or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 83-year-old woman sues Apple after walking into glass retail store door
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

83-year-old woman sues Apple after walking into glass retail store door - Page 2

post #41 of 160
[QUOTE=CogitoDexter;2080958]Actually, I don't think this claim is entirely without merit.

A clean plate-glass window that has no visible frame and goes from ground to ceiling is, essentially, invisible. I've walked into such things before, albeit with no after effects beyond bruised pride, and I'm no dunce about modern architecture (it was my first choice of career).

In the UK, such plate-glass 'walls' generally have patterns or lines ... Is that because UK'ers are too stupid to know it's a glass door?
post #42 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by timothyjay2004 View Post

It's just plane stupidity and not paying attention - I chalk this up to the level of the lady that put the McDonald's coffee between the legs and sued them because it was hot and burned her... well, you know. Idiots....

Actually in teh McDonald's case, they were keeping their coffee at a higher than advertised temperature that was unsafe. It was hot enough to give her 3rd degree burns. All told 20% of her body received burns from it. Coffee should NOT be capable of 3rd degree burns and the 180-190 degrees of the Hot Coffee situation certainly can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants
post #43 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by clubs45 View Post

Only in America could this happen

If you can see through it, its probably glass.

You have to wonder, do these people think the products just magically levitate and their is a force field which keeps people from stealing from the store in the middle of the night?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbuh One View Post

Wasn't the big door handle some type of indication there was a door?

Or the fact therr are all these people coming in and out in one specific spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Look at all of the videos online of people not paying attention and walking into a glass door. The normal reaction is you quickly look around to see noticed. Then you pick yourself up and immediately slink out, thinking, "How embarrassing. I sure hope no one saw that... crap, my nose hurts".

I've "mistakingly" (while drinking) walked in to a few doors, and I can honestly say I don't believe my nose was ever the point of contact. It always seemed to be a foot, arm, body, that hit the door first. Was she charging head first? (Then again I don't remember much from those specific nights anyways so maybe I did... )

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee View Post

Someone will catch the fact.

Is she the same women who burnt her lips on HOT coffee

Skip

Could be her sister...
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #44 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Actually, I don't think this claim is entirely without merit.

A clean plate-glass window that has no visible frame and goes from ground to ceiling is, essentially, invisible. I've walked into such things before, albeit with no after effects beyond bruised pride, and I'm no dunce about modern architecture (it was my first choice of career).

In the UK, such plate-glass 'walls' generally have patterns or lines etched into them at approximately eye-level so that there is, at close quarters, a visual barrier which prevents most if not all people colliding with them.

Apple undoubtedly has third-party liability insurance for this sort of event and it will almost certainly settle long before the case comes to a formal hearing. That doesn't mean that the 'little old lady' is taking them for a ride though. She was injured and the injury was something that could have been foreseen and prevented with a small amount of care and forethought.

It's not a joke, and it's not an 'only in America' thing either. I'm one of Apple's biggest fans (I've spent ungodly amounts of money on Apple kit!) and I'm still capable of seeing that she has genuine cause here. The $1m is a lawyer's starting-pistol it's not her ultimate game plan, I'm sure. I dare say she'll settle for a fraction of that. After all, broken noses cost money to fix! I'd say it will probably be settled for the cost of her treatment, plus a reasonable sum for inconvenience, pain and distress, so probably treatment plus $25k maybe. And we'll probably never know, since it'll be tidied up nicely in a confidentiality agreement!


True. There are other places than America that people do not make sense in situations alike.

No it does not have merit based on common sense. It has merit to lawyers who make money on foolish cases like this. It is business. Some would cut off their fingers to make money on lawsuit.

The lady had elderly moment and she is embarassed. Perhaps some lawyer helped her to make the case out of this embarassment. Does it mean that now we have to provide odd and ugly structures just to make places safe to all people. Think about blind and deaf people. So what should we put on walls and doors for them? After all they are part of society.

Whatever you say Apple does quite a bit of things to support impared people (look at their system carefully). Can they do everything? I do not think so. If you think they can then don't sue them but make public suggestions. Lawsuit smells like trying to cut into Apple fortune rather than finding solution to the problem.

BTW... Euro living in America for many years.
post #45 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee View Post

Someone will catch the fact.

Is she the same women who burnt her lips on HOT coffee

Skip

no but the lips to which you refer were not located on her face.
post #46 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

It's not a joke, and it's not an 'only in America' thing either. I'm one of Apple's biggest fans (I've spent ungodly amounts of money on Apple kit!) and I'm still capable of seeing that she has genuine cause here. The $1m is a lawyer's starting-pistol it's not her ultimate game plan, I'm sure. I dare say she'll settle for a fraction of that. After all, broken noses cost money to fix! I'd say it will probably be settled for the cost of her treatment, plus a reasonable sum for inconvenience, pain and distress, so probably treatment plus $25k maybe. And we'll probably never know, since it'll be tidied up nicely in a confidentiality agreement!

What are you talking about? This will never be entertained in a court of law. I could see Apple fixing her nose out of being a 'nice guy' type of thing, but to set a precedent of such ignorance would be ridiculous. All of the sudden every half way blind person begins running into things and becomes litigious. Don't think so.
post #47 of 160
I don't think the lawyer should argue she has good eye-sight. Elderly people are a large part of our society deserving of our highest regard and we should be more considerate of their physical impairments, and they shouldn't have to apologize for them.
Having said that, HELLO, how did she get into the store in the first place? She didn't walk through an open-air front, she opened a door. She clearly was walking to exit the store and obviously forgot that a few moments earlier she came in through a glass door. Seems more like an issue of memory.
In this video footage, the glare from the sun seems bright enough to hide any moderate markings (high or low). That combined with her forgetting how she entered the store, it seems only an opaque barrier would have solved the problem for her.
post #48 of 160
Funniest lawsuit ever.

Seriously, what do they want apple to do? Put a sign out front that says "please don't slam your face into our glass walls?" Honestly.
post #49 of 160
i'm going to sue apple for making such a nice ipad that makes my heart race every time i use it...

this is just so fucking stupid...
post #50 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post

What are you talking about? This will never be entertained in a court of law. I could see Apple fixing her nose out of being a 'nice guy' type of thing, but to set a precedent of such ignorance would be ridiculous. All of the sudden every half way blind person begins running into things and becomes litigious. Don't think so.

Many jurisdictions require that plate glass doors have stickers on them to warn people so accidents like this do not happen. New York is likely one of them.

Even if there is no such statute, she has a reasonable claim for negligence. Maybe not a winner, but certainly a viable claim.

This is not a frivolous claim. At worst, it is appropriate for a court to decide whether there was negligence.
post #51 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Many jurisdictions require that plate glass doors have stickers on them to warn people so accidents like this do not happen. New York is likely one of them.

Even if there is no such statute, she has a reasonable claim for negligence. Maybe not a winner, but certainly a viable claim.

This is not a frivolous claim. At worst, it is appropriate for a court to decide whether there was negligence.

Look at the pictures on Macrumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/

Now explain how she has a reasonable claim. There are several feet of silver balls on the floor. There are stickers on the window. Plus, you have to explain how she was moving fast enough to break her nose but it was her nose that hit first - not her hands or feet. Plus, of course, the question of how an 80+ year old woman was moving fast enough to break her nose in the first place.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #52 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garamond View Post

*Knock-knock*

Who's there?

Little old lady.

Little old lady who?

I didn't know you could yodel.

Very good! Great for a Monday morning.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #53 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

There actually is a glass that turns opaque when a small voltage is applied to it. I have seen it used on a bathroom window. As far as I know its the whole plane of glass not just a section.

Sweet. Problem solved!
post #54 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

Does it mean that now we have to provide odd and ugly structures just to make places safe to all people. Think about blind and deaf people. So what should we put on walls and doors for them? After all they are part of society.

And there you actually have the nub of the problem.

A business that owns premises that operate in a public space has a legal duty of care towards those who it invites onto its premises.

It's for this very reason, and due to the various laws surrounding access to premises and services by people with disabilities, that - for example - public transport has brightly coloured safety grab rails, that footpaths (sidewalks) have dips instead of steps at crossing points and, in the UK at least, these dips are paved with concrete slabs that have raised nodules, so that people walking on them who have limited or no sight are aware that they've reached the edge of a path and are likely to step out in front of traffic.

And... it's completely reasonable to require any premises with floor to ceiling glass walls to make a reasonable effort to bring such transparent but potentially dangerous - to SOME people - surfaces to the attention of those with mobility or sight issues. Those business that don't do this run the risk of being taken to court for failure to live up to their duty of care.

If a plate glass floor-to-ceiling window is very clean and the lighting on occasions can be such that there are no reflections upon a person's approach, it's entirely likely that someone will collide with the window and at some point cause themselves injury by so doing.

I'm not being a litigious money grabber, and the idea that such a person hitting a glass wall in the UK is because all UK people are stupid is simply offensive.

This is a very simple concept of liability based around potential hazards to the public. Apple already know this to some extent, seeing as they have in some instances placed small white markers on their windows, however in some lighting conditions these may not be especially noticeable. Architects and designers should be aware of these accessibility concerns. In the UK, which is by a great way less litigious than the USA, these concepts are taken very seriously.

The apparent fact is that an elderly person succumbed to an injury by seemingly not noticing that there was a transparent obstruction in the way. Since glass is, by its very raison d'être, designed to be invisible, clearly further efforts need to be made to prevent people from either injuring themselves or breaking the glass when such huge panels are used. It's necessary from a Disability Access / Anti-Discrimination point of view and from the point of view of general public safety.

Just because some of you lot think it's sidesplittingly funny that an elderly lady broke her nose by colliding with the glass and you're visualising it in your minds in a slap-stick vaudeville laugh-a-minute sort of way doesn't take away from the fact that there may well be a serious case to answer. I remain of the view that this case has, based upon the details presented here, a reasonable cause behind it.
post #55 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

No comment on the legal aspects of this, but it seems to me that this represents bad store UI design on Apple's part. They should have something (other than lame white stickers) that artistically and subtly makes it clear to users of their stores that there is a wall of glass to be avoided.

Here's an idea -- have some kind of proximity sensor that triggers a reaction by the glass -- it could become temporarily opaque as someone approaches. That would be cool. (note that I have no idea how to make that happen technically, but I'm sure somebody at Apple does -- those guys have the smartness).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

There actually is a glass that turns opaque when a small voltage is applied to it. I have seen it used on a bathroom window. As far as I know its the whole plane of glass not just a section.

The little old lady approaches the Glass Front of the Apple Store, that for her eyes is invisible. Then whoosh a massive opaque structure appears out of nowhere. Poor little old lady almost dies of heart attack. She is going to sue Apple for 10Mio $.

>> Apple adds a perimeter with little loudspeakers embedded in the surrounding floor.

Next time little old lady approaches the Apple Store, she hears voices whispering in her ears "bee cautious you are approaching a Glass structure!"
Little old lady turns around to see who has spoken and then their is nobody there. Little old lady gets terribly scared and runs away. There is no way, she could have seen the sudden appearance of the massive opaque structure in front of her. With a crash poor little old lady meets the glass wall. ......
post #56 of 160


Yeah I gotta call bullshyt.

How do you not see the window, nor the actual DOOR HANDLES on the glass door?
post #57 of 160
If this ever went to court (it won't), the jury or judge would assign a percentage of blame. The "no personal accountability" comments don't apply. They'll find her 70% responsible and apple 30%- or whatever numbers they decide on (the same will be done- just not legally- during a settlement), and make their judgements based on that.

The "hot coffee" incident that so many are uneducated on was assigned 30% the ladies fault (and before the comments about how can her dropping coffee be anything other than 100% her fault- please educate yourself on the facts of the trial- not the information put out by the chamber of commerce, or whatever you heard at the water cooler).

I hate these lawsuit posts because everyone's an expert.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #58 of 160
This is so typical of the ills of this country. Why is Apple libel because she is an idiot? I am so sick of the legal system in this country and ALL lawyers that jump on cases like this. It's like when some ladder company got sued because some numbskull fell of the top step because nobody told him not to. What a joke!!! Drag it out Apple. You can outlast her.
post #59 of 160
Not a great idea making everything out of glass.

I certainly can't comprehend making the phone out of glass. Don't think I've ever been to a store yet and not seen someone getting the phone fixed cause it was dropped and shattered.

Making the walls and doors out of glass invites accidents.

And making spiral staircases and stair railings out of glass. Geez. Matter of time before someone gets hurt with that move.

Maybe they could tint the doors and windows with a smoke color or something. In the meantime they need to pay this poor lady for her injuries.

In fact, i'm going down to my local Apple store right now and see if I can get in on some of this money. Gonna need it the next time I drop my phone. Which is made out of glass.
post #60 of 160
1 million dollar iTunes gift card!

post #61 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

are there?

From what I see on the web, they seem to be, at most, waist height. Apple seem to already know about people walking into their glass and have actually put up labels in response in other locations.

I agree that people should take responsibility for themselves, but you build a storefront with starphire glass, what do you expect is going to happen? $1m is a bit rich but the labels should be placed closer to eye level than the photos I've seen on the web for this store.

Here, standards mandate this kind of stuff for the obvious reason. When I was younger I walked straight through a sliding door at a friends house - it wasn't tempered, either. That's something else that standards here take care of. It's easy to do, and a moment of inattentiveness is all it can take.

Yes, there are. And the height is perfect, just below chest height for thise standing, just above eye height for those in wheel chairs. Frthermore there is a solid metal bar at the bottom of the door.
post #62 of 160
From that image it looks like Apple has taken the needed precautions with the eye level stickers. They also have balls on the ground and the a metal lip holding the glass that is not transparent.

However, one could argue that with light hitting it at the right angle that the white on the glass could vanish from view, that the silver balls might have looked like steps and chrome metal supporting the glass might have looked like a step or become invisible to, reflecting the ground in front of it.

Apple will argue that they have taken measures to prevent this from happening but the question is whether it's enough. How tall is this women? If those stripes are placed for a normal height are too high for a shrinking octogenarian?

I'd also like to know how many of these incidents occur? The most recent report on Apple's foot traffic is almost 2 years old but states they got about 75 million visitors for the quarter. For a year that's 300 million. If 1% people walked into the glass that would be 3,000,000. If 0.001% (1 out of 100,000) walked into the glass that would be 3,000 a year. Even that seem like a high number.

So should Apple be responsible for every circumstance? Are there circumstances that would make it legitimately unlikely for this woman to have seen the glass?


PS: Disparagingly comparing this to Liebeck v McDonald's means you're not looking at the merits of the case. As SSquirrel points out the coffee in the McDonald's case caused 3rd degree burns over a large portion of her body in 2-3 seconds Far to hot to be served to any customer.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #63 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

Yeah I gotta call bullshyt.

How do you not see the window, nor the actual DOOR HANDLES on the glass door?

You will know your eyes are 80 years old.
post #64 of 160
Anyone ever been to Manhasset? You enter its border and your brain turns to mush. Think all of the horrible stereotypes about Long Island vapidness and square it ten times. It's where stuff like this happens.
post #65 of 160
Apple's biggest problem is the imperfect world around it and the imperfect people who reside within it.

I feel for the lady, but she's probably been led a merry ride by the lawyers, who must be delighted to have an opportunit like this.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #66 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Actually, I don't think this claim is entirely without merit.

Actually it's people who think like you do who have made this country a legal cesspool. It's why we have warning labels on space heaters warning you not to put the thing in the bathtub with you. It's why over 50% of the cost of a step ladder is for liability claims. It's why we have entire web sites devoted to the stupidly ridiculous warning labels placed on all manner of things because stupid people are, well, stupid. In nature the stupid are culled. In America the stupid thrive and are wealthy because of their stupidity.

If I had done what this woman did I would be too ashamed to even admit I did it. The embarassment would be too much for me to bear. But then I would also admit it was my fault and not try to get rich from my stupidity.
post #67 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post



Yeah I gotta call bullshyt.

How do you not see the window, nor the actual DOOR HANDLES on the glass door?

Take a closer look at the image in this first pane of glass just before the door you see the glass reflect the street behind it. The light and reflection blends with the glass making it look like you could walk over there.

Now look at the far pane of glass on the other side of the door. That chrome footer has disappeared as the light reflects off the sidewalk.

Now this is just a photo taken from a single angle at a specific time of day. Could there have been an angle of incidence, refraction and dispersion all playing a role with the sunlight hiding the glass, the thin white bars, the silver and chrome objects on the ground that could make the perfect storm of tricking the eyes into seeing a open walkway?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #68 of 160
The US legal system is now coming in the way of natural selection
Let's treat everyone like idiots, and if there is no warning, then it's not their fault
if you do that long enough, you end up with a country of idiots, who can't think for themselves. And assume if there is no warning, then it's not dangerous.
bye bye common sense
post #69 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Take a closer look at the image in this first pane of glass just before the door you see the glass reflect the street behind it. The light and reflection blends with the glass making it look like you could walk over there.

Now look at the far pane of glass on the other side of the door. That chrome footer has disappeared as the light reflects off the sidewalk.

Now this is just a photo taken from a single angle at a specific time of day. Could there have been an angle of incidence, refraction and dispersion all playing a role with the sunlight hiding the glass, the thin white bars, the silver and chrome objects on the ground that could make the perfect storm of tricking the eyes into seeing a open walkway?

It doesn't matter what you do - there's always some way that someone could miss it. If I park my car in the middle of an empty parking lot outdoors, there's a chance that someone will be blinded by the sun and walk into it. Or maybe they'll get stung by a bee and be so distracted that they walk into it. Or maybe a purse snatcher is chasing them and they're not paying attention to where they are going. Would any of those be my fault?

There is a principle that people are expected to exercise reasonable prudence. Given the way that store is set up, and the number of people walking in and out of Apple Stores, it is just not plausible that she could have been exercising reasonable prudence and still run into the door hard enough to break her nose (not to mention having her nose be the first point of contact in the first place).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #70 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple wants to be cool and modern and have the type of architecture that would appeal to the tech crowd, but on the other hand, they have to appreciate the danger that this high-tech modern architecture poses to some people, Smith said...

She then got behind the wheel of a 4-ton Mercury Grand Marqui and sped off to the hospital, her right turn signal engaged the whole time.
post #71 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

She then got behind the wheel of a 4-ton Mercury Grand Marqui and sped off to the hospital, her right turn signal engaged the whole time.

You forgot - she was in the left lane traveling at 40 miles per hour.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #72 of 160
Problem is with her attorney Derek T. Smith. No respectable attorney advertises the amount they are suing for in the press. In negotiations they might demand $1 million but will obviously settle for much less. The only lawyers who mention the amount they will sue for in the press are the ones who advertise in the weekly Penny Saver.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #73 of 160
has filed a legal complaint against Apple after she broke her nose on the doors

Unbelievable.
post #74 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It doesn't matter what you do - there's always some way that someone could miss it. If I park my car in the middle of an empty parking lot outdoors, there's a chance that someone will be blinded by the sun and walk into it. Or maybe they'll get stung by a bee and be so distracted that they walk into it. Or maybe a purse snatcher is chasing them and they're not paying attention to where they are going. Would any of those be my fault?

There is a principle that people are expected to exercise reasonable prudence.

I don't think any jury would hold you responsible for every scenario but there are certainly situations where your choices could hold you responsible.

You've also weighted the scenario in your favour by saying it in the middle of an empty parking lot when this situation is clearly not comparable to that. There is also no talk of a bee sting or other causal circumstances that could have resulted in the injury. If it comes out in court that she was running from a bee and people warmed her she was running toward a glass wall then it seems clear Apple would not be at fault but, again, such circumstances have yet to be presented.

What I do care for is the blanket assumption that people getting hurt are stupid and that people utilizing civil law are crooks. Each situation needs to be vetted on its own merits.

Quote:
Given the way that store is set up, and the number of people walking in and out of Apple Stores, it is just not plausible that she could have been exercising reasonable prudence and still run into the door hard enough to break her nose (not to mention having her nose be the first point of contact in the first place).

Based on the available information I can't come to that same conclusion. I also can't say Apple was at fault. There simply isn't enough information at this time for me to make a decision either way.

It's fine if you have read the info and felt there is plenty to determine her an idiot and a swindler, but I haven't. I made that mistake when Liebeck v McDonald case first appeared because I jumped to a decision based on slated and incomplete information. I don't want to make that mistake again.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #75 of 160
The fact that a million people have walked though the door of that Apple store instead of smashing into the glass wall should tell you something. This is my local Apple Store 5 minutes from my house. I know the glass facade of this store. It is immediately obvious that there is a door to this store and that the glass walls on either side are not one big, open entranceway. That would mean this 100 foot wide store is completely open to the outside air, as if the entire store side is one big entrance! Except there are 6 foot tall displays lined up all along behind these glass walls of course...
It is sad that an 80 year old has failing vision and walks into glass windows. Many of us have done it too, as you point out. If you break your nose, that is a sign that you should not be walking around without someone guiding you.
post #76 of 160
It hurts, but it is funny to watch. (In Europe there are stricter guidelines to prevent these mishaps)
OUCH
Double Ouch
post #77 of 160
This is the winner right here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

...a moment of inattentiveness is all it can take.

She wasn't paying adequate attention. By definition, if she were, then she wouldn't have had the problem (unless of course it was deliberate, in which case this is all moot, since then it'd be a case of her making a fraudulent claim).

The doors & walls are NOT invisible - thousands of people see those glass walls and walk through those glass doors every day without colliding with them. The <average> person (who's paying proper attention to their surroundings) doesn't have a problem with these things.

Claiming that she should get special consideration because she's 83 and has bad eyesight is bunk - if she has bad eyesight, then the onus is on her to pay extra attention and use more care when moving about. It shouldn't be anyone else' responsibility to be her keeper - not you, me or even Apple. If a blind woman walked into the glass doors because she couldn't be bothered to use her cane to suss out the boundaries of the object in her environment (in other words, apply the necessary attention to navigating the world, and taking her limitations into consideration) - then that would be considered negligence on her part. This is EXACTLY the same.

It's her responsibility to pay sufficient and necessary attention to her surroundings. She didn't - if she had, then we're back to my initial assertions...
post #78 of 160
post #79 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Actually, I don't think this claim is entirely without merit.

A clean plate-glass window that has no visible frame and goes from ground to ceiling is, essentially, invisible. I've walked into such things before, albeit with no after effects beyond bruised pride, and I'm no dunce about modern architecture (it was my first choice of career).

In the UK, such plate-glass 'walls' generally have patterns or lines etched into them at approximately eye-level so that there is, at close quarters, a visual barrier which prevents most if not all people colliding with them.

Apple undoubtedly has third-party liability insurance for this sort of event and it will almost certainly settle long before the case comes to a formal hearing. That doesn't mean that the 'little old lady' is taking them for a ride though. She was injured and the injury was something that could have been foreseen and prevented with a small amount of care and forethought.

It's not a joke, and it's not an 'only in America' thing either. I'm one of Apple's biggest fans (I've spent ungodly amounts of money on Apple kit!) and I'm still capable of seeing that she has genuine cause here. The $1m is a lawyer's starting-pistol it's not her ultimate game plan, I'm sure. I dare say she'll settle for a fraction of that. After all, broken noses cost money to fix! I'd say it will probably be settled for the cost of her treatment, plus a reasonable sum for inconvenience, pain and distress, so probably treatment plus $25k maybe. And we'll probably never know, since it'll be tidied up nicely in a confidentiality agreement!

People of even substandard intelligence can deduce that a private enterprise (i.e., Apple Store, any other store) is bound by a physical barrier to prevent people from walking in after hours. These objects are called walls, fences, whatever you want to call them. They keep people out who are not supposed to be inside.

As humans, we take for granted our ability to automatically, instantly and subconsciously gauge their boundaries and act accordingly.

This out-of-touch grandma should've known that the store she was walking into had boundaries. Furthermore, she should have seen the myriad displays Apple keeps behind its glass panels; the doors are always open, and if she was trying to walk in after hours when the doors were closed she should be arrested for attempted trespassing.
post #80 of 160
If Apple made a special "senior friendly" store with yellow and black striped walls made of pillows they would be sued for age discrimination. When you have money, someone will always be scheming to get some of it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 83-year-old woman sues Apple after walking into glass retail store door