Ricks v. Apple's iPod Nano Pedometer

Ricks v. Apple's iPod nano Pedometer*:
258 Int.Barn. 3 (DCoLIB 2010)

[The plaintiff, known for his ability to whine and ramble on about nothing, gave this testimony to the court, "On September 14, 2010 I was having a rough week.  I was studying up for my big econ test that would take place on Thursday of that week [two days later], and I just reached a point where I needed a break.  So, naturally, I decided to suddenly buy an iPod.  You see, I won an iPod in college.  It was only a 2GB nano.  I was very happy that I won it, and I have gotten a lot of use out of it.  However, I have always wished that I had an iPod that could fit more of my music.  So when I decided to go get this new 16GB iPod nano, you have to realize that this was a very exciting experience.  This was the first iPod I ever bought.  I was thrilled to discover that this iPod also included a pedometer app that I could use to keep track of the length of my runs.  Well, Thursday came along and I took my horrible econ test and I decided that I generally survived it, but am very unsure about what score I will fetch.  Anyway, after a nap I decided to head out for a run and finally put this cool pedometer feature to the test.  So I forged out into the dense humid air of Arlington, compelled by a strong desire to enjoy this interesting feature of my supposedly cutting-edge gadget.  Upon returning from my run I was highly chagrinned to see the result listed on my pedometer.  442 steps!"  The plaintiff's counsel also entered into evidence that Google Maps verified that the plaintiff ran 2 and half miles on this particular run.  In response to the defense's allegation that the plaintiff must have failed to use the product properly, the plaintiff responded that he had followed the instruction on apple.com that reads, "Clip iPod nano to your sleeve, jacket, or running shorts," by clipping the device to his running shorts.  The plaintiff seeks damages for emotional distress inflicted by the failure of the device to meet his needs just hours after his painful experience with his first law school exam.]
SAM JUDGEGUY, J. gives the opinion of the court:
The defendant has moved for summary judgment and I am inclined to grant this request.  As the plaintiff's only real accusation amounts to the common law tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, I find no possibility that a jury could reasonably determine that any outrageous harm of any extraordinary measure is found within the facts of the case at bar.  While it is certainly regrettable that the pedometer device measured only 442 steps when the defense admitted that the average mile run as measured by a pedometer generally measures approximately 2000 steps, the failure of an electronic device to achieve its implied purpose is certainly a common experience for any who experiment with the cutting-edge of technology.  Also, the plaintiff testified that the iPod device met his primary need in desiring to purchase the item, while the pedometer abilities (or lack thereof) were merely an afterthought as far as his desire to use the iPod nano.  This does not amount to an outrage that no reasonable person should be expected to endure.  Also, there is clearly no intentional infliction of emotional distress as I find any evidence of a malicious intent entirely wanting.  I think the plaintiff should just chill out and try attaching the device to his shirt sleeve next time he runs.  That might work.
Motion for summary judgment granted, with costs.  

*Fake court case, duh!
About my econ test: Really, it wasn't horrible.  I really don't know what to think about it though.  I know I didn't nail it.  It's so disconcerting when I can't just get whatever score I get, but rather my score will be adjusted for our harsh curve.  All things considered, (including that there are many former econ majors in my class) I think I'll be ok with a B.  (That's a new feeling.)
K, bye.