Family Sues Apple, Claiming FaceTime Distracted Driver in Crash That Killed 5-Year-Old Daughter - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MR-X;51619322]They're not trying to cash in on it, they're trying to get apple to set up a feature which does not allow people to use facetime going at a high rate of speed.[/QUOTE] Fuck all those people using their phones on the bus/train, right?

[QUOTE=MR-X;51619322]They're not trying to cash in on it, they're trying to get apple to set up a feature which does not allow people to use facetime going at a high rate of speed.[/QUOTE] Bloody stupid though, that function would penalise passengers on a bus or a train too. [editline]4th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;51621647]Fuck all those people using their phones on the bus/train, right?[/QUOTE] Dammit, should've read to the end of the thread.

[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;51619016]While it would be easy to implement a GPS speed lockout for anything above 20km/h for facetime, the problem with that is what if you're a passenger and you want to talk with a friend on a long boring drive? Its up to the user to use it at the appropriate time, and be aware that using facetime while driving endangers themselves as well as other. The driver is at fault, not the manufacterer.[/QUOTE] You could get around that by turning GPS location off

This is disgusting. Your 5-year old daughter dies and what do you do? Go after the first party you can suck the most money out of. I've posted it before but the ability to sue has gone much too far and wide. I still don't understand the mentality: "Something bad happened to me! Give me money!" It just boggles the mind. Money would be the last thing I'd be thinking of, let alone the dev/manufacturer of the phone the other driver was using.

It's fairly obvious that they shouldn't be suing Apple and should be suing the driver. I assume he's getting near life in prison anyway? EDIT: I dfon't get why they'd sue in the first place though. How long after the death of their daughter did they start this suit?

[QUOTE=TestECull;51619565] Doesn't excuse an obvious moneygrab/frivolous lawsuit. The correct lawsuit to file would be wrongful death against the driver that was on FaceTime. [/QUOTE] A million times this. I'm heavily against trying to steal someone's money or assets when they've accidentally wronged you, but god damn, focus on the dude who actually caused your daughter's death, not a smartphone company.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51621418]Didn't someone sue mcdonalds successfully about getting burned by boiling coffee ?[/QUOTE] "Successfully" is a little overstated. The plaintiff got a payout but it was pretty meager, not even enough to cover the medical costs.

Wasn't the boiling coffee case kind of dumb regardless? A more interesting case is when McDonalds tried to destroy a restaurant in England named MacDonalds - after the family name, of course. McDonalds' lost.

Americans whole sueing people thing is so weird

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51622301]"Successfully" is a little overstated. The plaintiff got a payout but it was pretty meager, not even enough to cover the medical costs.[/QUOTE] And the only reason she sued was because McDonalds was not willing to pay for her medical costs. This is still frivolous. There is no reasonable technology that can be instated to disable FaceTime when you are driving a car that would not also prevent other users, or otherwise be 100% circumventable by someone stupid enough to want to FaceTime while driving. I think we should do something as a society to start [I]really [/I]stigmatizing using your phone while driving (and that does not mean cheesy "don't text and drive or u DIE" "PSAs".)

[QUOTE=Protocol7;51622498]And the only reason she sued was because McDonalds was not willing to pay for her medical costs. This is still frivolous. There is no reasonable technology that can be instated to disable FaceTime when you are driving a car that would not also prevent other users, or otherwise be 100% circumventable by someone stupid enough to want to FaceTime while driving. I think we should do something as a society to start [I]really [/I]stigmatizing using your phone while driving (and that does not mean cheesy "don't text and drive or u DIE" "PSAs".)[/QUOTE] "Don't text and drive or you will kill someone, land in prison and everyone will hate your shit" seems more appropriate, but yeah, social advertisement needs to get its shit together.

Is it not illegal to use a phone whilst driving in the states? It's super illegal over here and will land you 3 points and an on the spot fine.

[QUOTE=PyroCF;51622693]Is it not illegal to use a phone whilst driving in the states? It's super illegal over here and will land you 3 points and an on the spot fine.[/QUOTE] [URL=http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/cellular-phone-use-and-texting-while-driving-laws.aspx] Unfortunately, no. [/URL] It is technically not illegal to be [I]using[/I] your phone, though [I]texting[/I] is illegal. Apple also explicitly protects itself in its EULA.

[QUOTE=PyroCF;51622693]Is it not illegal to use a phone whilst driving in the states? It's super illegal over here and will land you 3 points and an on the spot fine.[/QUOTE] Some states ban handheld use, most states ban texting. Additionally truck and bus drivers universally aren't allowed to text or use hold it while driving.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51622341]Wasn't the boiling coffee case kind of dumb regardless? A more interesting case is when McDonalds tried to destroy a restaurant in England named MacDonalds - after the family name, of course. McDonalds' lost.[/QUOTE] No, it was a completely justified case.

[QUOTE=bastian-07;51618780]not their liability. if some idiot was admiring a pistol while driving would you sue s&w[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if someone would sue S&W over a case like that in the States tbh

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51622341]Wasn't the boiling coffee case kind of dumb regardless? [/QUOTE] For some reason people fail to mention that the coffee caused 3rd degree burns and required skin grafting for treatment.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51622341]Wasn't the boiling coffee case kind of dumb regardless? A more interesting case is when McDonalds tried to destroy a restaurant in England named MacDonalds - after the family name, of course. McDonalds' lost.[/QUOTE] It wasn't. McDonald's kept their coffee heated at 180f instead of the industry standard of 150f. The woman who sued sustained second and third degree burns to her thighs and vulva. There was a history of complaints about the heat of the coffee as well before this woman was injured so McDonald's were aware of the dangerously hot coffee they were serving

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51623199]It wasn't. McDonald's kept their coffee heated at 180f instead of the industry standard of 150f. The woman who sued sustained second and third degree burns to her thighs and vulva. There was a history of complaints about the heat of the coffee as well before this woman was injured so McDonald's were aware of the dangerously hot coffee they were serving[/QUOTE] Huh, that's weird. Moccamaster says coffee should be at 175-185F, and I've never had a problem burning me with the coffee it makes. Coffee is hot, don't pour it on yourself.

[QUOTE=gukki;51623230]Huh, that's weird. Moccamaster says coffee should be at 175-185F, and I've never had a problem burning me with the coffee it makes. Coffee is hot, don't pour it on yourself.[/QUOTE] Brewed or served?

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;51623793]Brewed or served?[/QUOTE] Brewing temp is about 200F and then the secondary element keeps the coffee in the pot at about 180F 150F seems really low to me Don't the mugs have hot content warning on them too?

Why are you people saying it should be served at 150F? Tea is made with boiling water (100C), then poured into a cup, then served, almost everywhere. No way that is cooled down to 65C (150F) when served...

[QUOTE=Cyberuben;51623963]Why are you people saying it should be served at 150F? Tea is made with boiling water (100C), then poured into a cup, then served, almost everywhere. No way that is cooled down to 65C (150F) when served...[/QUOTE] from the wikipedia article [QUOTE]The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3] Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[17][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51623988]from the wikipedia article[/QUOTE] From what I know, here in NL, when you order a coffee, people just use common sense, know it's hot, are careful with it, and the temperature ranges from 85C to 95C.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51623988]from the wikipedia article[/QUOTE] That's about as stupid as suing apple because someone used their phone when crashing in to you

[QUOTE=Cyberuben;51624029]From what I know, here in NL, when you order a coffee, people just use common sense, know it's hot, are careful with it, and the temperature ranges from 85C to 95C.[/QUOTE] Well hey that's wonderful for you in the Netherlands but this case wasn't in the Netherlands, and we clearly don't think coffee should be hot enough to require skin grafting. If it's hot enough to [b]melt your skin[/b] it's too hot to drink so what's the fucking point anyways

[QUOTE=geel9;51622806]No, it was a completely justified case.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51622341]Wasn't the boiling coffee case kind of dumb regardless? A more interesting case is when McDonalds tried to destroy a restaurant in England named MacDonalds - after the family name, of course. McDonalds' lost.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Samiam22;51622301]"Successfully" is a little overstated. The plaintiff got a payout but it was pretty meager, not even enough to cover the medical costs.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51621418]Didn't someone sue mcdonalds successfully about getting burned by boiling coffee ?[/QUOTE] The FDA found McDonalds was serving coffee at an unnecessarily high and catastrophically unsafe temperature. It was way beyond the serving temperature of coffee and well beyond the temperature of anything that should be served in a public restaurant.

[QUOTE=gukki;51623847]Don't the mugs have hot content warning on them too?[/QUOTE] The mugs have hot content warning on them BECAUSE of this case.

yeah paul walker family sued porshe because their cars werent safe enough... like have they actually seen a video on what happens to cars when they hit something on 120km/h? [video=youtube;LmRkPyuet_o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o[/video]

[QUOTE=mwesten1;51626620]yeah paul walker family sued porshe because their cars werent safe enough... like have they actually seen a video on what happens to cars when they hit something on 120km/h? [/QUOTE] I'd like to point out that that's 120 [B]m[/B]p/h which is 196 km/h