> In fact, I know that these machines do have warnings to not overload them. What more could reasonably be expected of Samsung?
Standard IANAL.
Unfortunately companies can't always offload all their liability to the customer in this manner. We will see with the result of this lawsuit whether this is such a case.
They're likely going to argue that a reasonable person who buys a washing machine expects that it will continue to operate safely with any amount or configuration of clothing so long as the it fits in the drum and the machine isn't modified. Sure, if you 'overfill'[1] the machine one might expect the quality of the wash to degrade, but not that the machine will become dangerous.
From a practical standpoint, it's perfectly possible to create a washing machine that can handle any amount and configuration of clothing simply by making a tumbler that strong enough to handle many times the weight of clothes. Or the machine could simply refuse to operate if it detects that it's over weight or off-balance. So Samsung won't get very far if they try to argue that it's not possible to manufacture such a machine and that their customers have no choice but to take precautions. But undoubtedly they will argue that it's cost prohibitive and that their customers are responsible for taking those precautions in exchange for the simpler and cheaper design.
[1] I use scare quotes because for sure they will call into question Samsung's use and meaning of the term.
I think it's not "offloading their liability to the customer", if company says that the washing machine can take 4 kg and the customer then loads it with 7 kg. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that if you do this, the machine will not be able to maintain its balance.
(Seen that happen and customer complain, in no way specific to Samsung.)
Would you say the same thing if a manufacturer produced a car that exploded if you put too much weight in the trunk? Or if it flooded the cabin with carbon monoxide if you missed an oil change deadline? Both are "covered in the manual".
This "explosion" was not actually an explosion, just an imbalance and mechanical failure.
But if I put way too much weight in the trunk of the car, and start driving, and the rear axle fails and there is an accident, yes, I'm still saying it's a user error.
(It's by the way worth considering how much weight you do put in the trunk, or perhaps more importantly, how much you put in a trailer. I transported some concrete garden patio slabs and without calculating the actual weight, put a bit too many of them both in the trunk and in the trailer. It was definitely not fun to drive.)
I think the issue here is, as many other have pointed out, that the imbalanced/weight problem for washing machines has been a solved problem for nearly 50 years. It's fine that we're moving away from all mechanical detection methods and more energy/water efficient washers, but removing the previously solved operational safety functionality just seems silly. I completely agree it's an issue of operator error, but that's not the problem - the problem is that it was a _solved_ issue of operator error that is now a problem again because it seems like there were no safeguards put in place. It would seem to me that there has to be a grand number of chances to figure this out during the QA stage for these washers and determine a simple software solution, even if that solution is the washing session cancels, drains, and the LED errors with "Overloaded" or something. The owners may be annoyed, but at least the machine isn't ruined and it can train them to use the correct load size.
Honestly, I don't think it's too unreasonable for any given person not to be able to estimate the mass of a load of laundry. I assume the recommendations (4kg, as you suggested) are educated guesses at best as it's hard to tell how much water any given item will retain during the spin cycle. Since it's an imprecise calculation anyways, wouldn't it make more sense to instead just let the machine dictate its own limits so the user can adjust their washing habits subsequently?
edit: mistyped and forgot to write "...because it seems like there were no safeguards put in place."
cough Tesla cough
The song was fucking different then, wasn't it? "Manual, warnings, itd itp"
Disclaimer:
I still agree that unless those washing mashines were abused in a drastic manner Samsung should feel the hurt.
No, I don't think it's reasonable that a modern washing machine will implode due to overloading. As others have pointed out, this is a solved problem, and I would expect Samsung to have built standard safeguards.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. All it takes is a simple weight sensor, couple your suggestion with an "overweight" LED to give the user some feedback and this becomes a non-issue.
Except if your weight sensor if the first thing that breaks when the machine gets old.
I think all this is completely over the head. Say what maybe 3 machines exploded? That's far below the "noise" you have in every thing, it is statistically irrelevant.
Also, side question: when I pay for a product like a baby stroller from a western company, which part of this money is spent on "law abiding", i.e. the verbose amount of warnings sticked everywhere and all the lawyers behind? I just bought one and this kind stroller tells me loudly I'm stupid from every side of it. I had a Japanese stroller before: cheaper, lighter, just better for kids and parents in every respect, and a just a brief non-liability warning. If I put 4 ten year old fat kid is will break, OBviously. That would be my fault.
Standard IANAL.
Unfortunately companies can't always offload all their liability to the customer in this manner. We will see with the result of this lawsuit whether this is such a case.
They're likely going to argue that a reasonable person who buys a washing machine expects that it will continue to operate safely with any amount or configuration of clothing so long as the it fits in the drum and the machine isn't modified. Sure, if you 'overfill'[1] the machine one might expect the quality of the wash to degrade, but not that the machine will become dangerous.
From a practical standpoint, it's perfectly possible to create a washing machine that can handle any amount and configuration of clothing simply by making a tumbler that strong enough to handle many times the weight of clothes. Or the machine could simply refuse to operate if it detects that it's over weight or off-balance. So Samsung won't get very far if they try to argue that it's not possible to manufacture such a machine and that their customers have no choice but to take precautions. But undoubtedly they will argue that it's cost prohibitive and that their customers are responsible for taking those precautions in exchange for the simpler and cheaper design.
[1] I use scare quotes because for sure they will call into question Samsung's use and meaning of the term.