Nintendo: 3DS Warnings Are Lawsuit Deterrent

[AzrealMaximillion]

In this lawsuit happy world I sure as hell don't blame them.

Pretty much that.

What Nintendo doesn't realize is that most people who sue don't EVER read the warmings.

No, but if the warnings are there then case usually gets shut down before it even gets going or any considerable amount of money is wasted in legal fees.

Not really. True from Canada. The ever popular Tim Horton's coffee shop was sue because a lady spilt hot coffee on her lap and scolded herself. All coffees come with a (Warning contents may be Hot) warning on the top of the lid of the cup. She somehow still got money. Living in the World today eh?

Wasn't it McDonald's? And didn't such warnings come about as a result of that case?

It was McDonald's first and that did bring the warnings, but I'm talking about Tim Horton's in Canada. The judge deemed Tim Horton's warning not visible enough or some BS even though the warning is on top of the damn lid and on the side.

Someone tried to sue a McDonald's for the same thing in the U.K. 2 years after and the case got thrown out even without warnings on their cups. The judge there ruled that common sense should've taken precedence.

Yeah I know, I live in Canada. However I'd not heard of either of those two cases.
Common sense eh? That's a rare thing these days, which is ironic when you think about it.

Yeah go figure. I leaerned about the Tmmiy's case amd the U.K. McDonald's case in law class. I can still see some sue happy parent making money off of a lawsuit about this. Warnings or not if if can be sold to kids you can sue about it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

In this lawsuit happy world I sure as hell don't blame them.

Pretty much that.

What Nintendo doesn't realize is that most people who sue don't EVER read the warmings.

No, but if the warnings are there then case usually gets shut down before it even gets going or any considerable amount of money is wasted in legal fees.

Not really. True from Canada. The ever popular Tim Horton's coffee shop was sue because a lady spilt hot coffee on her lap and scolded herself. All coffees come with a (Warning contents may be Hot) warning on the top of the lid of the cup. She somehow still got money. Living in the World today eh?

Wasn't it McDonald's? And didn't such warnings come about as a result of that case?

It was McDonald's first and that did bring the warnings, but I'm talking about Tim Horton's in Canada. The judge deemed Tim Horton's warning not visible enough or some BS even though the warning is on top of the damn lid and on the side.

Someone tried to sue a McDonald's for the same thing in the U.K. 2 years after and the case got thrown out even without warnings on their cups. The judge there ruled that common sense should've taken precedence.

Yeah I know, I live in Canada. However I'd not heard of either of those two cases.
Common sense eh? That's a rare thing these days, which is ironic when you think about it.

Yeah go figure. I leaerned about the Tmmiy's case amd the U.K. McDonald's case in law class. I can still see some sue happy parent making money off of a lawsuit about this. Warnings or not if if can be sold to kids you can sue about it.

Well with the warnings there's very little chance that the sue happy bitches will win though, which means the only ones they'll have to pay are their lawyers whom most big companies keep on the regular payroll anyway.

 

[SachielOne]

This sort of thing isn't new. The Virtual Boy had the same warnings, though the risk of eye damage to young children in that case was real.

 

[QuantumT]

I think some of you guys need to read about the actual McDonald's case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case]. Some facts:

-The coffee was served at 180-190 F.
-Liquid at this temperature that will cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds.
-The woman was hospitalized for over a week and required skin grafts.
-She originally only tried to recover enough to cover her medical expenses.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Like I wasn't sick of the DS health warning on boot up.

And the warning attached to late-life GBA games, either.

 

[BabyRaptor]

I think some of you guys need to read about the actual McDonald's case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case]. Some facts:

-The coffee was served at 180-190 F.
-Liquid at this temperature that will cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds.
-The woman was hospitalized for over a week and required skin grafts.
-She originally only tried to recover enough to cover her medical expenses.

That doesn't justify the stupidity of purchasing hot coffee and then suing because it was hot. It wasn't McDonalds' fault she spilled the hot coffee she willfully ordered on herself...In no way were they responsible.

 

[QuantumT]

I think some of you guys need to read about the actual McDonald's case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case]. Some facts:

-The coffee was served at 180-190 F.
-Liquid at this temperature that will cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds.
-The woman was hospitalized for over a week and required skin grafts.
-She originally only tried to recover enough to cover her medical expenses.

That doesn't justify the stupidity of purchasing hot coffee and then suing because it was hot. It wasn't McDonalds' fault she spilled the hot coffee she willfully ordered on herself...In no way were they responsible.

There's a limit on how hot they can give it to you and be safe, and they passed it. They served it at a temperature 40-50 degrees hotter than anywhere else, which is part of the problem. Not only is the temperature unsafe to begin with, but it's distinctly different than anyone else.

Let's suppose that they served it at 400 degrees (we'll pretend it won't boil off). At this temperature, the coffee would begin to melt your flesh basically instantaneously. Are they still not responsible in any way? What if it's 1000 degrees? Or 2000? Is there any point where it becomes unacceptable?