15 ms·

If you're up for it, I suggest: 1) Find a lawyer. I'd guess that personal injury lawyer is the right kind, and that you can easily find one who works on contin

If you're up for it, I suggest: 1) Find a lawyer. I'd guess that personal injury lawyer is the right kind, and that you can easily find one who works on contingency. 2) File a complaint with the consumer product safety commission, and any other applicable government agencies. The lawyer may be able to help with this. You deserve compensation for this, and I wish you all the best with extracting it. I hope you recover soon. Also: Take photos and document everything. A massive number of photos, of the damage to your house and your body and anything else you can think of. This will help with the lawyer.

jen729w 5y ago
The American response, to a non-American, is fascinating. You believe that you “deserve” compensation, but at the same time you guys are all crazy on independence and don’t-tell-me-how-to-behave and whatever else. But as soon as a thing goes wrong you want money for it. It’s like you don’t believe in the concept of an accident.
- puszczyk 5y ago
  > The American response … You believe that you “deserve” compensation, but at the same time you guys are all crazy on independence and don’t-tell-me-how-to-behave and whatever else. But as soon as a thing goes wrong you want money for it. Do you believe that all Americans share these exact traits?
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  Getting injured in America is expensive
  - jen729w 5y ago
    Yeah because you all want money for it. Insurance in America is famously expensive. Does anyone ever wonder why? I live in Australia. If I tripped on the kerb and broke my leg I’d go to the hospital and it’d get fixed for free and that’d be the end of it. If that happened in the US you’d go to the hospital, the bill would be $50k, you’d sue for $50k, and you’d bitch that your insurance was too high!
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Have a look at insurance premiums that doctors have to pay, especially the high-risk specializations (like neurosurgery). I guess I don't have to explain why they're so high.
    - kybernetyk 5y ago
      Because medical malpractice is the 3rd most common cause of death in the US (and probably the west)?
      - usr1106 5y ago
        Not sure whether that is correct data. Assuming for a moment it is, what would be the impact to life expectancy if nobody went and saw a doctor?
      - sdflhasjd 5y ago
        The must be something missing from that statement, I don't see how that could possibly be true - that a third of all people in the US die due to medical malpractice? Accidental death perhaps?
        aix1 5y ago
        Firstly, "3rd most common cause of death" != "a third of all people". But putting that aside, I too found the claim implausible and went looking for data. Here is what the CDC has to say: Leading Causes of Death Data are for the U.S. Number of deaths for leading causes of death: * Heart disease: 659,041 * Cancer: 599,601 * Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040 * Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979 * Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005 * Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499 * Diabetes: 87,647 * Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565 * Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783 * Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511 [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
        BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
- American12143 5y ago
  A few comments: 1) Why shouldn't one be compensated for a faulty product? Considering all we have is the OP's word for it, it appears that there was no faulty use and the product (whether the entire product line or that individual set of headphones) likely had some issue. You say it was an "accident", as if it were some act of God and not an act of physics. 2) Yes, Americans are crazy on independence, apparently you have a different definition for the word. Independence doesn't mean that people can push out faulty products and the populace just has to deal with it. Independence does not mean no one takes responsibility for issues they cause. 3) The American system is much better than what I have seen in the rest of the world where you can just push out faulty medicine or have faulty surgeries, for example, maim people and then get away with paying them some meager $20k total, forcing them to rely on public services and pushing them to borderline poverty for life.
- tlrobinson 5y ago
  Libertarian types are actually not opposed to lawsuits. They are seen as a possible substitute for many government regulations, e.g. maybe you don’t need a bunch of regulations on the safety of things like lithium ion batteries when the threat of lawsuit is enough. Obviously that doesn’t work 100% of the time, though.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > Obviously that doesn’t work 100% of the time, though. What a great way to describe libertarianism in a single sentence. The vast majority of their talking points and ideas fall apart quite easily under any sort of scrutiny or contact with the real world.
    - tlrobinson 5y ago
      Well, regulations don’t work 100% of the time either.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        They do. Not always to a 100% ( e.g. US prohibition of alcohol), sometimes with unintended consequences, sometimes even counterproductive consequences. Nevertheless, it works better, in theory and practice.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  If you are in a life-changing accident, in Europe at best you'll receive a few hundred euros a month in disability pay. In US you could sue for millions. I believe this is the rare occasion where the American way of thinking makes more sense.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    It's not you'll receive. It's can receive if you are wealthy and lucky enough to find a lawyer that wins against the corporation. I have no data, but I bet the lawyers of a corporation win a lot of lawsuits even if the consumer has high medical bills because of a faulty product. I doubt those cases make headlines. I prefer that a decently regulated or public health insurance system covers costs instead of letting the risk to the consumer. The insurance can claim damages from the corporation if there is neglect.
    - ricardobayes 5y ago
      Most injury lawyers operate on commissions only. I know a dude who is a personal injury lawyer, he doesn't take any money from the victim, but gets paid a % of the settlement.
      - usr1106 5y ago
        Yes, but that doesn't help too much if you have to pay medical bills and lose the lawsuit. Of course better than having to pay the legal fees of the lost lawsuit, too. But still not as reliable as having a publicly regulated health care or health insurance paying your medical bills in the first place.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >in Europe at best you'll receive a few hundred euros a month in disability pay. Uhmm, no, at least not here in Germany. The amount on compensation is related to the severity of the injury. For things that heal you will get Schmerzensgeld ("pain" money), as well as compensation for things that broke (e.g. your car or bike in a traffic accident). If the injury takes a while to heal, in which time you're unable to work, you get compensated for that as well. If it's lasting damage, you will get disability money. If you need care/help (from grocery shopping and cooking, to full blown 24/7 nurse care) that is compensated as well, and may amount to tens of thousands of euros per month. If you're permanently unable to work you will get compensated for that in a "reasonable" way (you won't be poor), and the liable party will also have to pay your retirement insurance dues[0]. If you requires changes to your living situation[1], you will get "reasonably" compensated as well. And so on. Basically, every damage that can be monetarily valued or at least estimated will be "reasonably" compensated. >In US you could sue for millions. Where you're right is that you won't get rich from such a lawsuit. Regardless, the total amount in compensation you will receive over a life time could as well amount to millions as well. The amounts awarded in the US may seem large sometimes, until you realize that it's a one time thing, and the health and care costs over a lifetime you will incur may still not be covered by that lump sum. The only thing here in Germany that isn't really direct compensation but "extra" money is the Schmerzensgeld, and that's usually a one time pay of a couple hundred bucks for light injuries up to low six figures for major injuries. And it might be harder to "fully" win such a lawsuit too, as in Germany you don't have jury trials[2]. [0] Retirement insurance dues may have to be paid even if the injured party was not working yet, e.g. when the person was still in school. [1] E.g. you need a wheel chair ramp, or move to a wheel chair accessible place, or need to make changes to your bathroom to get in and out of the shower/bathtub. In some cases, defendants were ordered to pay the difference for getting a larger house so family providing some care could move in. [2] Tho, there are Schöffengerichte, with "regular" people sitting on a panel with a judge, usually 2 regular people and 1 judge in the lower courts. While the judge can be outvoted in theory by the 2 other, the judge is part of the deliberations and therefore has great input into the decision finding.
- romwell 5y ago
  Well, as a non-American, you live in a country with likely stronger consumer protection laws that punish the companies that break the rules of the free market (selling hazardous products as safe in particular), to ensure that the free market exists. We, in the US, have to rely on lawsuits to impose a cost on companies for violating the rules of the market. That's not to mention that we don't have public healthcare which will pay for medical expenses, like seeing a doctor from the chemical burns that you got while wearing Bose QC-35 II headphones as they exploded during normal operation. It's just one of these weird quirks of The Land of The Free™, where if you want to get medical care for the bodily injury caused to you by a negligent corporation, you have to sue them. I know it's difficult to understand to an Australian, but the lawsuit is what pays the medical bill.
  - jen729w 5y ago
    But when I talk to Americans about their lack of socialised healthcare, a common response is that “I’ve earned my money, if you want your own healthcare, you get your own healthcare”. That might be a fine attitude. Until you get terribly injured and now you seek tens of thousands of dollars from someone else. Who do you think that this someone else is? Don’t you realise that it’s just all of the other Americans?
    - romwell 5y ago
      >But when I talk to Americans about their lack of socialised healthcare, a common response is that “I’ve earned my money, if you want your own healthcare, you get your own healthcare”. You don't seem to understand. It's those Americans who assume they would be able to get money for health in case they are injured through no fault of their own by filing a lawsuit. They are also in the minority; 63% of Americans want universal healthcare[1]. Including the one you are talking to right now. Perhaps your sample isn't representative? [1]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-...
      - t0mas88 5y ago
- y7 5y ago
  It's interesting. One the one hand, I understand that there needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense. However, this also legitimizes dealing with the potential of human tragedy or injury as a mere financial risk. Companies are already terribly dehumanized, and I don't think this legitimization helps for this. At least with regulation there is a direct effort to prevent tragedy, and the framing is also closer to this objective. Of course, the goal for companies will still be "we have to adhere to the regulation", but at least the question "why does the regulation exist?" remains nearby. I think it's also the more democratic approach: rather than putting the incentive mechanism in the hands of a judge, democratically elected governments take direct measures to protect their citizens.
  - romwell 5y ago
    In a nutshell, you just described why the American Libertarian fantasy of hands-off approach that replaces regulation with reliance on the justice system and lawsuits is undemocratic. Also, note the stigma and shaming of "lawsuit-happy Americans" who are "entitled" and "sheltered", etc. - even in this forum, where people should know better! So not only people don't understand that the lawsuits are a compliance enforcement mechanism, but they are actively preventing it from working by saying things like "nothing is perfectly safe, hurr durr". Anyway. Thank you for putting it this succinctly; I wish your comment was at the top: >There needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      Unfortunately, the tort-based method of enforcement leads to companies doing that notorious calculation: C = cost of safety feature, P = probability of lawsuit, J = expected total damages, if C > P x J, we don't make the product safe.
- blondin 5y ago
  this is a very sad point of view. if you buy a product that comes with a pamphlet telling you how safe it is, you have to trust the manufacturer. you are also trusting that the product has passed all the necessary safety requirements. if that product is food or for children, that trust is even higher. if an accident happens to you, you need to contact the right people so: 1. it does not happen to others 2. your damages, if possible, are covered. that's how we make it safer for everybody.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, regardless of which country you have a problem with. It leads to predictable, shallow, nasty threads and just makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
spdmn 5y ago
Yep, ^this, it happens. You 100% deserve compensation. But this is what their insurance is for. The remaining 99000 thousand pairs they sold will surely pay the deductable.
- tlrobinson 5y ago
  Presumably if it happens enough times their insurance premiums will go up.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    That’s their own problem to worry about.
- romwell 5y ago
  >The remaining 99000 thousand pairs they sold will surely pay the deductable. Not if there's a recall. Which, by all means, should happen, and not just for that particular model.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You're all over this thread with one huge assumption: you have zero knowledge about how that particular set of headphones was treated so far. The charger setup is described but not in a way that I can make sense of it, apparently charging while connected to a computer but using the stock charger, if it was opened up, repaired, had a battery replaced, dropped, otherwise damaged and continued to use. Before you jump to the 'sue', 'recall' and 'Bose sucks' conclusion I would wait for a little bit more data, especially because the other not 99000 but millions of pairs that they have sold have so far not exhibited this tendency. The flip-side, that Lithium batteries should probably not be present in body worn gear is something that I would subscribe to but at the same time I'm aware of people wearing stuff like that by the 10's of millions in their ears and so far it seems to work well enough that the number of incidents is low and in most cases can be traced back to gross abuse of the devices. Finally: charging Lithium Ion batteries of any kind is where the risk is, it's always a good idea to charge them in a spot where you can keep an eye on them, and to watch them closely just after you have charged them (especially to full capacity, which I would recommend against) for a little while after because that is when if things go wrong they will go wrong.

jen729w 5y ago

The American response, to a non-American, is fascinating. You believe that you “deserve” compensation, but at the same time you guys are all crazy on independence and don’t-tell-me-how-to-behave and whatever else. But as soon as a thing goes wrong you want money for it. It’s like you don’t believe in the concept of an accident.

puszczyk 5y ago
> The American response … You believe that you “deserve” compensation, but at the same time you guys are all crazy on independence and don’t-tell-me-how-to-behave and whatever else. But as soon as a thing goes wrong you want money for it. Do you believe that all Americans share these exact traits?
wlesieutre 5y ago
Getting injured in America is expensive
- jen729w 5y ago
  Yeah because you all want money for it. Insurance in America is famously expensive. Does anyone ever wonder why? I live in Australia. If I tripped on the kerb and broke my leg I’d go to the hospital and it’d get fixed for free and that’d be the end of it. If that happened in the US you’d go to the hospital, the bill would be $50k, you’d sue for $50k, and you’d bitch that your insurance was too high!
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
  Have a look at insurance premiums that doctors have to pay, especially the high-risk specializations (like neurosurgery). I guess I don't have to explain why they're so high.
  - kybernetyk 5y ago
    Because medical malpractice is the 3rd most common cause of death in the US (and probably the west)?
    - usr1106 5y ago
      Not sure whether that is correct data. Assuming for a moment it is, what would be the impact to life expectancy if nobody went and saw a doctor?
    - sdflhasjd 5y ago
      The must be something missing from that statement, I don't see how that could possibly be true - that a third of all people in the US die due to medical malpractice? Accidental death perhaps?
      - aix1 5y ago
        Firstly, "3rd most common cause of death" != "a third of all people". But putting that aside, I too found the claim implausible and went looking for data. Here is what the CDC has to say: Leading Causes of Death Data are for the U.S. Number of deaths for leading causes of death: * Heart disease: 659,041 * Cancer: 599,601 * Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040 * Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979 * Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005 * Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499 * Diabetes: 87,647 * Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565 * Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783 * Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511 [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
        BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
American12143 5y ago
A few comments: 1) Why shouldn't one be compensated for a faulty product? Considering all we have is the OP's word for it, it appears that there was no faulty use and the product (whether the entire product line or that individual set of headphones) likely had some issue. You say it was an "accident", as if it were some act of God and not an act of physics. 2) Yes, Americans are crazy on independence, apparently you have a different definition for the word. Independence doesn't mean that people can push out faulty products and the populace just has to deal with it. Independence does not mean no one takes responsibility for issues they cause. 3) The American system is much better than what I have seen in the rest of the world where you can just push out faulty medicine or have faulty surgeries, for example, maim people and then get away with paying them some meager $20k total, forcing them to rely on public services and pushing them to borderline poverty for life.
tlrobinson 5y ago
Libertarian types are actually not opposed to lawsuits. They are seen as a possible substitute for many government regulations, e.g. maybe you don’t need a bunch of regulations on the safety of things like lithium ion batteries when the threat of lawsuit is enough. Obviously that doesn’t work 100% of the time, though.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Obviously that doesn’t work 100% of the time, though. What a great way to describe libertarianism in a single sentence. The vast majority of their talking points and ideas fall apart quite easily under any sort of scrutiny or contact with the real world.
  - tlrobinson 5y ago
    Well, regulations don’t work 100% of the time either.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      They do. Not always to a 100% ( e.g. US prohibition of alcohol), sometimes with unintended consequences, sometimes even counterproductive consequences. Nevertheless, it works better, in theory and practice.
ricardobayes 5y ago
If you are in a life-changing accident, in Europe at best you'll receive a few hundred euros a month in disability pay. In US you could sue for millions. I believe this is the rare occasion where the American way of thinking makes more sense.
- usr1106 5y ago
  It's not you'll receive. It's can receive if you are wealthy and lucky enough to find a lawyer that wins against the corporation. I have no data, but I bet the lawyers of a corporation win a lot of lawsuits even if the consumer has high medical bills because of a faulty product. I doubt those cases make headlines. I prefer that a decently regulated or public health insurance system covers costs instead of letting the risk to the consumer. The insurance can claim damages from the corporation if there is neglect.
  - ricardobayes 5y ago
    Most injury lawyers operate on commissions only. I know a dude who is a personal injury lawyer, he doesn't take any money from the victim, but gets paid a % of the settlement.
    - usr1106 5y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't help too much if you have to pay medical bills and lose the lawsuit. Of course better than having to pay the legal fees of the lost lawsuit, too. But still not as reliable as having a publicly regulated health care or health insurance paying your medical bills in the first place.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >in Europe at best you'll receive a few hundred euros a month in disability pay. Uhmm, no, at least not here in Germany. The amount on compensation is related to the severity of the injury. For things that heal you will get Schmerzensgeld ("pain" money), as well as compensation for things that broke (e.g. your car or bike in a traffic accident). If the injury takes a while to heal, in which time you're unable to work, you get compensated for that as well. If it's lasting damage, you will get disability money. If you need care/help (from grocery shopping and cooking, to full blown 24/7 nurse care) that is compensated as well, and may amount to tens of thousands of euros per month. If you're permanently unable to work you will get compensated for that in a "reasonable" way (you won't be poor), and the liable party will also have to pay your retirement insurance dues[0]. If you requires changes to your living situation[1], you will get "reasonably" compensated as well. And so on. Basically, every damage that can be monetarily valued or at least estimated will be "reasonably" compensated. >In US you could sue for millions. Where you're right is that you won't get rich from such a lawsuit. Regardless, the total amount in compensation you will receive over a life time could as well amount to millions as well. The amounts awarded in the US may seem large sometimes, until you realize that it's a one time thing, and the health and care costs over a lifetime you will incur may still not be covered by that lump sum. The only thing here in Germany that isn't really direct compensation but "extra" money is the Schmerzensgeld, and that's usually a one time pay of a couple hundred bucks for light injuries up to low six figures for major injuries. And it might be harder to "fully" win such a lawsuit too, as in Germany you don't have jury trials[2]. [0] Retirement insurance dues may have to be paid even if the injured party was not working yet, e.g. when the person was still in school. [1] E.g. you need a wheel chair ramp, or move to a wheel chair accessible place, or need to make changes to your bathroom to get in and out of the shower/bathtub. In some cases, defendants were ordered to pay the difference for getting a larger house so family providing some care could move in. [2] Tho, there are Schöffengerichte, with "regular" people sitting on a panel with a judge, usually 2 regular people and 1 judge in the lower courts. While the judge can be outvoted in theory by the 2 other, the judge is part of the deliberations and therefore has great input into the decision finding.
romwell 5y ago
Well, as a non-American, you live in a country with likely stronger consumer protection laws that punish the companies that break the rules of the free market (selling hazardous products as safe in particular), to ensure that the free market exists. We, in the US, have to rely on lawsuits to impose a cost on companies for violating the rules of the market. That's not to mention that we don't have public healthcare which will pay for medical expenses, like seeing a doctor from the chemical burns that you got while wearing Bose QC-35 II headphones as they exploded during normal operation. It's just one of these weird quirks of The Land of The Free™, where if you want to get medical care for the bodily injury caused to you by a negligent corporation, you have to sue them. I know it's difficult to understand to an Australian, but the lawsuit is what pays the medical bill.
- jen729w 5y ago
  But when I talk to Americans about their lack of socialised healthcare, a common response is that “I’ve earned my money, if you want your own healthcare, you get your own healthcare”. That might be a fine attitude. Until you get terribly injured and now you seek tens of thousands of dollars from someone else. Who do you think that this someone else is? Don’t you realise that it’s just all of the other Americans?
  - romwell 5y ago
    >But when I talk to Americans about their lack of socialised healthcare, a common response is that “I’ve earned my money, if you want your own healthcare, you get your own healthcare”. You don't seem to understand. It's those Americans who assume they would be able to get money for health in case they are injured through no fault of their own by filing a lawsuit. They are also in the minority; 63% of Americans want universal healthcare[1]. Including the one you are talking to right now. Perhaps your sample isn't representative? [1]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-...
    - t0mas88 5y ago
y7 5y ago
It's interesting. One the one hand, I understand that there needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense. However, this also legitimizes dealing with the potential of human tragedy or injury as a mere financial risk. Companies are already terribly dehumanized, and I don't think this legitimization helps for this. At least with regulation there is a direct effort to prevent tragedy, and the framing is also closer to this objective. Of course, the goal for companies will still be "we have to adhere to the regulation", but at least the question "why does the regulation exist?" remains nearby. I think it's also the more democratic approach: rather than putting the incentive mechanism in the hands of a judge, democratically elected governments take direct measures to protect their citizens.
- romwell 5y ago
  In a nutshell, you just described why the American Libertarian fantasy of hands-off approach that replaces regulation with reliance on the justice system and lawsuits is undemocratic. Also, note the stigma and shaming of "lawsuit-happy Americans" who are "entitled" and "sheltered", etc. - even in this forum, where people should know better! So not only people don't understand that the lawsuits are a compliance enforcement mechanism, but they are actively preventing it from working by saying things like "nothing is perfectly safe, hurr durr". Anyway. Thank you for putting it this succinctly; I wish your comment was at the top: >There needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Unfortunately, the tort-based method of enforcement leads to companies doing that notorious calculation: C = cost of safety feature, P = probability of lawsuit, J = expected total damages, if C > P x J, we don't make the product safe.
blondin 5y ago
this is a very sad point of view. if you buy a product that comes with a pamphlet telling you how safe it is, you have to trust the manufacturer. you are also trusting that the product has passed all the necessary safety requirements. if that product is food or for children, that trust is even higher. if an accident happens to you, you need to contact the right people so: 1. it does not happen to others 2. your damages, if possible, are covered. that's how we make it safer for everybody.
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, regardless of which country you have a problem with. It leads to predictable, shallow, nasty threads and just makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

spdmn 5y ago

Yep, ^this, it happens. You 100% deserve compensation. But this is what their insurance is for. The remaining 99000 thousand pairs they sold will surely pay the deductable.

tlrobinson 5y ago
Presumably if it happens enough times their insurance premiums will go up.
- pdpi 5y ago
  That’s their own problem to worry about.
romwell 5y ago
>The remaining 99000 thousand pairs they sold will surely pay the deductable. Not if there's a recall. Which, by all means, should happen, and not just for that particular model.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  You're all over this thread with one huge assumption: you have zero knowledge about how that particular set of headphones was treated so far. The charger setup is described but not in a way that I can make sense of it, apparently charging while connected to a computer but using the stock charger, if it was opened up, repaired, had a battery replaced, dropped, otherwise damaged and continued to use. Before you jump to the 'sue', 'recall' and 'Bose sucks' conclusion I would wait for a little bit more data, especially because the other not 99000 but millions of pairs that they have sold have so far not exhibited this tendency. The flip-side, that Lithium batteries should probably not be present in body worn gear is something that I would subscribe to but at the same time I'm aware of people wearing stuff like that by the 10's of millions in their ears and so far it seems to work well enough that the number of incidents is low and in most cases can be traced back to gross abuse of the devices. Finally: charging Lithium Ion batteries of any kind is where the risk is, it's always a good idea to charge them in a spot where you can keep an eye on them, and to watch them closely just after you have charged them (especially to full capacity, which I would recommend against) for a little while after because that is when if things go wrong they will go wrong.