[mee]

On my can of compressed air by Fellowes, it neither states nor warns about potential damage caused by the extension tube nor denies liability caused by their product. (There are many warnings on the can, but nothing related to the extension tube.)

On the other hand, they do not state any warranties/guarantees either. And then you'd have to prove it was their product that caused the damage and that it was attached "properly". Either way, if you write the letter, include photos of their product and the K10D and the sensor, and evidence of repair or replacement costs. You may get better results posting something to their Facebook site.

A letter will result in one of the following:
a) Nothing.
b) A courtesy form letter denying responsibility.
c) A coupon or voucher for another free can of compressed air.
d) A response requesting you send in your camera to them.
e) A check.

I've done with Eveready and Duracell and have gotten both 'd' and 'e', but with compressed air, I'd expect 'b' or 'c'.
Those extension tubes are disasters waiting to happen, and I'd love to see companies other than WD-40 develop a better nozzle.
Bottom line: You know, you know....use a rocket blower.

Either way the user is misusing the product then blaming the company for their own negligence.


We have too much of this blame game and false litigation in courts already. People spill their coffee, which they should know is piping hot, in their laps and they sue. People climb to the top on a ladder and fall, and sue. People trip and injure themselves while robbing another person's home and sue (for real).

[Alex645]

Either way the user is misusing the product then blaming the company for their own negligence.

We have too much of this blame game and false litigation in courts already.

In most cases, I agree, although their are many instances (Takata airbags, Samsung Galaxy7 cell phones, formaldehyde used in C-41 stabilizer (carcinogen)), where it takes litigation and bad publicity for the corporation to take responsibility.

I did not suggest that the OP sue anyone. But those extension tubes are junk and apt to fly off in many other applications. Taping them to the side of the can is a poor design solution.

[DeadJohn]

On my can of compressed air by Fellowes, it neither states nor warns about potential damage caused by the extension tube nor denies liability caused by their product. (There are many warnings on the can, but nothing related to the extension tube.)...

This is an example of why I hate the legal industry. The only time I need a lawyer is to protect me from another lawyer. Maybe we should sign a contract in order to buy compressed air. :|

[Alex645]

This is an example of why I hate the legal industry. The only time I need a lawyer is to protect me from another lawyer. Maybe we should sign a contract in order to buy compressed air. :|

I totally understand, but I've been on both sides of the coin. I had a signed agreement with a film producer that I'd use my camera equipment on his movie rent-free if he'd include it on his insurance policy. When everything was stolen during production, he refused to make an insurance claim, and an attorney (pro-bono) helped me settle out of court.

I also once had a brand new Mitsubishi that was a 'lemon'. Mitsubishi (the dealer, and then corporate) ignored me, but responded immediately once I had an attorney.

The compressed air is not going to be accepted in anything other than small claims court, and it is frivolous unless there was bodily injury.

[leekil]

The compressed air is not going to be accepted in anything other than small claims court, and it is frivolous unless there was bodily injury.

Small claims court would be a good idea, if you were really concerned about the camera, and you can't clean off the mark.

People trip and injure themselves while robbing another person's home and sue (for real).

Your other examples were pretty good, but I'm not sure the example of a thief suing is particularly valid. If they're already a known criminal, I have less of an expectation of them to behave reasonably in other legal matters.

[mee]

Small claims court would be a good idea, if you were really concerned about the camera, and you can't clean off the mark.



Your other examples were pretty good, but I'm not sure the example of a thief suing is particularly valid. If they're already a known criminal, I have less of an expectation of them to behave reasonably in other legal matters.

Their criminal record is neither here nor there.. all examples provided were valid examples of frivolous complaints.


Just as this one should they take it up with the company who manufactured the can of compressed air. It is a sad situation but no one in their right mind is using that to clean a camera sensor. Well unless they also use a sandblaster to wash their car. It's is overkill and asking for trouble.


Either way lets stop being so darn nitpickery -- you see the obvious point I'm making..

[narual]

People spill their coffee, which they should know is piping hot, in their laps and they sue.

People need to stop referencing that like it was a BS case of money grubbing. It was a matter of negligence on the part of McDonalds keeping their coffee at a dangerously high temperature despite over 700 injuries reported over several years (and serving them in flimsy cups). Normal coffee serving temperatures do not cause third degree burns requiring 8 days of hospitalization and skin grafts followed by 2 years of treatment, which is what the 79 year old plaintiff went through, and her suit was to cover her medical expenses and $5000 in lost wages for her daughter who had to take 3 weeks off of work to care for her. McDonalds offered her $800. She retained an attorney, who upped the suit to cover his costs in researching the case, mcdonalds refused to settle and the case went to trial. The jury decided the lady was 20% at fault to McDonalds 80%, awarded her 80% of the ~$200k compensation the lawyer had requested, and then tacked on a punitive damage amount in the millions (a couple days of coffee sales for mcd), but the judge dropped that down to 3x the compensation amount, and mcdonalds got that amount reduced later.

The plaintiff died in 2004, 10 years after the incident. She ended up using the money to cover the long-term care she ended up needing from the injury and recovery process.

The McDonald's Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction

[mee]

People need to stop referencing that like it was a BS case of money grubbing. It was a matter of negligence on the part of McDonalds keeping their coffee at a dangerously high temperature despite over 700 injuries reported over several years (and serving them in flimsy cups). Normal coffee serving temperatures do not cause third degree burns requiring 8 days of hospitalization and skin grafts followed by 2 years of treatment, which is what the 79 year old plaintiff went through, and her suit was to cover her medical expenses and $5000 in lost wages for her daughter who had to take 3 weeks off of work to care for her. McDonalds offered her $800. She retained an attorney, who upped the suit to cover his costs in researching the case, mcdonalds refused to settle and the case went to trial. The jury decided the lady was 20% at fault to McDonalds 80%, awarded her 80% of the ~$200k compensation the lawyer had requested, and then tacked on a punitive damage amount in the millions (a couple days of coffee sales for mcd), but the judge dropped that down to 3x the compensation amount, and mcdonalds got that amount reduced later.

The plaintiff died in 2004, 10 years after the incident. She ended up using the money to cover the long-term care she ended up needing from the injury and recovery process.

The McDonald's Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction

That article reads like it was written by the woman's attorney.


The fact still stands that this woman put the cup of hot coffee between her legs and it spilled, resulting in the injury. If I accidently spill a cup of hot soup from a fast food restaurant into my lap and burn myself, I'm not suing the restaurant for serving me hot food. I expect the contents to be hot. Very hot.. perhaps even scalding.


My opinion stands.. the lawsuit is frivolous. It is sad that she underwent such a horrible situation and had lasting pain but she laid the blame on someone else because of her own poor decision.


Now if she burned her hands through the cup... maybe I could see that. Or if the McD employee spilled the coffee on her. Okay there too. But that isn't the case.

[narual]

That article reads like it was written by the woman's attorney.

You could try the wikipedia article instead, if the tone gets in the way of your comprehension of the facts.

Normal temperature coffee does not cause third degree burns and require skin grafts. It might hurt like hell and have some redness, but it doesn't require hospitalization.

The jury considered her 20% at fault for the reasons you stated, but 80% of the fault was McDonalds.

[Not a Number]

Looks like time to report this thread for going way off topic...

[monochrome]

Y’all do realize you’re posting legal theory about User Error damage to a camera that’s worth $100, right?

[calsan]

It's worth pointing out that the K-10d manual, and indeed all digital Pentax manuals, has a section on cleaning the sensor. See pages 211-13
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/man-pdf/k10d.pdf

First thing in the cautions list is: "Do not use a spray type blower."
Then they list the cleaning Kit O-ICK1 as an optional accessory.

So, too late for the OP, but lesson learnt and lets hope others reading this in the future will read the manual.

[Glen]

You're probably feeling pretty bad having done something where you feel you should have known better. To give you a little bit of relief I'll tell you what I did with my previous camera. I had a spot on the sensor and I could see it with my eye. It looked like it just needed a push and it would be gone. I also couldn't find my hand squeeze air blower and still don't know where that is. I did have a nice soft cloth that I use for my eye glasses so I walked over the bathroom where I usually clean my glasses and grabbed that good quality cloth. After removing the dust or whatever it originally was I noticed that there now appeared to be something greasy on the sensor. It didn't take me long to find the culprit. The cloth that I used to delicately wipe the sensor had sat next to a toothbrush. It somehow acquired a bit of toothpaste and my actions caused the toothpaste to transfer to the sensor. I didn't want to be the first person who had to send their camera for cleaning to remove toothpaste (and deal with the implications of that) so I bought the Arctic Butterfly cleaning kid. It did quick work of removing the toothpaste and the camera was still good for a number of years after that. Those sensors are really more durable than most people expect them to be. I think this is the first time I've put this down in writing. If nothing else, at least your mistake sounds more intelligent than mine.

[DeadJohn]

...I think this is the first time I've put this down in writing. If nothing else, at least your mistake sounds more intelligent than mine.

While we're confessing, I stupidly dropped a non-WR camera into a toilet bowl. The camera still takes photos but one button no longer works.

[mee]

Y’all do realize you’re posting legal theory about User Error damage to a camera that’s worth $100, right?

This post made me laugh. Yes, that is true. However it started with someone's suggestion that they would hassle the canned air company over this (and my impression they were implying that OP should too) and me saying it was a waste of time. Then it snowballed into ridiculousness... and a different waste of time.