Health warnings on tvs

No website disclosed that in reality, the disclaimer is just an almost verbatim copy of a 2006 Icuiti (pictured above) owner's manual for a totally different product: a stereo microdisplay (glasses with built tiny LCD screen for each eye). Here's the link.

This is hardly a new warning or new information. Similarities between the two issued guidelines can be seen below.

Originally Posted by SPatterson

I agree that the media coverage and stories about this stuff is overload. It's sad that we've become such a litigious society that the warnings on products border on the ridiculous!

Of course a kid's superman cape will not allow him to fly, and who ever thought that using a hair dryer while sleeping would even be considered?

Some of the warnings are pretty standard, but really, when they have to add warnings about not watching a 3D television near an open stairwell or balcony ... doesn't common sense figure in here somewhere?

~Steve

Originally Posted by William

Warning: May contain peanuts or peanut fragments.*

Originally Posted by taxman48

Is Samsung the first to have health warnings on their tvs? They state don't watch if you are pregnant or sleep deprived..Staying up and watching all those 3d BD movies might make u sleep deprived:

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...iac_study.html

Originally Posted by SPatterson

Some of the warnings are pretty standard, but really, when they have to add warnings about not watching a 3D television near an open stairwell or balcony ... doesn't common sense figure in here somewhere?

"The warnings were produced by a different department within Samsung and I think they may be a little too scary," says Lee. "We are looking at modifying the warning labels as they do sound rather serious. But as a manufacturer we must always act responsibly when introducing new technology."

Originally Posted by SoundChex

I just stumbled over this (30 April, 2010) news item on WHAT HIFI?: Samsung backtracks on the dangers of watching 3D TV.



Should the fact that Samsung's [corporate] left hand apparently does not know what the [corporate] right hand is doing make me more or less confident about the usefulness of either the old or the new health warnings...?

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

True story . . .

A man buys a RV to go camping with. While on the road, he sets the cruise control, then proceeds to leave the drivers seat and walks back to the kitchenette to make himself a sandwich. Of course with no one steering the RV, it leaves the road and crashes and the man is injured.

He proceeds to sue the RV manufacturer saying that it doesn't say anything in the owners manual that while the cruise control is engaged, the RV still must be manned at the steering wheel . . .

And a jury agreed with him and found the defendant guilty.

Originally Posted by mrjktcvs

I read an article somewhere recently that was about which 20th century sci-fi flicks were accurate in their portrayal of the future and which ones were way off. It's looking more and more like Idiocracy will be spot-on....

I just mentioned this to my wife. She said that he obviously had 12 of his peers on the jury - 12 idiots.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

No - there is a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Common sense goes right out the window when you are talking about the letter of the law.

There are all kinds of lawsuits that are even more "idiotic" than the one I posted, that prove this.

The most famous (AFAIK) is the Mc'Donalds scalding cup of coffee and the woman.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

True story . . .

A man buys a RV to go camping with. While on the road, he sets the cruise control, then proceeds to leave the drivers seat and walks back to the kitchenette to make himself a sandwich. Of course with no one steering the RV, it leaves the road and crashes and the man is injured.

He proceeds to sue the RV manufacturer saying that it doesn't say anything in the owners manual that while the cruise control is engaged, the RV still must be manned at the steering wheel . . .

And a jury agreed with him and found the defendant guilty.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

True story . . .

A man buys a RV to go camping with. While on the road, he sets the cruise control, then proceeds to leave the drivers seat and walks back to the kitchenette to make himself a sandwich. Of course with no one steering the RV, it leaves the road and crashes and the man is injured.

He proceeds to sue the RV manufacturer saying that it doesn't say anything in the owners manual that while the cruise control is engaged, the RV still must be manned at the steering wheel . . .

And a jury agreed with him and found the defendant guilty.

Originally Posted by Augerhandle

True story? Please prove it.

I saw it in a (fictional) movie, and it was a woman...

Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Mrs. Grazinski had recently purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home, and during the trip home from an OU football game, she decided that she was hungry. After arriving onto the highway, she expertly set the vehicle's cruise control to 70 MPH, calmly left the driver's seat, and headed to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed, and overturned. Mrs. Grazinski sued the Winnebago corporation for not stating in the owner's manual that cruise control was not the same as "automatic pilot" and that she was not actually able to leave the driver's seat while using it. The jury awarded her $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. The Winnebago corporation has updated their driver's operation manuals, as a result of this lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

My bad () - it was a woman driver ():



http://helpmesue.blogspot.com/2007/1...ts-week-1.html

Originally Posted by Augerhandle

AND it is not true.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Here is my proof that it is - what is your proof that it isn't?

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1499108.htm

LOL! Got any proof of that?

But in fact the Stella's are non-existent awards for non-existent cases as revealed by Overlawyered.com an outfit dedicated to exposing the real excesses of the American legal system.

"All these incidents ...appear completely fictitious and unrelated to any actual persons with these names."

Media Watch, ABC TV, 10 June 2002