Everquest Suicide and Lawsuit

[Valavien]

Ok, that's enough everyone, I am wanting to go out and buy it now because it sounds like so much fun...

 

[billd91]

Re: Eamon

If I remember correctly though, evidence was introduced on McDonald's side showing that the temperature that they kept their ready-to-serve coffee at was within the range that other restaurants maintained their coffee. I recall that it was at the upper range (180 degrees or so), but within the range given by the various coffee experts who testified as to the acceptable range for restaurant coffee (which was 160-190 degrees if I remember correctly).

The figures for other coffee places I've seen quoted by the food consultants is a bit less than that. From http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht#anchor887148:
"McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and 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. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

So, based on that sort of evidence, a jury decided that the plaintiff's case had merit and McDonalds should pay the price. Again, not exactly something I would call frivolous.
But then, there are many corporations that will fight any lawsuit rather than settle because they have the money to exhaust any private citizen's ability to pay legal fees (like Disney) or who will settle and then impose a gag order, never admitting fault. I recall a local newpaper having a story about that sort of thing involving a truck manufacturer, faulty gear boxes, and a young man getting killed when the truck slipped into gear. After the settlement, the family found out about other similar cases and blew the whistle.

But both of those cases involve the sale of a material good while Evercrack's issue (and we've been calling it that since it came out and a few of our friends disappeared into the geeky online haze) is the sale of an experience moreso than a good. Sure, the CD it comes on could be defective but it won't cause significant material harm (barring computer virii). It really sells an experience that is at the user's demand. That's one reason the comparisons in these cases breaks down. That's also why this is different from drugs which can be demonstrated to cause material harm.
Whether Evercrack can cause psychological harm? So can your average middle-school gym class. Or watching 36 straight hours of Gilligan's Island....

 

[Paka]

I think Gygax said this but I am not sure. It was the 80's and anti-D&D paranoia was in full swing.


He said, "Chairs can be used to sit in, or you can pick them up and hit someone with it. But no one outlaws chairs."

 

[WizarDru]

Let me ask this: how many people on the list know that the game is often referred to as "Evercrack"? How many people would have disputed that designation before this article was posted?

...snip...

A game is known to be different from other games. Why? Because it has an "addictive" quality. Because it's like "crack." Because people tie other important things in their lives (romance, social worth, money) into the game. The company knows this about its game. In fact, it is only the company that gives its game these qualities. The company must be constantly on guard to prevent cheating because it will reduce the addictive property of the game by making it too easy to get the really cool, rare stuff.

Is the company to blame for everything that happens to its players? No. But should the company be aware that its game may cause problems and take reasonable steps to help reduce those problems? Yes. This, to me, is not a legal question, it is a common-sense decency question. If I worked at a gaming company and I saw an article like this about my game, it would make me think "This is awful! What could we do to try to make sure this doesn't happen again?"

I think quite a few know about Everquest's alternate sobriquet, and would agree that it has merit, in an ironic sort of way. Is ti truly 'addicting'? No more so than any other hobby. Everquest requires a large investment of time, and there is quite a lot to recommend it. Several of my players are Everquest players, and occasionally they end up choosing D&D over it. Two of my players quit Everquest, and one returned, not because it was so addicting, but it was cost-effective entertainment for him.

None of them have found the game so compelling that they have left their wives, quit their jobs or neglected their families (and more importantly, our D&D games ). That some find the game's allure too much to resist is no different than any other fixation a person can experience. To imply that a warning needs to be issued for every possible mental threat seems beyond excessive. Especially since the person at risk in question was most likely at risk from a variety of things, of which Everquest happened to be one. I know some people who feel this way about D&D. Should it be labelled? How about professional sports? If he had killed himself after his NCAA team failed to make the Final Four, would we even be having this discussion?

Tens of thousands of folks play Everquest, and manage to do so without suffering ill effects. Those who do usually make a conscious choice to do so. Everquest is addicting for some. I found I didn't like the game (although I do play Asheron's Call), and thousands avoid the game like I do. It's a shame this guy neglected everything around him, but Everquest is no more to blame than a gun manufacturer, if he shot himself, IMHO.

As for the payment of the game, it's entirely possible that he had a credit card, and was paying for the game with it. In that case, he might have been able to play for months without any income.

 

[Suldulin]

somewhat related I think:

from PCGamer(magazine):

"A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against id Software, Acclaim, Atari, and other entertainment companies regarding their alleged responsiblity in inspiring the Columbine High School shootings. The judge ruled that the responsibility lay with the gunmen, not the companies."

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Eamon

The figures for other coffee places I've seen quoted by the food consultants is a bit less than that. From http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht#anchor887148:

Yep, citing an unbiased source like the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is a big help. Notice how they came down on the plaintiff's side in almost every case that they discussed in their website? Could it be that was because they are an advocacy group for plaintiff's attorneys? No, that couldn't be it, could it?

 

[Storm Raven]

Think about what would happen if that coffee was DRANK?

And yet, at the time period in question, millions of people did "DRINK" that same coffee, served at those same temperatures on a daily basis, and apparently very few of them had serious problems as a result.

If a million people use a product, and 100 of them get hurt somehow, does that make the product defective? That's about a 0.001% failure rate even if you shade things entirely on the claimant's side (i.e. if you assume that all injuries were caused entirely by the product in question).

The simple fact is that McDonald's literally served millions of cups of coffee every day using these standards, and somehow virtually all of those people managed to DRINK the coffee with no ill effects. I'm thinking that pretty much makes essentially moot your claims about how dangerous DRINKING that coffee is.

 

[billd91]

Re: Re: Re: Eamon

Yep, citing an unbiased source like the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is a big help. Notice how they came down on the plaintiff's side in almost every case that they discussed in their website? Could it be that was because they are an advocacy group for plaintiff's attorneys? No, that couldn't be it, could it? [/B]

And this is worse that what you remember of the publically available sources on the case from back when you were in law school? Or do you have a complete set of the court documents you can cite to contradict the ATLA?

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Eamon

And this is worse that what you remember of the publically available sources on the case from back when you were in law school? Or do you have a complete set of the court documents you can cite to contradict the ATLA?

Pretty much, since ATLA is comprised mostly of lying scum who will say anything to get their contingency fees. ATLA has a long history of spreading disinformation to support their causes, and continuing to hold to their theories even when disproved.

I wouldn't trust anything that came out of an ATLA representative's mouth.

 

[Storm Raven]

Think about what would happen if that coffee was DRANK?

Let me revisit this with a concrete fact. McDonald's had about 700 complaints about their coffee in the 10 year period between 1982 and 1992.

In that same period McDonald's served almost 17 trillion cups of coffee.

That's right, they had one complaint for every 24 billion cups or so that they served. Apparently, there were regularly 23,999,999,999 people who could DRINK the coffee McDonald's was serving without incident for every idiot who had a problem with it.