|
|
|
|
|
by iamkoby
4605 days ago
|
|
Sometimes legal litigation forces companies to take extra measures and describing the obvious is something that already was tested in court. You feel that's obvious because you understand the tech behind it but some users (maybe the less educated ones) don't understand this, and then they sue apple for shorter than published battery life. By forcing you to include this label in your terms it releases legal responsibility. For absurdity in warning labels follow one of the most famous cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran... |
|
> Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
She got third-degree burns from coffee stored at an unsafe temperature. McDonalds had ample evidence that this was a problem.