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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
?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.
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.
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 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.
...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...
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.
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.
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....
Also, Macrumors posted a picture showing the glass, that clearly has white markers along the whole glass at eye level.
You have fallen victim to MacDonalds PR damage control. Try finding information about the whole issue of MacDonalds and coffee temperature that has not been spun by paid PR people. It is sad that paid liars tend to prevail because so much money is at their disposal.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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).
?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OUCH
Double Ouch
...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...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K662b...ayer_embedded#!
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.
You would think right?
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....
Also, Macrumors posted a picture showing the glass, that clearly has white markers along the whole glass at eye level.
You have fallen victim to MacDonalds PR damage control. Try finding information about the whole issue of MacDonalds and coffee temperature that has not been spun by paid PR people. It is sad that paid liars tend to prevail because so much money is at their disposal.