Sony, Vivendi sued after 'infant' suffers seizure
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Mar 29th 2007 at 7:25PM }
News has trickled out that last month a New York woman filed a lawsuit against Vivendi, Sierra, Sony, and now defunct rental store Hiawatha Video. The suit alleges that the defendants were "negligent, careless, and reckless with regard to the design and manufacture" of the PlayStation 2 version of Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly. The woman's beef with this particular purple Puff adventure stems not from the widely held opinion that Enter the Dragonfly is the worst in Spyro's prolonged console run, but rather, from a more serious matter: while playing the game, her "infant" son suffered what's known as a tonic-clonic seizure -- or put colloquially, an "epileptic fit."According to the suit, the boy has sustained severe and permanent injuries that will require costly, lifelong medical care. The mother is seeking an unspecified amount of damages, which she requested be determined by a jury. Sony has since asked that the woman specify a clear total, perhaps indicating that a settlement could be reached.
A warning about the possibility of epileptic seizure is published on the inside front cover of Enter the Dragonfly's instruction manual. But, as the game was apparently a rental, there's a good chance that the woman never received the booklet, which if the case, might see a court rule in favor of the plaintiff.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mr Khan @ Mar 29th 2007 7:32PM
It won't be long before Sony will be required to plaster Seizure warnings all over all of their consoles, just like Nintendo already does
ahh the mixed blessing of an overly letigious society, the legitimate cases get their due, but the wankers also get their unfair share
Chris @ Mar 29th 2007 7:33PM
I hate this country's citizens. It's always someone else's fault. Don't all games have a warning before the title screen anyway? I don't read it, but I'm pretty sure every Wii game I've played has one.
Anyway, that's too bad that her son suffered those injuries.
Sam @ Mar 30th 2007 5:42AM
Spyro was a horrible game to begin with... all of the series suck... along with Crash Bandicoot.
Thrawn @ Apr 17th 2007 12:05PM
Sounds like someone could use a tonic colonic.
Mephistopheles @ Mar 29th 2007 7:44PM
Because shit never happens right? She's probably ignorant. Probably never even heard of an epileptic seizure up until her kid had one. The doctor probably had to print out a thirty page document on it just to explain it to her.
Logically though, she probably wasn't aware of her child's condition and it would inevitably happened anyway. Most children are not tested for epilepsy and thus they find out the hard way.
J @ Mar 29th 2007 7:49PM
If her kid was prone to siezures in the first place then it would makke no difference if it was a video game or flashing traffic lights. You can't blame video game makers for the health problems of a child.
Judd @ Mar 29th 2007 7:50PM
Wow you guys sure love to blame the victim don't you. This kid is going to require lifelong medical care and the mother was never informed that it could harm her child. All game rentals should be required to come with a manual and that's it. As long as at any point the game, the box (or if included) the manual, mentioned even in fine print a chance of seizure, than she has no case. Then again the Playstation 2 comes with a manual explaining chances of seizure. Unless she bought that used without a manual as well.
Chuma @ Mar 30th 2007 9:16AM
Expect this to be thrown out and her told to sue the rental place. The Manufacturer supplied all relevent documentation and warnings. That they were not passed on is of no fault of Vivendi.
The question is purely is the rental place themselves even likely to be sued. As far as I am aware, gaming and TV programs have the same effect so if she was allowing her son to watch a TV and that had a warning, then she has consented to the possibility of such events happening. It isn't nice that it has, and as has been pointed she might not have known he was susceptable, but that isn't grounds for a prosecution either.
I am so tired of blame culture...
Larry @ Mar 29th 2007 7:55PM
Hehehe, people with no background in law amuse me. I love the people speculating on whether or not the child has a case.
Goober @ Mar 29th 2007 7:58PM
Yeah, the woman's a gold-digger, she's an ass for not reading the instructions, it's always someone else's fault...until it happens to you or your kid. Then it turns into negligence of the other company.
Anon0 @ Mar 29th 2007 8:00PM
It's not Sony or Vivendi's problem. It's also not their fault that the rental "most likely" didn't come with a manual. It would be absolutely ridiculous to decide in the favor of the ignorant woman.
Mephistopheles @ Mar 29th 2007 8:00PM
Listen, yes it is sad that her kid is now scarred but that does not justify the mom suing everybody because of her misfortune. Aside from the rental place, all the other companies provide a warning. Your TV has a warning. Your console has a warning. It has been covered in the news many times before. It is no mystery. This isn't a defective PS2 unit that exploded and scarred her child. This is a child that had a condition that she was not aware of and this condition could be triggered by virtually anything capable of emitting light. She was going to find out one way or another, the fact that it was a game that triggered it changes nothing.
Her child has a condition and will have to live accordingly. I can't sue parks because they contain wasps which can kill me (allergies), these parks have no warning signs either, so why she be able to sue because something can emit flashing lights?
Al2x @ Mar 29th 2007 8:01PM
I don't know about you guys, but all three of the local rental shops near me have seizure warnings on the back of the ACTUAL GAME BOX that it comes with.
So, if you rent either my local game shop, my BlockBuster, or the Hollywood Video, on the acutal game case that encases the game disc, on the back it says a seizure warning.
And, why would this woman be suing Sony? If anything, sue the rental shop for not putting a warning on it, or even Vivendi games, for not having a warning on it, and ruining the Spyro franchise.
Oh why, Insomniac, did you let Spyro get ruined?
Jhongerkong @ Mar 29th 2007 9:19PM
@Chris:
Thats only Nintendo games that have that warning. Xbox and ps2 games, I think, dont.
NeverSage @ Mar 29th 2007 8:17PM
I'm not saying she doesn't deserve compensation for her kid's injuries, but if she had seen the warning on the box, or the opening screen, she would have let her son play anyway.
Josh @ Mar 29th 2007 8:22PM
I don't see how Sony or Vivendi are the proper defendants if the game was a rental.
Shouldn't it be incumbent upon Blockbuster to make sure that the included warnings are available to renters as well?
umm....hello??? @ Mar 29th 2007 8:23PM
her freaking INFANT?? She didn't notice the box at the rental store? The game is rated "E" (for everyone ages 6+). The game pre-screen even shows the warning before the "press start" menu screen.
AND the warning is even printed IN YOUR CONSOLE instruction manual...so did she rent the console too? or buy one on ebay?
yeah, I'll blame the victim. have you seen new parents? they either freak at EVERY little thing and educate themselves to the "n"th degree on the slightest things that are inconsequential, or they'll just "assume" that because their friends have kids and don't have problems with something that its safe.
And how can parents let their TV babysit their kid for hours on end thinking that this is a good thing to do??
And of COURSE she's going to claim "lifelong medical care" (this is standard lawyer-speak for "I'm going to rape these 2 huge corporations for billions of dollars").
COMMON SENSE FOR PARENTS WITH INFANTS: DO NOT BUY SOMETHING FOR YOUR CHILD IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT YOURSELF.
besides, did her infant come with a warning label?? how does she know what to do with it? wtf?!! maybe she could be countersued for negligence--did she take a HomeEc class in highschool...y'know, the one where you carry an egg around with you 24/7 for a whole quarter?
did her lawyer come with a warning label? WARNING: I will sue for billions, and you, my client, will get 10% of what I win from big corporations.
ps- this game got a review of 2.8 out of 10.0 from Gamespot. The mother should be shot for subjecting her "infant" to torture for this alone!!
pps- thank goodness I'm not her kid.
Stupidity FTL!!!!!!
Coyote @ Mar 29th 2007 10:51PM
Her child has a condition and will have to live accordingly. I can't sue parks because they contain wasps which can kill me (allergies), these parks have no warning signs either, so why she be able to sue because something can emit flashing lights?
Posted at 8:00PM on Mar 29th 2007 by Mephistopheles
Damn thats a great idea! I'm off to knock down the first hive I see at the state park. I'll be back with my millions if my throat doest swell shut. :P
Psaakyrn @ Mar 29th 2007 8:57PM
to #12 Josh
Actually, I think it's a little more insidious than that. I suspect Sony will counter-sue the rental place for all damages caused, aka any amount the woman gives.
Zach @ Mar 29th 2007 9:15PM
How is it Sony's fault that her son is genetically inferior to millions of others? And I'm Wii60 too. She shouldn't have let her son play video games with his condition. And if she didn't know, it could have happened just watching tv.
JK @ Mar 29th 2007 9:22PM
Um... why is "infant" in quotes?
The Gamespot article made no indication of the child's age, so why is it in quotes to hint either sarcasm or misinterpretation?
Mogaar @ Mar 29th 2007 9:48PM
@ Zach - "Genetically inferior"? You are a huge, huge asshole. And judging from your post, a mentally inferior asshole.
FlamingSquirrel @ Mar 30th 2007 5:57PM
That's why Nintendo has the seizure warning every time you turn on the Wii. And why they put it at the beginning of their later 'Cube games
[/NINTENDO_FANBOY]
LaughingTarget @ Mar 29th 2007 10:19PM
This case won't be won. Civil law in such instances state that any injuries that were forseen but not properly protected against can be awarded damages. However, given the situation as stated above, it is not forseeable that this individual rented the title and failed to read the fine print on the back of the box or the rental location decided to toss the instruction manual. There comes a point where we simply cannot be expected to hold the hand of every individual in society. Next proponents are going to try and argue because some future defendant wasn't paying attention to the load screen and missed the siezure warning that shows up before many games that the company should be liable for not leaving a static siezure warning on the screen the entire time.
Is this unfortunate? Ya. Is it the mother's or child's fault? No. Is it Sony's or Vivendi's fault? Also no. It is a harsh reality, but this individual does not deserve any compensation from anybody, be it Sony, Vivendi or on the back of taxpayers to deal with the medical costs. These are the cards dealt to her, she has to play them.
Zachary Hinchliffe @ Mar 29th 2007 10:21PM
While I don't like the sue-happiness ef America, this I will be happy to agree with. The poor child's life is ruined, if I was the mother, I'd be trying to fight back too. I'd sue the video store though, for not warning me about the possible damage.
(Also, take note that I am not the "Zach" from comment 15. He can go screw himself.)
Josh @ Mar 29th 2007 10:27PM
to #14 Psaakyrn:
According to another site's story, the video store is defunct now. Sony won't be recovering much from them if that's really the plan.
epobirs @ Mar 29th 2007 11:45PM
This case will be quickly dismissed if testimony by medical experts is given proper credence. The game simply could not induce the condition in a person not already affected. The only question in such a person suffering a seizure is not if, but when. Any extensive amount of TV viewing could easily have produced the same result.
I'm curious as to what the court will accept as the definition of an 'infant.' I wouldn't expect anyone fitting that description to be playing video games at such a young age. I've known kids that started very young but none so young as to be called infants.
Eric @ Mar 30th 2007 12:09AM
lolz@ sony. They deserve setbacks like this since all they have ever done is COPY others!
Larry @ Mar 30th 2007 12:50AM
Thin skull doctrine people! Stop trying to discuss the legal merits of the case if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Rallion @ Mar 30th 2007 12:53AM
The game didn't harm the kid at ALL. It just exposed a pre-existing condition, and it did it in a safe environment. Honestly, this is the best thing that could happen to a kid with epilepsy, other than actually being tested for it -- and nobody does that.
Powerlord @ Mar 30th 2007 4:28AM
@10: "Oh why, Insomniac, did you let Spyro get ruined?"
They didn't have a choice. Universal (which merged with Vivendi) owns Spyro, so when Insomniac started doing the Ratchet and Clank series, Universal did a "Fine, we'll get someone else to make the next Spyro game!" trick.
Incidently, Sony owns Ratchet and Clank, so they could get someone else to do a sixth game in the main series if they so choose (the fifth game in the main series being out for the PS3 later this year: http://www.gamevideos.com:80/video/id/10000 ).
Burnt Meatloaf @ Mar 30th 2007 6:16AM
*J: "If her kid was prone to siezures in the first place then it would makke no difference if it was a video game or flashing traffic lights. You can't blame video game makers for the health problems of a child."
That's about it. Lots of things cause siezures. Maybe we should have warning labels on traffic lights that say, "DON'T LOOK!"
What about food allergies? They have warning labels for peanuts everywhere, but not for carrots. Just because peanut allergies are the most common and sometimes most severe means everything else is exempt? Oh no!
Neccy @ Mar 30th 2007 7:35AM
Having epilepsy myself i think this is quite bullshit. It's really only 1 type of epilepsy that is involved with the video game warnings and that is the photosensitive kind, if this kid just sufferes from regular tonic-clonic siezures then it was probably just coincidence he happened to be playing that game at the time.
dontlikeitmodit @ Mar 30th 2007 8:14AM
Everyone of my PS3 games has the little red box on the back of the game with its caveat medicus.
I think that the big corporations' lawyers will be able to easily show that this could have occurred with just about any electrical device. Whether or not the jury of common simps care is another matter, it is a big corporation and they want to be in the same situation.
Rob @ Mar 30th 2007 8:23AM
My bet: shaken baby and they're looking for a scapegoat.
baby sea tuna @ Mar 30th 2007 8:27AM
@#6
It's funny cause people who do have a background in law tend to irritate the shit out of me...and everyone else, for that matter...including other lawyers!
There's good news though! if you're a law student, it can be alright. There's still time to change and you can grow up to lead a normal life as a productive member of society...but if you're a already lawyer, yeah, you should probably just kill yourself now.
shase @ Mar 30th 2007 9:02AM
There are some incidents thats plain stupid and some that are more ignorant or negligence. If the "McDonald Coffee lady" won the case for putting hot coffee between her crotch i think this lady will win....
Plus do the doctors know if the kid has eplipsy OR that was his first time? If its first time then its not really the mother's fault but if she knows about it then its her being ignorant.
Chuma @ Mar 30th 2007 9:36AM
shase:
BTW, the mcdonalds coffee case was taken up by the press out of context. If you spill hot coffee on you, you should expect it to be hot and hurt you, that is reasonable. It is NOT reasonable to expect it to be so hot that it causes you disfigurement on your crotch and 2nd degree burns. Given this, the case is more than fair.
Not having a go at you, just correcting a misconception
Brad @ Mar 30th 2007 9:33AM
crumbling skull rule "people" {cough cough larry)!!1 shut the f*** up with your "background in law" NOONE CARES. Maybe your sitting there thinking all these people are ignorant but that's your opinion, a very ignorant one in itself. So your in law, ever heard of free speech? jeezus cristtt...
sheppy @ Mar 30th 2007 9:40AM
@20
"While I don't like the sue-happiness ef America, this I will be happy to agree with. The poor child's life is ruined, if I was the mother, I'd be trying to fight back too. I'd sue the video store though, for not warning me about the possible damage."
Dude, seriously. Do you think Epilepsy is some magical condition that seeps it's way into someones skull during a battle sequence during the Pokemon anime? Nope, it's either genetic or symptomatic. Did you know one cause of epilepsy could actually be vaccinations? Hmm, young child... vaccinations...
Video games are merely triggers. Triggers that could also be television, christmas lights, and even traffic signals. The fact that this happened on a video game is highly coincidental. Likewsie, I have NEVER seen a video store that doesn't use box art and the epilepsy warnings are on the box. Also, epilepsy warnings in the PSX manual. Besides, from the 10 minutes I played this Spyro game, I didn't see any flashing. I'm thinking I'm going to have to mail this kid a copy of Gungrave: Overdose.
The fact that this child's life is "ruined" is horse shit as well. There are plenty of fully functioning people in todays society who live with Epilepsy. Tell them their life is ruined because of it, count how many teeth you have left after they knock you the fuck out.
This woman is just searching for an easy paycheck and to be quite honest, I think we need to allow a system where the state can sue individuals for clogging up our court systems with this horseshit.
I feel sorry for the mother, I feel sorry for the kid. But this is a card life deals you. It could never possibly be considered someones fault. It's just bad luck.
Todd @ Mar 30th 2007 9:49AM
I guess we'll start seeing the warning labels printed on the top of the game discs after this.
(01) @ Mar 30th 2007 12:16PM
First of all, anyone who seems to enjoy calling people with serious, lifelong diseases such as epilepsy "genetically inferior" should consider themselves lucky that they are over 99% dead inside and pretty much terrible people. But I digress.... Not being a lawyer I can;t be sure of this, but since Sony DOES supply the warning lit. with their games, but it was removed before the woman rented it, wouldn't the liability fall on the video store that rented her the game. Actually, more importantly, doesn't this warning come up when the game is turned on, and requires pressing any button to continue?
Gene @ Mar 30th 2007 12:55PM
Speaking of the McDonalds coffe lady, I too thought the outcome was ludicrous until examining the facts of the trial for myself, take a gander:
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
As for the story at hand; I think it's unfortunate what happened to her child, but sadly...this could've been prevented with a little due diligence on the mothers behalf.
dontlikeitmodit @ Mar 30th 2007 1:04PM
@ 40 ...
Who cares if there was or wasn't a screen that popped up with the warning? You shouldn't operate any device without first reading the operator's manual. Besides the point, I think this was the child's first seizure, in which case no amount or frequency of warning would have made a difference.
Sad to say , but this child would have had a seizure sooner or later, it just happens to have happened when a lawyer felt someone was culpable. If there is a settlement I hope its reasonable: ie. Medical care for the child for his life, no traumatic bullcrap as it would have occurred anyway.
As for the coffee thing .... I have no sympathy for anyone who spills their coffee and burns themselves with it. Coffee cannot exceed 100 degrees centigrade (212 Fahrenhite for you non science peeps) and should be treated as such when someone hands you a cup.
brein @ Mar 30th 2007 1:43PM
As for the coffee thing .... I have no sympathy for anyone who spills their coffee and burns themselves with it. Coffee cannot exceed 100 degrees centigrade (212 Fahrenhite for you non science peeps) and should be treated as such when someone hands you a cup.
Posted at 1:04PM on Mar 30th 2007 by dontlikeitmodit
umm... 50 degrees centigrade (130 F) can produce third degree burns. The Mcdonalds coffee was brewed at 195 to 205 F (90 - 95 C). There comes a point where its not just hot, but insanely dangerous. McDonalds lost because they were completely ignoring basic safety, with thousands of customers previously hospitalized... let me repeat this... hospitalized because of their coffee.
But thats off the point. In this case, seizures can be 'triggered' by specific stimuli, but as far as i know, the underlying cause is usually genetic. So while a bunch of flashing lights can trigger an epileptic event, thats not the reason why the person has epilepsy. Unless there's something i don't know, this case doesn't seem to have much merit.
sheppy @ Mar 30th 2007 2:21PM
"First of all, anyone who seems to enjoy calling people with serious, lifelong diseases such as epilepsy "genetically inferior" should consider themselves lucky that they are over 99% dead inside and pretty much terrible people."
Serious is debatable. It's fairly easy to live a full life with epilepsy. Like I said before, this isn't fucking downs syndrome or lukemia. People can, and do, live with this disease. Are they somehow being cheated on this whole "life" thing just because of this? Isn't that what this lawsuit is saying? Everyone with epilepsy is somehow tragically scarred and unable to enjoy life?
Now, it has to be said. TECHNICALLY, a small percentage of epilepsy victims are genetically inferior. Can be cause by birth defects and even runs in the family. Simply put, the statement was heartless, but no less valid. Others simply develop epilepsy through vaccinations, strokes, viral infections.... well, and tons of other causes. But not through video games. The moment they put a doctor on the stand is the moment any reasonable mind will find in the defendants favor.
And finally, I find even debating this issue offensive. This woman is claiming life is pretty much over for her child and suing accordingly. I have a scar slightly below my eye only visible from up close. That's a life long ailment. Where is my millions from the police who couldn't stop the pusher from pushing drugs and cutting kids who try to avoid them? After all, I'm scarred for life. But nope, I live a full life. I enjoy it, embrace it everyday, and I'm no less a person for this scar. Same thing with epilepsy. The weak ones who refuse to rise above, fuck em. Planets overpopulated anyway. I highly doubt if you talk to an epilepsy victim about the "life they are missing," they won't get offended. Friend of mine can't eat peanuts... holy shit, his life is ruined.
That's what this lawsuit is about. "Poor me, where's my check?" I spit on this woman.
Twinkie @ Apr 1st 2007 12:10AM
i hate children.
i hate stupid.
the child is a n00b with a retarded for a mom.
dear mother,
when you sue, sue the right company! man do i hate stupid....
Mephistopheles @ Mar 30th 2007 9:58PM
On a technical level any disorder is an inferiority. Subjectively, is a matter of debate but if you have epilepsy you have a defect and thus are inferior. I have certain allergies and skin pigmentation disorder that gives me an extremely high chance of getting cancer which then makes me inferior to those without these conditions. Being inferior does not mean you have to hate yourself.
greg @ Apr 2nd 2007 6:07PM
to 34. The lady asked for 2000 dollars....her near exact doctors bill. they laughed at her and her daughter made the huge case. Plus, the coffee was 185deg F.