bananafobe t1_je7d8ud wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Driver who crashed into Apple store charged with murder by kas435red
Reagan used to have a laugh line about a guy who got hit by a car while on a phone booth and sued the phone company.
The context he failed to acknowledge was that the booth was on a blind corner, had been hit multiple times, was damaged and wouldn't open correctly (trapping the victim inside), and the phone company had ignored multiple requests/orders to repair and relocate the booth.
It's entirely possible the Apple store and/or mall did everything required of them to provide a safe shopping experience, but if it happens that they failed in some way to provide adequate protection (e.g., opted for large windows, removed bollards that would have been the standard for a store at that location, ignored warnings, etc.), then there may be some genuine basis for holding them accountable.
Mimehunter t1_je7s0nv wrote
Sounds like the same way the McDonald's hot coffee suit was portrayed.
confusinghuman t1_je81uhc wrote
yeah, and a lot people don't realize she was very seriously burned, i think requiring skin grafts even. it was not frivolous at all.
Noisy_Toy t1_je8bp8p wrote
Great HBO documentary about that case, and about civil litigation in America. It’s really the only way consumers have to push back against companies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
Free on Pluto tv. https://pluto.tv/en/on-demand/movies/58b0771a2c7d95ff8192b529
KayakerMel t1_je7zyz2 wrote
Local here - the lack of the bollards is a huge factor. A lot of local news stories brought this up. The location is also at the end of a straight roadway, hence how the vehicle was able to get up to speed.
MelaniasHand t1_je87mrs wrote
It’s not really off that straight path, though. That would lead into Burton’s. He had to have taken the corner just enough to avoid the front of Burton’s sticking out and go right into there Apple Store.
The murder charge means the prosecution thinks it was intentional.
[deleted] t1_je8apvh wrote
None of the stores in that strip mall have bollards. Nor are there any in any other nearby strip malls. And plenty of those stores have glass fronts.
ferrari91169 t1_je8kghi wrote
That doesn't really matter though. Apple, or probably moreso the property management, are not absolved of liability just because other companies in the area are equally lacking in having the safety measures in place to help stop a vehicle from making it's way through the store front.
[deleted] t1_je8lm9d wrote
There is no such law in Massachusetts.
ferrari91169 t1_je8njs2 wrote
There doesn't necessarily need to be a law in place that says "all buildings adjacent to a road must have bollards", it will come down to a lot of factors outside of that. This is actually how precedents and laws are made.
For instance, if there are records of complaints or reports being made for similar incidents in the past, even for circumstances where they were near misses that didn't actually strike the building, and the property owners did nothing to take precautions against similar incidents in the future, that will work heavily against them.
As the property owners, they are liable for what happens on their property and should be working to make everything safe for their customers and other persons who are on the property, and ignoring obvious safety hazards, even if there isn't specific laws covering them, can leave them at fault.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments