Apple Store crash victims sue Apple over '100% preventable' crash

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 49
    There are numerous news of car crashing into a store causing death and damage. Does this lawyer want a law requiring every store built a barrier? 
  • Reply 42 of 49
    ronnronn Posts: 653member
    caskey said:
    ronn said:
    caskey said:

    Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
    What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.


    How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
    This wasn’t a crash and grab. This was an idiot who had a car accident. Apple has 0% fault here. Anyone trying to justify blame upon them for this is insane. That guy could have easily crashed through the front windows of any of the stores on that strip. It wouldn’t have made the news if not for the fact it was Apple. This is a non story and a BS lawsuit. 
    But he didn't crash through any of the other stores. He crashed through the Apple store. Apple and the property owners will have to prove that they shouldn't be held liable along with the driver. They have to answer why they had barriers put in place the very next day. They will have to explain why they have barriers in front of other Apple stores. I agree with others that they'll settle and cut their losses because it's pretty difficult to deny their portion of blame when they could have lessened or even stopped the possibility of harm in this type of scenario.
    edited December 2022
  • Reply 43 of 49
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,324member
    dewme said:
    jdw said:

    P.S.  I'm happy at least ONE AppleInsider article today allows Comments.  Totally hilarious to see all the Musk/Twitter articles today banning comments (i.e., stopping free speech) when it comes to topics that discuss free speech.  I've long taken issue with AppleInsider about that.  There are risks with freedom, but it's worth it.  No need to go full CCP to limit speech AppleInsider owners don't like.  You're not a true advocate of liberty until you afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I don't go around calling for total bans on those things.  And no, calling for more freedom to comment doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.  So long as no crimes are being committed and no laws broken, it's a fact that some speech may be pretty naught (personally, I had profanity), but that doesn't mean we need to censor anything and everything we don't like.  Loosening the comment restrictions is the right thing to do.  There really can be a proper balance, without the need to complete block all comments under multiple articles.  Blocking comments is more than just limiting speech. It's like AppleInsider is playing parent, spanking kids for having been naughty in other threads.  And yes, I've spoken to at least one AppleInsider author in the distance past who told me about SEO and how AppleInsider content appears in search engines as justification for censoring comments, but that argument was not persuasive at all in my humble opinion.  Strive for free speech whenever possible.  Thanks.
    I'm not surprised by your post.

    Maybe there's a compromise solution, like relocating articles that the AppleInsider moderation team flags as deviating from its commenting expectations to a different sub-forum, but only as long as the non-culled comments don't explicitly break any stated rules or guidelines? I personally have no desire to engage in an unmoderated forum.

     I can definitely see where the comment section of some articles do end end up going down very off-topic rabbit holes that have little to do with AppleInsider's mission statement and primary purpose. Of course any changes like I've suggested would impose more workload on the AppleInsider staff. The fact that there is already infrastructure in-place in the "All Forums" part of the AppleInsider site may lessen the required effort. I don't know.

    Fundamentally, as guests on AppleInsider we aren't really in a position to make any demands, but suggestions are always fair game. We should always respect the concerns of our host and recognize that they are running a business here. We also need to be mindful of the need to self-regulate and apply our own self-moderation mechanisms, which I think sometimes get desensitized in the midst of a hot topic. I understand how it happens and I'm not immune to the temptation to get sucked into some of the rabbit holes or step dangerously close to the boundaries of the rules.

    I think it's basic human nature to engage and participate and voice our opinions but we must always be aware of where the boundaries are and try not push things too far. We also need to take responsibility for what we "say" and self-test whether our posts are actually relevant to the topic at hand, ensure that what we post represents our original ideas, and make sure that what we post reflects our own personal perspectives and understanding of the topic itself or a topic-relevant adjacency. There are no real personal consequences of us shit-posting here other than getting banned, but AppleInsider can suffer business repercussions if their site becomes too toxic for advertisers to be associated with.

    Nothing I've said has anything to do with free speech, but it has everything to do with us being considerate for what AppleInsider provides for us in terms of allowing us to participate in discussions around topics and subjects that are of shared interest to everyone. We really should never do anything that places AppleInsider in a negative business position. I'm assuming that shutting down comments is a damage control action, not an imposition on our freedom of self expression. 

    Again, maybe there's a middle ground with mutual benefits that can be proposed by those who feel slighted by the eradication of comments from a topic. Fire away with some suggestions.

    I wasn't planning to respond to your post, because I greatly appreciated what you wrote and didn't feel the need to add anything to what you said.  However, @muthuk_vanalingam wrote a post that explained his feeling that something else was needed from me.  So in light of your "fire away" closing sentence, I will cite one example of where comments, now banned, can be useful...

    I have purchased two MS Office licenses because of AppleInsider advertising that.  No comments are allowed under those AppleInsider posts, which is a shame because I would like to post my 100% SATISFACTION with those license purchases, and I would also like to add my experience with customer support to say that in one case, the license number given to me was unusable, but after waiting 72 hours, their support staff (not affiliated with AppleInsider) supplied me with a new code that worked.  Honestly, I think comments like mine (what I just said) under the MS Office articles/ads would perhaps go toward making people feel more at ease with a purchase, allowing more sales of that.  Not sure how much AppleInsider makes off each sale, but more is better than less, right?

    Again, just one example of where comments may be a benefit for all concerned.

    By the way, whenever I find I cannot comment under an article here in the forum, I can usually go to FaceBook and find the same article.  Comments are not banned on FaceBook because they cannot be banned (I don't think).  So that is one way to let one's voice be heard.  It's just that I would sometimes rather write a comment here.  I prefer full fledged forums to FaceBook, especially when typing multiple paragraphs.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 49
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    ronn said:
    caskey said:
    ronn said:
    caskey said:

    Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
    What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.


    How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
    This wasn’t a crash and grab. This was an idiot who had a car accident. Apple has 0% fault here. Anyone trying to justify blame upon them for this is insane. That guy could have easily crashed through the front windows of any of the stores on that strip. It wouldn’t have made the news if not for the fact it was Apple. This is a non story and a BS lawsuit. 
    But he didn't crash through any of the other stores. He crashed through the Apple store. Apple and the property owners will have to prove that they shouldn't be held liable along with the driver. They have to answer why they had barriers put in place the very next day. They will have to explain why they have barriers in front of other Apple stores. I agree with others that they'll settle and cut their losses because it's pretty difficult to deny their portion of blame when they could have lessened or even stopped the possibility of harm in this type of scenario.

    Maybe you can think this way if you were a member of the EU Commission. And even then, it would be quite a stretch.

    NO, here in the US, Apple do not have to prove they are innocent. It's the lawyers representing the suing party that have to prove that Apple was negligent and did not use sound reasonable judgement when designing their store front, with regards to safety. Do you see any safety barriers in front of any of the other stores in the mall. If not, then why should Apple be held to a different standard when it comes to installing safety barriers in front of their store. Now if stores nearby had installed safety barriers and Apple did not, then there might be a case of Apple not using sound judgement when designing the front of their store. Or if there were several accidents involving cars leaving the road way at high speed and the mall did not address this issue with any of the store owners or didn't do anything to address the speeding issue, then there might be proof of negligence on part of the mall owner. 

    Apple DO NOT have to explain why some of their stores in other areas have safety barriers in front and others do not. The suing lawyers need to prove that Apple was negligent for not installing safety barriers, like in some of their other stores, at this store. Every Apple Store is in a different location that's subject to different safety laws, outside traffic conditions, crime rate and lease terms. It is absolutely illogical and lacks any common sense to say that Apple should be held negligent for not preventing the injuries caused by this accident because they did not install safety barriers to prevent smash and grab crimes, like in some of their other stores. Specially in an area where there is no history of smash and grab crimes. Unlike the area in SF, where many high end stores in the area have been victims of smash and grab crimes, multiple times. 

    Plus as I mentioned in an earlier post, nearly all smash and grab robberies involve using a hammer (or any device that can be used like a hammer) and rarely involve driving a  car through the store front, when the store is opened for business. No amount of safety barriers and bollards in front of the store, is going to prevent someone from smashing in the front glass, with a hammer. One of the  best defense for this type of smash and grab is to use heavy duty laminated glass. And as you can see in this case, Apple had installed. There is no need for Apple to install bollards to prevent a smash and grab crime when the glass they are using will do a good job in preventing such crimes. Not only that, from the photos I've seen of this store, Apple do not have any merchandise displayed behind the store front glass. What is there to grab, if the robber smashed in the front glass? So the only reason why Apple would install safety barriers in front of this store is if they had reasons to believe that there exist a reasonable risk of a car losing control at 60MPH, in a parking lot and smashing into the store front, without braking. And that is a reasonable risk that the lawyers have to prove that Apple had, not something that Apple (or the mall owner) have to prove they didn't have.

    Could it be that the reason why Apple placed safety barriers in front of this store the day after the accident is because there's now a big hole in the storefront glass and now even a car coasting at 5MPH can crash and easily enter the store through that hole. Thus placing their customers in danger, until the store front is fixed? Do you see any other stores in the mall placing safety barriers in front of their stores, now knowing that such an accident can also happen to them? Why not? Because they are not the one being sued? That's just silly thinking on your part.

  • Reply 45 of 49
    ronn said:
    caskey said:
    ronn said:
    caskey said:

    Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
    What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.


    How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
    This wasn’t a crash and grab. This was an idiot who had a car accident. Apple has 0% fault here. Anyone trying to justify blame upon them for this is insane. That guy could have easily crashed through the front windows of any of the stores on that strip. It wouldn’t have made the news if not for the fact it was Apple. This is a non story and a BS lawsuit. 
    But he didn't crash through any of the other stores. He crashed through the Apple store. Apple and the property owners will have to prove that they shouldn't be held liable along with the driver. They have to answer why they had barriers put in place the very next day. They will have to explain why they have barriers in front of other Apple stores. I agree with others that they'll settle and cut their losses because it's pretty difficult to deny their portion of blame when they could have lessened or even stopped the possibility of harm in this type of scenario.
    Here's a scenario...someone drives through your front lawn and crashes through the front of your house and injures a guest in your home. I'd love to see how you'd feel about that person suing you for not preventing an idiot for crashing into your property.
  • Reply 46 of 49
    ronnronn Posts: 653member
    caskey said:
    ronn said:
    caskey said:
    ronn said:
    caskey said:

    Do the other stores in the mall have large sheets of glass for entrances? Why does Apple have barriers at many of their other stores? How many instances has Apple had of vehicles used in smash in grabs at their stores over the years? If stores "have barriers installed behind their stores in for theft and loss prevention," why not in the front which is much more vulnerable, especially in this instance with a glass wall? There will be depositions and paperwork looked over with a fine-tooth comb in search of answers to all those questions and more. This is just the beginning of the lawsuits with at least two employees already suing (although they're currently not suing Apple, just the driver and the property owners).
    What does having large glass windows have anything to do with this? It’s a strip mall. They all have large primarily glass entrances. That’s how retail stores work. They want to show off what they have inside. This accident didn’t happen because they have large windows. It happened because some moron, jammed his foot on the gas and went through an area he shouldn’t have. Apple is not to blame for any of this. This is purely a cash grab by greedy lawyers.


    How many crash and grabs at stores for Nantucket Kids, Loft, Allbirds, Cava, etc? Crash & Grabs have been happening at Apple stores for more than a decade. Some stores more than once. The Apple Store glass walls are nowhere near the same as other stores' glass entrances. They're basically large sheets of glass as in the Hingham store. It's a miracle it took this long for the something like to this happen, intentionally or not.
    This wasn’t a crash and grab. This was an idiot who had a car accident. Apple has 0% fault here. Anyone trying to justify blame upon them for this is insane. That guy could have easily crashed through the front windows of any of the stores on that strip. It wouldn’t have made the news if not for the fact it was Apple. This is a non story and a BS lawsuit. 
    But he didn't crash through any of the other stores. He crashed through the Apple store. Apple and the property owners will have to prove that they shouldn't be held liable along with the driver. They have to answer why they had barriers put in place the very next day. They will have to explain why they have barriers in front of other Apple stores. I agree with others that they'll settle and cut their losses because it's pretty difficult to deny their portion of blame when they could have lessened or even stopped the possibility of harm in this type of scenario.
    Here's a scenario...someone drives through your front lawn and crashes through the front of your house and injures a guest in your home. I'd love to see how you'd feel about that person suing you for not preventing an idiot for crashing into your property.
    My house in NYC has a gate and planters around the front and back, one of the few that does and it isn't at either corner of the street. My rental property in Virginia has columns, planters and a moderately tall wall since it's on the corner and more likely to suffer car crashes. Protective measure put in decades ago. Neither has high vehicle traffic like the Hingham mall, especially the Apple Store that's adjacent to parking.
  • Reply 47 of 49
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,324member
    @dewme @muthuk_vanalingam ;
    Here's yet another AppleInsider article that has banned comments for no good reason at all:
    https://appleinsider.com/inside/apple-tv-plus/tips/how-to-watch-a-charlie-brown-christmas-for-free-in-2022

    The reason that is tragic and sad is because when I click the link and follow the instructions, it does not work.  I wanted to post my experience about it not working but banned comments prevents me from doing so.  It could be too early.  Or maybe it's the fact I am in Japan?  Regardless, the instructions do not work for me today.  It opens in the AppleTV app on my macOS Monterey Mac but it only shows "Start Free Trial" and "Add to Up Next" buttons.  There is no Play button at all.  It's not watchable for free for me.
  • Reply 48 of 49
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,335member
    Talk about life imitating … other life, driving home today and see several emergency/police vehicles surrounding an Amish family market. Was already committed to pulling in and asked one of the employees if it was okay to go inside. The person responded, sure, no problem. 

    Turns out an elderly gentleman accidentally hit the Go pedal instead of the Stop pedal on his car and crashed into the front of the market, displacing a chunk of the porch. Thankfully nobody was injured, just shaken up and surprised at what happened. The driver seemed a little shaken up and was talking to a first responder as I left with my baked goods. 

    I imagine these scenarios occur more frequently than we see reported on the news, even in small villages in rural areas. 
  • Reply 49 of 49
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,324member
    Here's yet another new article with comments forbidden...
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/12/08/fbi-deeply-concerned-about-apples-new-security-protections

    Most of us dislike being spied on.  AppleInsider knows this and bans comments, most likely to prevent negativity.  But most of our comments tend to be negative under most articles, so I don't see that comment ban as accomplishing much of anything other than a selective limiting of speech, which AI has the "right" to do, but is frustrating for us who normally post comments nonetheless.  

    Why do human beings hate confinement or being put in prison?  Because it limits our freedom.  Having comments banned under a given article is like a small digital prison.  That's why we often roll our eyes and internally do a Mel Gibson scream...


Sign In or Register to comment.