nintendo wii injury inquiry

[Ozark_Sophist]

Even in REAL golf, if you swing too hard, you risk injury. When I reality bowl, the ball is 16 pounds. The Wii remote is a couple of ounces. Perhaps I have a case because the virtual ball isn't 16 pounds.

I occasionally see glass beer bottles shaped to resemble baseball bats. I've always wanted someone to use the bottle as a bat with a real baseball. Just think of the liablity. Not only is the drunkard swinging the bat likely to be injured, but the shattered glass could injury everyone in the infield.

 

[ReformedMan]

Even in REAL golf, if you swing too hard, you risk injury. When I reality bowl, the ball is 16 pounds. The Wii remote is a couple of ounces. Perhaps I have a case because the virtual ball isn't 16 pounds.

I occasionally see glass beer bottles shaped to resemble baseball bats. I've always wanted someone to use the bottle as a bat with a real baseball. Just think of the liablity. Not only is the drunkard swinging the bat likely to be injured, but the shattered glass could injury everyone in the infield.

Nominated for quote of the year. You have my vote!

 

[sagito327]

oh boy...

It seems I should explain myself to those who have no idea what they are talking about. In semester 1, week 1 of law school, the elements of a negligence case are laid out. They are the following: duty of care, breach of duty of care, cause, proximate cause and damages. I will explain the possibilities.

Duty: Nintendo owes a duty that its product will not harm its consumers.

Breach: If Nintendo failed to recognize that the motions encouraged by high scores in its video games could cause damages to the user via a failure of the engineering of the Wii-mote then there is a breach of duty.

Cause: If Nintendo's breach caused harm to the user

Proximate cause: If Nintendo's breach resulted in the damage of the user, specifically that the arm is injured by the movements encouraged by the achievement of high scores with the Wii system.

Damages: There is permanent damage to the user

If all of these elements are met, then you have a case. If not, then you don't have a case. But the lay-persons' knee-jerk contentions that you are somehow a moron for injuring yourself by using the Wii are not necessarily correct. Further, I don't think that I am a bonefied (whatever this made up word is supposed to mean) idiot for suggesting that you MAY be a victim here. Understand, these are the same people that got pissed when that woman won a judgment against McDonald's for burning herself with her coffee. They say "aww, ridiculous! coffee is supposed to be hot!" They ignore the fact that the coffee was 200 degrees and the lid was not secured, and as a result there were 3rd degree burns. There are a lot of things that add to your case or detract from it, but to say that you assumed this risk was there is simply incorrect.

Furthermore, the fact that the manual etc says "yeah, if you hurt yourself with our product we're not liable" is completely irrelevant. I can prove it. Next time you are at Disney World or Six Flags or something, check the back of your ticket. It will say basically the same thing. I assure you, however, that if you are on thunder mountain and the track is rusted out, causing you to rocket off the track and become a paraplegic, you will be entitled to a settlement. It has nothing to do with "common sense" or different circumstances, but everything to do with the elements listed above. Now I don't know if you have a case. But this should not be simply discarded as preposterous nor should you be labeled a "bonefied" idiot.

If the elements are met, you win.

 

[ReformedMan]

It seems I should explain myself to those who have no idea what they are talking about. In semester 1, week 1 of law school, the elements of a negligence case are laid out. They are the following: duty of care, breach of duty of care, cause, proximate cause and damages. I will explain the possibilities.

Duty: Nintendo owes a duty that its product will not harm its consumers.

Breach: If Nintendo failed to recognize that the motions encouraged by high scores in its video games could cause damages to the user via a failure of the engineering of the Wii-mote then there is a breach of duty.

Cause: If Nintendo's breach caused harm to the user

Proximate cause: If Nintendo's breach resulted in the damage of the user, specifically that the arm is injured by the movements encouraged by the achievement of high scores with the Wii system.

Damages: There is permanent damage to the user

If all of these elements are met, then you have a case. If not, then you don't have a case. But the lay-persons' knee-jerk contentions that you are somehow a moron for injuring yourself by using the Wii are not necessarily correct. Further, I don't think that I am a bonefied (whatever this made up word is supposed to mean) idiot for suggesting that you MAY be a victim here. Understand, these are the same people that got pissed when that woman won a judgment against McDonald's for burning herself with her coffee. They say "aww, ridiculous! coffee is supposed to be hot!" They ignore the fact that the coffee was 200 degrees and the lid was not secured, and as a result there were 3rd degree burns. There are a lot of things that add to your case or detract from it, but to say that you assumed this risk was there is simply incorrect.

Furthermore, the fact that the manual etc says "yeah, if you hurt yourself with our product we're not liable" is completely irrelevant. I can prove it. Next time you are at Disney World or Six Flags or something, check the back of your ticket. It will say basically the same thing. I assure you, however, that if you are on thunder mountain and the track is rusted out, causing you to rocket off the track and become a paraplegic, you will be entitled to a settlement. It has nothing to do with "common sense" or different circumstances, but everything to do with the elements listed above. Now I don't know if you have a case. But this should not be simply discarded as preposterous nor should you be labeled a "bonefied" idiot.

If the elements are met, you win.

You fail to mention, yet again, the numerous disclaimers Nintendo has put out regarding the risks of injuries that could be incurred while playing the wii. They are EVERYWHERE.


I guarantee you Nintendo's lawyers have advanced beyond semester 1, week 1 of law school, and they passed off on the system's disclaimers.

 

[Roo]

In addition to all the other warnings and disclaimers, Wii sports games display a message to the effect of "Don't you want to take a break for a while?" after a certain amount of game play. This is one the OP couldn't have missed.

 

[justalayman]

sagito327

Understand, these are the same people that got pissed when that woman won a judgment against McDonald's for burning herself with her coffee. They say "aww, ridiculous! coffee is supposed to be hot!" They ignore the fact that the coffee was 200 degrees and the lid was not secured, and as a result there were 3rd degree burns. There are a lot of things that add to your case or detract from it, but to say that you assumed this risk was there is simply incorrect.

you may want to check your facts concerning the McDonalds v. Stella Liebeck. You're kind of close PLUS there is much more that made that a case of negligence, which, btw, is not present in the Nintendo case, yet.

another thing you need to remember is the game, tool, coffee, etc. must used as the manufacturer intends it to be used when you are speaking of causation.

from roo:

In addition to all the other warnings and disclaimers, Wii sports games display a message to the effect of "Don't you want to take a break for a while?" after a certain amount of game play. This is one the OP couldn't have missed

 

[ReformedMan]

you may want to check your facts concerning the McDonalds v. Stella Liebeck. You're kind of close PLUS there is much more that made that a case of negligence, which, btw, is not present in the Nintendo case, yet.

another thing you need to remember is the game, tool, coffee, etc. must used as the manufacturer intends it to be used when you are speaking of causation.

from roo:

And remember... the big fallout from the case (for us, not Stella) was that the lid now says "Caution: Contents may be hot". Nintendo already has disclaimers about injuries on all of their wii products.

 

[sagito327]

Disclaimers mean nothing if they are presented after the fact. You are given no disclaimers before reading the game manual--which occurs after you buy the game. They are effective for preventing lay-persons from bringing suit, but as far as courts are concerned they are insignificant. To show on the cover of the game "Playing this game may cause arm injuries!" is one thing, to bury it in boilerplate material within the manual is completely another.

EDIT: I appreciate the discourse!

 

[ReformedMan]

Disclaimers mean nothing if they are presented after the fact. You are given no disclaimers before reading the game manual--which occurs after you buy the game. They are effective for preventing lay-persons from bringing suit, but as far as courts are concerned they are insignificant. To show on the cover of the game "Playing this game may cause arm injuries!" is one thing, to bury it in boilerplate material within the manual is completely another.

Have you ever played a WII?? On every wii that I have had the priviledge to play (I don't currently own one, but have several friends that do), the startup screen warned of the possibility of injuries. That is NOT being presented after the fact. It is warning the users to proceed to the game at their own risk. They assume risk by playing a game requiring such motions.

 

[ecmst12]

Disclaimers are present on the box of the wii, on the jacket of the game, and on the SCREEN ITSELF while you are playing. There is no question here that Nintendo met its duty to warn consumers about possible injuries. They are not liable for consumers exceeding their own limits for safe activities.

 

[sagito327]

Have you ever played a WII?? On every wii that I have had the priviledge to play (I don't currently own one, but have several friends that do), the startup screen warned of the possibility of injuries. That is NOT being presented after the fact. It is warning the users to proceed to the game at their own risk. They assume risk by playing a game requiring such motions.

No, I have never played Wii. But it is still after the fact. It is after Nintendo has been paid for selling another game that these waivers are presented. A hypothetical. Lets say you are going to join a shooting range. You look at the contract and it says they are not liable if you hurt yourself. You sign the contract, pay your dues, and then shoot yourself in the foot with their gun. Are they liable? Probably not. But, if you join the range and pay your dues and THEN are given a book describing rules and regulations which includes a waiver, and shoot yourself in the foot, there is a far greater chance that they are liable. Again, I'm not saying they are, but to stick your hands up in the air and say "whoa, we said it could be dangerous" is no excuse. There is no opportunity to negotiate the contract after the game has been purchased...and THAT is why the company could be held accountable.

 

[ReformedMan]

No, I have never played Wii. But it is still after the fact. It is after Nintendo has been paid for selling another game that these waivers are presented. A hypothetical. Lets say you are going to join a shooting range. You look at the contract and it says they are not liable if you hurt yourself. You sign the contract, pay your dues, and then shoot yourself in the foot with their gun. Are they liable? Probably not. But, if you join the range and pay your dues and THEN are given a book describing rules and regulations which includes a waiver, and shoot yourself in the foot, there is a far greater chance that they are liable. Again, I'm not saying they are, but to stick your hands up in the air and say "whoa, we said it could be dangerous" is no excuse. There is no opportunity to negotiate the contract after the game has been purchased...and THAT is why the company could be held accountable.

WHAT?!! Oh my goodness, I could explain this to my 6 year old cousin far more easily. How about this... go to a Toys-R-Us and play the Wii. You will IMMEDIATELY see why everybody here believes Nintendo has met their burden of warning customers of injuries. It is literally EVERYWHERE. You can see it BEFORE YOU BUY THE GAME. Even that is a moot point, as BUYING the game did not cause any physical injuries in and of itself. You could buy the game, pee on it, fall down in the process and I'm sure you would still say that the resulting sprained knee would be a cause of the game. If they decided to not play it due to the warnings listed on the JACKET as ecmst has stated, they can return the game. Nintendo has gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to warn customers that repetitive physical motions can cause injuries.

 

[sagito327]

WHAT?!! Oh my goodness, I could explain this to my 6 year old cousin far more easily. How about this... go to a Toys-R-Us and play the Wii. You will IMMEDIATELY see why everybody here believes Nintendo has met their burden of warning customers of injuries. It is literally EVERYWHERE. You can see it BEFORE YOU BUY THE GAME. Even that is a moot point, as BUYING the game did not cause any physical injuries in and of itself. You could buy the game, pee on it, fall down in the process and I'm sure you would still say that the resulting sprained knee would be a cause of the game. If they decided to not play it due to the warnings listed on the JACKET as ecmst has stated, they can return the game. Nintendo has gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to warn customers that repetitive physical motions can cause injuries.

This has nothing to do with repetitive motions. It has to do with the fact that a high score (the reason to play the game) may be attained by a dangerous motion to one's arm. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't know if this poster has seriously attained the injuries described, but I feel that if he has he may be entitled to damages. I will leave it at that.

 

[You Are Guilty]

That is a horrible analogy and an even worse hypo. (Not to mention your conclusion is wrong). Products liability law has progressed quite a bit from the Winterbottom days. With a few minor caveats not applicable here, a failure to warn claim fails when the warning was actually provided. The end user's failure to heed the warning doth not liability make.

 

[ecmst12]

You're wrong about the game too. High scores are achieved through a CONTROLLED SWING, not by swinging as hard as you can. If you swing too hard, you overshoot and score worse. The game itself does not encourage injury.

Go play the game before you form any more theories about the possibility of injuries.