A Kentucky kid got an unwelcome surprise recently when his iPod touch exploded in his pants pocket. The incident prompted his mother to file suit against Apple and the retail workers who sold her the device.
The child was in school on December 4 with the iPod touch in his pocket; the on/off control was in the "off" position. He "heard a loud pop and immediately felt a burning sensation on his leg," according to the suit, which was first reported by Ars Technica.
The kid's pants were on fire at this point, and managed to burn through his underwear to give him second-degree burns on his leg. The unidentified minor "continues to suffer from both physical and mental conditions which will cause him to suffer pain, mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life," according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Ohio district court.
His mom, Lynette Antrobus, said they lost $15 for the hospital co-pay and $400 for the clothing and damaged iPod touch (which the suit incorrectly refers to as an "iTouch"). The suit, however, requests $75,000 in damages.
Antrobus argued that Apple and its employees are guilty of wrongful acts or omissions, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and wanton and willful disregard for the safety of their business invitees and customers.
Apple store employees never warned Antrobus that one of the iPod touch's features was spontaneous combustion, the suit claims. The suit also claims that the kid has lost the "ability to earn income in the future permanently for the rest of his life" but does not elaborate on why this is the case.
Mixx It
Digg It
Stumble
More...
March 13, 2009 5:07 PM
I hope the boy is cared for properly. Batteries are going to be huge in our future... cars , laptops, kitchen devices, small computers (i pods). These batteries are being perfected and improved. You will need to drive for groceries with one of these batteries. Mostly they are foreign. We are trying to develop the american "battery "........ I have no special interest but I am certain I Pod was not sloppy. I have a Nano 3Gen too. I do take the story seriously though...........
March 13, 2009 7:17 PM
apple should have to pay for any damages to the boy and compensate for all medical bills it wasnt his fault the phone was unsafe.
March 13, 2009 10:28 PM
Oh goodness, really?
Maybe I'm just exploding-battery'd-out, but I'm having a tough time with this one. I mean, if it is what the report says it is, then sure, Apple needs to pay for the damage - but I don't think punative damage is called for in this case, is it really?
"Mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life?" I've had second degree burns before, but I'm not suing the company that made the olive oil or the one that manufactured the food I was cooking that night at high temperatures - especially not for punative damages - maybe I should.
March 14, 2009 6:06 AM
"Mental distress, emotional distress, and otherwise for the rest of his life?"
i bet if that happened to ten people nine of them woud think twice before sticking an electronic device in their pocket, and if your phone vibrated in your pocket you would jump eveytime afterwards.
look at the compainies profit, they should pay the boy and spend more money (profit) on testing their products before pushing them out to store shelves
March 14, 2009 9:39 AM
What's with the apples to oranges comparisons? Typical anti-accountability nonsense?
If you're cooking, you should know the oil is hot and be responsible to watch out for it.
If you turn off an electronic amusement device and stuff it in your pocket, you shouldn't be expected to expect it to blow up and set your pants on fire literally. If it does, then the company that made the defective device should be held accountable for the harm they have caused with their defective product.
Is the guy who posted that suggesting that people should know that certain devices are capable of such defects and avoid buying any rechargeable personal gadgets?
March 14, 2009 1:04 PM
Sounds like another octo-mom looking for a hand out...
March 14, 2009 1:54 PM
Sorry for the kid, but sounds like he probably wasn't going to work a day in his life anyway. Just like his parents probably, hey why work if you can get handouts.
March 14, 2009 5:41 PM
First of all, why did he have an electronic amusement device at SCHOOL? Don't we send our kids to school for EDUCATION, not AMUSEMENT?
Secondly, "The suit also claims that the kid has lost the 'ability to earn income in the future permanently for the rest of his life' but does not elaborate on why this is the case. " What was he going to be when he grew up, a gigolo or male dancer? The burn is on his LEG, and apparently high enough to burn his underwear. Sorry, but I fail to understand how a simple burn, even a second degre burn, is going to disable someone so they cannot work. Maybe for a few weeks, but hey, I think a 14 year old has time to recover. A second degree burn will leave some scarring of the skin, but that's about it. It ain't like it blew his leg off or something.
Good thing I'm not on that jury. Yeah, pay the mom back for the real costs of the injury, the clothing, and the iPod. But come on, $75K? How many millions of those things are out there?
Here's another hint. Take the iPod away before he gets on the bus, and make sure he's got his BOOKS! ALL electronic devices should be left at home. They are NOT needed at schools.
By the way, NO, I am not a teacher nor any kind of faculty member. Just a former student that got by just fine without toys at school.
March 14, 2009 8:56 PM
I think this is ridiculous to expect Apple to pay $75,000 for this incident. I can see paying for the device, clothing, and medical bills but nothing above and beyond that. This is the reason our country is in the shape it's in. Too many people looking for a handout or trying to take advantage of others. The kid is 14. He will heal. All that emotional and mental distress garbage is nothing more than some fancy attorney trying to get his/her piece of the pie.
March 14, 2009 9:42 PM
Where did anyone get the boy's age in this story. I read the "first posted" link as well as the PDF of the court complaint and nowhere in that was the age of the boy mentioned. Not even any hint of whether "school" meant high school, kindergarden or whatever in between. Only that the kid was a minor, meaning under 18.
Some aspects of the suit do seem odd to me, such as going after the employees and not just Apple. And the claims of permanent disability from an accident that had to scare the boy worse than it injured him, even though some injury was incurred.
That said, Apple should be held liable for the costs of the the medical treatment and property damage at the least. And some sort of punitive damages shouldn't be out of the question.
Just because the suit was filed by idiots doesn't make it OK for things designed to be carried in pockets to randomly and unexpectedly imitate the tape self-destructing on the old "Mission Impossible" reruns.
As for what the kid was doing with a toy at school, enough said that it was turned off in his pocket during class.
March 15, 2009 7:51 AM
Apple should pay for damages then sue the parents for filing this frivolous lawsuit. I truly doubt that anything caught fire, there may have been excessive heat from the battery that would have burnt his leg. Emotional distress? Give me a break! Someone wants a free spending spree.
March 15, 2009 3:42 PM
This is a stupid case. I can see Apple paying for the damages(clothes, iPod, medical bills), but not for so-called "emotional distress". I'm sure the kid will get into a lot worse situations than this when he's older. This case is as dumb as people suing McDonalds for making them fat.
March 15, 2009 7:25 PM
I agree with many, the damages should only be for the replacement of the pants, iDevice, and medical, that's it... assuming the owner of said device did not modify it in such a way that s/he could have caused the damage themselves, in which they deserve no compensation at all.
The requested amount is one reason we have economical problems today, frivolous lawsuits!
As for this "minor" not being able to work, "ever" get over it, if they can't work 'cause of a 2nd degree burn, that's equal to saying someone without arms or legs or is blind or deaf cannot work. It's sad the "injured" and their parent(s) are degrading all the effort and progress made for equality in all to include working for/in any condition no matter who you are or what condition you are in.
March 15, 2009 10:01 PM
How can you tell a unit like this will do that?
I could really use 75k! I worked for years with
a broken back --A burn? I think that some burn ointment, and tlc will hopefully help this child
recover well enough to work in no time. Unless the
unit damaged the brain somehow and he can no longer
think!
March 16, 2009 6:28 PM
I for one think the child should be compensated above the 15 dollar co-pay & 400 in damages. But I am not sure it should be to the tune of $75,000. Also, the other side of me says, anything over, say $10,000 must be put in some sort of college trust fund, which could only be used for his education. And I do not believe the crap about him not being able to work for the rest of his life.
Also, $75,000 is low enough, Apple might just settle out of court with them. Legal costs (even when you have your own set of lawyers) can be costly.
March 17, 2009 4:59 AM
One thing not mentioned is if the parents went back to the store and asked for damages? In a normal situation I believe they would and since the store is mentioned in the law suit I believe they did. What did the store say???? I am guessing "go to someplace warm." Now the parents are pissed and get the TV lawyer involved who comes up with the wording and the 75,000. Probably $1000 for the parents (kid) and $74000 for the lawyer. 50/50 on anything after that.
March 18, 2009 3:30 PM
its really too bad that kid didnt fuckin die. oh well they worned him about combustion its what he gets
April 10, 2009 5:02 PM
Ok, i get that the kid got burned, but "unable to work in his WHOLE LIFE" from second degree burns? And then Apple has to whip out 75k from their fat wallet to pay for only about 10k of damages that were actually costed? Unreal!!!! I kinda feel for the kid, cause the mom probably went on a 75k (hmmm.... Does that number seem familiar?) shopping spree and left her (supposedly) "mentally distressed" kid at home alone! Nice. Real nice.