Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man'selectrocution

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


Established tort law makes it crystal clear that if you sell stuff, you
take on an obligation to ensure it's safe. McDonalds didn't. On the
contrary, they knowingly sold coffee that would cause 3rd degree burns.

exactly.

In article , Alrescha
wrote:


you continue to ignore the over 700 other patrons who were seriously burned

Yes, I ignore them, because they are a red herring. What part of "made
with boiling water" do you fail to understand? It is not a surprise
that a few dozen people a year manage to burn themseves.

the issue was not the temperature of the coffee.

the issue was that mcdonald's knowingly sold a product that could cause
burns on contact and that hundreds of people had been injured, some by
mcdonald's own employees (something which you keep ignoring), at the
rate of more than one per week over a period of ten years, all of this
by mcdonald's own testimony.

what really did them in was that mcdonald's testified that they had no
interest in trying to reduce the number of injuries, calling it
'statistically insignificant'.

in short, they didn't give a ****, and *that* is why they lost.

the number of galaxy note 7s that caught fire was also 'statistically
insignificant' (100 or so, out of a couple of million sold), which
caused not one, but *two* recalls and the ultimate cancelation of the
product.

In article
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Alrescha
wrote:

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.

In the UK, power sockets are not permitted anywhere near water,
generally. In particular not in a bathroom at all.

This fathead ran an extension from his bedroom into the bathroom,
plugged the charger in, got in the bath, then put the end of the
extension lead and charger on his (wet) chest.

The Apple charger will be the same as the US one, but with a different
clip-on adapter as the plug is different. The ensemble is not meant to
be submerged or even vaguely wet, evidently.

--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell

In article
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.

A Mac user read? Did the moon crash into the earth?


http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-charging-
accident/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_ca
mpaign=sidebar

In article
Anonymous wrote:

In article
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.

A Mac user read? Did the moon crash into the earth?

Yah, we know how well the windoze users can read. They call up
the fake Micro$oft tech support and give them their credit card
numbers. That is real smart.

Tim Streater wrote:

In the UK, power sockets are not permitted anywhere near water,
generally. In particular not in a bathroom at all.

Really? Well then, those stupid laws may have indirectly caused this
guy's death.

This fathead ran an extension from his bedroom into the bathroom,
plugged the charger in, got in the bath, then put the end of the
extension lead and charger on his (wet) chest.

--
"Gosh, that's an interesting set of expectations when you try to make
mere survival to be synonymous with success." - lying asshole "-hh"

"Jolly Roger" wrote in message
...
On 2017-03-22, Alrescha wrote:
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'.

Bull****. McDonalds reported during the trial that it held its coffee at
between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit, well above what a typical home
coffee maker uses (generally between 135 and 140 degrees).

*** I have a Tassimo coffee maker that consistently provides coffee with a
brewing temp of 165-170°F. And I don't need a label on the side of my cup to
tell me it's hot.

And instead of having a suit against McD's for coffee that's too hot, she
should have sued for them using paper cup that are too flimsy. The old ones
definitely were (although I have never burned myself with their coffee or
anyone else's), and the newer cups are heavier/thicker, and many come with
the cardboard sleeve with the heat-sensitive glue that keeps it from
slipping off the cup.

Their own
quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any
food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds
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.
The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but
testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding
temperature" of its coffee. Liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds - such burns do not
heal without skin grafting; and as the temperature decreases toward 155
degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases
exponentially. For ten years, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700
people (including children and infants), many receiving severe burns to
the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks.

That cup of coffee was the woman's responsibility the moment she paid
for it. Not McDonalds, not the car company.

You can blab such lies all day, but it won't change the reality that
McDonalds definitely was responsible, which is affirmed by the ruling of
the judges presiding over the case. The styrofoam cups they use are
quite flimsy, and the top of the cups are often difficult to remove
without squeezing the cup into a deformed shape, increasing chances of a
spill. The liquid in the cup was so hot it could cause third degree
burns within seconds. McDonalds failed to warn customers about that,
even after some 700+ people had been scalded over a decade.

Her pain was the result of her choices.

The court system's position on this trumps yours; sorry.

We are all diminished by the fact that she successfully blamed someone
else.

Bull****. My freedom hasn't been diminished at all. How has yours?


*** Reply in-line
--

SC Tom

In article
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-03-22 18:14, Alrescha wrote:

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.

I think your surmise is correct about how it happened is correct. Of
course, the other factor is that the UK apparently doesn't require GFI
receptacles in bathrooms.

Sockets in bathroom in the UK are *forbidden*. End of story.

--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR

In article
"SC Tom" wrote:



"Jolly Roger" wrote in message
...
On 2017-03-22, Alrescha wrote:
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'.

Bull****. McDonalds reported during the trial that it held its coffee at
between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit, well above what a typical home
coffee maker uses (generally between 135 and 140 degrees).

*** I have a Tassimo coffee maker that consistently provides coffee with a
brewing temp of 165-170°F. And I don't need a label on the side of my cup to
tell me it's hot.

And instead of having a suit against McD's for coffee that's too hot, she
should have sued for them using paper cup that are too flimsy. The old ones
definitely were (although I have never burned myself with their coffee or
anyone else's), and the newer cups are heavier/thicker, and many come with
the cardboard sleeve with the heat-sensitive glue that keeps it from
slipping off the cup.

Their own
quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any
food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds
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.
The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but
testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding
temperature" of its coffee. Liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds - such burns do not
heal without skin grafting; and as the temperature decreases toward 155
degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases
exponentially. For ten years, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700
people (including children and infants), many receiving severe burns to
the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks.

That cup of coffee was the woman's responsibility the moment she paid
for it. Not McDonalds, not the car company.

You can blab such lies all day, but it won't change the reality that
McDonalds definitely was responsible, which is affirmed by the ruling of
the judges presiding over the case. The styrofoam cups they use are
quite flimsy, and the top of the cups are often difficult to remove
without squeezing the cup into a deformed shape, increasing chances of a
spill. The liquid in the cup was so hot it could cause third degree
burns within seconds. McDonalds failed to warn customers about that,
even after some 700+ people had been scalded over a decade.

Her pain was the result of her choices.

The court system's position on this trumps yours; sorry.

We are all diminished by the fact that she successfully blamed someone
else.

Bull****. My freedom hasn't been diminished at all. How has yours?


*** Reply in-line
--

SC Tom

On 3/22/2017 5:17 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Of course, the woman who put the cup between her legs and drove away
with it still between her legs bears no responsibility at all.

Jorge wrote:



*plonk*

On 3/23/2017 10:06 AM, PAS wrote:
On 3/22/2017 5:17 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Of course, the woman who put the cup between her legs and drove away
with it still between her legs bears no responsibility at all.


To clarify: she was not driving the car, she was a passenger. The
driver drove off while she held the cup of coffee between her legs.

On 3/22/2017 5:56 PM, Silver-Tongued Heel wrote:
-----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.

Do you know what make & model of car she was the passenger in when this
happened? If not, what makes you claim that there was no cupholder in it?

On 2017-03-23, PAS wrote:
On 3/22/2017 5:17 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Of course, the woman who put the cup between her legs and drove away
with it still between her legs bears no responsibility at all.

1. The vehicle was stopped when the spill occurred.
2. The court ruled McDonalds was shirking their own responsibilities.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2017-03-23, PAS wrote:
On 3/23/2017 10:06 AM, PAS wrote:

Of course, the woman who put the cup between her legs and drove away
with it still between her legs bears no responsibility at all.

To clarify: she was not driving the car, she was a passenger. The
driver drove off while she held the cup of coffee between her legs.

Nope. The car wasn't moving when she put the cup between her legs to
remove the lid in order to add creamer, etc.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR