In Re Epson Ink Cartridge Class Action Cases

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike
  • Start date Start date
In other words, the temperature varied, right?
That's 5-15 degrees!
Click to expand...

Pretty good recall on my part, but if you want to split hairs I won't
stop you.
But sure temperture varied... it was, from my observation, set to a
hair below boiling, in isolated cases in the cup bubbling. I measured
195F my self. I don't know how they did it... even using their mugs,
sodium carbonate, water and a microwave I could only hope to achieve
that temp by the time I boiled it and walked to the car.
The seriousness of the burn has nothing to do with
who is responsible for the burn.
Click to expand...

She did do something stupid. She spilt coffee on her self. Had this
been regular coffee served at normal tempratures... as in below 190F
odds are she would have not been burned so severely. However...
McDonnalds served their coffee extra hot to the point where it was not
possible for a human to consume it, was aware that people were getting
burned, and still decided to go with the overly hot temprature. The
seriousness of the burn is a direct result of McDonnalds policy of
making their coffee the hottest available. Very nice for those who
want coffee for their lunchbreak, not possible to drink in the
resturant, not possible at all for a human to consume it unless they
poured it into a non-insolated cup. Being aware of the problem and
doing nothing about it is neglant.

It was not a frivolous law suit but rather one with a substantical
injury, and damages mesured in 5 digits from what i've been able to
establish. A frivolous lawsuit has no substance and virtualy no
damages.
You are playing the same game that many do in a
court of law. The damage done to person X has
nothing to do with establishing Y's guilt or who
is responsible for the damage. How much money was
awarded to the injured woman also has nothing to
do with whether a lawyer was a scumbag or not.
Click to expand...

You with all due respect you said "The real issue was a stupid person
who put the
coffee cup between her legs (don't cars have cup holders now?)and
started to drive off, and a scum lawyer The woman got what she
deserved, burned legs, the lawyer got a lot of money, the rest ofus
have to live with luke warm coffee" The bag part I may have
misquoted... or quoted burt i'm not sure. But you said that was the
issue and I can not agree. The issue was this person had a 7 day or
more hospital stay with medial bills in the tens of thousnds of dollar
range. Given the low sum of $20,000, the amount of money the person
was willing to settle for, which I strongly suspect were medial bills
is hardly an action of what I would describe as a scum lawyer. Odds
are it was probally the paralegal who drafted the letter anyway.
You have made up your mind that McDonalds is
guilty of injuring parties, that McDonalds should
compensate the parties, that McDonalds should be
punished, and that McDonalds should stop doing
what it does that injures some parties.
Click to expand...

Their coffee was too hot, it caused 3rd dgree burns. Coffee, hot
coffee, even damn hot coffee typicaly speaking only causes first or
second degree burns. As far as being punished, that's beside the
point. As far as being accountable for a product that they sold which
resulted in a 7 or more day hospital stay, they should be held
accountable for that... that's why they have insurance.

It is my opinion has this person only recieved first or second degree
burns then the lawsuit would be frivolous. I agree it sucks to have
coffee only served at 140F, but there are other options for coffee,
some of it even hot. Nothing that I can use to clean engines, but
that's a loss i'm willing to live with.
You have also made up your mind that anyone who
has a different assessment is wrong and their
opinion is not informed.

That's my conclusion.
Click to expand...

To quote you "Otherwise, I would not be expressing an opinion
that is widely held." The wildly held opinion is that coffee is hot,
it can burn you, and this person got millions for a frivolous injury.
The injury was not frivolous, it required a 7 day hospital stay, and
skin graffs, and wirlpool treatment totalling I presume $20,000 in
medial expences. And you were uninformed, you posted that it was a scum
bag lawyer got alot of money, which had you actually had been informed
you would be aware that the sum of money they settled for was not
disclosed, and even I who took the time to read about this case years
back, even I wasn't aware of this minor detail. I was vaguely aware
that there were plans to appeal, but not the terms of the settlement.

But as you said all you are doing is expressing someone else's opinion,
or rather the popular widly held one.. where as I took the time to
learn about this subject and form my own.. If you honestly believe a
person, doing a stupid thing granted, deserves to lose 6% or more of
the skin, you are free to do so. I prefer to make up my own mind based
on information rather than blindly believe the popular opinion, and I
can not agree that anyone deserves to have 6% or more of their skin
essentally cooked off. The target temp should have been lower than
180-190F but rather 170f to 180F. Hot coffee but not so hot it boils
your skin right off, with an acceptable margin of error, and not likely
to cause 3rd degree burns in under the time a person can react, or kill
the nerves which leads a person to think the liquid had cooled already.
10 seconds, time emough for a towel. 5 seconds... oh it doesn't hurt
anymore i'm ok. You see, it's not a question of being stupid... a good
rule of thumb is when dealing with injuries of that nature it's best to
assume a person is stupid and is unaware of the danger... because
simply put... they often are not. It might seem rude, and you sound
condensending, but doing so can save a life or serious injury. Anyone
who's had a broken bone can tell you it doesn't really hurt all that
much... until the next day. Nerve damage well, doesn't even hurt the
next day, or ever again.

But as your only goal is to express an opinion that is widely held, and
not your own opinion further discourse is pointless. Have an
inspirational day.
 
The specifics are as follows:

For each printer that gets registered as a member in the class (prior to
June 22nd) and puchased between April 8, 1999 and May 8 2006 will get
either:

1) a $45 credit at the Epson e-store OR

2) a $25 check and $20 e-store credit OR

3) A 25% discount on Epson products sold in the e-store up to $100 in
discounts

The lawyers are asking for 25% of all registered complaints (that's
about $11.25 million per million registered printers), plus all out of
pocket expenses. They have also asked for $50,000 as compensaton to the
original class members to pay for their time. Eposn wil probably need
to pay for all legal documents issues and processed.

Epson is not protesting the claims, nor the settlement as explained
above, or the $50,000 for the original members, but they are asking the
courts to restrict the lawyer's fees to that which is normally paid for
such a case.

Art
 
But the head won't burn up if it runs out of ink, that's the real point.

I own 3 Epson printers that didn't have ink monitors when they design
and released them, and still don't. The only way to know they are out
of ink is by looking at the paper you are printing. So, they ran out of
ink and run without ink in the head, and NOTHING happened.

It is true, especially with fast drying inks, like the Durabrite, that
not allowing the internals of the head to dry out can protect it from clogs.

I hope they rethink the volume of ink that gets wasted, but do keep in
mind that they admitted no liability or wrongdoing, and after this
period of opting in or out, all those owners of printers from the 7 year
period will be ineligible to further restitution. Epson is planning to
change wording in ads and spec sheets and labeling, but I haven't heard
anything about them changing or the products.

Art



Jan Alter wrote:
I'd be satisfied with that end, but Epson must be thinking it's cheaper for
them to pay out a pittance amount per printer than to have lawsuits coming
in for ruined printers due to ink running out and ruining the head with
revamped software that allows more ink to be used. I agree with Bob
Headrick's observation in that keeping a high safetynet of ink allows Epson
to avoid that consequence.
At this point though Epson will have to rethink what margin of
unused ink
will need to remain in the cartridge when the printer refuses to print.
Perhaps instead of a complete print stoppage at the constant red light a
warning should be issued that printing further will cause the head to burn
up should the ink run out.
 
Not if it's clogged it doesn't, or if the vacuum pump tube comes off the
cleaning station...

Art

Zitty wrote:
 
Burt said:
Most lawyers use the

"Profession: ...4.a a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often
long and intensive academic preparation b: a principal calling, vocation,
or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling." Webster's
collegiate dictionary
Please note - a principal calling, VOCATION, OR EMPLOYMENT. A much broader
definition than yours. Have you ever heard of professional football
players. Not exactly the example of a learned profession as we think of it.
Click to expand...

I have an engineering degree, which, I suppose, qualifies me as a
professional under part "a" of the definition. My occupation, however,
is that of farmer. Being successful as a farmer requires a long and
intensive education, as well - equally as long and intensive as
engineering. You just don't always receive it in universities, although
it IS possible. I received much of mine at the hand of my father and
grandfather, and I freely admit that the engineering training is a big
help, too. I've acquired about half my knowledge through experience. I'm
still adding. I consider myself to be a professional, as were all the
farmers in my ancestry, and I'm not changing my mind because of some
old-fashioned snobbish attitude.

TJ
 
The only thing I agree with you about is that removal of clothes which
have scalding hot liquids on it can reduce the damage to skin.

In fact, further, dousing the area immediately in cold water can also
save the area from worse damage. Much of the injury in burns is done
due to retained and still dissipating heat, by removing clothing which
is still supplying more heat (from the hot wet areas) and by getting
cold water to a burn area ASAP can reduce the amount of damage don't to
the skin surface and more importantly deeper tissue.

So, I agree about that. However, much of the other stuff I couldn't
disagree more. When you serve in a public facility you must keep water
temperatures at reasonable levels that cannot provide 3rd degree burns.
Patrons will drive with it (a bad idea anyway) children will grab cups
off the table, etc.

As mentioned, they did crank the coffee temperature down and I don't
believe their coffee sales went down.

Art
 
Oh, that explains a lot - not enough oxygen... ;-)

Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Since I live at about 2700 feet, the maximum
 
George said:
Your point? You agree you said 195F, don't you agree the URL you sited
says 180-190F.



In other words, the temperature varied, right?


That's 5-15 degrees!

Wonderful. We can still get hot coffee at Starbucks.
Click to expand...

THATS THE BEST PLACE. THE COFFEE BEAN IS A DISTANT SECOND.
What does that mean? Was I thinking for you?



The seriousness of the burn has nothing to do with who is responsible
for the burn.

You are playing the same game that many do in a court of law. The
damage done to person X has nothing to do with establishing Y's guilt
or who is responsible for the damage. How much money was awarded to
the injured woman also has nothing to do with whether a lawyer was a
scumbag or not.

You have made up your mind that McDonalds is guilty of injuring
parties, that McDonalds should compensate the parties, that McDonalds
should be punished, and that McDonalds should stop doing what it does
that injures some parties.

You have also made up your mind that anyone who has a different
assessment is wrong and their opinion is not informed.
Click to expand...

THATS WHAT HE ALWAYS DOES. HE THINKS HE IS THE LAST WORD ON
EVERYTHING. WHEN A NEW SUBJECT COMES UP HE READS A FEW PAGES AND
SUBMITS HIS EXPERT KNOW IT ALL OPINION. WHAT CAN YOU DO. KILLFILE HIM.
 
TJ said:
I have an engineering degree, which, I suppose, qualifies me as a
professional under part "a" of the definition. My occupation, however, is
that of farmer. Being successful as a farmer requires a long and intensive
education, as well - equally as long and intensive as engineering. You
just don't always receive it in universities, although it IS possible. I
received much of mine at the hand of my father and grandfather, and I
freely admit that the engineering training is a big help, too. I've
acquired about half my knowledge through experience. I'm still adding. I
consider myself to be a professional, as were all the farmers in my
ancestry, and I'm not changing my mind because of some old-fashioned
snobbish attitude.

TJ
Click to expand...

TJ - it appears that Webster's collegiate dictionary and I agree with your
description of what a "professional" is. That is notwithstanding the fact
that I qualify under 4a.
 
Hi Art,


I was wondering where you got the information about the lawyers fees and
Epson's protest against their asking price
 
I've gotten used to both 740 and 880 printers giving false full readings on
the software when the cartridge was really empty. And as you've said the way
it's told is what comes out on the paper. Going through a nozzle check
showed it to be an incomplete ink pattern; but the moment one changes the
cartridge the nozzle check starts to show OK again, and like yourself I
haven't seen a head go bad because the ink was running out.
I guess I was lead to believe it from what I read. What would kill the
printhead? Maybe that's simply not the problem. Running it without ink
would present air, and I suppose difficulty then of clearing it of air,
ultimately resulting in a head clog or worse an air lock.
It would be good if Epson would come up with a viewable way to see how
much ink remains in the cartridge, and get rid of those chips. I must be out
of my head thinking such a solution. The spongeless cartridges do seem to be
working in that manner though. I imagine Epson is already filing the lawsuit
as I write.
 
zakezuke said:
Pretty good recall on my part, but if you want to split hairs I won't
stop you.
But sure temperture varied... it was, from my observation, set to a
hair below boiling, in isolated cases in the cup bubbling. I measured
195F my self. I don't know how they did it... even using their mugs,
sodium carbonate, water and a microwave I could only hope to achieve
that temp by the time I boiled it and walked to the car.




She did do something stupid. She spilt coffee on her self. Had this
been regular coffee served at normal tempratures... as in below 190F
odds are she would have not been burned so severely. However...
McDonnalds served their coffee extra hot to the point where it was not
possible for a human to consume it, was aware that people were getting
burned, and still decided to go with the overly hot temprature. The
seriousness of the burn is a direct result of McDonnalds policy of
making their coffee the hottest available. Very nice for those who
want coffee for their lunchbreak, not possible to drink in the
resturant, not possible at all for a human to consume it unless they
poured it into a non-insolated cup. Being aware of the problem and
doing nothing about it is neglant.

It was not a frivolous law suit but rather one with a substantical
injury, and damages mesured in 5 digits from what i've been able to
establish. A frivolous lawsuit has no substance and virtualy no
damages.




You with all due respect you said "The real issue was a stupid person
who put the
coffee cup between her legs (don't cars have cup holders now?)and
started to drive off, and a scum lawyer The woman got what she
deserved, burned legs, the lawyer got a lot of money, the rest ofus
have to live with luke warm coffee" The bag part I may have
misquoted... or quoted burt i'm not sure. But you said that was the
issue and I can not agree. The issue was this person had a 7 day or
more hospital stay with medial bills in the tens of thousnds of dollar
range. Given the low sum of $20,000, the amount of money the person
was willing to settle for, which I strongly suspect were medial bills
is hardly an action of what I would describe as a scum lawyer. Odds
are it was probally the paralegal who drafted the letter anyway.




Their coffee was too hot, it caused 3rd dgree burns. Coffee, hot
coffee, even damn hot coffee typicaly speaking only causes first or
second degree burns. As far as being punished, that's beside the
point. As far as being accountable for a product that they sold which
resulted in a 7 or more day hospital stay, they should be held
accountable for that... that's why they have insurance.

It is my opinion has this person only recieved first or second degree
burns then the lawsuit would be frivolous. I agree it sucks to have
coffee only served at 140F, but there are other options for coffee,
some of it even hot. Nothing that I can use to clean engines, but
that's a loss i'm willing to live with.




To quote you "Otherwise, I would not be expressing an opinion
that is widely held." The wildly held opinion is that coffee is hot,
it can burn you, and this person got millions for a frivolous injury.
The injury was not frivolous, it required a 7 day hospital stay, and
skin graffs, and wirlpool treatment totalling I presume $20,000 in
medial expences. And you were uninformed, you posted that it was a scum
bag lawyer got alot of money, which had you actually had been informed
you would be aware that the sum of money they settled for was not
disclosed, and even I who took the time to read about this case years
back, even I wasn't aware of this minor detail. I was vaguely aware
that there were plans to appeal, but not the terms of the settlement.

But as you said all you are doing is expressing someone else's opinion,
or rather the popular widly held one.. where as I took the time to
learn about this subject and form my own.. If you honestly believe a
person, doing a stupid thing granted, deserves to lose 6% or more of
the skin, you are free to do so. I prefer to make up my own mind based
on information rather than blindly believe the popular opinion, and I
can not agree that anyone deserves to have 6% or more of their skin
essentally cooked off. The target temp should have been lower than
180-190F but rather 170f to 180F. Hot coffee but not so hot it boils
your skin right off, with an acceptable margin of error, and not likely
to cause 3rd degree burns in under the time a person can react, or kill
the nerves which leads a person to think the liquid had cooled already.
10 seconds, time emough for a towel. 5 seconds... oh it doesn't hurt
anymore i'm ok. You see, it's not a question of being stupid... a good
rule of thumb is when dealing with injuries of that nature it's best to
assume a person is stupid and is unaware of the danger... because
simply put... they often are not. It might seem rude, and you sound
condensending, but doing so can save a life or serious injury. Anyone
who's had a broken bone can tell you it doesn't really hurt all that
much... until the next day. Nerve damage well, doesn't even hurt the
next day, or ever again.

But as your only goal is to express an opinion that is widely held, and
not your own opinion further discourse is pointless. Have an
inspirational day.
Click to expand...
One last comment. You keep putting words together
in ways that I never did. For example:
"frivolous injury" never said that as it is
obvious the injury was serious. You also wrote
"But as you said all you are doing is expressing
someone else's opinion." No I didn't, you took
statements and mixed them up to get that result.
I expressed an opinion and indicated that it was
a widely held opinion. If you can't see the
difference, you have a logic nut loose.

You have a mind set that does not allow you to
understand that an injury doesn't mean someone
else is responsible. I can accept that in your
mind McDonalds is responsible. If they are
responsible, so be it whether the woman had her
legs cut off or a fingernail torn. Insisting
that the seriousness of the injury makes McDonalds
responsible is not logical. You can empathize as
much as you want with an injured person, but that
doesn't mean that someone else is responsible or
must pay in some way.

BTW, this morning I checked the temp of the coffee
in the carafe of my Mr. Coffee 3cup machine and it
was about 180. Poured into a ceramic cup and
allowed to sit for 3-4 minutes the coffee dropped
to about 145, which you can easily drink in gulps
without burning. So your conclusion about the
temp dropping in a ceramic cup is correct.

I just revisited that coffee pot and the coffee in
the carafe measured 186. Having no Styrofoam cups
I poured coffee into a paper cup to test
temperature drop. While paper won't insulate as
well as Styrofoam, for a short period it should be
similar. In 3 minutes the coffee temp had dropped
to 166. Sipping or more accurately slurping
(slurping being a bigger amount that a sip) the
coffee felt hot but did not burn.

My view is that 186 degree coffee is perfectly
acceptable. Note I said my view, not a widely
held view.
 
Arthur said:
Oh, that explains a lot - not enough oxygen... ;-)

Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Since I live at about 2700 feet, the maximum
Click to expand...

Yeah but we are nearer God. Course to become
truly Godly one must go to Tibet.
 
I'm asking about what Art said:
That has nothing to do with Epson. The plaintiff's lawyer are asking the
court to pay 25% of the value of all claims made. That's about $11.25
million per 1 million claims.
Click to expand...
Epson is fighting this, asking the court to award no more than customary
fees to the lawyers. We won't know what the court decides until August,
after the June 22nd cut off date form filing for claims.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the cut off date but not information about Epson complaining
about lawyer's fees.

I'd like to know where he found that information.
 
George said:
One last comment. You keep putting words together in ways that I
never did.
Click to expand...

OH YEAH ALL OF THE TIME. I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT
For example: "frivolous injury" never said that as it is obvious the
injury was serious. You also wrote "But as you said all you are doing
is expressing someone else's opinion."
Click to expand...

REAL SNEAKEY
No I didn't, you took statements and mixed them up to get that result.
Click to expand...

THATS WHAT HE DOES
I expressed an opinion and indicated that it was a widely held opinion.
Click to expand...

THATS OK WITH ME
If you can't see the difference, you have a logic nut loose.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT
You have a mind set that does not allow you to understand
YEP

that an injury doesn't mean someone else is responsible. I can accept
that in your mind McDonalds is responsible. If they are responsible,
so be it whether the woman had her legs cut off or a fingernail
torn. Insisting that the seriousness of the injury makes McDonalds
responsible is not logical. You can empathize as much as you want
with an injured person, but that doesn't mean that someone else is
responsible or must pay in some way.

BTW, this morning I checked the temp of the coffee in the carafe of my
Mr. Coffee 3cup machine and it was about 180. Poured into a ceramic
cup and allowed to sit for 3-4 minutes the coffee dropped to about
145, which you can easily drink in gulps without burning. So your
conclusion about the temp dropping in a ceramic cup is correct.

I just revisited that coffee pot and the coffee in the carafe measured
186. Having no Styrofoam cups I poured coffee into a paper cup to
test temperature drop. While paper won't insulate as well as
Styrofoam, for a short period it should be similar. In 3 minutes the
coffee temp had dropped to 166. Sipping or more accurately slurping
(slurping being a bigger amount that a sip) the coffee felt hot but
did not burn.
Click to expand...

HE IS A SLURPER
My view is that 186 degree coffee is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

ME TOO
 
Back
Top