Microsoft blames baby's parents for deadly Xbox fire
By Evan Blass 
posted Aug 1st 2007 7:25PM
posted Aug 1st 2007 7:25PM
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.
We don't have enough details one way or another to be sticking fingers in faces and flinging accusations.
If walmart and an "anonymous power supply manufacturer" are being sued as well, could it not be that these folks plugged a replacement, aftermarket power supply cord into their Xbox, and that's what caught fire?
It is clear that many of you would willingly suck Microshit's huge corporate cock if ever given that chance.
Though, lord knows what kind of diseases you'd get.
Regardless...that is very depressing.
Fanboyism, ahoy!
(And fanboyism without even realizing how truly crappy and pathetic the company you like, is.)
Something like calling yourself hardcore and liking My Chemical Romance.
The richest man in the world will give poor, developing countries homes, but not these customers?
I don't think Carlos Slim has anything to do with this case.
Maybe Bill would be more forthcoming with funds if this family, like those developing countries, agreed to never use an Apple-made or Linux-based product for the rest of their lives.
Funny how Bill's "philanthropy" works. ;-)
Oh boy, I can already see the fanboys coming to vote me down.
This story makes me want to donate money to help the family.
Engadget: Let us know where we can donate $5, $10, even $15 to help these guys fight the most evil and vindictive litigators in human history.
Seriously.......
How do you know these people aren't responsible for the fire themselves? How do you know they aren't going after one of the richest corporations on the planet just because they have deep pockets and gambled that they would rather avoid the negative PR and just settle for a good amount that is chump change to Microsoft.
And you are ready to send these people money. How about waiting until the verdict comes down, eh?
Chris -
Their child died in the fire. If you had children, you'd know it's not about the money - they're angry and they have every right to be. If it were my child and I saw your posting, I'd add you to my list of people who have something coming to them...
Considering Microsoft is the defendant in this case, calling them "vindictive litigators" is completely out of line. The litigation is against them.
Also, just because they've suffered a tragedy doesn't mean they're entitled to anything. How do you know it's not about the money, Mike?
Mike -
I never said they did not suffer a loss or staged the fire. I was commenting on Cronick's rush to judgment. Believe it or not, occasionally, parents are responsible for their own children's death, even if their claim is against "the most evil and vindictive litigators in human history."
@ Cronick
I don't think Microsoft needs any of our money to fight these guys.
I despise M$ 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.
im with joe on this one. talk about being vindictive.
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?
@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.
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.
And who made the original power cable?
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.
@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.
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.
:: 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.
@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.
I am sick of people blaming everyone but themselves when a tradgedy strikes. These pathetic parents were obviously negligent, I have all the sympathy in the world for the deceased child but not at all for the pathetic parents who were not around to make sure this tradgedy did not occur. Now they want to get rich off of their own neglect? Shameful. I have seen countless warnings about plugging in too many cords into one outlet and the risk of fire associated with that.
Although rumored for years, Microsoft are now official baby-killers.
I would still leave that one in the rumor category for now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The fire was in December 2004. The recall was in Feb. 2005. I don't think the case is that simple.
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.
Maybe setting aside $1 billion was low-balling it...?
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.
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
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
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.
I agree with Evan, there is more here than we know.
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
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.
Amen to that Steve. Honestly, we need to know the full story and both sides of the story before we can make any conclusions.
@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.
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.
My post somehow got put above what I was posting in response too... uncanny
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
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.
From a legal perspective, it does not matter, in the slightest, that the parents were partially negligent. Contributory negligence is a matter that should be resolved at trial, because it involves complicated factual questions. Anyway, at best it would reduce the parent's award, not take it away altogether. Even if the parents were 70% responsible, Microsoft would still have to cough up the 30% they owe for putting a fire hazard into the home.
I'm a huge MS fan, but the real reason Microsoft is bringing this motion is pretty evil: large corporations try to bring as many motions before trial as possible. They know they're going to lose, but don't care. The aim is not to win the motion, but to bleed the poor plaintiffs dry to the point where they cannot continue the litigation.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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. :)
@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Fire in 2004. Lawsuit in 2007. "Quick"???
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.
you're right. If you look carefully at the Xbox, you can see that the power supply is actually a matchbox, and if you open the case, you see that they use cloth as a resistor. Truly, you have opened our eyes to that Microsoft has not been testing their products.... or you're an idiot who doesn't realize that all products are extensively tested because companies are afraid of lawsuits and you're declaring microsoft at fault while knowing virtually nothing about this. If they are found at fault, then they'll pay an arm, a leg, and a house for this. Until then, keep your vindictive opinions to yourself.
@John: matchbox and cloth?
Companies use the absolutely cheapest bare minimum componentry possible...they will shave pennies using equipment that barely meets standard.
Time and time again I find myself replacing shoddy componentry with better quality stuff that is only marginally more expensive.
It's called 'economy of scale'...using cheap shit probably landed somebody another $5M for their bonus.
John -
You might be the dumbest, most ignorant bastard on the planet.
If they truly did test this product extensively, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. The bottom line is, it comes down to dollars and cents. Microsoft wanted to get a product out to compete with the Sony Playstations and Nintendo systems. They rushed the thing to market and never thought twice about something like this. The fact is, they never do. It is cheaper to pay out on a settlement than it is to hold up a cash cow product like the Xbox. If little babies have to die, that's just the price of doing business.
You really need to open your eyes and see the world for what it is. I know you just LOVE your Xbox 360, and your Zune, and your Windows Vista Ultimate but that doesn't mean you need to blow the guys at Microsoft and come to their defense when, clearly, there isn't one. Anyway, that's their multi-million dollar lawyer's jobs -- to get them out of tight spots like this that they don't deserve to wiggle out of.
This comment has been posted 2 times on the first page alone so I feel I must make a comment.
Why are they not held to a high standard? If they were not held to a high standard and this was a regular occurance then wouldnt there be numerous class action suits for negligence? I have bought both X-box systems on release day and have never had a major problem with them. I have never had my house burn down.
In 10 years of windows use I have had maybe 3 BSOD's. Yes there have been problems. But have there not been problems with other companies? So why be so judgemental of microsoft for doing exactly what they are required to do in this situation? Did microsoft hurt you? Did they fire you? Or did you just hop on the "Lets hate Microsoft because all the cool kids are doing it" bandwagon?
Oh and I must ask is your use of profanity a methood by which you attempt to disguise a vocabulary which is somewhat lacking, an attempt to browbeat or bully others into agreeing with your hardline, biased and extremist view or is it simply that you feel it necessary to make everyone who disagrees with you feel like a complete moron?
I ask you is it really necessary in this day and age for supposedly educated individuals to use profanity of any description when posting on an internet site that minors can read? Especially on a topic such as this.
The only facts I have seen so far, and I will be looking into this more, are as follows
1:- A child was killed in a fire which cost a family its home.
2:- Microsoft are being blamed for it.
3:- It was claimed that an X-box 360 overheating was the cause of the fire. This console was not released until 11 months after the fire occured.
I may have missed some but these seem to be the main points so far. I know you will be kind enough to inform me of any/all of the numerous mistakes I may have made here.
I look forward to your reply.
Oh both of my comments are for Mike.
I didnt note that on the first one I posted here.
Nice of you to chime in a week later. I like how you've chosen to go the opposite way and use overly large words, no doubt taken straight from the Thesaurus, adding countless hours to your waste of time posting.
For the record, I am not Microsoft bashing -- I'm big company, big business bashing. Its my opinion that large, mass recalls could be avoided if they did their due diligence. It's also my opinion that we only see mass recalls when these companies realize that the potential liability is greater than the cost of the recall iteslf.
I'm sorry you were so hurt by my opinions. I know there are a lot of touchy Microsoft lovers out there and it pains you to see your favorite company painted is such a bad light. You feel it's your obligation to stand up for them or run the risk of them not loving you any more. I know the thought of losing that man-on-man lovin' from Big Daddy Gates probably has you waking up in a cold sweat with shooting pains in your ass. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that you're getting corn-holed on a regular basis.
People like you make my skin crawl. You would rather defend the richest company on earth, who incidently is also the company with the least scruples in the world, rather than show the least bit of compassion for a grief-stricken family and their dead child. The fact that people like you could even suggest that they are bad parents, with no facts to back a statement like that up, tells me what big pieces of shit you all must truely be.
My final thoughts: I hope YOUR next brush with a faulty product nearly burns you to death. I say NEARLY because I think it's only fitting that you spend the rest of your days suffering and reflecting on your attitude and the comments you've made about this poor, helpless, innocent child and it's parents you've condemned in your blind, misplaced devotion to corporate america. It's obvious that it's your feeling that the products they sell are more important that the people who purchase them, not to mention their children.
Nice of you to chime in a week later. I like how you've chosen to go the opposite way and use overly large words, no doubt taken straight from the Thesaurus, adding countless hours to your waste of time posting.
For the record, I am not Microsoft bashing -- I'm big company, big business bashing. Its my opinion that large, mass recalls could be avoided if they did their due diligence. It's also my opinion that we only see mass recalls when these companies realize that the potential liability is greater than the cost of the recall iteslf.
I'm sorry you were so hurt by my opinions. I know there are a lot of touchy Microsoft lovers out there and it pains you to see your favorite company painted is such a bad light. You feel it's your obligation to stand up for them or run the risk of them not loving you any more. I know the thought of losing that man-on-man lovin' from Big Daddy Gates probably has you waking up in a cold sweat with shooting pains in your ass. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that you're getting corn-holed on a regular basis.
People like you make my skin crawl. You would rather defend the richest company on earth, who incidently is also the company with the least scruples in the world, rather than show the least bit of compassion for a grief-stricken family and their dead child. The fact that people like you could even suggest that they are bad parents, with no facts to back a statement like that up, tells me what big pieces of shit you all must truely be.
My final thoughts: I hope YOUR next brush with a faulty product nearly burns you to death. I say NEARLY because I think it's only fitting that you spend the rest of your days suffering and reflecting on your attitude and the comments you've made about this poor, helpless, innocent child and it's parents you've condemned in your blind, misplaced devotion to corporate america. It's obvious that it's your feeling that the products they sell are more important that the people who purchase them, not to mention their children.
@Mike.
Where to start.
First off to clear up ANY confusion. Corporate America can crash and burn for all I care. I am European. You know those sensible neighbours who didnt want to go to Iraq so you lied to us about WMDs and got us to let you go. So PLEASE dont get preachy on the evils of corporate AMERICA. I just dont care either way.
Secondly I was surprised to see you expose yourself as a homophobe or at the very least a so called "Gay basher". "man on man lovin"? I dont think I made any comment about my sexual orientation so why oh why would you sink to an even lower low than generic profanity. And I'm assuming that "corn-holed" is american slang for anal sex? Seriously is your life that bad that you have to go off on someone because they have different opinions than you on an internet forum?
As for my defending Microsoft. We both come from similar countrys in that an accused person or entity is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Have they been proven guilty? NO! So lets not judge them too harshly until they are. If and when they are found guilty I will be standing on the front line screaming for them to be punished and punished severly. But UNTIL I see that they have been found guilty in a court of law I will not judge them.
And as for your final thoughts. How very christian and caring. Obviously you are open to rational discourse and people having different views. Very impressive. I just thank god that thedre are less and less people like you in the world as the years go by. People who jump at any media hype of a "Big Bad Company" that does something wrong and try to tear their reputation to shreds. And a 50k claim for the life of my child. Add about another 20 Zeros to the end of that figure and your getting close to what I'd wanna do to the person who caused my childs death.
P.S. Try not to post a comment more than once. It makes you seem as backward and as "bible belty" as I suspect you to be.
Kieran -
I'm not going to get sucked into a verbal ping pong match with you. I'll even go so far as to apologize for "gay bashing" you. If you like getting corn-holed, it's really none of my business and has no relevance here.
You obviously have your misguided opinion and I have the more accurate, realistic one.
Have a nice day and enjoy the weather. I imagine its HOT where you are now.
Kieran -
I'm not going to get sucked into a verbal ping pong match with you. I'll even go so far as to apologize for "gay bashing" you. If you like getting corn-holed, it's really none of my business and has no relevance here.
You obviously have your misguided opinion and I have the more accurate, realistic one.
Have a nice day and enjoy the weather. I imagine its HOT where you are now.
A baby died in a house fire. The parents claim that the fire started at or around the XBox power cable. Where were the parents when the fire started? How did they survive the fire but the baby died? If I were a prosecutor I would be charging the parents with neglect. How can you abandon your infant to die in a fire? Were the parents playing Xbox when the fire started and forgot their baby when they escaped?
This is a tragedy. It makes me very sad that this helpless childed died in the fire. I don't know enough about the facts of the case to pass judgment, but as a parent I am appalled that this baby died and the parents survived. You couldn't drag me out of a burning building so long as my child was still inside.
1. How do people generally die in fires? Asphyxiation (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/smoke_inhalation/article_em.htm). Baby lungs are far smaller and it takes far less effort to suffocate a child. Smoke inhalation killing an infant is far, far easier than a grown adult.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the article indicating the size or layout of the home. A fire may begin in one room and given draft patterns the smoke may first end up in one room, then another, etc. It's quite possible the smoke could have invaded the child's room first. Or maybe the child's crib was in the same room - say a living room - as the xbox, thus the fire's smoke would impact the most vulnerable person first.
2. Where were the parents? - Maybe in the backyard, maybe sleeping, maybe in a room further away from the source of the fire. If I'm asleep in a 3000 Sq ft house, my bedroom is downstairs and my child's room is upstairs, adjacent to the game room, who would know of the smoke first? The baby. But the smoke wouldn't cause the baby to cry per se - especially if the baby were sleeping. It's quite common for people to die in fires expressly because they were asleep. Again, a myriad airflow issues come into play.
@ Youfacethetick
On point #2
That is what smoke detectors are for. Considering the cheapness, and ease of use I think there is no excuse not have them installed and in working order. Kind of along the same lines as seat belts and front door deadbolts.
What the hell? a baby died and you guys are bending yourselves backwards to try and excuse Microsoft. How do you know the exact facts of the case? And trying to blame the parents is sick and disgusting. And making jokes about it is even more sick. Whatever they get, they still have to live with fact that their kid is dead every single day. and I think money is small comfort compared to that.
I think your reading it backwards- most on here are blaming MS- While some are just trying to say the parents have to be alteast atlittle at fault- i actually kinda agree with what SCOTT said- if that my was child id let myself die inside that fire before my child were to be left inside- I dont care what anyone says- Yes its a tragedy- YES i blame the parents and MS for what happened- and YES MS did start sending out replacement powercords with the fuse switch on them after this event- and YES MS sent letters to everyone that registed there console saying if it was made after a date that was posted that they would be able to get this new powercord- so MS did try to do there part and im sure they feel bad- But i modded the orginal Xbox inside and out- and the only way they could have screw this system up that would make it start a fire is if they moved that console about 60 times or had it modded and played with the power supply way to much-
Since they don't give us all the facts for this lawsuit, we say anything for either side. Considering that MS announced a recall on the power supplies/cords in Feb. 2005 and the fire happened in Dec. 2004, that doesn't look too good for MS. If what they said in the article is true:
"Also, the complaint specifically states that an XBox 360 was involved, but this version of the product was unavailable for purchase at that time."
Then, what version of the 360 did they have?
Also, in the article, they said that the infant "perished in the inferno". To me, that would imply that the infant's body was destroyed in the fire. I may not have a child, but what parent would leave their baby in their burning house. If it was me, I would have died with my child, trying to rescue them. Of course, since we don't have all the details, we can't make any conclusions here.
If MS used cheap parts that caused the xbox to start the fire, then MS is going to pay out a lot more than $50k. Otherwise, this family will be bankrupt.
@B
The word version is used incorrectly here. The X-Box 360 was unavailable at the time this happened. Its predecessor the X-Box was the console available. So that statement seems to put the parents argument at a disadvantage.
I wonder how much longer Microsoft is going to continue making gaming consoles...
On a completely different, but unfortunately similar note: I remember a few years ago when a kid got murdered for his ipod and jobs called the kid's father to personally offer his condolences. I thought that was classy...
Obviously, with a lawsuit pending, having anyone at MS make that same call would probably be used as an admission of guilt.
But anyway, it's a sad story all the way around. In the end, my guess is that everything will hinge upon the testimony and cross-examination of the attending fire investigator... and of course, the jury.
Well excuuuse me, sensitive defenders of the realm, but why is it that other console manufacturers seem to have no problem building consoles that don't burn houses down?
How much simpler life must be with lower standards. If you survive.
well, there's sony and they sold over a million defective units in the north america alone.
oh, and let's not forget about their batteries burning up dell, ibm and apple notebooks.
So uhm, there you go, sony can't seem to make stuff that doesn't catch fire either. Now go sue them and STFU.
Why would I sue them? I don't have a Sony battery in my laptop.
And for the record, cuddles, I think Sony are just as culpable regarding their battery debacle. Of course a Lithium battery isn't a games console, but I'll grant you that concession, notwithstanding.
I share the anger that the only winners of such scenarios are the parasitic lawyers on both sides, and I am making the assumption that it was the 1st gen. Xbox, since it would have been pretty difficult to have a 360 in 2004. If so, they should have got that bit right if they expect a successful outcome.
But I have little sympathy for a company that decides it's a good idea to mount a 110-240V power connector only by its connecting pins, when you aren't supposed to do that. You do not mount a mains connector via the contacts through which it draws power and nothing else, then replace the power cable as though that's going to help.
Nor do I have much sympathy for a company that largely owes its current status to the strength of its lawyers and their license-manipulating skills (unless of course it is a lawyer company. Actually, no, not even then).
Sorry I didn't STFU, but there you go. Put my crankiness down to late work and lack of sleep.
PS - I lied about the 'sorry' bit. You may "bite me" at your convenience. :P
Nintendo.
Just another example of personal injury attorneys destroying America. Parents seeking the all mighty dollar. We as consumers pay for these frivolous lawsuits with much higher prices and lower product standards.
In the end the only winners are the personal injury attorneys. Although since so many sold their souls to the devil, they will eventually get their final payment.
We don't know all the facts of the case, so placing blame is foolish. What I do know; there is a dead baby, greedy attorneys, uninformed and possibly bad parents, and consumers paying the price.
So the next time you see a personal injury attorney pull up in their new Mercedes, talking on their iPhone, waive because you're paying for their excess....one dead baby at a time.
Has M$ publicly acknowledged problems with their design? Yes. Has M$ recently set aside an enormous billion dollars to attempt to rectify said problem? Yes. Does the death of this child suggest wrong doing? Perhaps.
At the very least, this takes a chunk of cash from M$, hurts their already lousy reputation, and certainly does not breed confidence in purchasing their hardware. How many of us unplug all our appliances when not in use? Very few, certainly.
This is going to get bigger-- expect a few extra house burning and such to follow suit now that the cat's out of the bag.
Wrong xbox and wrong problem.
the "Red Ring of Death" is different from the "Red Fires of Child-Killing". I know you get a big rush when you think you're being clever; all trolls do - but it's rather offensive to be trying to learn more about something through reading these articles and comments then come across someone who would rather attempt (and fail) to look smart than further the conversation in some way.
Does anyone have any real information regarding this? Court documents? Even a newspaper article? The summary mentioned an aftermarket power supply manufacturer. Is that right?
I don't know about this. It doesn't seem like either party is truly responsible, but it almost sounds like the family's house didn't go "ablaze" because of Microsoft's lack of caution, but rather, the parent's for not getting the replacement cord, and therefore, Microsoft shouldn't be responsible. Also, it's like in any case, the person that starts the legal battle has to pay the legal cost...Microsoft isn't trying to stick it to them, it's just how Microsoft can stay out of the black by avoiding costs when they can. I truly am empathetic towards the family, and I wish them the best, but I don't think that going after Microsoft is the way to solve the problems.
They didn't have a replacement because there was none at the time.
only microsoft would kill a baby then blame its parents, what a horrible company
1) 360 in 2004? First of all, not possible, unless said family has "connections" within Microsoft, and even then it's iffy.
2) I imagine the (ex)parents' lawyer/local PD had investigators find the cause of said house fire... and probably this led them to said xbox (360 or not, it matters not, look at next point).
3) Couldn't the case be dropped on the technicality that the 360 had not even come out in 2004? I'm not exactly a member of the legal system, so I couldn't say for sure.
4) Shouldn't parent negligence be part/most/all of the problem? Microsoft can't be responsible for what people do with their system, and now, there's no evidence to say the parents didn't mod or alter their xbox or void their system warranty in any way (if they still had a warranty on the black/white box).
5) Was it the big clunky black one or the new, still slightly clunky one (and before i get flamed, don't worry, i own both :)?
I'm going to go ahead and guess that this family's next computer is going to be linux or a mac. Just a hunch...
Or perhaps their next operating system? ;)
Microsoft saved themselves.
Even if you didn't call for a replacement cord as long as you REGISTERED your system they sent you a cord.
Hell I got one a year after I sold my Xbox!
See people this is why you fill out those little cards that come with everything.
It's not so Microsoft,Panasonic, or Rival can find out if your white or black it's so they can say "Hey something is wrong here is the replacement."
Granted it's a tragic story but my guess is someone said "You had an Xbox and you bought it at Wal Mart!?"
Even though I am with MS, I will continue to post that the recall was started Feb. 05 and the fire was Dec. 04.
Has anybody ever considered that these parents loosing their child may be the reason for the recall?
A baby died. The situation is definitely sad, but that does not mean we should all jump on Microsoft and simply assume they are at fault. People do all sorts of things to their electronics that put them at added risk. People mod their systems, overload power outlets, clog vents, etc..... Some people on this board are shouting crucify Microsoft and letting their anti-Microsoft feelings get the best of them. It's interesting that people are here aggressively tearing down Microsoft, when every week we hear several stories of other personal/home electronic products causing similar issues. Let's not even get into the number of kids getting killed each week for their iPods. Maybe we should be going for Apple's heads too. A quick Google News search would return you tons of stories about this. Oh wait, I forgot that this is "Apple is God and the iPhone is Jesus" Endadget, so we won't hear any of that talk here.
Nevertheless, my condolences do go out to this family. I cannot even imagine losing a child, a baby at that. If Microsoft is in fact negligent there that this family deserves all that they want from Microsoft, but let's not let our Microsoft hatred to blindly try to bring them down when we do not know the half of the story.
Must be some welfare freeloaders to file a suit like this. Give me a break, too bad the slimeballs didn't burn up with the box
Wow, so bitter about welfare you had to post two separate comments relating to it. I don't think they were on welfare seeing that it appears that they owned a home and had enough extra cash around to pay for an Xbox.
Oh whatever. Family of slimeball welfare bums wanting more for nothing, let them burn with the box next time
Relax, They are not going to drop the lawsuit.