Everquest Suicide and Lawsuit
- Thread starter Paka
- Start date
I demand that a warning label be placed on the En World Site and Message Boards, I am horribly addicted and should be doing work, since that is where I am!
I also believe that the article was not too bad, that it was very clear that the person had psychological problems. So why didn't the mother do something about it instead of just letting him do it?? Like what has been said before, it's passing the blame onto Sony and not taking responsibiltiy.
Don't games already have warning labels or paragraphs in the manuals? Especially related to epilipsey?
Best thing we could do is email Sony/Lawyers with our support and ideas to help them out and the people that play these games. Like the idea about people playing sports and getting injured, they know they could get hurt before they play! I know that if I buy a game, I am going to be an amoeba for several days!!
I also believe that the article was not too bad, that it was very clear that the person had psychological problems. So why didn't the mother do something about it instead of just letting him do it?? Like what has been said before, it's passing the blame onto Sony and not taking responsibiltiy.
Don't games already have warning labels or paragraphs in the manuals? Especially related to epilipsey?
Best thing we could do is email Sony/Lawyers with our support and ideas to help them out and the people that play these games. Like the idea about people playing sports and getting injured, they know they could get hurt before they play! I know that if I buy a game, I am going to be an amoeba for several days!!
Henry@home
First Post
I appreciate the statement of the particulars of the two cases, 'Dru.
It still doesn't change the problem that frivolous lawsuits and displacement of common sense blame are very dangerous things, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.
Despite altruistic claims to the contrary by the plaintiffs, no one sues for "moral imperative." IMHO, If they did, they would donate the money won through said lawsuit to a charity, foundation, or organization dedicated to preventing such wrongs in the future. I can count on half a hand the number of times this happens, however. "Pain and suffering" go a long way to fill peoples' wallets and line their coffers. And I and a lot of citizens begin to tire of it to the point where (I hope) the lot of them will just yell, "enough" and work to change things.
I know I'm there.
It still doesn't change the problem that frivolous lawsuits and displacement of common sense blame are very dangerous things, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.
Despite altruistic claims to the contrary by the plaintiffs, no one sues for "moral imperative." IMHO, If they did, they would donate the money won through said lawsuit to a charity, foundation, or organization dedicated to preventing such wrongs in the future. I can count on half a hand the number of times this happens, however. "Pain and suffering" go a long way to fill peoples' wallets and line their coffers. And I and a lot of citizens begin to tire of it to the point where (I hope) the lot of them will just yell, "enough" and work to change things.
I know I'm there.
Lady Dragon
First Post
I'm afraid our society has lost its ability to be responsible for its own actions not just with video games but in most areas.I can site dozens of cases But I'll stick to just my favorites.
I was in a toy store one day in the costume department and I looked at a batman cape This cape had a tag on it that said "This is only a toy and does not allow the ability to fly" This company would not have printed this on these capes unless somebody had actually tried to use it to fly at one time.
Or I once heard of a case where a guy stole some drain cleaner from his workplace.His kid later drank it and died he sued the company that made the drain cleaner and his boss for not properly labeling this commercial only product sadly he won.
Something needs to be done.Just yesterday I heard about a case where a guy was running from the police and he hid in the woods for several hours.He suffered severe frostbite and three toes had to be removed>Hes now suing the police for not catching him faster.
I was in a toy store one day in the costume department and I looked at a batman cape This cape had a tag on it that said "This is only a toy and does not allow the ability to fly" This company would not have printed this on these capes unless somebody had actually tried to use it to fly at one time.
Or I once heard of a case where a guy stole some drain cleaner from his workplace.His kid later drank it and died he sued the company that made the drain cleaner and his boss for not properly labeling this commercial only product sadly he won.
Something needs to be done.Just yesterday I heard about a case where a guy was running from the police and he hid in the woods for several hours.He suffered severe frostbite and three toes had to be removed>Hes now suing the police for not catching him faster.
Talaysen
First Post
Well, of course a BATMAN cape wouldn't allow you to fly! A SUPERMAN cape would allow you to FLY - a Batman cape just gives you the intellect and deductive capacity of Sherlock Holmes, a razor-sharp wit, access to all sorts of nifty gadgets (including grappling-hook guns with endless rope and the ability to attach themselves to CLOUDS so you can swing ALL OVER Gotham without changing lines ONCE), and, of course, the ability to make Superman look like a babbling moron.
Sheesh. Some people.
Sheesh. Some people.
Zappo
Explorer
I agree with you, guys, and (to a degree) with Arcady, too. They should not hand out the account unless they get a court order (because that would be a violation of their Privacy Policy and they might get in a far more dangerous lawsuit). But I don't think they should hold it as long as they can by appealing, either.
Talking about the more generic case... you really need to do something. Are the cases Lady Dragon mentioned real? That's insane. No, actually, insane would be someone winning such a suit, but it's rather odd nonetheless. You need some law stating clearly the point where an organization's responsibility ends. You need some law stating clearly that in the case of this kind of suits (the judge decides), if the suer loses he pays all the legal expenses, both his and the other guys' (maybe with an added extra for the trouble, too). Incidentally, this would work wonders also in the field of "big corporation suing small business into the ground".
Hey, I don't know if we have such laws, but then again, we don't have that problem.
Talking about the more generic case... you really need to do something. Are the cases Lady Dragon mentioned real? That's insane. No, actually, insane would be someone winning such a suit, but it's rather odd nonetheless. You need some law stating clearly the point where an organization's responsibility ends. You need some law stating clearly that in the case of this kind of suits (the judge decides), if the suer loses he pays all the legal expenses, both his and the other guys' (maybe with an added extra for the trouble, too). Incidentally, this would work wonders also in the field of "big corporation suing small business into the ground".
Hey, I don't know if we have such laws, but then again, we don't have that problem.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Some thoughts from a geek lawyer
Begin Rant.
A few things people have been saying about frivolous lawsuits in this thread kinda bugged me, and I wanted to set the record straight.
1. Please stop making the McDonald's Hot Coffee analogy. It's a rotten comparison. If you think that lawsuit was frivolous, you have never really read or seen the full story of that case. The burned person suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. McDonalds was intentionally making the coffee not just hot, but boiling, because of the smell it caused in their restaurants (which attracted more people to buying it), and because a quality assurance consultant told them they could let the coffee sit in the pot for a longer period of time without losing as much taste (though knowing full well it was a burn hazard at those temperatures, and taking precautions for their employees to avoid burns from it). The burn victim offered to settle for just her medical bills, but McDonalds refused. You can read more about the case: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm .
2. No court has taken this EverQuest case yet (people seemed disgusted that they had). It may be dismissed or subject to a demurrer.
3. Companies DO fight "frivolous" court cases, all the time. If you think companies just settle every nuisance case out of court, you are very wrong. If it really is frivoulous, I have ALWAYS seen companies fight the case (of course, they SHOULD HAVE settled the Coffee Case).
End Rant
Begin Rant.
A few things people have been saying about frivolous lawsuits in this thread kinda bugged me, and I wanted to set the record straight.
1. Please stop making the McDonald's Hot Coffee analogy. It's a rotten comparison. If you think that lawsuit was frivolous, you have never really read or seen the full story of that case. The burned person suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. McDonalds was intentionally making the coffee not just hot, but boiling, because of the smell it caused in their restaurants (which attracted more people to buying it), and because a quality assurance consultant told them they could let the coffee sit in the pot for a longer period of time without losing as much taste (though knowing full well it was a burn hazard at those temperatures, and taking precautions for their employees to avoid burns from it). The burn victim offered to settle for just her medical bills, but McDonalds refused. You can read more about the case: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm .
2. No court has taken this EverQuest case yet (people seemed disgusted that they had). It may be dismissed or subject to a demurrer.
3. Companies DO fight "frivolous" court cases, all the time. If you think companies just settle every nuisance case out of court, you are very wrong. If it really is frivoulous, I have ALWAYS seen companies fight the case (of course, they SHOULD HAVE settled the Coffee Case).
End Rant
Fortunately, that sort of thing is leading to changes (in TN state law, anyway) that allows judges and juries to take "reasonable person" standards into account.
Basically, if the judge or jury thinks that a reasonable person would know better than to stick his hand in a running lawn mower, the lawn mower manufacturer does not have to put a label on said mower that warns agaisnt putting your hands in it.
Unfortunately, those sorts of laws are still all too rare in our country, but that is exactly the sort of thing we need more of; some sort of legal framework for common sense. If you breach those boundaries, the burden of resoponsibility should be on your own shoulders.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Whoops, I posted my rant prior to reading the entire thread carefully (shame on me). I see the Coffee Case was already discussed by others.
I will say to Corp Dog that it is not at all unanticipated or unusual for a person getting drive-through food to put their drink between their legs. In this case, the car was not in motion, and the victim was not driving. She was putting cream and sugar in the coffee, which is something McDonalds would expect she would do with the cream and sugar they gave her, in the car, from a fast food restaurant.
And, even if you think it is unreasonable to put coffee between your legs to add the cream and sugar in the car, it still should not cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of your body, requiring skin grafts, if you spill it on you. Particularly not when McDonalds knew the coffee burned people, had many complaints about it burning people, protected their own employees from such burns, and could have lowered the temperature of the coffee with little harm to the company (and has done so since this case).
McDonalds did contribute to this woman's injury. Nobody ever said they were 100% at fault, just that they contributed to the injury. And they desevered to pay for some of the harm they caused, as the jury decided, as a judge decided, and as they themselves decided in their apologies later. They took bad advice, didn't think about the situation, and basically messed up.
Please, stop blaming that poor woman for all the worlds frivolous lawsuits. She doesn't deserve it, and it's a poor analogy.
I will say to Corp Dog that it is not at all unanticipated or unusual for a person getting drive-through food to put their drink between their legs. In this case, the car was not in motion, and the victim was not driving. She was putting cream and sugar in the coffee, which is something McDonalds would expect she would do with the cream and sugar they gave her, in the car, from a fast food restaurant.
And, even if you think it is unreasonable to put coffee between your legs to add the cream and sugar in the car, it still should not cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of your body, requiring skin grafts, if you spill it on you. Particularly not when McDonalds knew the coffee burned people, had many complaints about it burning people, protected their own employees from such burns, and could have lowered the temperature of the coffee with little harm to the company (and has done so since this case).
McDonalds did contribute to this woman's injury. Nobody ever said they were 100% at fault, just that they contributed to the injury. And they desevered to pay for some of the harm they caused, as the jury decided, as a judge decided, and as they themselves decided in their apologies later. They took bad advice, didn't think about the situation, and basically messed up.
Please, stop blaming that poor woman for all the worlds frivolous lawsuits. She doesn't deserve it, and it's a poor analogy.
Zappo
Explorer
Ok, ok, the coffee suit had a reason, and so did the Philip Morris suits (at least, those who are from people who started smoking before the warnings on packets). I agree on that.
Still, there are many more suits that are ridiculous and the people initiating them should lose and pay - by clogging the justice system, they cause damage to everyone.
Still, there are many more suits that are ridiculous and the people initiating them should lose and pay - by clogging the justice system, they cause damage to everyone.
Similar Threads
- Locked
