically, I should attain eye contact to make sure they see me first. But in my mind, I also know that if they hit me, I can sue them for the whole of it and, because I was on a crosswalk and they broke the law, they'd have no real defense.

See? Money > Common sense.

Seriously people like this needs ot be put in clinics with the same people who blame McDonalds for making them fat after they stuffed their face with their burgers for years, and the smokers who at the age of 80 say hey i've been smoking for 50 years and I don't know how I got lung cancer so im going to sue, and of course the old ladies who sue mcdonalds because they burned themselves with HOT coffee. :sniper: :sniper:


Sorry to go off on a rant there, but it's just plain common sense. Keep the volume down on the ipod you won't go deaf. Am I the only one who thinks this is retarted?

two words:

TORT REFORM

make the loser pay... that might help curb some of the frivolous suits these dumbshits hit big business with. "Hey moron, newsflash: COFFEE IS HOT! MUSIC CAN HURT YOUR EARS IF YOU TURN THE VOLUME UP ALL THE WAY!"

hopefully the "reasonable person" standard will force the judge to throw this out of court.

Simonist']"Just plain common sense" doesn't come into play when you want a lot of money, man. Take, for instance, my habit of assuming that cars further away from me will stop when I enter the crosswalk in my area. Logically, I should attain eye contact to make sure they see me first. But in my mind, I also know that if they hit me, I can sue them for the whole of it and, because I was on a crosswalk and they broke the law, they'd have no real defense.

See? Money > Common sense.

you cross the road when they have a green light?

someone should hit you. hehe j/k

(a minor peeve of mine is when me and thirty other cars are in a hurry to get to work, at about, oh, 8:55am... we have the green light... and someone decides to make us all stop by crossing -- always slowly, he's always taking his time -- the freaking road.)

you cross the road when they have a green light?

someone should hit you. hehe j/k
I'm not talking about at intersections. I live in the suburbs, we've got plenty of non-signal crosswalks.

And yes, they should, but not too hard. It would be nice if they stayed within the speed limit, or maybe a little over it. I'd be rich.

two words:

TORT REFORM

make the loser pay... that might help curb some of the frivolous suits these dumbshits hit big business with. "Hey moron, newsflash: COFFEE IS HOT! MUSIC CAN HURT YOUR EARS IF YOU TURN THE VOLUME UP ALL THE WAY!"

hopefully the "reasonable person" standard will force the judge to throw this out of court.


As long as the judge isn't as retarted as they person suing, then it should be ok. There was another thing i saw recently of that Jared subway guy blaming nintendo for his weight gain. I had the article, but lost it.

Simonist']I'm not talking about at intersections. I live in the suburbs, we've got plenty of non-signal crosswalks.

And yes, they should, but not too hard. It would be nice if they stayed within the speed limit, or maybe a little over it. I'd be rich.

hehe

keep two signs with you:

1) No way, dude, you're going too fast.

2) Right this way... go for the legs.

and of course the old ladies who sue mcdonalds because they burned themselves with HOT coffee. :sniper: :sniper:


Because of course, people should be allowed to serve coffee as hot as they want. Even if it does cause 3rd degree burn nearly instantaneously, which requires skin grafting amoung others things.


Though yeah, loud music damages hearing. No shit.

It's dumber than the old smokers. At least they can complain that the cigarette companies knew about the addictive nature and the poisons while making sure that the public did not. They also advertised about its supposed health benefits. All this was years back. Quitting cigarettes are hard, you know. If you quit cold turkey, then there's the withdrawal side effects.

For the hot coffee, the coffee was dangerously hot and the lid wasn't secured tight enough. Plus, they didn't think that people might want to drink a beverage in a car.

As for the i-pod man, the obese mcdonalds people, and Jared Nintendumb, stupidity and humanity have been proven to be synonyms. It's like the man who died when he tried to bungie jump off a 250 foot cliff with a 300 foot rope. Stupid.

Don't the iPods have a reputation for being a little louder than most other MP3 players because Steve Jobs is slightly deaf, or is that an urban myth?

Don't the iPods have a reputation for being a little louder than most other MP3 players because Steve Jobs is slightly deaf, or is that an urban myth?
I'm not sure I've ever heard that at all, but I can promise you my iPod is much louder than my Zen.....

Simonist']I'm not talking about at intersections. I live in the suburbs, we've got plenty of non-signal crosswalks.

And yes, they should, but not too hard. It would be nice if they stayed within the speed limit, or maybe a little over it. I'd be rich.

The frames of wheelchairs come in nifty colors these days.

I heard that the hot coffee thing was actually a valid point because the coffee was ridiculously hot - much hotter than normal hot coffee would be, and thus much more dangerous.

That's just what I heard though.

Only in America. :rolleyes:

I heard that the hot coffee thing was actually a valid point because the coffee was ridiculously hot - much hotter than normal hot coffee would be, and thus much more dangerous.

That's just what I heard though.

It was see my post above.

Or here. (Actually, just look here)

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

McDonalds is a whole other story of stupidity.

Tort Reform will never happen, and here's why:

Matt Miller: MAKE 150,000% TODAY!

Yes, the Jack Abramoff scandal is a cancer eating away at the heart of Washington, fresh proof of the Beltway's culture of corruption, etc., etc. But for business, this tawdry episode is a reminder of something that gets too little notice: A company's return on lobbying and campaign contributions--let's call it return on political investment, or ROPI--is astronomically higher than any real investment it can make. These remarkable returns, not any inherent venality, explain why the pseudo-reforms likely to come in Abramoff's wake will do nothing to stop the meltdowns from recurring.

Consider the puny dimensions (in dollar, not legal, terms) of today's villainy. Congressmen have been rushing to return the roughly $200,000 in campaign contributions Abramoff has made since 1999; that's some $35,000 a year, spread over a lot of officials. Even when you toss in the $5 million in other people's cash Abramoff helped direct to pols and their causes, it's just $830,000 a year, again divvied among dozens of open palms. Yes, there were some primo golf trips, but except for Abramoff himself, who bilked Indian tribes to the tune of many millions, the cash going to politicians was small beer. But such pittances can buy results, from tax favors to protection against competition.

Wealthy individuals have always understood one aspect of this game. Limits on contributions (say, $4,000 per couple in presidential campaigns) explain why many rich folks give to all comers; it's a low-cost way to retain access and "friendship," a prudent hedging strategy. Much less appreciated is how the return on lobbying investments can be truly enormous.

Recall that, when it comes to ordinary investment decisions, companies calculate their cost of capital--currently averaging around 12%--and pursue the most attractive projects exceeding that "hurdle rate." In lobbying, a 12% ROPI is often surpassed every two hours. Mortgage giant Fannie Mae, for example, spends $9 million or so a year lobbying to preserve measures that lower its financing costs; depending on whom you believe, this subsidy is worth $20 billion and perhaps far more. The trial lawyers' association finds that for a mere $5 million in lobbying a year it can keep tort reform at bay--along with those pesky caps on damages that would cost the plaintiffs bar hundreds of millions.

But the Pentagon may offer the most measurable examples. Lockheed Martin has spent $55 million lobbying since 1999, during which time it has won roughly $90 billion in defense contracts. ROPI: 163,536% (no, that is not a typo. And yes, it assumes lobbying is the only reason things happen in D.C., so let's stipulate that product quality matters, but that without a political "salesforce" you can't close the deal). By contrast, Boeing's lobbying investment looks downright shoddy, with $57 million over the same period producing about $81 billion in contracts, for an ROPI of just 142,000%. (Can't you hear the irate CEO? "Dammit, Carruthers, if you can't get our political returns up past 150,000%, I'll find someone who can!") Throw in campaign contributions and other minor adjustments, and the figures may come down a tad, but we're still talking a whole lot more than 12%. Seen this way, Abramoff is a kind of perverse reformer whose real crime was raising the price of political influence to market rates.

Every lobbyist in D.C. knows influence is wildly underpriced, but none before Abramoff had the chutzpah (normally associated with Third World officials) to extract some of that value. Those Indian tribes could fork over $20 million to Abramoff and his cronies and still make out like bandits, because extending their casino franchises and skirting taxes were worth far more. In other words, their ROPI was still fabulous--just not as fabulous as is customary in Washington. Who knows? If Abramoff had billed for those millions honestly and not via kickbacks and other felonies, we might have flushed into the open the absurd heights of today's ROPI. Then we might be debating true reforms, not the gimmicks Congress will cook up (bye-bye, golf junkets!) to inoculate members on the campaign trail.

While companies understandably view today's outsized ROPI as an opportunity, it's corrosive in a democracy. Take the estate tax, which a handful of wealthy families have been working to scrap. They invest a few million, and if that works, the nation's top heirs get $30 billion to $40 billion a year (and rising) in perpetuity, for a world-beating ROPI of close to infinity.

The adage that counsels "when something seems too good to be true, it usually is" simply doesn't apply to political investments. Jack Abramoff shows us there's something wrong about that.

We all know what caused this right? Some old rocker who has spent his life infront of car sized speakers complaining about how the use of headphones has caused him to go deaf.

Bunch of stupid dicks.

Trumped up or stupid lawsuits almost never win. Their lack of sucess is nearly never reported. So what we get is people moaning how the system doesn't work when it's actually working perfectly. It's a bit depressing.

the system works.....stupid people just suck.

wasting everyones time with trivial lawsuits.

I agree this guy is stupid, on the "McDonalds" kids vein. But in the BBC article on this, it mentioned Apple was forced to alter the iPods it shipped to France because it could reach over 115 decibels. France actually has a LIMIT on how loud devices of that type can be (100dB). Does anyone think this is reasonable legislation to pass? Referring to this image, it seems adequate enough (walking home in NYC along major Manhattan streeets, I usually keep my iPod around half its volume potential).
http://www.bolton.gov.uk/pls/portal92/docs/1/15583.JPG

an ipod that can be as loud as a slayer show?....scary


just keep the volume low.

two words:

TORT REFORM

make the loser pay... that might help curb some of the frivolous suits these dumbshits hit big business with. "Hey moron, newsflash: COFFEE IS HOT! MUSIC CAN HURT YOUR EARS IF YOU TURN THE VOLUME UP ALL THE WAY!"

hopefully the "reasonable person" standard will force the judge to throw this out of court.

Actually you would hand the courts over to those with big money. If you are fighting a hard battle as a corporation has way more money then you and then you are faced with paying for losing, then less cases would be filed.

You have to admit that some people and companies need to be sued......

I agree this guy is stupid, on the "McDonalds" kids vein. But in the BBC article on this, it mentioned Apple was forced to alter the iPods it shipped to France because it could reach over 115 decibels. France actually has a LIMIT on how loud devices of that type can be (100dB). Does anyone think this is reasonable legislation to pass? Referring to this image, it seems adequate enough (walking home in NYC along major Manhattan streeets, I usually keep my iPod around half its volume potential).
http://www.bolton.gov.uk/pls/portal92/docs/1/15583.JPG

For those with hearing loss, those extra 15 dB would come in handy. I'm already 40-45 dB behind the average person.

I agree this guy is stupid, on the "McDonalds" kids vein. But in the BBC article on this, it mentioned Apple was forced to alter the iPods it shipped to France because it could reach over 115 decibels. France actually has a LIMIT on how loud devices of that type can be (100dB). Does anyone think this is reasonable legislation to pass? Referring to this image, it seems adequate enough (walking home in NYC along major Manhattan streeets, I usually keep my iPod around half its volume potential).
There is a need to limit is because people are stupid enough fucks to use it at max volume. While in the airport waiting for my plane, I had 1 earbud in listening to my mp3 player. Five or six feet away, some guy had an iPod in with basic iPod headphones. I could hear what he was listening to.

Of course, if the problem is hearing loss, wouldn't louder music make it worse? Just asking, no knowledge of the subject.

Another idea is for people to buy actual headphones instead of those earbuds that not only block nothing but make you a more likely target for being mugged.

Of course, if the problem is hearing loss, wouldn't louder music make it worse? Just asking, no knowledge of the subject.

Another idea is for people to buy actual headphones instead of those earbuds that not only block nothing but make you a more likely target for being mugged.

It's a trade off. My loss isn't caused by noise exposure, but is a cogenital defect of the cochela. I guess that the loud music doesn't help, but it doesn't seem to hurt, either.

Only in America. :rolleyes:
We had something here a couple of years back when members of the irish army sued the state for deafness caused by live fire.Got quite a few laughs in the media.Pictures of army guys running around in the middle of live fire saying 'did you hear something' to each other.:rolleyes:

two words:

TORT REFORM

make the loser pay... that might help curb some of the frivolous suits these dumbshits hit big business with. "Hey moron, newsflash: COFFEE IS HOT! MUSIC CAN HURT YOUR EARS IF YOU TURN THE VOLUME UP ALL THE WAY!"

hopefully the "reasonable person" standard will force the judge to throw this out of court.

I don't think that the loser should automatically pay. However, there should be a standard for differentiating between a case that just wasn't made and a case that doesn't have a case going for it.

Afterall, if you can sue because you hurt yourself breaking into a house and win then simply saying that you have to pay something if you loose isn't going to help much. There will still be people who sue and win. But now you've created people who have a good case, but end up having to pay someone against whom they have a legitemate grievance just because the other guy had a better lawyer.

Personally, I think that it wouldn't be too hard to have frivolous lawsuits classified as harrassment. Then you could sue anyone who files such a suit for that. And if you file a claim against someone who thinks they can scare you off by suing for harrassment with an expensive lawyer then you can sue them for your original claim plus harrassment.

I don't think that the loser should automatically pay. However, there should be a standard for differentiating between a case that just wasn't made and a case that doesn't have a case going for it.

Afterall, if you can sue because you hurt yourself breaking into a house and win then simply saying that you have to pay something if you loose isn't going to help much. There will still be people who sue and win. But now you've created people who have a good case, but end up having to pay someone against whom they have a legitemate grievance just because the other guy had a better lawyer.

Personally, I think that it wouldn't be too hard to have frivolous lawsuits classified as harrassment. Then you could sue anyone who files such a suit for that. And if you file a claim against someone who thinks they can scare you off by suing for harrassment with an expensive lawyer then you can sue them for your original claim plus harrassment.
The current tort reform argument is nothing but corporate propaganda designed to give big business blanket protection from litigation no matter what.

It's true that a lot of tort lawyers are ambulance chasing, money-lusting vultures, and it's true that a lot of people, in America at least, bring frivolous suits like the ones we're discussing here. But the answer isn't to smother the ability to bring lawsuits.

Should the loser pay? They already do, as a judge can order a losing plaintiff to pay the winning defendant's court costs, and the defendant can counter sue the plaintiff. You want to stop idiotic lawsuits like this? Easy -- just try enforcing the already existing laws that punish people who bring frivolous suits. You want to discourage insane demands for money? Create guidelines for courts to tailor demands to appropriate levels (in some cases, a judge already can do that).

A person who loses a leg due to someone's negligence deserves some serious compensation. A person who wants to punish someone else for their lifestyle choice (nobody forced them to turn up the volume) doesn't deserve the time of day, imo.