It is said by many outside the USA that American society is the most litigeous in the world. The ratio of Engineers to Lawyers in the US and Europe a few years ago were reciprocals. Gotta tell you something.

Think about child-proof caps on things. A lawyer's invention, not an engineer's. With arthritis in my hands, I get my grandsons to open them for me.

Interesting altruistic thought.

I though an under the impression this is a case of going after a company that is making boat loads of money of a product and lawyers telling the person/people that these are the ones to get it from.

Why am I so cynical? Well, if it was truly about a growing problem, Sony, Panasonic, Rio, and anyone who makes a device that a person can connect headphones to would also be named in the suit because the last time I checked none of these had warning labels about how prolonged use can damage hearing.

Oh yeah, and if I can hear your ipod while I have mine on with ear buds and you are on the other end of the the subway car I think that is part of the Darwin Theory is some twisted way.

That's absurd. Warn the average person who is playing his iPod too loud for his hearing and he'll probably turn it up so he can't hear you. It isn't about warning them. They either know or should know about the problem. They're just dumb enough to think it won't happen to them.

Look both ways may have been drilled into you, but people are killed or injured all the time from crossing without looking. Surely they need a warning too? The fact is, there are nearly an infinite number of ways to hurt yourself in this world and it isn't possible to warn against all of them.

The most we can do is require manufacturers to provide a product that when used as they direct (as Apple has done) will not harm us. The reality is that we don't even require that much. If we did, the cigarette makers would be out of business.

Absolutely. It's called thinning the herd, and I have no problem with it.

And I'm under the impression that if the lawyers wanted to go after boatloads of money they would name as many defendants as possible. Besides, part of this lawsuit is about the iPod ear buds which are apparently less efficient at reducing the harmful effects of noise.

Only one person in my example has ear buds on.

To be sure, there are many people who flout the law, warnings and safety devices. Somewhere out there, there may very well be someone making toast in the shower as I write this.

But we are not talking about those who disobey traffic signals, don't buckle up or use toasters in showers. We're talking about average people who do heed warnings, laws and safety devices. And my point is that "loud" is a subjective term in terms of our perceptions, and an objective term in terms of hearing loss. And the average person does not realize that what they think is a normal, comfortable sound volume level may in fact be destroying their hearing.

Exactly. This is the point of the lawsuit... that the iPod, when used as directed, can harm us.

I always get a kick out of social Darwinism, as smug a belief system as any other. To be sure, the number one cause of death in the world is stupidity. But the logical, extreme -- and absurd -- conclusion is to do away with any sort of safety devices, laws and warnings and let the stupid drop like flies.

No we aren't. The warning is there, so by definition we're talking about people who ignore it. Sorry Reacher, but you're reaching. :D
No it cannot. Once again, the warning is there. Since we are directed to avoid playing loud music, it cannot harm us when used as directed.
No post I've read has advocated any such thing. It is entirely reasonable however, to do away with warnings that any reasonably intelligent adult should be aware of. Hearing damage due to loud noise is well documented. As an example, Sony faced a similar frivolous lawsuit over the original Walkman. Certainly by now it ranks up there with looking both ways before crossing as a common sense, basic knowledge sort of thing.

I have a 2G iPod. I believe it had several warnings about playing at elevated volumes in the instructions and in various places on the packaging. It sounds to me like someone is just trying to make a quick buck.

Perhaps I am reaching. I am playing devil's advocate, after all. :)

Now, please define "loud music". What volume setting on one's iPod makes music "loud"? What setting is loud enough to destroy one's hearing after otherwise "normal" usage?

Like almost everything else these days, there's a web site devoted to that topic.

And like everything else, it is each individual's responsibility to know how much is too much. If you stare into the Sun, you can't blame anyone but yourself when you go blind.

That's the sort of absolute example that drew me into this topic to begin with. I believe it was something along the lines of "let's sue fire for being hot".

A better example is, why not let people decide how many prescription pills are necessary to make themselves feel better? Why not just print a warning on the label, "Don't take too many pills"? Does this belong in the "like everything else" category?

Ultimately, I agree with the general gist of this topic, which is: people (particularly in North America) need to take back responsibility for their own actions. Knowledge is power, power is responsibility (thank you, Stan Lee), ergo knowledge is responsibility. But in order to achieve a responsible nation, we need to increase nation's knowledge. Vague warnings are not enough.

Thanks for the link, NovaScotian.

It absolutely is. It's been said many times that the clueless iPod user is the perfect mugger's target. They possess a valuable item and they are oblivious to their surroundings. In the wilderness, that's called "prey," or more precisely, "dinner."

But if knowledge is responsibility, and I agree that it is, then we are all responsible for our own knowledge. The way to increase the nation's knowledge is to hold individuals accountable for their lack of it. Lawsuits like this do exactly the opposite.

There's a more important "survival of the fittest" impact here, literally. Kids with iPod blaring don't hear traffic sounds. Both my wife and I have had the experience of iPodders standing behind us while we started the engine in a parking lot. My car's not noisy, but they didn't hear it. I also watched a young lady ignore a blaring horn as she stepped out from between two cars.

Penalizing ignorance does not raise awareness. The way to increase a nation's knowledge is to educate the nation.

Arguable and not likely proveable one way or the other. One could compare the iPod lawsuit with Ralph Nader's early campaign against the auto manufacturers. In fact, many of the arguments presented here were and are used against seatbelt legislation, e.g. "people wearing seatbelts will just drive more aggressively".

No one is talking about penalizing ignorance, but rewarding it does not raise awareness. It encourages the lazy and makes educating more difficult.

A more apt comparison would be families suing auto makers when a relative dies in a high speed crash. Car makers urge people to follow the speed limits. They don't set speed limits and they don't tell you what they are. It's up to you to know what they are, and the car makers can't be held responsible if you don't.

Agree. And to carry it further, they don't put speed limiters on cars either.

Indeed... And going the same way... Some one who works ina garage and smells car fumes all day and all the toxins that go with it (or even just working in a smoggy downtown area) may die of cancer at lets say 45. If his family would sue the Oil companies for distributing a toxic product without labeling the fact that when burning it there are toxic fumes or the car maker for not making their car exhausts non-toxic and not warning people
would be thrown out of court very fast because the companies can't be heald resoponsible for every single little think that people do with them...
I know some one who chocked on a pice of bread and died from it... Did his family sue the bread company for this ? No one would think of it !

So for the iPod, since there are ample warnings writen all over the documentation that comes with it, its even streching the whole concept of imputability to a point where it pretty much becomes an obscenity !
Why is it that other companies cannot get sued anymore (the old McD example where now it does state that the stuff is hot and may cause burns if you spill it on you is a good one for that- thanks Calvarez for the complete info on this) because they did put warning labels and disclaimers on their products but Apple can be ? Realy curious how some one could justify that one. A company can't realistically get sued either because you can't read the warning or didn't read it. If that's the case now adays then how many people would sue kitchen knife companies do you think :eek:

Personally, I'm sick and tired of seeing warnings on my fresh chicken about how I "must wash my hands after handling," cautions that my hot coffee "may be hot," statements that my cleanser is "not for internal consumption" and instructions on my box of toothpicks! It's too bad we have to cater to the idiots of the world.