I won’t say this is a legit case, but it should be heard. Headphones, used incorrectly, have the potential to cause hearing loss. I have seen this stated on nearly every Walkman (from the early cassette ones, every MP3 player, and every headphone I’ve ever purchased.
What Mr. Patterson needs to prove is that the iPod specifically is so dangerous that it needs even clearer warning. I don’t believe he can. The device is not defective, IMNSHO, any more than a car that can reach 100mph is defective. I’ve yet to see a car with a sticker on the spedometer or voice alert that nannies the driver when he goes over 70mph.
The case Mr. Patterson will probably make is:
The devices can reach levels greater than 100 decibels (Counter: They are not stuck at that level - any idiot can turn it down, which then removes them from the idiot category)
Earbud design is more dangerous than open air headphones.
Increased storage and battery life allow people to listen to literally ear-splitting music for longer periods without break.
I’m having a problem seeing any of these as a defect of the product, and more as a defect of the consumer. I hope that the case, if heard, produces the same outcome. There’s a difference between designing a car that explodes when struck from the rear, and building one that becomes far more dangerous because the driver chose to go 100mph. YMMV.
It is not–I repeat, NOT–illegal for the end consumer to remove the tags from pillows, mattresses, etc. It is illegal for a retailer of new merchandise to do so prior to sale to the end consumer. Once you’ve bought the item, it is perfectly legal for you to remove the tag.
The problem with this is iPods are also used without earbuds. They can be used in your car & home with external speaker systems which will be used to play music in a much larger space than the tiny one between his ears. This may require a higher volume than a limiter would allow. I imagine that would also be considered a reasonable fashion.
I think the problem here is that headphones USED CORRECTLY (inserted into the ears properly and operated at a volume allowed by the iPod) have the potential to cause hearing loss.
This isn’t like suing Whirlpool because you burnt yourself on the stove.
Hearing loss can occur with chronic exposure to any sounds louder than 85 dB. However, this is below the pain threshold, which is generally given to be about 120 dB. In between 85 dB and 120 dB, while the sound intensity may initially be uncomfortable, the nature of human hearing is such that we quickly adapt to it. In this way, chronic exposure to loud sounds above 85 dB but below 120 dB is somewhat insidious. Hearing loss occurs gradually, is cumulative and is not particularly discomforting. It is, therefore, possible to do considerable damage to one’s hearing without even realizing it until it’s too late. The worst part is that it’s something of a vicious cycle. The loud music causes some hearing loss, which causes the wearer to need ever louder levels to enjoy it, which causes even more hearing loss, ad nauseum. The problem is further compounded by the fact that 85 dB is “not loud enough” for many people. So, what can manufacturers do?
No, but it is like suing Ford because you drove your Mustang at 100mph and crashed.
Even using Q.E.D.'s, it’s like saying I drove my Mustang at 85, didn’t crash, but I needed a bigger rush, so I drove at 90. Still didn’t crash but I needed more of a rush. Eventually I was driving at 100 and crashed. It’s Ford’s fault for building a car that goes 100mph.
And yet, you asked. In any case, “well known” might be something of an exaggeration, given that hearing loss due to excessive headphone volume is a fairly widespread problem.
I only know about it because of what happened to Pete Townshend and John Entwistle. And I listen to a lot of music and I play the guitar so I have an interest in taking care of my ears.