|
Lady walks into Apple glass door, sues for $1 million
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 26 March, 2012
In what is likely one of the more ridiculous stories you'll read today, an 83-year-old grandma is suing Apple after she walked right into the famous all-glass doors of a Manhasset-area Apple Store.
Evelyn Paswall, a former VP at a fur-company in Manahattan, smashed her face into the glass door of the Long Island location after she failed to see the doors there.
Reads a statement from ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. March 2012 @ 23:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by greenacre:
1 million is too much but the claim is valid. A boy ran into a glass door where i work. He needed plastic surgery. The claim was that we did not put any warning signs on the door. We paid for the surgery.
I dont know what it looks like outside the apple store, but they should put barricades around the building with the exception of the entrance. Is there a sign anywhere saying where the entrance is?
We have tiles that look good but when it rains they become really slippery. Someone slipped. Is it our fault that it rained? No. but design should always have safety in mind.
Its an issue of aesthetics vs safety. I looked at the picture about and only realized where the entrance was after about 10 seconds.
You can say its an idiotic thing to do but it can happen to you.
Sure, slippery tiles are just asking for a lawsuit because people expect the ground to have grip (that is why they use those yellow warning things when they mop the floor)...but people have been using glass doors for well over a hundred years. Yes...people walk into them sometimes. Sometimes people walk into brick walls too. This woman didn't walk into the side of the building...SHE WALKED INTO THE DOOR! It isn't even a clear door...it has the apple logo etched into it and handles mounted on it. There are probably 10,000 other glass doors in NYC that are less visible. If they have to put up a bunch of warning signs that the glass door is not permeable, where does it end? I guess they would also have to put up signs that the warning signs are not permeable...and then more signs that those signs are not permeable...and better make the signs in every language while you are at it. Then, put up signs that there are moving vehicles in the parking lot, that lighting sometimes strikes during thunder storms, that forgetting to breathe might cause brain damage...and a whole bunch more signs telling everyone that all these signs are also impermeable. Next thing you know, someone is suing because all of the signs are an eyesore, taking away from the beauty of the city...and someone else is suing because they were attempting to read the signs as they drove by, and ran into the back of a truck.
You have to take some responsibility for yourself...and if you can't, then you should not be allowed out on the street because you are now a hazard to everyone.
As for the kid that ran into your glass door? His parents should pay for the surgery...and they should face charges. It is their job to raise the kid so he looks where he is going. It was just lucky that he didn't run out into traffic...some innocent motorist would have had to defend himself for running down little Johny when he darted out two feet in front of their car, leaving them no theoretical way of avoiding the crash. Just watch, someone will use that glass door case as a precedent when some other kid runs head-first into a red brick wall.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
greenacre
Newbie
|
27. March 2012 @ 23:58 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the comment but i checked the article above and it said she ran into the wall, not the door.
Quote:
On her way to return an iPhone, Paswall broke her nose after walking right into the wall of glass Apple has made famous for storefronts: "The defendant was negligent...in allowing a clear, see-through glass wall and/or door to exist without proper warning," reads the suit.
I still remember the classic case of the woman who got burned from the coffee at Mc Donalds, which resulted in them placing a warning sign that Coffee may be HOT (or something like that)
|
|
Mr_Bill06
Member
|
28. March 2012 @ 00:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Have you read the warnings on a toothpick wrapper lately? They are there because of a lawsuit. If people can't be counted on not to stick a toothpick into their eyes, they can't be counted on for anything.
Yes I can understand that. I think there should be a law you can't sue for something you did with a product that was not meant to be done with it, i.e. sticking a toothpick in ones eye. Even Like greenacre said about the coffee. I could understand if the lid was not on right and when it was handed to you it fell and burned you it would be there fault etc. Spilling coffee on yourself is well, your fault.
|
Junior Member
|
28. March 2012 @ 03:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's probably the children of this woman pushing her to sue for their benefit. I'm sure there is video footage of the incident that would show she was more than likely talking on the phone at the time.
|
Senior Member
|
28. March 2012 @ 10:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
maybe they have a video of her using an ipad or an iphone without a warning on the device that it can distract people.thats another million dollar lawsuit right there.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
28. March 2012 @ 13:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
As for the kid that ran into your glass door? His parents should pay for the surgery...and they should face charges. It is their job to raise the kid so he looks where he is going. It was just lucky that he didn't run out into traffic...some innocent motorist would have had to defend himself for running down little Johny when he darted out two feet in front of their car, leaving them no theoretical way of avoiding the crash. Just watch, someone will use that glass door case as a precedent when some other kid runs head-first into a red brick wall.
I'm right there with you KB! Case in point. My dumbass kid, we were visiting relatives for the holidays. They have 2 dogs. One a real love that wouldn't hurt a fly despite what you do to him, the other a real shit from 200 hundred paces. It HATED my kid. Despite the fact it gave my kid EVERY indication to leave it be, MY repeated ass beatings & lecturing to leave the animal alone, the relatives telling him to leave it alone, sequestering the dog, dumbass kid made up his mind that buppy needs love & that will make the world right - f*k dada & the rest of the family, we don't know shit.
Not 2 minutes after our backs are turned he scales a 3 story fence & is face to face to kiss the dog into blissful humane love. To which the animal greats him with half his face in his lap.
I didn't sue the family. I didn't have the dog put down. Nor did I beat my kid's ass again. Too late for that. 'Stupid' paid it's high price for admission.
This kind of crap needs to stop. I've walked into full-on, painted, shut doors before & was never compelled to sue anyone. Stupid hurts. GTFOI and GTFOY! So you're embarrassed. Wahh. Think next time. It's a mistake if you do it once. It's stupid if you keep doing it & expect a change in the results.
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 18:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by guy8689:
Am I the only one wondering what she was doing there? It's not like she was going to buy an Ipad.
She was returning her new iPhone.
|
Member
|
29. March 2012 @ 19:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow so much ignorance in one thread...
First McDonalds. It's fascinating that so many people have an opinion on this case, yet equally as many know nothing about the details. Do any of you know why McDonalds was liable? The coffee was being kept at 205 degrees, 10 below the boiling point. Thats almost 100 degrees hotter than needed to serve at a temperature acceptable to the average person. Regardless, a medical doctor testified that even if the coffee was being kept just 20 degrees cooler That woman's third degree burns would have been reduced to second. So yeah McDonalds screwed up big time. What most people also don't know is that the Judge granted a summary judgement afterwards reducing the amount by 20% due to her having to share some of the blame. After the lawyers took half, medical bills reimbursed, taxes on the rest, she didnt get nearly the 1 million dollars that everyone claims.
Next is the theory of punitive damages. The reason why punitive damages seem to be excessive is because they are meant to be just that; a punishment. If I punch you in the face and then a judge says, "hey just pay him $5" would that prevent me from punching people again? Hell no. Punitive awards are proportional to the wealth of the defendant. In fact when you look at it from those terms the $1 million dollars this lady is asking for is cheap. If this goes to court (and it wont) she could get much more. But we don't see things like this. All we see is other people getting easy money and we resent them because it's not us.
Finally the doctrine of strict liability. It's ironic that we criticize these lawsuits and their outcomes when the basis for their judgments is our most important protection as an individual against unethical business practices. Without it companies can do whatever they please since they can just feign ignorance or use countless other defenses that are anti consumer. The burden of proof becomes much more challenging and expensive.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
30. March 2012 @ 00:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Azuran:
Wow so much ignorance in one thread...
While your yang counterweight to the yin argument is indeed proportionate it still doesn't address the liability of the proposed 'victim' I.e., to what end does the 'victim' have to take responsibility for their actions?
Suing the electric saw manufacturer & blade manufacturer because the blade turns too fast & the blade too sharp. The pistol shoot to fast or too many bullets or too large a caliber. The pencil sharpener makes the pencil too sharp & the teacher let me sharpen it too much. My parents let me get out of bed that day...
Too what end does it stop? The hippie school I volunteer at at least teaches these little brats to take responsibility for their actions. I.e., what was "YOUR" part in the confrontation.
The lady bought "HOT" coffee. She obviously ordered it 7 they didn't offer iced coffee at the time, so there wasn't any confusion (& for the record, the pissing match was over the medical bills & that's what got blown out of proportion).
Our lady of the hour here somehow manged to walk INTO a glass house. Her dumb ass surely had to figure she was going to have to come out of said 'glass house' at one point or another, so I'm not buying it. Your argument for penalizing someone for building a glass building doesn't hold water. NY would have never allowed the permits for it's construction in the first place; despite the payoffs.
It's a grandstand lawsuit, nothing more. A simple ambulance chaser is trying to make a name.
|
Senior Member
|
30. March 2012 @ 02:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
personally i think they do serve coffee too hot at most places it should be hot not burn your mouth out when you drink it.
maybe she should be charged with vandalism for attacking a glass door.the second you walk outside your house you are responsible for your actions.if you walk into a solid object (thats not moving) its your own fault open your eyes.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
Member
|
30. March 2012 @ 15:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
to what end does the 'victim' have to take responsibility for their actions?
I believe I already addressed this. It's called comparative fault. The woman who sued McDonalds was found 20% liable and her damages were reduced.
Quote:
Your argument for penalizing someone for building a glass building doesn't hold water.
The law disagrees with you. See Leesa Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. and McMasker Enterprises, Inc.
|
|
ChikaraNZ
Junior Member
|
31. March 2012 @ 03:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Azuran:
Wow so much ignorance in one thread...
*snip*
Next is the theory of punitive damages. The reason why punitive damages seem to be excessive is because they are meant to be just that; a punishment. If I punch you in the face and then a judge says, "hey just pay him $5" would that prevent me from punching people again? Hell no. Punitive awards are proportional to the wealth of the defendant. In fact when you look at it from those terms the $1 million dollars this lady is asking for is cheap. If this goes to court (and it wont) she could get much more. But we don't see things like this. All we see is other people getting easy money and we resent them because it's not us.
Finally the doctrine of strict liability. It's ironic that we criticize these lawsuits and their outcomes when the basis for their judgments is our most important protection as an individual against unethical business practices. Without it companies can do whatever they please since they can just feign ignorance or use countless other defenses that are anti consumer. The burden of proof becomes much more challenging and expensive.
You're assuming Apple is wrong, and should be punished by your mention of punitive damages.
Now, despite the many questionable things Apple has done, I struggle to see how they can be at fault here to the tune of $1m.
People have a responsibility to actually look where they are walking!!
Now, if it turns out there were no warning stickers, no visible strips, no nothing, then Apple may be held liable (as clean glass only cant be seen) - but even if this is the case, I dont see how $1m is justified.
|
|
Whackattack
Newbie
|
31. March 2012 @ 08:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Should have gone to SpecSavers.
|
|
8686
Member
|
31. March 2012 @ 10:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I Can't believe this!
An 83 y/o woman using an iPhone?
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
31. March 2012 @ 15:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 8686:
I Can't believe this!
An 83 y/o woman using an iPhone?
Apple 'is' known for their warm fuzzy tech compliance for those who refuse to learn anything. Their sales pitch is 'user friendly/defined' or 'intuitive'. So much so they don't even bother putting any instructions (of any account) in the box with most of these things.
Basically, sign here, slide finger here, eat here, speak when spoken too... So strong is this new "Speak & Spell" audience they have, they have to tell them to look out for the f*king door & which foot to start walking with as well.
|
Member
|
31. March 2012 @ 22:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
You're assuming Apple is wrong, and should be punished by your mention of punitive damages.
Now, despite the many questionable things Apple has done, I struggle to see how they can be at fault here to the tune of $1m.
People have a responsibility to actually look where they are walking!!
Now, if it turns out there were no warning stickers, no visible strips, no nothing, then Apple may be held liable (as clean glass only cant be seen) - but even if this is the case, I dont see how $1m is justified.
I'm assuming apple is wrong to illustrate a point. I'm not trying to say Apple actually did something because I don't know all the details. Besides, you are treading on the wrong justification of how damages are awarded. The severity of the incident is only small part of it.
|
Newbie
|
1. April 2012 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL that is a funny story. Maybe they will need to tint all glass from now on. :)
|
|
Tarsellis
Member
|
1. April 2012 @ 16:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Idiotic. The Judge for hearing the case should be stripped of his status and imprisoned, as should the lawyer for accepting the case. Until we start holding accountable (which will NEVER happen) those who support and enable this behavior, things will only get worse.
|
|
kayburra
Inactive
|
1. April 2012 @ 23:26 |
Link to this message
|
All Apple has to do is present statistics showing how many thousands of people have passed through these glass doors without breaking their nose which will prove that THIS lady is a STUPID, BLIND, IDIOT who is trying to make a quick buck at the expense of Apple, one of the great done so very much to enhance life in so many different ways. More importantly the court should rule that this greedy, under-handed female dog should be put in a senior's home and ONLY allowed out with a carer AND a wheelchair, thereby preventing her from attempting anymore crooked schemes!
|
|
leglessoz
Junior Member
|
2. April 2012 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by williabr78:
This will soon be infront of all storefronts.
" WARNING! This building is a glass door."
Knowing Apple though it will be printed on a glass sign.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
2. April 2012 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
You know, it's some artist who designed these glass buildings that will probably get the blame in this. You know he/she will...
It's always the artists that do. What is it now, violent video games that cause violent behavior in youth today? What was this lady's excuse? Bathtub Gin of her folks or too many outings when the GI's were on leave from overseas during WW2?
Elvis & Jerry Lee Lewis got their turn in the barrel, while Judas Priest go trotted through the courts too. I'm surprised some dude didn't sue Salvidor Dali for getting droopy dick for having viewed one of his melting clock paintings.
Props to Tarsellis & his comments. They all need to be publicly humiliated for continually bringing this kind of idiocy up.
|
|
SoulGLOW
Member
|
8. April 2012 @ 18:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Entitlement, stupidity, the legal lottery... all of it can kiss my ass!!! The old bat managed to find her way in the damned place, make a purchase & then wants a lawsuit on the way out!?! Pound sand I say.
If it weren't for the fact she was female & didn't have to think (or basically move) she probably had 2 kids before she knew what was causing them. How the hell has she survived in New York in the first place for 85 years (if that's how long she lived there)?
I'd like to know how many other folks have donked their faces into the doors making their way out after having not payed attention as well & NOT managed to sue Apple over their incident as well.
This is BS. Pay for her nose, pay for a tank of gas in the car & drive her ass to the 'home'. Even if she does win a cool mill, it'll just be another excuse for Apple to raise their prices another $50.
Everyone knows I'm not a fan of Apple, but the legal lottery crap far exceeds the need to wipe out stupid across the planet.
Hey! HEY! I've been reading your posts for years and I've never seen you use the phrase "pound sand", nor anyone else for that matter. So the only logical deduction is that you saw one of my posts and decided to plagiarize me. That's Okay. I understand. I'm cool and you want to be like me. But listen here buddy. You gotta come up with your own material. Besides, that shit is trademarked, you know, TM... capital R with a circle around it.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
wkehr
Newbie
|
8. April 2012 @ 19:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Have you ever driven a car when the sun was in your field of view? Look at the picture and it becomes quite possible that the glass door facing the sun would not be seen.
Glass doors are generally under an opaque cover or inside a building.
In the picture it looks like one door is open. So she might have walked in without opening any door, and not seeing the glass on the way out would assume that she could leave the same as she arrived.
|
