Microsoft blames baby's parents for deadly Xbox fire

In what's probably the appropriate legal move given the situation -- but what will probably not earn the company any warm fuzzies -- Microsoft is asking the U.S. Central Court for Central Illinois to dismiss that wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of young Wade Kline, arguing that "misuse or abuse" of the family Xbox was the cause of the deadly blaze. Specifically, Redmond claims that the suit, which also names Wal-mart and and an anonymous power-supply maker, lacks merit because the Klines "knowingly, willingly, intentionally, and voluntarily exposed themselves to said danger and assumed the risk of incident, injuries, losses, and damages" -- though it's not really clear what "danger" they're referring to. Besides looking to clear its good name, Microsoft also wants the now house-less family to cover its likely-steep legal costs, which probably won't do much to win back the Klines as return customers. We'll keep you posted as the case progresses.

[Cronick @ Aug 1st 2007 7:51PM]

This story makes me want to donate money to help the family.

Engadget: Let us know where we can donate $5, $10, even $15 to help these guys fight the most evil and vindictive litigators in human history.

[omoks @ Aug 1st 2007 7:55PM]

Seriously.......

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2007 8:13PM]

How do you know these people aren't responsible for the fire themselves? How do you know they aren't going after one of the richest corporations on the planet just because they have deep pockets and gambled that they would rather avoid the negative PR and just settle for a good amount that is chump change to Microsoft.

And you are ready to send these people money. How about waiting until the verdict comes down, eh?

[Mike @ Aug 1st 2007 8:29PM]

Chris -

Their child died in the fire. If you had children, you'd know it's not about the money - they're angry and they have every right to be. If it were my child and I saw your posting, I'd add you to my list of people who have something coming to them...

[craig @ Aug 1st 2007 8:34PM]

Considering Microsoft is the defendant in this case, calling them "vindictive litigators" is completely out of line. The litigation is against them.

Also, just because they've suffered a tragedy doesn't mean they're entitled to anything. How do you know it's not about the money, Mike?

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2007 8:39PM]

Mike -

I never said they did not suffer a loss or staged the fire. I was commenting on Cronick's rush to judgment. Believe it or not, occasionally, parents are responsible for their own children's death, even if their claim is against "the most evil and vindictive litigators in human history."

[joe @ Aug 1st 2007 9:31PM]

@ Cronick
I don't think Microsoft needs any of our money to fight these guys.

[david @ Aug 1st 2007 10:22PM]

I despise M$ but we have no facts about the case, what caused the fire, or the details of the petition. If it was reckless behavior from the parents, then the suit should be dismissed. If the X-Box was defective and caused a short and fire, then M$ needs to cough up the dough. This isn't an emotional issue, this is court, it SHOULD be emotionless. Hopefully the the family isn't playing the "pity" card.

[Miles Pulsford @ Aug 1st 2007 10:33PM]

im with joe on this one. talk about being vindictive.

[Mike Klein @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:40AM]

Why are all of the intelligent posts bashing Microsoft soft ranked lowest? Msoft Minions on the attack?

You're too obvious guys... throttle it down a skosh m'kay?

[Juke Box Hero @ Aug 2nd 2007 6:52PM]

@Mike Klein

From what I've seen on this site, users get voted down when they make pointless or uninformed comments (take yours for example). So far I haven't seen one informed Microsoft bashing comment here. Virtually every one of them seem to jump the gun and and think Microsoft is totally at fault when they have no idea what the actual facts are. Virtually every one of them fail to click on the link in the story itself and read the ORIGINAL story which paints a very different picture. Read the story, be informed then your comment might get voted up.

[kilgary @ Aug 1st 2007 8:03PM]

My guess is the Xbox was modded. A lot of modded Xboxes won't turn on with the post-recall power cable and need the orginal power cable. So, they probably "knowingly, willingly, intentionally, and voluntarily exposed themselves to said danger" by using the original power cable.

[oGMo @ Aug 1st 2007 8:23PM]

And who made the original power cable?

[Ceralor @ Aug 1st 2007 11:14PM]

There was a recall, you know. And if they were notified, y'know what? It doesn't matter, at all. It's the parents' fault they didn't apply the recall they were notified of.

[Sain @ Aug 1st 2007 11:21PM]

@Ceralor - It's funny you say that. I wasn't notified of the cable recall. I didn't find out until a year after....when I started reading gaming forums and saw an old topic discussing it.....the xbox we had wasn't one of the ones that's cable was being recalled and since I didn't register I don't know how Microsoft would have known....unless it was for launch consoles then I can see why I didn't get it.

[Evan @ Aug 1st 2007 11:54PM]

To be fair, we don't even know if they had the replacement cord. Also, from their court filing they accused an Xbox 360 of causing the fire in 2004.

I was just in a car accident a week ago and I have received over 50 phone calls from lawyers offering to help me sue the people who hit my car even though it would be completely unnecessary. My guess is the family made the mistake of picking up the phone from one of these ambulance chasers.

That fact that they sued for only $50,000 dollars is another red flag in my book. If I legitimately thought M$ was to blame for my child's death I would be adding some more zeros to my suit. I am sure the lawyer assumed such a low ball figure would get them an instant check because it would be easy for MS, and probably cheaper for them.

Turns out the lawyer did not realize that MS doesn't want to be labeled a baby killer. This lawyer is going to get totally pwned in court. I especially hope that it was one of those "YOU PAY NOTHING UNLESS WE GET PAID" lawyers. That way when MS wins their legal fees this ambulance chaser will be left with quite the hefty fee.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter. You don't know how annoying it is to get calls from lawyers all day for two days straight. If any of them get burned for their practices I will have a nice smirk on my face.

[Daryl Herbert @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:19AM]

:: I especially hope that it was one of those "YOU PAY NOTHING UNLESS WE GET PAID" lawyers.

That's called a "contingency fee," and it's how almost all personal injury lawyers work.

Imagine what would happen if you hired a lawyer with an hourly rate:
1 - he would be motivated to rack up lots of hours
2 - he would not be motivated to win a big verdict for you
3 - if you lost, you get nothing, PLUS you have to pay the bills--so people would be afraid to sue, even when they were legitimate victims. Poor people especially would be cut off from our legal system, which means more predators would take advantage of them, knowing they couldn't fight back.

Don't knock our legal system if you don't understand it.

[Evan @ Aug 2nd 2007 1:05AM]

@Daryl,

That certainly is not how all lawyers work. It depends on the type of litigation you enter whether or not a lawyer has a contingency fee. It also depends on the lawyer you get. Many high profile personal injury lawyers will not work under a contingency fee. With that being said, yes most of them do operate with a contingency fee, I never took issue with that.

I made reference to that 'famous slogan' in capital letters because that is the way lawyers advertise for themselves on TV, print, radio etc. If you don't believe me I have several voice mails on my phone with that tag line and also about ten letters I received today in the mail.

I'm sure you would like to go on and on defending personal injury lawyers, but please spare us. I know there are some good ones out there but when I get call after call telling me I can sue, that I should sue, or that I *need* a lawyer because I have been involved in an accident I think I have a right to criticize. I can't even imagine how many minutes I lost on my cell phone this week by picking up calls that looked like numbers I thought I knew. Not to mention that even one law office has sent me TEXT MESSAGES!

Please explain why I cannot criticize some personal injury lawyers for being ambulance chasers, which I never actually believed it was that bad until my car was hit by another car on Friday. Would you pick a lawyer based on the fact they flooded your phone, voice mail, and snail mail with advertisements?

Anyways the WHOLE reason I pointed that out was because they are getting counter sued for legal fees. Does the statement "we don't get paid unless you get paid" or other similar slogans like "you don't pay a dime unless we win the case" also apply to that? My point wouldn't have made any sense if I said contingency fee when questioning if a lawyer would have to pay for their defendant's legal fees if they lost under that circumstance.

Don't criticize for the sake of criticizing. If you are a lawyer, I am sorry if I offended you. Don't assume I am a know-nothing poster either, as I know enough about the U.S. legal system to criticize it. You either misread, skipped half of what I wrote, or just totally missed my point. On top of that I never said that it was bad policy to have a contingency fee. I simply took issue with getting hoarded with phone calls by sue happy law offices, and do not tell me they have my best interests in mind.

If you have an answer to my questions, I would be interested to know since you imply to have knowledge of the legal system that I do not.

[Loonie @ Aug 1st 2007 8:08PM]

They knowingly, willingly, intentionally, and voluntarily exposed themselves to said danger and assumed the risk of incident, injuries, losses, and damages by allowing electricity to flow through it.

We all take these risks and continually shoulder the responsibility when we pay the price! I mean look at the number of Playstation-related fires, and Nintendo-related fires, and NeoGeo-related fires, and PC Engine-related fires, and Sega-related fires! Consoles are just death traps! Oh Emm Jee Zors exclamation exclamation one exclamation!!!!!

What a flaccid excuse. A big, fat, fuck-you to MS.

[Kirs @ Aug 1st 2007 8:08PM]

Although rumored for years, Microsoft are now official baby-killers.

[Evan @ Aug 2nd 2007 1:09AM]

I would still leave that one in the rumor category for now.

[Timmay @ Aug 1st 2007 8:12PM]

Thank god I live in America where my ignorance can get me rich.
I think Microsoft's response is perfect. They issued a recall on the power cords, they did what they could to replace them and beyond that it's the consumers responsibility. If this case were to actually make it to trial and the family won, it would basically say that recalls don't cover your ass, corps would no longer see the point in spending money to issue them and we'd all suffer. Family, you f'ed up. Bummer.

[Señor Swanky @ Aug 1st 2007 8:12PM]

Maybe setting aside $1 billion was low-balling it...?

[Jerry @ Aug 1st 2007 8:17PM]

I have to agree here. It is not microsoft's responsibility to make call every user to make sure they followed through with a recall. And either way it's still the family's fault if they didn't have proper ventilation, proper smoke detectors, and a plan for escaping fires with all family members accounted for. I know its all very tragic and my heart goes out to the family, but we can't go blaming everyone else for something that could have been avoided with a little common sense on our own parts. That is what is wrong with America today, we can't take any responsibility for ourselves, we must blame everyone else.

[Mike @ Aug 1st 2007 8:38PM]

How about this -- wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where corporations were held to a higher standard and products we purchase were actually tested thoroughly and built properly the first time so this sort of thing didn't happen? Instead, they are allowed to build these things with the cheapest grade components possible and built by the lowest bidder. It's all a money game to these companies -- how much do they stand to profit vs. how much might they have to pay out in a lawsuit should something bad really happen. If the reward outweights the risk, they truly don't give a shit.

No amount of money will EVER bring back that dead child. Whatever amount they wind up being awarded, it won't even make a DENT in the M$ pocketbook.

Not fair.

[Evan @ Aug 2nd 2007 1:12AM]

The fire was in December 2004. The recall was in Feb. 2005. I don't think the case is that simple.

[JJ @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:41AM]

I agree with you Timmay and others that suspect the parents.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here:
- How did the parents live and their child did not?
- Did the parents ever take notice of the nationwide recall of the 360 AC Adapters? (I live in California and even this product recall was on my local TV stations.)
- Was the child near the 360 system or in his/her room or in the same area as the parents?
- How well-ventilated was the area that the system was placed in?

Also, the company has a responsibility to notify consumers of product recalls and respond to them in a timely and appropriate manner. It is, however, the consumer's responsibility to take notice of those recalls respond immediately if it does indeed affect them.

I would say at the least their child died due to neglect and ignorance on the parent's part. I'm sorry for their lost, it was a terrible tragedy for them. But, it could have been prevented, and the way this happened raises more questions than answers.

[oGMo @ Aug 1st 2007 8:30PM]

Wrong. If a device overheats, it's the responsibility of the device to fail and shut down... not burn the house down. This is a design fault.

[Paul @ Aug 1st 2007 8:37PM]

It is still microsofts fault because microsoft does not make tv commercials or radio commercials broadcasting a recall they do a lousy press conference and expect everyone to know if it wasnt for this post i would have never know Microsoft ever had a recall on the power cords and i owned an xbox before. Help the poor family they lost someone for Christ sake

[Josh McGrath @ Aug 1st 2007 9:10PM]

Paul-
i had no idea about the powercord recall,no one else in my family did either.
but i received one in the mail from microsoft

[Evan @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:10AM]

I think all of us are missing something important here. The fire was in December 2004 and the recall began in February 2005. The family cannot be blamed for not replacing a cord that was not under recall.

There must have been something else we don't know. Like earlier posts it may have been modded, using alternate power cords, maybe too many plugs in the outlet. Who knows, but something was out of the ordinary for MS to release some fairly damning statements in such a sensitive case. My guess their is more to the story than has been released and MS is squashing the litigation before it starts.

[Warhorse @ Aug 2nd 2007 10:45AM]

I agree with Evan, there is more here than we know.

[SteveMB @ Aug 1st 2007 8:13PM]

Wow, I don't know why so many people are hating on Microsoft when they don't know the full story. And it's really hard to tell sarcasm on the internet. Until we know the full story, I don't think we should start saying that it's Microsoft's fault. (Not saying that anyone did say that, but I'm sure someone will)

http://www.gearsofwarpc.com

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2007 8:47PM]

Cronick,

It was Microsoft who was dragged into court. Microsoft's legal history or not, I wouldn't expect anyone or any company to just bend over and take a civil action for wrongful death. Microsoft has a duty to do what is in the best interest of its shareholders, and that doesn't mean bending over because you or anyone else thinks their history has been too litigious.

Your hatred of MS has clearly blinded you. I say, wait for the decision. You say, string'm up.

[Service_Games @ Aug 1st 2007 10:59PM]

Amen to that Steve. Honestly, we need to know the full story and both sides of the story before we can make any conclusions.

[Evan @ Aug 2nd 2007 12:35AM]

@Cronick

You act as if technology companies are continually suing each other on a daily basis. Do you read Engadget?

Show me some litigation involving wrongful death and Microsoft, because what you are comparing right now are apples and oranges. If you think going to court over patents, inventions, ideas, competition etc. are the same as going to court for wrongful death, you are fairly mistaken.

[John @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:04PM]

actually Microsoft has a long history of people claiming they stole code or illegally monopolized. Microsoft doesn't tend to lose those cases very often, which is pretty evident from the fact that they're still in business.

[John @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:39PM]

My post somehow got put above what I was posting in response too... uncanny

[Cronick @ Aug 1st 2007 8:33PM]

Microsoft has a long and established history of committing misdeeds (stealing code, illegal monopolization, etc.) and then throwing unlimited amounts of money at the legal system in order to stall the legal process until those harmed by Microsoft can no longer afford to fight. Those harmed by Microsoft ultimately lose in court in the face of endless legal maneuvers designed only to drive the plaintiffs into bankruptcy.

LEARN SOME HISTORY: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041228040645419

[Nicholas @ Aug 1st 2007 8:17PM]

This is tricky. I have never heard of any Xbox systems with this wiring problem before, though I never really followed the system as I never cared for it.

This is a slippery slope for Microsoft. Pay up, and possibly open the floodgates for similar cases against the computer giant. Don't pay up and suffer the terrible blow to its reputation.

I think Super Philanthropist, Billy G should come to their rescue.

[YoRone22 @ Aug 1st 2007 8:31PM]

Let's clear some stuff up first. The fire was in December 2004 which was before the recall. They couldn't have returned the power supply because there was no recall yet. Also, they claimed the Xbox 360 caused the fire. Wow. They must be in Microsoft's good book to get the system 11 months before it came out. Some friends they are turning their back on Microsoft like that. Finally, what were the parents doing while the Xbox was smoking? I didn't own an original Xbox so I don't know much about this problem but from what I've read the Xbox started to smoke before it caught on fire. Well what were the parents doing while the Xbox was smoking? Out partying? Sounds like some good parents, leaving an infant home alone. Even if they went to the grocery store, they still left the baby home alone. Right? Now since I don't know all the details, they could have been sleeping. Well aren't babies usually located pretty close to the parents rooms, if not in the room itself? And if a fire was started and it woke you, wouldn't the first thing you'd do is get your baby and run out? The parents obviously had time to get the baby if they got out, that is if the baby was located near them, and if it wasn't, why not? The baby could have gotten sick in the night and started crying. Would the parents know about it? No, because the baby wasn't near them. And if they were sleeping, why would the "Xbox 360" be turned on? There are so many problems with this I could go on and on, but I'm gonna stop. Just one more thing, why did the parents wait so long to file a lawsuit? The fire was in 2004 and the first I heard of it was in 2007.

[Christopher @ Aug 2nd 2007 5:26AM]

You have got it exactly right. The fire was before the XBox power cable recalls, so Microsoft is still on the hook. Also, most people who I know leave their consoles on overnight if they are playing at game, want to pause it, and restart from where they left off the next day. I personally have done that.
Third, the recall specifically stated that EVEN WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS NOT TURNED ON..... it could still catch fire and burn! I still have the letter, and I could cut and paste from it straight onto here exactly what they said, were I not lazy.

There is one thing I have to take issue with: not everyone sleeps with their baby near them. My friends, most of them, have their baby in a totally different room, sometimes three or four rooms away from them, so that they can sleep without Junior or Janet's wailing waking them up at obscene hours.
I know, it sounds cruel.... but most babies wake up for no reason in the middle of the night, and you just have to learn to ignore them if you have fed, changed and swaddled them.

[james @ Aug 1st 2007 8:40PM]

uh, dude, it was the original Xbox. it had known problems with the power cord since 2002. you know guys, there WAS life before the 360.

[YoRone22 @ Aug 1st 2007 8:44PM]

@ James.

If you had read the original article that was linked, you would have read that they specifically cited the Xbox 360 as the console that caused the fire.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/24/microsoft-wal-mart-sued-over-babys-death/

I linked in case you didn't know an article was linked. Read it. :)

[Juke Box Hero @ Aug 1st 2007 8:44PM]

@james

Uh, you might want to click that link in the story and read the original story. The family was claiming the XBox 360 caused the fire, not the original XBox.

[Andrea @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:20AM]

Since everyone else here is making assumptions, I'll throw one out that no one has mentioned.

Why did they wait so long to sue?

The plaintiffs (the dead baby's parents) probably tried to settle the case before it was filed in court. I suspect they went to arbitration and won. Microsoft, like all other defendants, who go to a non-binding arbitration have a right to appeal an unfavorable decision. If that happened maybe that is why the plaintiffs filed suit when they did. Perhaps they TRIED to settle with Microsoft but Microsoft's pig-headeness and concern to protect it's "good name" prevented them from stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility.

I work in a law office. I see this crap all the time. Big corporations spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (of their shareholder's money nonetheless), drag a case on and on for years, get to court and lose. Microsoft is potentially headed down that same road. However, if they get scared the night before trial (and even during the trial) they can offer to settle. And guess what, that settlement will be CONFIDENTIAL and none of us will know the outcome.

Why do so many people concern themselves with the welfare of the billion dollar corporation and condemn the people who bring the lawsuit? Especially when you don't know ANY of the pertinent facts? You have no idea what went wrong here. You do not know the family. You do not know why the fire started or whether it was an actual design defect. Oh no, you don't want to rely on facts... you just jump the gun and assume the plaintiffs are seeking to strike it rich. I hardly doubt it. You lose a baby of yours to Bill Gates' design defect, will you be so forgiving to the giant corporation?

Oh and the little old lady that won the millionaire dollar verdict after being burned by scolding hot coffee at McDonalds had 3rd degree burns on her private parts and had to undergo numerous skin grafts. I think she was fairly compensated. She wasn't the gold digger or opportunist the newspapers made her out to be. If you burned your privates with 400 degree coffee you'd be looking for a lawyer too.

As for the ambulance chasers calling looking for business. That is unethical and is not allowed in hawaii. i would be very suprised if that was allowed anywhere. In fact, an attorney could be disbarred for those tactics if caught.

[John @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:34PM]

400 degree coffee you say? Most of us don't get water to go much hotter than around 212 degrees. It was actually somewhere around 180 degrees, which McDonalds did because people tended to buy the coffee and then take it to the office to drink. The case was not clear cut case where McDonalds was obviously at fault.

With regards to spending "hundreds of thousands of dollars of shareholder's money no less" to delay a lawsuit, that's called "fiduciary responsibility". It may cost hundreds of thousands to fight the lawsuit, but it could easily cost millions in sales if they get swarmed with bad publicity. They're a business - they don't spend money on something that they don't think will save or earn them more money in the long term.

Finally, people are condemning the people suing because their facts don't pan out - they claim an XBox 360 started the fire... 11 months before it was available for sale. If they're so chummy with MS that they got a 360 that early, then I'd think Microsoft would be a lot less unwilling to just settle.

[arcadia @ Aug 2nd 2007 6:03PM]

This reply is not directed towards any one particular poster.

What were the parents doing, as if it mattered? Just in case you want to know since this has become a topic of interest—I’ve included a link to the original newspaper story about the infants’ death published 3 day after the incident.

Was it the parents fault? Was it faulty wiring? Was it the xbox? Did the parents have a modded xbox that just happened to malfunction while plugged into a faulty outlet that just by chance was somewhere near the Childs sleeping area?

This was simply a tragedy that not one person that’s posted on this article has any clue about regarding the facts in this particular case--including myself.

Furthermore, like it or not, both parties to this case have the right to not only accuse the other of wrong doing, but to vigorously defend themselves against the others charges. That same freedom is what allows all of us to freely agree or disagree with not only each other, but with the actions taken in this case by all involved.

Until we know all the facts in this particular case, both parties are free of wrongful doing.

Here’s the link to the original story about the fire and death:
http://www.journalpilot.com/articles/2004/12/29/news/news1.txt

[Mr. Picklesworth @ Aug 1st 2007 8:33PM]

If these people weren't so quick to start up a lawsuit, Microsoft would probably be giving them condolences. (Being that it would be the morally good to do and would avoid any lawsuits occuring).

However, by putting themselves on Microsoft's bad side and acting as a predator, they have ensured that they will not be given such treatment.

Not trivializing death, but this is really not surprising, and in MS's collective shoes, I would probably be doing the same thing.

[Rich @ Feb 29th 2008 4:27PM]

Fire in 2004. Lawsuit in 2007. "Quick"???