If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
Here's a candidate for the annual Darwin Awards.
Some folks simply can’t resist taking their smartphone into the bathtub to check their social media feeds or play games, and occasional reports of fatal accidents suggest a small percentage may be going one step further and also charging their device while in the tub. One such person, 32-year-old Richard Bull of London, died on December 11 from an electric shock he received when his iPhone charger touched the water of the bath he was in. The coroner examining the case, Dr. Sean Cummings, last week ruled the death as accidental, but said he intended to ask Apple to take steps to help prevent further such incidents. Cummings said that while smartphones “seem like innocuous devices … they can be as dangerous as a hairdryer in a bathroom,” adding that handset makers “should attach warnings” to the devices to warn of the risks. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-charging- accident/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_ca mpaign=sidebar |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
On 03/22/2017 08:54 AM, Yes They Are That Stupid wrote:
Here's a candidate for the annual Darwin Awards. Some folks simply can�t resist taking their smartphone into the bathtub to check their social media feeds or play games, and occasional reports of fatal accidents suggest a small percentage may be going one step further and also charging their device while in the tub. One such person, 32-year-old Richard Bull of London, died on December 11 from an electric shock he received when his iPhone charger touched the water of the bath he was in. The coroner examining the case, Dr. Sean Cummings, last week ruled the death as accidental, but said he intended to ask Apple to take steps to help prevent further such incidents. Cummings said that while smartphones �seem like innocuous devices � they can be as dangerous as a hairdryer in a bathroom,� adding that handset makers �should attach warnings� to the devices to warn of the risks. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-charging- accident/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_ca mpaign=sidebar I guess this goes along with the lady that burned herself with McDonald's hot coffee and won a suit that they should have warned her. And they walk among us? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
In article , Big Al
wrote: I guess this goes along with the lady that burned herself with McDonald's hot coffee and won a suit that they should have warned her. definitely not. mcdonald's, by their own admission, knowingly served coffee that was unsafe for human consumption, that they never tested its safety and had no interest in making any changes even though more than 700 other customers had been burned in the previous ten years, including babies and some the result of their own employees causing the burn. that's more than one injury *per* *week*. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
On 3/22/2017 5:54 AM, Yes They Are That Stupid wrote:
Here's a candidate for the annual Darwin Awards. Some folks simply can’t resist taking their smartphone into the bathtub to check their social media feeds or play games, and occasional reports of fatal accidents suggest a small percentage may be going one step further and also charging their device while in the tub. One such person, 32-year-old Richard Bull of London, died on December 11 from an electric shock he received when his iPhone charger touched the water of the bath he was in. The coroner examining the case, Dr. Sean Cummings, last week ruled the death as accidental, but said he intended to ask Apple to take steps to help prevent further such incidents. Cummings said that while smartphones “seem like innocuous devices … they can be as dangerous as a hairdryer in a bathroom,” adding that handset makers “should attach warnings” to the devices to warn of the risks. Problem with warnings is that the more you have, the less likely you'll read 'em all. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-charging- accident/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_ca mpaign=sidebar |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
On 22/03/17 03:11 PM, Big Al wrote:
On 03/22/2017 08:54 AM, Yes They Are That Stupid wrote: Here's a candidate for the annual Darwin Awards. Some folks simply can�t resist taking their smartphone into the bathtub to check their social media feeds or play games, and occasional reports of fatal accidents suggest a small percentage may be going one step further and also charging their device while in the tub. One such person, 32-year-old Richard Bull of London, died on December 11 from an electric shock he received when his iPhone charger touched the water of the bath he was in. The coroner examining the case, Dr. Sean Cummings, last week ruled the death as accidental, but said he intended to ask Apple to take steps to help prevent further such incidents. Cummings said that while smartphones �seem like innocuous devices � they can be as dangerous as a hairdryer in a bathroom,� adding that handset makers �should attach warnings� to the devices to warn of the risks. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-charging- accident/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_ca mpaign=sidebar I guess this goes along with the lady that burned herself with McDonald's hot coffee and won a suit that they should have warned her. And they walk among us? The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. -- Silver-Tongued Heel Korora Linux Sponsor EFF & OpenMedia Member Gab.ai: @silverslimer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
In article , Silver-Tongued Heel
wrote: I guess this goes along with the lady that burned herself with McDonald's hot coffee and won a suit that they should have warned her. And they walk among us? The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. you don't recall correctly, or at all, actually. mcdonald's knowingly served coffee that was far too hot for human consumption, which they knew could cause serious burns, which had burned over 700 other people and they had *no* interest in changing anything. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
On 3/22/17, 2:14 PM, in article , "Silver-Tongued
Heel" wrote: I guess this goes along with the lady that burned herself with McDonald's hot coffee and won a suit that they should have warned her. And they walk among us? The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. Was the car manufacture doing something outside the accepted norms and regulations of their industry? Had they been warned about this before? Were they actively ignoring those warnings? If so then I would say you are correct and they, too, could be held liable. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
In article , Snit
wrote: The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. Was the car manufacture doing something outside the accepted norms and regulations of their industry? Had they been warned about this before? Were they actively ignoring those warnings? If so then I would say you are correct and they, too, could be held liable. the car had nothing to do with it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
On 3/22/17, 2:34 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote: In article , Snit wrote: The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. Was the car manufacture doing something outside the accepted norms and regulations of their industry? Had they been warned about this before? Were they actively ignoring those warnings? If so then I would say you are correct and they, too, could be held liable. the car had nothing to do with it. I suspect you are right... was just noting what they would have had to do with it for the analogy to hold up. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:51:16 -0700, mike wrote:
On 3/22/2017 5:54 AM, Yes They Are That Stupid wrote: Here's a candidate for the annual Darwin Awards. Some folks simply can’t resist taking their smartphone into the bathtub to check their social media feeds or play games, and occasional reports of fatal accidents suggest a small percentage may be going one step further and also charging their device while in the tub. One such person, 32-year-old Richard Bull of London, died on December 11 from an electric shock he received when his iPhone charger touched the water of the bath he was in. The coroner examining the case, Dr. Sean Cummings, last week ruled the death as accidental, but said he intended to ask Apple to take steps to help prevent further such incidents. Cummings said that while smartphones “seem like innocuous devices … they can be as dangerous as a hairdryer in a bathroom,” adding that handset makers “should attach warnings” to the devices to warn of the risks. Problem with warnings is that the more you have, the less likely you'll read 'em all. I would be very surprised if there is no warning about not using the charger in or near water. I assumed this would be standard for all mains voltage appliances. As an aside, would the same event have resulted in death in the USA with 110 Volt supply? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256 On 22/03/17 05:34 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Snit wrote: The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. Was the car manufacture doing something outside the accepted norms and regulations of their industry? Had they been warned about this before? Were they actively ignoring those warnings? If so then I would say you are correct and they, too, could be held liable. the car had nothing to do with it. Yes, because the woman was burned between the legs as a result of there not being a cup holder in the car. She couldn't hold it for some reason and had no cup holder to place it into so she left the coffee cup between her legs. Doing so caused unimaginable damage and those burns were the reason she ended up suing the company. - -- Silver-Tongued Heel Korora Linux Sponsor EFF & OpenMedia Member Gab.ai: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJY0vMiAAoJEECBkWZkIkW3jMYP/1Dv34Wx4nuEJ9RoOqgGkA9L A7hVRhZDQ/vUD9TOxOrzcFoLM5mo90l/Q+p34hJzVhT05juGtvRaLfOmt1a9UbGA 8OW9Iugjv9KsOSmEZZLucGDSPddRw6mWWm9e8v73pLgRHViBp1 nSfgF1GUOhzOFX AMw0OOoiCPYk2I8g/T8Y115atTxeqqouztxUn1c4aj/sQ1i6aUd21FbJq0/08sB+ 2OzK1LlriDZX3iUpFw3XUxSoDdbPvmzXUHo/ihXzZKLt0eU/a01HU8J52fHNhsP+ 5G83DzloR5ebJjHCGrorJGD+xYwbhXZpWSXwpNQAwcDRzZFW/qg6l69h+Mg90wzJ GAzBLX19fle70E7Odyi8lIamuPtt9ZWQ0KzGQg9NMy0g/HTgVkcyJCob236Dwa2d neTJAL7P3eAYKo7cY6eRhZuO6W55pAjo8J3MZ1mYsKwwAOhTcj ATRdYso46TPFPT To9uklqGqtayyhGK9zJucRHkEEIpw2B/MifMorH4kaADVx2zP2iHZpvFUiZpkK06 bbHmiJYAWpmF93X/NKh/1nI42ZG0uYKpptiX7Jm/7wUTOnqMN+lcB8GmfWWZvLv+ 6UDNsi0RlXxZZPxYeOhFMUqTSMymWqVsRXQdeDLQwFNCB+2kUa e0KmxQ/KUEit+0 1Kw0wk9bAb0VL0O/JQrR =aPOj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
In article , Silver-Tongued Heel
wrote: The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. Was the car manufacture doing something outside the accepted norms and regulations of their industry? Had they been warned about this before? Were they actively ignoring those warnings? If so then I would say you are correct and they, too, could be held liable. the car had nothing to do with it. Yes, because the woman was burned between the legs as a result of there not being a cup holder in the car. She couldn't hold it for some reason and had no cup holder to place it into so she left the coffee cup between her legs. Doing so caused unimaginable damage and those burns were the reason she ended up suing the company. nope, that's not why. she was burned because mcdonald's knowingly sold coffee that was dangerously hot and which they never tested for safety, by their own admission, and which had burned over 700 other customers in the previous ten years, some caused by their own employees. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution
On 3/22/17, 3:00 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote: In article , Silver-Tongued Heel wrote: The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot (obviously) and because the ****ty car she was in had no cup holder. In the end, if McDonald's can be sued for the coffee being too hot then the car manufacturer should also have been sued for not providing a place for the old bag to put her drink. Was the car manufacture doing something outside the accepted norms and regulations of their industry? Had they been warned about this before? Were they actively ignoring those warnings? If so then I would say you are correct and they, too, could be held liable. the car had nothing to do with it. Yes, because the woman was burned between the legs as a result of there not being a cup holder in the car. She couldn't hold it for some reason and had no cup holder to place it into so she left the coffee cup between her legs. Doing so caused unimaginable damage and those burns were the reason she ended up suing the company. nope, that's not why. she was burned because mcdonald's knowingly sold coffee that was dangerously hot and which they never tested for safety, by their own admission, and which had burned over 700 other customers in the previous ten years, some caused by their own employees. For those who want to know more details on this case: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts ----- Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial: * McDonald's operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. * Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds. * The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty. * McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits. * An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year. * At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn't taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, "there was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that." * McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. * McDonald's admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then-required temperature. * McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not. ----- Some say it was frivolous. Some say it was reasonable and with merit. Either way, those are (from what we know) the facts of the case. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
On 2017-03-22 21:14:00 +0000, Silver-Tongued Heel said:
The reason the woman was burned, if I recall correctly, is because the coffee's temperature was too hot It is impossible for a beverage made with boiling water to be 'too hot'. That cup of coffee was the woman's responsibility the moment she paid for it. Not McDonalds, not the car company. Her pain was the result of her choices. We are all diminished by the fact that she successfully blamed someone else. As for our electrocution victim, I do not know what UK chargers look like, but in the US if the charger was in the tub, so was the end of the extension cord. Death was inevitable regardless of manufacturer. A. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution
In article , Snit
wrote: Yes, because the woman was burned between the legs as a result of there not being a cup holder in the car. She couldn't hold it for some reason and had no cup holder to place it into so she left the coffee cup between her legs. Doing so caused unimaginable damage and those burns were the reason she ended up suing the company. nope, that's not why. she was burned because mcdonald's knowingly sold coffee that was dangerously hot and which they never tested for safety, by their own admission, and which had burned over 700 other customers in the previous ten years, some caused by their own employees. For those who want to know more details on this case: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts ----- Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial: * McDonald's operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. * Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds. * The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty. * McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits. * An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year. * At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn't taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, "there was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that." * McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. * McDonald's admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then-required temperature. * McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not. ----- Some say it was frivolous. Some say it was reasonable and with merit. Either way, those are (from what we know) the facts of the case. note that it was mcdonald's own testimony that did them in. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|