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.
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
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
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
Someone will catch the fact.
Is she the same women who burnt her lips on HOT coffee
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. ......
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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
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?
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.
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...
Someone will catch the fact.
Is she the same women who burnt her lips on HOT coffee
Skip
Could be her sister...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
this is just so fucking stupid...
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.
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.
*Knock-knock*
Who's there?
Little old lady.
Little old lady who?
I didn't know you could yodel.
Very good!
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!
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.
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).
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. ......
Yeah I gotta call bullshyt.
How do you not see the window, nor the actual DOOR HANDLES on the glass door?
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.
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.
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.