News Parents sue over child's lost iPod

another guy for the FFS chorus, and i add OMFG!!!!!!!!! no wonder they say "god bless america" they certainly need it.

 

I believe it's pronouned 'nay-no'. Losing the player was probably the best thing to happen to the girls. I know i'd love to replace mine with a decent mp3 player.

 

This is a really silly thing to sue over...it's just a chance for more money...money grabbing....*insert swear filter*

And it's not even a decent MP3 player

 

She would too. I love watching that for the comedy value. The stupid things people in america sue over is just stupid. Yes I know it happens here to but not on the scale of America or anywhere near it.

1. Parents fault for buying something so expensive for a child.
2. Parents fault for letting their kid take it to school!!! (without expecting it to get broken/lost or stolen).
3. They should have found out who stole it from the class. Only 30 or more suspects. See who has a nice shinny Ipod all of a sudden.
4. The girls parents offered a replacement. Other parents being snotty and refused which is their problem. Cant expect someone to replace something that is used with something that is new. It wasnt a boxed up sealed ipod that was stolen but a open and used one. Only 2 weeks old does not make it worth a new ipod, its used.

5. im waiting for this episode on Judge Judy

The Parents sue to cover up their bad parenting. I would not give my child a Ipod as I was a kid and know these things get stolen or broken easy. Unless you have money to throw away in which case why are you sueing.

 

For being idiots the parents should be fined. For filing frivilous law suits they should be fined.

The paper and new sources that are making this into news instead of reporting on real issues should be fined.

Bit-Tech for reporting on this... well, OK, I'll let you slide this time.. but don't let it happen again.

In all seriousness, WTF are the parents (and the Tribune) thinking?

 

They aren't. Its a concurrent problem with many humans sadly.

 

nano ipod apple lawsuit riaa

just making sure all the words are here so google can bring this crap up on someones search.

heres two more words for google searches

greedy bast@%#$

 

i say they settle this in a civil mannerand buy a new ipod and use it for 2 weeks THEN give it to the girl, just to spite the her parents.. then theres the possibility that theyll get sued for "not using the ipod in the same way" the other girl did.. ah yes, our country needs lots of blessing.. lots and lots and lots and lots.....

 

i think they should change it from "god bless" to "god save".

 

Both sides are in the wrong.

1. The parents of the iPod owner should realise that letting a 14-year-old take her iPod to school involves the risk of damage or theft. The girl should have been bright enough to work that out too --especially if she lends it to a friend.

2. The parents of the iPod borrower should realise that, being responsible for their daughter's actions, they are, in effect, responsible for the iPod's loss. The daughter should have been bright enough to realise that borrowing an expensive device makes her responsible for it until its safe return in the owner's hands, and that leaving it abandoned on a school desk does not constitute a safe return.

The parents of the iPod borrower should do the honourable thing and offer an immediate replacement of a new unit. No hunting for refurbished models, that is just trying to get out of their responsibility cheap. Their girl lost the iPod, so they have to replace the iPod (and carrying case), or offer the money sufficient for the owner to go out and buy a replacement and carrying case.

Because the parents of the borrower did not do this, they gave the parents of the owner sufficient time to get really pissed off, consider their legal options and blow things out of proportion.

It is always important to settle potentially emotive disputes immediately to both sides' satisfaction, to avoid escalation. It is also the honourable thing to do.

 

Not even god could do that.

 

All you guys' "only in America" comments are starting to get old like a broken mp3.

But this is quite ridiculous.

Actually, maybe your "only in America" comments are partially fitting - I just remembered the case where this woman put a human finger in her food at a fast food joint and then sued them for there being a finger in her food.

Anyhows, the parents could have accepted a suitable replacement, but alas - people are greedy, and others are cheap. Maybe the nano-borrowing-girl's family isn't too well off which is why they offered to replace it with a refurbished unit. More likely they were just being cheap otherwise they would have recognized that the court fees would be more than a replacement nano would have been.