Wiimote Straps Result in Class Action Suit

Kotaku reports the news that problems with breaking Wiimote straps has resulted in a class action lawsuit against Nintendo. From the press release about the suit: "Green Welling LLP filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of the owners of the Nintendo Wii against Nintendo of America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action lawsuit arose as result of the defective nature of the Nintendo Wii. In particular, the Nintendo Wii game console includes a remote and a wrist strap for the remote. Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand. Nintendo's failure to include a remote that is free from defects is in breach of Nintendo's own product warranty."

If only stupidity were illegal

[antifoidulus]

then Nintendo would have a valid counterclaim.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Pulse_Instance]

I don't think stupidity should be illegal, but we should stop protecting stupid people so much. Unless there is a legitimate concern here, I haven't used one so I don't know, then having to replace a TV you broke by being stupid should teach you to not be stupid anymore. The American society seems to encourage people to be stupid.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Tom]

By now I have quite a few hours of playtime down, most of it with friends. Not once has a Wiimote left the hands of its player, even though some of us have played with enthusiasm. If you look at the videos on YouTube, you'll see that in those where the straps broke, there are always two things:

a) The player's hands were sweaty, and I don't mean a little bit
b) The Wiimote was literally thrown into a wall at full speed, as in "everything you've got".

Yeah, you can get into the game, but if you stand in your living room throwing something at the TV with the maximum amount of power you can muster, then anyone with more than 3 brain cells should realize he's doing something potentially dangerous.

Plus there is no advantage I've noticed to putting that much power into your movements. In all the games I've played so far, timing is more important than raw power.

Re:

[Samus]

The only advantage that I have seen is in Wii Sports Baseball. The manual says that the faster you "throw" the remote, the faster the pitch will go. I've noticed this to some small extent. That said, I have two boys ages 4 & 6 and never have the controllers left their hands when they are playing. My 4 year old is especially "active" and the only problem I've had is him creeping up to the TV during boxing.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Viper Daimao]

I'll cop out to this. This is how I broke my wrist strap. Playing baseball I was getting annoyed at how hard it was to get the ball to go above 70something mph. So I devised a clever(read:foreshadowing for dumb) technique of actually throwing the remote, and letting the wrist strap cause it to loop around my wrist afterwards. I'm proud to say I was then throwing in the mid to low 90s, but after about 3 or 4 times the wrist strap broke.

That's all that broke though, and I accept full blame for anything else that might have broken. People have to realize that it's not the company's fault that your kids started acting like kids and broke their new toy. Breaking stuff is what kids do.

Re:

[miro f]

just give the remote a quick flick with your wrist. I get 150km/h fastballs every time

Where does it end, you ask?

[Skye16]

It ends where we drag these people out of their houses and lynch them with their own intestines. As for when it ends - well. I hope sometime soon.

Re:

[GeckoX]

It's only come to this because Nintendo was trying to be nice by offering a strap for those that have trouble holding on to things.

Now the lawyers can argue that since Nintendo provided this as part of the product, and since it doesn't hold up in all cases (Regardless of _how_ the damned thing fails, doesn't matter to them), well it's time to sue.

If Nintendo had not added the strap, this couldn't have happened.

How completely fucked up is that?

Re:

[Zordak]

If Nintendo had not added the strap, this couldn't have happened.

I think you're seriously underestimating plaintiffs' lawyers. If Nintendo had not included a strap, that attorney would be standing in front of a jury saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, Nintendo could have avoided these grievous injuries to person and property if they had just included a simple strap for the wiimote---a strap that would have cost no more than a few cents each. But those greedy Japanese capitalists had no more regard for America

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[nanojath]

It's a shame class action suits are such lawyer bait - there just ain't no cream like the cream you skim off the top of a megacorporation's liability to an honest to goodness population. Of course, with class action suits it's more like they skim off the whole milk and give that long-suffering population the whey

I think they geniuses responsible for this one will regret it, though. Some will say Nintendo invited this by offering strap replacement (and general advice on not playing like a full-on spaz), but I think they merely observed the inevitable and effectively froze the potential plaintiff pool.

It looks to me like they're trying to wrangle the notion of some sort of harm being done to people by simply receiving a defective product - whether or not it actually harmed them - but I sincerely doubt (particularly since Nintendo has addressed the problem very early on) that this will fly. Or they may think Nintendo will spook easily and cough up a decent pay-off with little effort... but I think they will find themselves disappointed if so - like all major corporations Nintendo has lawyers just sitting around waiting for stuff like this. Thus only people with some claim to actual harm will be able to apply, and there won't be enough of them to make bringing this suit even remotely (wiimotely?) pay off. Hah hah.

In short, while my first reaction is that this story was merely about greed, on reflection yes, it's equally about stupidity.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[drcln]

Its about "discovery" and "production." When a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff gets the right to go on a fishing expedition in the defendant's files, emails, factories and to depose personnel. It is a burdensome and ridiculously expensive process for the defendant, who has to "produce" all the discovery material. And who knows what they might find? Even with a bogus claim, if the plaintiff's lawyers can survive long enough to force discovery, the cost and burden alone may make it worth Nintendo's money to just pay the plaintiff lawyers' "fees" to go away and send all Wii owners a $5 coupon for a Wii accessory in a "settlement" that is really a marketing campaign. That is at the heart of this game.

    Of course, the cost of settlement is simply passed along to those poor saps that are represented by these lawyers in the higher cost of Wii games and accessories. Only the lawyers win.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Shadow Wrought]

Or, in the alternative, you could maybe not let go! I have a Wii and have played it enereggetically and have never even come close to throwing it across. Now has my 13 year old stepson or my wife or any of the half-dozen other kids and adults who ahve come over and played it.

Don't let go.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[HappySqurriel]

Or, in the alternative, you could maybe not let go! I have a Wii and have played it enereggetically and have never even come close to throwing it across. Now has my 13 year old stepson or my wife or any of the half-dozen other kids and adults who ahve come over and played it.

Don't let go.

If my 8 year old niece can flail her arms for 20 minutes straight while playing Wii Sports Boxing, I think most adults should be able to hold onto it under normal usage. Even if an adult drops the Wiimote under normal usage the strap apears to be able to handle (about) 50lbs of force so the strap should be able to prevent the Wiimote from flying across the room. Even if the strap broke the Wiimote is not heavy enough to break a TV at the speed it would be thrown at under normal use.

The fact that the Wiimote is flying out of people's hands with enough force to break the strap and a person's TV makes me think that these are not normal use. Now, I think it would have been better for Nintendo to provide a strap that can handle even moronic usage, but companies are not responsible for moronic use of their product.

Re:

[paeanblack]

The fact that the Wiimote is flying out of people's hands with enough force to break the strap and a person's TV makes me think that these are not normal use.

If enough people are having these problems, then it is "normal use", no matter how stupid you may think it is. The Wii is designed engage children in physical activity within a den/bedroom/family room area. While Nintendo should not be held accountable for the outlandish cases, they are certainly culpable when their products fail under usage only a s

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[stuntpope]

The strap failed. But taking that fact to the conclusion:

"the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand." (from article)

is bogus. The failure of the strap did not cause the remote to leave the user's hand, unless the breaking strap also pried the user's fingers open. Or if the remote is unusually difficult to maintain a grip on without a strap tying it to the hand.

Re:

[Delirium Tremens]

The suit is misstating the facts. It inversed cause and effect. The truth is

the remote left the user's hand and caused the wrist strap to break.

not

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand (from the article)

Actually, since the remote has no will of its own, the only actor here is the user. And the real fact is that

the user let go of the remote and caused the wrist strap to break.

But then, if it is the user who is the cause of the problem, it is really not Nite

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[lordmatthias215]

i find it odd that there are several *videos* of people playing the Wii, whose straps *just happen* to break on camera. I dunno about the rest of the world, but where I live, we don't tend to record ourselves playing video games so we can come back in 6 months and laugh at ourselves... And although the video probably isn't doctored, it wouldn't be hard to snip part of the strap so it would break during a conveniently recorded game session.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[iamhassi]

"...and since it is a very new console, that relatively few people could get, there were tons of videos coming up from the 'lucky few' and some of them caught this failure."

How many hours of video did they have to record before catching the 10 seconds of video of the strap breaking? You're telling me they just had a camcorder recording non-stop for 10, 20, 30, etc hours, every time they played the Wii? I don't buy it.

I think the videos are fake too, I have a Wii and I don't think I could break the strap no matter how hard I flailed my arms around. It's just not going to get full force from a swinging arm within the ~6 inches of the strap length. It'd fly the length of the strap and snap back into my hand.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Phisbut]

i've watched video of them busting on youtube. and i don't think the video was doctored in any way. the video was of a guy playing and you can see that the strap snapped.

You mean videos like this one [youtube.com], or maybe this one [youtube.com]? All of the Wii straps I've seen break were from people trying to send the thing flying into orbit. That is simple abuse of the hardware.

From the article:

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

No where in the documentation does it say to let go of the remote. In the Wii Sports instruction booklet, on the Wii Tennis page, it says "Use gentle motion while playing". Throwing the thing hard enough to break a TV is not "gentle motion". These people are not using the Nintendo remote and wrist strap as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console. It's not the strap breaking that caused the remote to leave the user's hand, it's the user letting go of the remote that caused the strap to break.

I really hope that these people go to court and use the argument "that's what the documentation says", because it's exactly what the documentation says NOT TO DO. If you can't read the manual, and if you can't control yourself, it's not Nintendo's fault.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Chibi Merrow]

They're not telling the truth if they're saying it's Nintendo's fault they let go of their remote.

Knock it off.

[Grendel Drago]

McDonald's sold coffee at a temperature significantly higher than other restaurants, and had received seven hundred complaints of coffee burns over the preceding ten years. [wikipedia.org] Despite the case's standing in popular culture, it really didn't go down like that. Though the woman was found partly responsible, the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

Re:Knock it off.

[Orange Crush]

the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

The hot coffee suit is one so often pointed to when discussing stupid lawsuits I had no idea it actually had merit. Learn something new every day. Thanks for that.

Re:Knock it off.

[KDR_11k]

"Hot coffee lawsuit" makes me think of Jack Thompson.

Re:

[jedidiah]

Most companies will not sell you a cup of coffee hot enough to give you 3rd degree burns under any circumstance. Not only is it dangerous to the customer but it also harms the product. Beyond all of that, McDonalds already had been sued numerous times over the same issue and chose to suppress information on the matter rather than warn their customers or fix the problem.

Nintendo has actually been doing right by customers effected so far.

Re:Knock it off.

[Laur]

Despite the case's standing in popular culture, it really didn't go down like that. Though the woman was found partly responsible, the coffee was indeed defective as argued.

Try reading Overlawyered [overlawyered.com] for a different take on this. Basically, the popular belief that the suit was ridiculous is pretty much correct. The coffee was not defective, many other restaurants (such as Starbucks) still serve coffee that hot. Besides, McDonald's even had a warning label on the cup.

Re:Knock it off.

[KingSkippus]

You mean the article that keeps referring to those who believe that Stella Liebeck had merit as "the left" and "liberals"?

It sounds to me like the guy is more interested in pushing some kind of agenda than making an honest evaluation of the case based on its legal merits or lack thereof. Even if the guy is right, he's sure not helping his argument.

Also, it sounds to me like his main point is that the judge should have thrown the case out instead of letting it go to a jury trial. I'm sorry, but although sometimes juries can be stupid, I'd trust a jury much more than I'd trust a judge any day.

/had a judge once tell me, "You don't have a right to a jury trial" over a traffic offense, though it's clearly stated in the Georgia state constitution that I did
/had same judge tell me after finding me guilty, "You know you never had a chance, right?"

Re:Knock it off.

[tgibbs]

Although a lot of people have argued that the ruling was faulty based on the fact that the temperature was not extraordinarily hot for coffee (which it wasn't) and that many people like coffee this hot (which is true), the court clearly considered not just the temperature of the coffee, but all of the circumstances under which it was served. So while the temperature of the coffee might be perfectly appropriate for coffee served at a table in a ceramic cup, MacDonalds was serving it at that temperature in a styrofoam cup that softens under heat. The cup is stabilized by the rigid lid, and is fine as long as the lid is firmly in place, but it has a tendency to suddenly collapse with even fairly gentle pressure on the sides if the lid is removed. And they were serving it this way to people in automobiles, with separate sugar that required the buyer to remove the lid. A "contents are hot" warning hardly alleviates the hazard, because that does not really convey the nature of the hazard. Perhaps a warning more along the lines of "Warning, cup may suddenly collapse and spill hot contents if lid is removed" would have given MacDonald's more protection from liability. Serving the coffee cooler would have been one option, but hardly the only one; they could also have chose to use a rigid cardboard cup that is not prone to softening and collapse. Even then, the court only found MacDonalds to be partially at fault.

Re:

[Laur]

The cup is stabilized by the rigid lid, and is fine as long as the lid is firmly in place, but it has a tendency to suddenly collapse with even fairly gentle pressure on the sides if the lid is removed.

It is fairly obvious that the cup is soft and that the lid is helping to keep it rigid, a warning to that effect really shouldn't be necessary. AFAIK, cardboard cups suffer from the same problem, they are also not very rigid without the lid. However, most people are bright enough to not open a container c

Re:No, you've got it backward

[Laur]

From a practical perspective there is absolutely no reason to serve coffee at a tissue-destroying temperature.

From a practical perspective, if you spill something hot on yourself, you probably shouldn't just let it sit there for 90 seconds. Even if the coffee temperature was reduced, the woman would still be seriously burned. Any hot food (or anything hot, really) has the capacity to burn, yet people still manage to eat and drink hot things regularly without serious injury. Did you miss the statistic that only 1 in 24 million people a year complained about the coffee being too hot? The other millions apparently could deal with it just fine.

The argument that people like hot coffee makes so [sic] sense since no one can drink coffee at that temperature without suffering serious burns. No one! People have to wait before drinking, and time of waiting represents exposure to a hazard, since any spill will scald them.

So what? Pretty much all heated food or drink is prepared and usually served at temperatures higher than it can be immediately consumed. If McDonald's hands you fresh french fries which just came out of the fryer they will likely burn you too if you try to eat them immediately. Most people are smart enough to let hot food cool down before eating or drinking it, or if they do manage to burn themselves they don't blame others for their own mistakes.

Re:

[PeelBoy]

So if a beer company made a beer that had slightly more alcohol than normal and a person guy super drunk and crashed (killing an innocent family in the process) does that make it the beer companies fault for having .2% more alcohol than expected?

Re:Knock it off.

[jedidiah]

I will take your shill site and raise you a genuine litigator that's also a coffee snob.

McDonalds does infact keep their coffee hotter than Starbucks. People drink Starbucks because they use quality beans, don't abuse those beans too badly and then don't drastically overuse them. Starbucks also offers plenty of additives to the point where you need not even know you're drinking coffee.

People fork over London-esque prices over to Starbucks not because "it's hot" but because they actually like to TASTE the things that they eat and drink.

Being able to do permanent skin damage to yourself doesn't even enter into it.

McCoffee would be a shining example of how the standard American brew bears little resemblance to what the rest of the planet thinks is coffee.

Place it in the same category as Budweiser and Velveeta.

Re:Knock it off.

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

People drink Starbucks because they use quality beans, don't abuse those beans too badly and then don't drastically overuse them.

I call bullshit; Starbucks coffee tastes terrible! People go to Starbucks because there's one on practically every corner, there's furniture to sit on, wireless Internet access and very good brand awareness.

Re:Knock it off.

[RockModeNick]

Though I agree with the parent that they use good beans, I have yet to have a cup of coffie from starbucks that was not horribly scortched. Every single cup I've had there was burned, at every starbucks I've been too.

Re:

[Dirtside]

Like driving around bumpy roads with a hot cup of coffee between your legs?

I assume you're referring to the classic McDonald's coffee case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants [wikipedia.org], where a woman had a cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap and got scalded by it when it spilled.

1. The car was sitting still.
2. The cup spilled when she tried to pry off the top while the car was sitting still.
3. She was in the passenger seat; she was not the driver.

Whether or not the case had any merit one way or the other, I really wis

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Lane.exe]

OK, this requires a brief explanation of what the "products liability" area of law entails. It falls within an area known as "strict liability." This means that if you place a defectively designed, defectively manufactured, or defectively marketed product in the stream of commerce, you are liable regardless of whose "fault" it is. The reasons advanced for this are many, but mainly, it is to spread the cost of defective products on those who can bear the cost -- the manufacturers with lots of money -- rather than on those who cannot bear the cost -- the general populace. In general, you like strict liability theories for products liability. It prevents companies from knowingly or negligently putting bad products on the market and standing behind a "caveat emptor" defense.

In this case, I have to admit, I'm skeptical as to whether the straps were defectively designed. If only some were made weaker relative to others, then those might be defectively manufactured, but I think that abnormal, excessive use might be a more proximate cause than any alleged defects in design. However, Nintendo may have screwed themselves by performing the strap exchange program. I'm not sure (because I'm not a lawyer, only a student). However, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'll keep it on my radar.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Like driving around bumpy roads with a hot cup of coffee between your legs? "

Question: Suppose in this hypothetical situation that the lids were really weak, something a little foresight would have cured? They'd work adequately for walking out of Starbucks with them, but were just weak enough that a standard car bump would burst them open. What would the opinion be, then?

I know it sounds like it, but I'm not setting up an argument against Nintendo. I'm just reading a lot of extreme opinions here where

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[dinther]

"Products shouldn't be released in America" first. And that is exactly what is happening more already. Sites like Gizmodo and Kotaku complain on a regular basis about "why o why don't we get this fancy new gadget States side" Well, many manufacturers are scared to enter into the American market. Large as it may be, it is filled with degenerated morons who all have their lawyers phone number tattooed on their right arm.

Any manufacturer mostly release their products in normal countries first to give them a chance to make the product USA Idiot proof. Once they have done that and stockpiled enough money to handle the lawyers fees they will incur in the USA they might think about releasing there.

I design a range of products for clients and I always suggest to steer clear of the USA because there is always a dick that is going to sue you and you better have a fat wallet ready.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[kaptron]

So you're the guy that's always preventing cool products from being released in the US! That's discrimination, I am so going to sue your ass!

Re:

[icedcool]

Right. My rule is " you break it you buy it." All my buddies make damn sure they hold on tight.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[SageMusings]

Well, I for one am glad this happened.

It's about time. Why, the packing box almost slipped out of my hand while walking to the car after having just purchased it. Clearly, Nintendo does not have my best interests in mind. I will just sit back and wait for my $0.37 check while the thoughtful attorney scores a new Lambo and a new mistress.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Skater]

Sadly, Nintendo probably would've been better off had they NOT included a strap. After all, you don't see Louisville Slugger being sued because their bat slipped out of someone's hand.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[kannibal_klown]

As a Wii user, I'm sorry but that's BS. If you're using them as instructed the things should not be flying like canonballs. I remember watching a video of a guy holding the Wiimote like a baseball, doing a fullstrength pitch, and letting go of the Wiimote (hoping the strap would keep it on his wrist when he let go). Sorry, that is NOT proper usage.

I've had it since the week it came out and played a lot of Wii Sports during the first week. And even at my strongest throws and such I never let the thing go.

Re:

[rblancarte]

The suit states that they break when used "as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console." That's not being stupid, that's following instructions.

No, it is not. These people of stories of death and destruction are doing things WELL beyond what they should with the controls.

RonB

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Actually, its more like using a sledgehammer to tap the A button.
I got a Wii at launch, and the thin cord that attaches the strap to the remote is smaller than the ones being sold now.
So the fuck what?
After a couple pretty savage drops onto my hardwood floor (by drunken guests passing the remote between themselves) it became apparent that the remote itself is nearly indestructible. So i decided to test the strap.
I went over to my bed, held the end of the strap, and whipped it downward at my bed. Hard.
nothing
Again, harder.
nothing
againagain, as hard as i could muster.
nothing.
I was unable to break the strap.
maybe I'm just a wuss, but i kinda doubt it.

people need to settle the fuck down and realize that they're playing a fucking video game, not the world fucking series.

Also, how could the strap breaking possibly *cause* the remote to come out of one's hand? At most, it could fail to *prevent* the remote to go flying across the room... but i dont really understand how, in the physical universe in which we live, the strap could possibly break *before* the remote has left the hand in such a way as to *cause* anything. I guess you could snag the strap on some kind of protruding hook that then ripped the cord while the remote was still in the hand, but causing it to leave the hand? BULLSHIT. and any decent lawyer will pick apart the logic on that in about 5 minutes.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[theckhd]

If there was nothing wrong with the first strap then why did they correct it.

The fact that they started using a newer version of the strap does not imply the old one was defective. Perhaps the old strap was perfectly suitable for normal use, as instructed in the manual (I don't know, I don't own a Wii). If Nintendo found that a larger subset of their users than first expected like swinging their wiimote much more vigorously than instructed, then updating the strap to be a little stronger to accommodate those users is a smart business decision (fewer complaints from users about weak straps is good for the product's image among that demographic).

It's kind of a shame, from that point of view. The summary could read:
1)Business releases product.
2)Customers ask for improvement to product.
3)Business improves product.
4)Customers file class-action lawsuit against business, assuming that the improvement implies the original product was defective.
5)Profit! (for the lawyers, anyhow)

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[_KiTA_]

The fact that they started using a newer version of the strap does not imply the old one was defective. Perhaps the old strap was perfectly suitable for normal use, as instructed in the manual (I don't know, I don't own a Wii). If Nintendo found that a larger subset of their users than first expected like swinging their wiimote much more vigorously than instructed, then updating the strap to be a little stronger to accommodate those users is a smart business decision (fewer complaints from users about weak straps is good for the product's image among that demographic).

No, they very specifically state that this is NOT a recall. They're replacing all NEW straps with the new one, but if you are really concerned about it, you can call and get a replacement, new one.

Simply put, the wrist strap is there in case you are silly enough to let go of the Wiimote during play, which you are NOT supposed to do.

My gut is telling me these charming lawsuits are coming from a group of people (Homo Sapiens Moronicus) who think they're actually supposed to throw the Wiimote as a baseball or bowling ball, and the strap is supposed to keep it from getting away from you.

This is NOT how you're supposed to actually use the darned thing, but hey, I guess this is the downside to bringing gaming to a wider audience. (That, and Nintendo daring to have a hugely successful holiday product).

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[The Only Druid]

This is not legal advice: in the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is clearly stated that any attempt by a company to improve a product cannot and must not be admitted as evidence of a defect in the original design. Otherwise, products would never be improved (for fear of a resulting defect lawsuit).

Re:

[TheRaven64]

I think Penny Arcade had a good explanation... [penny-arcade.com]

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Counterpoint. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[Noxx]

Stupidity in nature is a crime which carries the death penalty...unfortunately civilization allows probation instead.

Re:If only stupidity were illegal

[rucs_hack]

I've looked at a lot of these images of screwed televisions and so on. It strikes me that the main problem is that people who normally spend their time sat down twiddling with buttons on controllers are so inept at normal exercise that they can't manage a simple thing like not chucking a controller.

It also occurs to me that some people sit glued to the news 24/7 trying to find another opportunity for a frivolous lawsuit that might net them an easy buck.

Wait...

[Aadain2001]

Didn't I read recently that Nintendo was issuing a massive recall/replacement program to replace the straps on all the Wiimotes? How can you sue a company who is completely willing to fix the problem is a very timely manor (1 month)? Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?

Re:Wait...

[Jarjarthejedi]

He's suing a company that's willing to help solve a problem that's not their fault (as the strap is NOT intended to stop the Wiimote if it's thrown but rather intended to keep you from dropping it). Nintendo has, frankly, done everything you could expect of a company in their position. People are using their devices improperly and then blaming Nintendo for damage. It's the same as if you have one of those shake-to-recharge flashlights and you let it go and it broke your T.V., could you blame the company who made those for anything? No, because it's your fault. Nintendo doesn't really need to do anything, the Wii works as advertised as does the Wiimote. It's not their fault that people are being idiots with the thing, and so their offering to replace straps with heavier-duty ones is generous of them.

And watch, I'm calling it, Nintendo will lose. Because in America, land of the free, home of the brave, you can get money out of McDonalds for spilling coffee on yourself. Some days I love being an American, and then there are days where a company gets sued for doing more than should rationally be expected of them.

Re:Wait...

[Aadain2001]

Personally, I hate references to the old woman who spilled coffee on herself as a stupid lawsuit. If you actually look in deeper, you will find that the coffee was so hot, it scalded and caused horrible burns. I don't care how stupid she was, if you get coffee spilled on you you should only have to worry about having wet clothes, not burns that require hospitalization. So please, stop using that reference. She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.

Tards of a feather thick together

[Rotund Prickpull]

She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.

Presumably if it had been cooler it wouldn't have had sufficient energy to leap out of the pot and swoop in for the attack?

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

Third-degree burns, to be specific. It annoys me that this case, in which the woman sued McDonalds only for medical expenses after getting THIRD DEGREES BURNS from a CUP OF COFFEE, is somehow held up as the quintessential frivolous lawsuit. It's not. Stop mentioning it.

Re:Wait...

[RexRhino]

It is not the quintessential frivolous lawsuit - That would be the racist woman who sued her employer claiming that her racism was a medical condition, and by the employer forcing her to work with black coworkers, that he was violating the Americans with Disabilities act. (She won several million dollars if I remember correctly.)

However, the act of drinking a hot beverage is something that everyone has done... so it resonates with all of us. It is so common place and basic, and everyone knows that coffee is hot and can fucking burn you. And people know that something fundamental has changed in our culture when someone else is held responsible when you spill coffee on yourself. It might not be the worse case of tort abuse, but it is the point in time when most of us realized just how stupid the legal system was getting, and just how much this stupidity was costing us as a society.

Re:Wait...

[Nasarius]

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck obtained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured." McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's _Restaurants [wikipedia.org]

Oops. If McDonald's hadn't been so incredibly stupid, they could have paid $20,000 instead of somewhere around $600,000.

Re:Wait...

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

I wish the woman had gotten more because of the disgusting argument of the McDonalds lawyer: the woman was too old for sex in his opinion so reconstructive surgery to her lap would be purely cosmetic and not necessary. It would has set a precident for all cases of injury through negligence to be dismissed with arguments such as "yeah well he's fat and lazy and didn't like being able to walk anyway".

Re:

[BinaryOpty]

Except you don't drink it while its still boiling: you let it cool down. When being served coffee by an establishment you expect at the very least that the coffee has cooled down to the point you can drink it relatively soon. You do NOT expect for them to hand you a cup of boiling water that would give you third degree burns. Thus the idea of "negligence" comes in for them not telling you "Hey don't spill that, it will burn you so bad it'll kill your nerve endings (third-degree burn)" when the expectation i

Re:Wait...

[cfulmer]

I don't expect that. Nearly every time I get coffee, I have to wait for a few minutes before drinking it. In fact, the coffee counsel recommends keeping coffee at around 185 degrees. McDonald's was serving coffee that's just about as hot as Starbuck's, and Caribou's and Dunkin' Donuts' and....

Many people get coffee from fast-food restaurants because it will be just cool enough for them to drink when they get to where they are going (think construction workers.)

The coffee itself did not cause immediate 3rd degree burns -- that came from prolonged contact because the coffee was absorbed into her clothes. If you make yourself a cup of coffee at home and then poured it into your lap, you'd have a similar problem. Had she not been using her crotch as a cup holder, the whole thing never would have happened.

Re:

[cfulmer]

What regulation? I'm unaware of any government agency that regulates the temperature at which restaurants can serve coffee. The National Coffee Ass'n of the USA suggests serving coffee at 180-195 degrees.

Exactly how hot do you think this coffee was? You can pour boiling water over your arm and it won't cause 3rd degree burns in well under a second. A person can drink 180 degree coffee 'fairly soon' (within about 5-10 minutes) of being served it, as long as they don't put it into a thermos or anything.

Th

Magical pants!

[Grendel Drago]

No, but putting a styrofoam cup of even warm coffee between your legs is the quintessential act of stupidity, and she was paid for it. What would have happened had it not been so hot it scalded her? A lawsuit for her dry cleaning expenses?

If your messy sweatpants require you to undergo two years of medical treatment costing eleven grand, I think I'd be okay with you suing about that. Because you'd have magic pants.

Re:

[julesh]

The ideal brewing temperature of coffee is 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit,

True. But there is little or no reason to actually serve it at that temperature. Drinking it at such a high temperature would be dangerous, and allowing it to cool (to say 160) would mean the drink could be drunk as soon as it is served.

while it takes less than 2 seconds of direct skin exposier to get a severe burn (THIRD DEGREE) when fluid is as little as 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

Do you have a source for that? Medical evidence presented

Re:Wait...

[jedidiah]

No, I think this is just a simple case of many people NOT HAVING ANY CLUE what a 3rd degree burn is.

They know about as much about first aid as they do law and civics.

Re:Wait...

[Charcharodon]

She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature

McDonald's appealed and she lost. Someone got her on a talk show and got her to blab about the case. The host also had a slew of coffee makers and places tested for coffee temp. Turns out Mc Donald's didn't serve their coffee any hotter than anyone else, including her own home personal coffee maker. That along with the fact that the lawyer was taking something like 80% of the claim, which at the time was considered outrageous, ended up getting the whole thing reduced to her medical expenses plus a much smaller reward for pain and suffering of which the lawyer got his 80%, in other words very little.

There was one thing that did change about the whole thing, the togo coffee cups were improved quite a bit. The lids pre-lawsuit were pretty crappy, the ones now you can drop and expect the lid to stay on most of the time.

It still boils down to one thing you shouldn't put near boiling liquids down by your privates. (She had it held between her legs.)

Re:

[Aadain2001]

Ever spilled some Starbucks or other major coffee shop brand coffee on yourself (I have)? Did it result in third degree burns (it didn't on me)? You can easily serve good coffee that will not result in serious injury to a person if spilled.

Re:

[Nasarius]

Why don't you at least check the basic facts before spouting off? Her grandson was driving [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Sancho]

Snopes ([url:http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp]) disagrees. As do a few other sites: [url:http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonal d s.htm], [url:http://www.therationalradical.com/2005/01/mcd onalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit-facts.html], [url:http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=11070 89].

Some useful facts:
= the coffee was found to be 30-50 degrees hotter than normal, at a temperature which causes 3rd degree burns in seconds.
= there were hundreds of similar complaints that never saw court cases
= Stel

Re:Wait...

[thebdj]

Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?

Does a bear shit in the woods? Is the pope catholic? These are all questions with one pretty clear answer...

Re:

[mypalmike]

Believe it or not, most of the time, the lawyer advise for a lower settlement simply because most of the time the case isn't big enough to justify a big settlement (talking about $100,000+ here).

We're not talking about an individual slipping on the ice at Walmart here. This is a large class action lawsuit. And the class size isn't the number of people who actually express interest in the suit, it's the number of people affected according to record. Let's see, 1 million Wii consoles times, say, $30 per co

This Litigious Society

[CerebusUS]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

The owner's manual pretty clearly states not to let go of the thing.

I hope this lawsuit fails.

Re:This Litigious Society

[Anonymous Coward]

"the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand"

I would think that the remote leaving the user's had would cause the strap to break. Maybe thats the problem. The straps are propelling the wiimotes!

Hey Rocky!

[AnswerIs42]

What Bullwinkle?
Watch me pull a lawsuit out of my a**!

This will most likely get swept under the rug and forgotten.

Web Site of Lawyers

[MyLongNickName]

Want to share your thoughts on the validity of this suit? Click here [classcounsel.com]

Ridiculous

[Grym]

No where in the instructions does it say that you should ever let go of the remote. Honestly, if you can't hold onto the thing, maybe you should practice a little more self-restraint and control.

What's next? Does Nintendo have to include a helmet for the possibility that someone might hit themselves in the head?

-Grym

My CAMERA has a strap

[Ahnteis]

It's to keep me from DROPPING it, not to stop me from THROWING it.

But Wii is so realistic

[EmbeddedJanitor]

that if you lose a tennis game you do a John McEnroe and throw the tennis raquet on the ground.

Re:

[Gothic_Walrus]

You mean that we're not supposed to throw the DS?

Oops. >_>

Ok so let me sum up

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

A bunch of hyperactive excited morons with too much muscle break their TV, punch their friends in the face or cut themselves with the Wii remote, and they sue Nintendo, because naturally, Nintendo should be blamed for not making hardware solid enough for hyperactive excited morons?

I'm sorry, but I'm tried a friend's Wii and there's no way I would have dropped or launched the remote across the window, simply because I realize it's only an electronic game, and it doesn't cross my mind to treat a delicate piece of electronic like a jokari paddle. Talk about a lawyer-happy nation... Either that or they're trying to make a cheap buck off of Nintendo's back. Either way, I hope the morons lose.

Re:Ok so let me sum up

[rlp]

IANAL, but I did notice that the complaint included a statement regarding a Mr. Chewbacca.

Totally Bogus Claim

[CokeBear]

the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand

Impossible. The wrist strap breaking does not cause the remote to leave your hand. Its the other way around - only if you repeatedly let go of the remote with considerable force does the wrist strap break, and even then if you just hold onto the remote you don't have a problem.

As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised to find xBox or PS3 fanboys at the root of this...

Re:

[CokeBear]

If they don't have a strong grip, then how could they have thrown the remote hard enough to break the strap? I've tried throwing it (and I can throw a fastball) and I have not been able to break the strap (original; not replacement)

oh my..

[dolson]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

Umm, the wrist strap does not break UNLESS the remote has already left the user's hand...

Nintendo should counter-sue the parents because they raised defective children.

Stop supporting lawyers who do this shit.

[kinglink]

If anyone tries to work with idiotic lawyers like this (no matter for money or for hatred of Nintendo) I'll lose all respect for them. Not that I have much for them in the first place for releasing the controller but that's another story.

Hell the class action suit makes no sense. "As instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console" funny the book that says numerous times to use the controller but put on the wrist strap? Or did I miss a page where it says "release the controller, it's fun". Nope guess not. Especially the part of the strap breaking is causing the controller to fly out of your hands. That's pure BS, tasty too.

Hell Nintendo is replacing the straps for free, not even calling for a mandatory recall, but the court case doesn't even meantion the tvs that are damaged. Personally that's what I'd care about, not the remote that probably still works, but the 3 inch hole in the wall from the impact of the remote.

Why is it when ever there's some news story about a defect (or retards in this case). There's always a second group of retards (normally called lawyers) who tries to get "rich" off of it? Simple solution. Stop supporting frivilious lawsuits. It'd be one thing if Nintendo told you to release the controller, or Nintendo did something neglegent, but there's no sign of that.

Disgusting

[Deluxe_247]

Wow, I feel like someone just puked their hands and rubbed it all over my body. This is absolutly rediculous.

Nintendo adds a wrist strap as a safety feature, so stupid people who have 'grip' problems (small peens perhaps?) don't throw the Wiimote around. A group of morons (ok ok, maybe they were drunk and ... how did NPR put it?... overzealous?) break a few TVs, and now all of a sudden Nintendo is libel for a defective console?

Yea, great. Im sure this is REALLY going to make Nintendo warm to us Americans. You wonder why they don't port a lot of games over to the US, and you wonder why in some games prior to the port they 'dumb it down' thinking its 'too hard for westerners.' (I wish I could find the article that I got this information from.. I thought it was BS at the time, but now Im thinking it might have been credible.)

Nintendo comes out of left field with a great console, thats tons of fun for all ages... And some douchebags who are looking to make a quick buck want to file a lawsuit against them for breaking a WRIST STRAP which didnt' even need to be added in the first place?

wiihaveaproblem.com - 29 broken straps out of... 1million+ consoles (probably near double that in controllers)
wiidamage.com - 3 broken straps reported

I love the US, but sometimes I just have a hard time being 'proud to be an American.'

(I reserve the right to not check my spelling or grammar. Deal with it!)

it's funny. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

. . . that the Nintendo Wii seems to be overly protective of my well being. Every time you go to use the damn thing it'll warn you about seizures, ask you to wear the wrist strap and fasten it securely to your wrist, hell, it even tells you to take a break and go outside after every couple of Wii Sports matches you do. I honestly don't know of any where in the instructions or warranties that asks you politely to "Throw the remote at about 60mph directly at your television, making sure to let go of the remote at the end of your swing."

If only the photosensitive seizure warnings were accompanied with a "warning: don't be an overly retarded douchebag who doesn't actually read any of the instructions, then blame your retardedness and douchebaggery on those aforementioned instructions." Why, Nintendo? Why?

Does not compute

[CODiNE]

Owners of the Nintendo Wii reported that when they used the Nintendo remote and wrist strap, as instructed by the material that accompanied the Wii console, the wrist strap broke and caused the remote to leave the user's hand.

So basically the lawyers are claiming that the remote was firmly IN HAND when the strap somehow magically broke itself, which then caused the holder of the remote to let go of it, further causing expensive property damage.

This is a new era of legal blame-shifting, no longer is "The devil made me do it" required in court, you can now simply say "The wrist strap made me do it".

My solution

[Guppy06]

If anybody reading this is having such a problem, I'd be more than willing to help you with your problem and take that defective console off your hands for you. I'm willing to take this burden in the spirit of Christmas.

Wrong-way-round

[GoRK]

I believe the instructions clearly indicate that you should wear the strap *and* not let go.

I fail to see how the strap could break and CAUSE the remote to leave the users hand. In fact, I don't see how it would even be possible for the strap to break under normal use while the user was holding the remote properly.

I do see how the remote leaving the user's hand (because it's thrown at full force) could CAUSE the strap to break.

Re:

[revlayle]

I think people who were not really watching what they were doing broker their TV and want someone else to pay for it. While a handful of the owners may be completely deserving of some compensation, I bet a good portion of those in the class action are in it for the "i'm a tard and i want someone else to fix my dumbiness" - whether it's true or not, i have no idea.

Re:

[ivan256]

Presumably because nothing was damaged other than the unit itself.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Re:

[ivan256]

Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?

I'd be amazed.

More likely it didn't slip, but people let go. It's just not slippery, even when your hands are all sweaty.

I don't see how anybody can argue that it is Nintendo's fault that somebody let go of their controller. It is completely unreasonable that we should be able to require companies to produce products that are unable to do damage to any other object if you aren't careful with them. We'd have to make everything out o

Re:Ummm...No

[SnowZero]

So, if you are at a bowling alley, and on your backswing you let go of a bowling ball and hit someone with it, should you sue the bowling ball manufacturer? If you pitch a baseball, and let go of the ball early and break a window, should you sue the baseball manufacturer? No, you shouldn't, because in normal sports there is an expectation that you hold on to the ball until the proper time. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to hold on to a Wii controller?

Having actually played WiiSports, it states in the directions that extreme motions aren't necessary. You do not need to swing the remote anywhere near what some people are doing, as it offers zero benefit in the game; The controller saturates at a much lower speed. It's like breaking off the analog stick on a gamepad because you were "trying to go faster".

Re:

[LordKronos]

Those aren't the best examples, because at some point you ARE expected to let go of a bowling ball or baseball.

A better, much more accurate comparison would be a ping pong (table tennis) paddle. It's very similar to a Wiimote in size/weight, how you hold it, how you flail it around as part of normal usage, that it's used in your home, and in the amount of damage that it can cause. Of course, many of those have grip tape wrapped around the handle, but certainly not all of them. And almost none of them that I

Re:

[VJ42]

How does adding a safety feature to an item that doesn't need one open a company up to lawsuits?

Because we need to think of the lawyers, the poor, starving lawyers who have nothing better to do?

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

So wipe your hands off. Or if you're one of those unlucky people who has very sweaty hands, buy a controller glove. Or better yet DON'T FLAIL AROUND LIKE YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO NERVE GAS. None of the Wii games I've played so far require anything more than a flick of the wrist for interaction. People who are swinging their arms around like idiots are NOT using the Wii in a reasonable manner, ESPECIALLY if they have sweaty hands. It is entirely operator error, the same as idiots who throw their tennis rackets

Re:absolutely retarded

[GweeDo]

You can email them at: [e-mail]

I sent the following:
The lawsuit that you are trying to bring against Nintendo for people that can't figure how to hold onto a remote controller is appalling. You are a perfect example of why people dislike lawyers. Nintendo has created a device that when used properly is no harm to anyone at all and won't break. The moment people opt to use it incorrectly things might go wrong. If I throw my DVD remote at you and it injures you should we be suing Sanyo? Beyond the fact that Nintendo has created a perfectly safe device, they are even going out of their way to make people happy by offering a completely free and timely replacement program to have stronger straps for people that don't understand you don't throw a remote at your dog/TV/grandma.

Again, you decision to try and pursue this just shows why people enjoy lawyer jokes so much, it is because in cases like this, they are simply true.

-Nathan

Re:Slashdot Bias

[Chibi Merrow]

Here's the difference: In normal use (ie: sitting on a desk without even interacting with it), my laptop battery in the G4 notebook (which I haven't gotten replaced yet) sitting next to me could explode. Right now. Only by flailing around like an idiot and then letting go of my remote can my strap break on my remote. The first one is Sony's fault since the outcome has nothing to do with how the user uses the system. The second one is the user's fault since it has EVERYTHING to do with how a user uses a system.

Re:

[D H NG]

See this story [timespressrecorder.com].