Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_je6tlrp wrote

>Several victims have filed lawsuits against the owner of the property, the developer, the management of the property, Apple and Rein, alleging negligence.

Why the owner, developer, management, or Apple? That doesn't make any sense...?


aimilah t1_je6uhk2 wrote

Because they have money.


kevnmartin t1_je78bs6 wrote

"Why did you rob the bank?"

"Because that's where the money is."


mishap1 t1_je6ujrw wrote

The driver doesn’t even have his 4Runner anymore. Not gonna get a whole lot from him. Apple has over $50B cash on hand. Lawyers look for the deepest pockets.


BF_2 t1_je7we06 wrote

Not to mention that it makes no sense whatsoever to have a parking lot by a building and NOT to have bolsters there to take the first impact from a runaway vehicle. Any business that lacks these has some liability when a vehicle come through their front wall.


onetwentyeight t1_je8yrvr wrote

But bollards would just ruin their aesthetic and they could scratch a customer's car!


bananafobe t1_je7d8ud wrote

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.


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.


jazzdrums1979 t1_je73qtz wrote

Being local to where the crash happened, Hingham, MA is a very affluent and litigious community. You bet your ass those people are going to sue. They have laws about what color Christmas lights you can use on the Main Street.


PETNman t1_je7m9ma wrote

And it better be goddamn red and green like Mrs. Clause intended when she won her suit, Clause vs Home Depot.


Adam_Ohh t1_je7yl98 wrote

IIRC from having family who live there, it’s white lights only.


PETNman t1_je7zkp2 wrote

Well then, see you in court.


Adam_Ohh t1_je80mf4 wrote

I will maybe see you in court. I’m not sure if I’ll go that day.


onetwentyeight t1_je8yp3c wrote

We wouldn't want you colored lights ruining our neighborhood now would we?


FauxReal t1_jeakhcb wrote

Not just any red or green either. They better come from this chart of approved Christmas red and greens. If I see one damn springtime Kelly green or a St. Patrick's Day green in there... God help me, somebody will pay dearly.


AwhLerd t1_je6wduy wrote

I’m assuming the front of the store lacked safety bollards to stop vehicles from entering thru the giant glass entrance.


idk_lets_try_this t1_jeef5il wrote

Yea, the building was not wearing a high vis vest or was crossing without looking. Or is that only the argument for pedestrians/cyclist being hit by a car that is speeding?


Indurum t1_je75i3n wrote

Apple likely isn’t in control of what the front of the store looks like if it isn’t part of their actual store wall. That would be the mall property owner.


SatisfactionNaive370 t1_je7ioc7 wrote

This was not a mall location; this is an Apple standalone build. The facade is entirely up to them. And so is having no bollards.


Indurum t1_je7m0ha wrote

I assumed being a part of derby street shoppes would mean they are a part of a mall.


AwhLerd t1_je7sb58 wrote

I think almost every Apple Store I’ve been inside has been essentially a giant wall to wall glass entrance. Can’t remember seeing bollards at any of them tho.


SavantTheVaporeon t1_je766wj wrote

When filing a lawsuit, it’s smart to file it against every party even slightly involved and let the judge or jury determine fault. That’s just how it’s done.


dakotahawkins t1_je7a2nq wrote

Because if you don't, the parties you did file against will blame the one(s) you didn't.


The_PantsMcPants t1_je6v2a7 wrote

Pay to defend the case or cash the victims out for less, it's always math when it comes to litigation


SomeOtherOrder t1_jebl4g5 wrote

Search for deep pockets, aka “someone’s gotta pay”

The guy who drove his car through the store probably doesn’t even have adequate insurance limits to cover the property damage, let alone the fatality and all of the other injuries.

Juries are going to be sympathetic to the victims here. This won’t even go to trial if any of the parties involved have any sense.


Redqueenhypo t1_je8grcv wrote

I assume they’re really just suing the insurance to get their medical costs covered


BunchaCreeps t1_je9b5bd wrote

Lots of storefronts these days have something near the road to stop this kind of thing as a safety measure. It’s not for the aesthetic


mynameisalso t1_jeb1omy wrote

I can't remember the last time I was in a store that didn't have those poles out front to prevent this exact thing.

In the US victims have little recourse but to sue, since there's no safety net for their loss income and medical bills.


WirelessBCupSupport t1_je80w3b wrote

Well, typically, any storefront that has a sidewalk, all glass front walls and faces parking should have had bollards out front. Which then architects and property owners argue over aesthetics and cost. Who knows if Apple's location was that it wasn't obstructed by ugly columns or planters. Lawyers look for money...