Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Woman sues Nintendo for death of son
- Thread starter BaBa-BooeY
- Start date
This guy had no life, that's for sure. Anyone notice that the majority of kids now days stay inside playing these games. Shit, when I was growing up, we were playing sports outside and no one stayed in. Time's have change, we also had no AC , only a fan that was always blowing hot air around. The tv set would not pick up a picture unless someone stood there holding the freaking antena. Just glad both of my boys are into sports and not all that video game crap. They do play sometimes but their not processed like some kids.
although this case is retarDed, Nintendo may settle.
Not only do they have to consider defense expenses defending against the claim. But theyve got to consider lost sales due to bad publicity.
Matt --
Conclusive evidence that video games cause seizures? Dubious at best.
if that was true, it be a free for all against video game manufacturers.
Not only do they have to consider defense expenses defending against the claim. But theyve got to consider lost sales due to bad publicity.
Matt --
Conclusive evidence that video games cause seizures? Dubious at best.
if that was true, it be a free for all against video game manufacturers.
buddy28 said:
Buddy,
The expenses for Ninendo in litigation will not affect their corporate bottom line. It is an inconvenience, but they are a multi-billion dollar entity.
Conclusive evidence? well, Nintendo already includes a disclaimer on its systems and games that it "may cause seizures....etc etc etc". So they are admitting the possibiltiy already.
The reason I am saying they may settle is this: if they go to trial, it becomes public record. This leads to follow on lawsuits or worst, class action.
If they lose in trial, it could become case law.
A skilled attorney can show a connection, because there is a tenuous one, and juries can be duped easily. Just march out the stats. Additionally, throw around mention of some of Nintendo's business practices in Japan. Indict japanese culture. Throw the word "foreign"around. That doesn;t play too well now.
All that stuff about "8 hours a day is ridiculous" (and it is) would be totally irrelevant in court.
If you think this is unrelaistic, you;ve never seen a jury. I am not an attorney, but I have 11 reporting to me, and a lot of them are former litgators. This shit is do-able, on the right day in the right courtroom.
MattTheSkywalker said:
good points. My point was Nintendo wouldnt want the case to go to trial because bad publicity will effect product sales. If word gets out gaming systems cause seizures, overprotective moms all over the globe will be boycotting nintendo. And bad PR would cause a substancial dent in Nintendos bottom line.
True, jurors are lay folk. And smooth talking lawyers can win them over. Its a shame. Id like to know what biological theories predict video game exposure and seizure occurence.
Its stupid. Even if a spurious correlation between video game exposure and petite mal seizures exists, that dude shouldnt have been playing nintendo 24/7. Ur just asking for trouble.
Who knows. What is the radiation content emitted from TV's, computer screens ect? Is it bad??
I dont know.
Sushi X
New member
people with epilepsy are warned that the flashing lights and colors in games can trigger seizures. so the warning is there. this guy probably just got too much exposure from all the lights, colors and raidation coming from the tv. i wonder how close he sat while palying it. and for 8 hours a day? come on, again, the gaming industry tell you to take a break after every hour of playing. i think it's like 5 minutes or so per hour. so this guy played 8 hrs a day. he would have needed about 15 minutes per hour he played to take a break. he did'nt thus he overexposed himself. why should nintendo pay? what happend to personal responsibility, or is this country now so out of whack that what you do is'nt your fault?
goood post SushiX.
Another thought that popped into my mind last night.
Any person has access to as much water as they want. But people dont drink 20 gallons of water in one serving, pass out, and sue the water company because large quantities of water is dangerous!! Its common sense.
If the frequency of epilectic seizures and prolonged video game exposure is low enough, say 1/1,000,000 or 1/10,000,000, this guy shouldve known better.
Anything in high doses will kill you. Should I sue Skippy because I ate 20 tubs of peanut butter than puked all over my house? No. I should sue my dog because I slipped on my puke and cracked my head off the counter because he didnt have the courtesy to lick it up.
Case Closed.
Another thought that popped into my mind last night.
Any person has access to as much water as they want. But people dont drink 20 gallons of water in one serving, pass out, and sue the water company because large quantities of water is dangerous!! Its common sense.
If the frequency of epilectic seizures and prolonged video game exposure is low enough, say 1/1,000,000 or 1/10,000,000, this guy shouldve known better.
Anything in high doses will kill you. Should I sue Skippy because I ate 20 tubs of peanut butter than puked all over my house? No. I should sue my dog because I slipped on my puke and cracked my head off the counter because he didnt have the courtesy to lick it up.
Case Closed.
buddy28 said:
This is not being tried in teh court of common sense
Similar threads
