Community› The Bump Local Boards› Austin Babies
Austin Babies
New Discussion

Summer Infant monitor class action suit

MrsMillerTimeMrsMillerTime
in Austin Babies

Did anyone else get an email about this?  Here's the link included in the email:

https://www.videobabymonitorsettlement.com 

image
Report Reply to Post

Re: Summer Infant monitor class action suit

  • SaraLouiseBride08SaraLouiseBride08
    Confused
    Report Reply
  • Loading the player...
  • s-a-r-a-hs-a-r-a-h member
    I didn't get an email but we registered at both BRU and BBB so I don't know where our monitor came from. I wonder if that makes me ineligible? I don't know why they're also going after BRU. Seems like the issue is with Summer...
    Report Reply
  • MrsMillerTimeMrsMillerTime

    imageMrsRosie:
    I didn't realize the woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled her hot coffee had a baby.

    Right?  What gets me is this is a class action suit.  Are that many people REALLY that up in arms about it?  It's a baby monitor, not a home security system. 

    image
    Report Reply
  • MrsAJLMrsAJL member

    imageMrsRosie:
    I didn't realize the woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled her hot coffee had a baby.

    Confused  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

    Report Reply
  • mcurbanmcurban member

    imageMrsMillerTime:
    Are that many people REALLY that up in arms about it?  It's a baby monitor, not a home security system. 

    It might be a stretch (I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the big deal is), but maaaaaaybe someone thinks that b/c it's not encrypted some creepy mccreeperson can drive by and see if you have a baby/toddler in your house? I have no idea. 

    image
    Report Reply
  • MrsAJLMrsAJL member
    imageMrsRosie:
    imageMrsAJL:

    imageMrsRosie:
    I didn't realize the woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled her hot coffee had a baby.

    Confused  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

    Do you have any idea how condescending your response comes off?  It was an attempt to poke fun at people who sue companies for incidents that the majority of the population consider a result of poor common sense.  In other words, is it really necessary to sue McDonald's because you burned yourself with your hot coffee? Is it necessary to sue a company because you didn't research a purchase beforehand and assure that it was "secure"?  In other other words, duh.

    Yes, I intended to come off sounding condescending. You obviously have no idea as to what the McDonald's coffee lawsuit and neither do the majority of the population who consider the situation was a result of poor common sense.

    The plaintiff in this case was a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck. She was not driving her car and trying to drink her hot coffee. She was in a stopped car, in the passenger seat and attempted to add cream and sugar to her cup. When she opened the cup, she spilled the coffee on her thighs and groin and suffered third degree burns on 6% of her body. Why? Because at the time McDonald's had a policy with it's franchisees that they were to hold coffee hot in urns at 180-190 F.  That is a scalding hot temperature. Not only that, during the trial of Liebeck vs. McDonald's, it was revealed that over 700 complaints of coffee burns were reported to McDonald's and the company had been settling scalding claims to the tune of $500,000. McDonald's knew that the temp they were serving the coffee at was dangerous. 

    In other words, think before you post.

    Report Reply
  • mcurbanmcurban member
    imageMrsRosie:
    imagemcurban:

    imageMrsMillerTime:
    Are that many people REALLY that up in arms about it?  It's a baby monitor, not a home security system. 

    It might be a stretch (I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the big deal is), but maaaaaaybe someone thinks that b/c it's not encrypted some creepy mccreeperson can drive by and see if you have a baby/toddler in your house? I have no idea. 

    I totally get that, although I can't figure out how creepy would figure out which house had the baby.

    By driving around w/ their own Summer receiver which, btw, is conveniently battery powered.


    image
    Report Reply
  • MrsAJLMrsAJL member
    imageMrsRosie:
    imageMrsAJL:
    imageMrsRosie:
    imageMrsAJL:

    imageMrsRosie:
    I didn't realize the woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled her hot coffee had a baby.

    Confused  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

    Do you have any idea how condescending your response comes off?  It was an attempt to poke fun at people who sue companies for incidents that the majority of the population consider a result of poor common sense.  In other words, is it really necessary to sue McDonald's because you burned yourself with your hot coffee? Is it necessary to sue a company because you didn't research a purchase beforehand and assure that it was "secure"?  In other other words, duh.

    Yes, I intended to come off sounding condescending. You obviously have no idea as to what the McDonald's coffee lawsuit and neither do the majority of the population who consider the situation was a result of poor common sense.

    The plaintiff in this case was a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck. She was not driving her car and trying to drink her hot coffee. She was in a stopped car, in the passenger seat and attempted to add cream and sugar to her cup. When she opened the cup, she spilled the coffee on her thighs and groin and suffered third degree burns on 6% of her body. Why? Because at the time McDonald's had a policy with it's franchisees that they were to hold coffee hot in urns at 180-190 F.  That is a scalding hot temperature. Not only that, during the trial of Liebeck vs. McDonald's, it was revealed that over 700 complaints of coffee burns were reported to McDonald's and the company had been settling scalding claims to the tune of $500,000. McDonald's knew that the temp they were serving the coffee at was dangerous. 

    In other words, think before you post.

    I'm sorry the example offended you.

    Things aren't always what they seem. 

    Report Reply
  • mcurbanmcurban member
    imageMrsRosie:
    imagemcurban:
    imageMrsRosie:
    imagemcurban:

    imageMrsMillerTime:
    Are that many people REALLY that up in arms about it?  It's a baby monitor, not a home security system. 

    It might be a stretch (I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the big deal is), but maaaaaaybe someone thinks that b/c it's not encrypted some creepy mccreeperson can drive by and see if you have a baby/toddler in your house? I have no idea. 

    I totally get that, although I can't figure out how creepy would figure out which house had the baby.

    By driving around w/ their own Summer receiver which, btw, is conveniently battery powered.


    Right, I just mean, any of the houses the range could have a baby.

    I watch too much NCIS b/c obvs the image would get clearer as you passed the house. Obvs. 

    I'm off to go reset my alarm. 

    image
    Report Reply
  • mcurbanmcurban member
    imageMrsRosie:
    imagemcurban:
    I watch too much NCIS b/c obvs the image would get clearer as you passed the house. Obvs. 

    I'm off to go reset my alarm. 

    When I drove by your house trying to see if your babies were home, it did get a little clearer...

    knew it. 

    careful, the alarm is on and THIS TIME apd is likely to be pissed if they have to show up again. 

    image
    Report Reply
  • Duckie07Duckie07
    imagemcurban:
    imageMrsRosie:
    imagemcurban:
    I watch too much NCIS b/c obvs the image would get clearer as you passed the house. Obvs. 

    I'm off to go reset my alarm. 

    When I drove by your house trying to see if your babies were home, it did get a little clearer...

    knew it. 

    careful, the alarm is on and THIS TIME apd is likely to be pissed if they have to show up again. 

    I'd take my chances and see if they send the hottie over again.  Wink

    imageimage
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"