Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

shewy92 t1_je76i2q wrote

>Rein told police he was looking for an eyeglasses store

>Rein told police he had no medical issues that would impair his ability to drive

Except perhaps not being able to see maybe?

190

JustJro t1_je86t5n wrote

Guy is 51 was probably getting reading glasses we have no idea.

36

coach111111 t1_je8n7m0 wrote

Yea that’s past the age threshold of 50 when one automatically starts needing reading glasses

18

[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...?

139

aimilah t1_je6uhk2 wrote

Because they have money.

227

kevnmartin t1_je78bs6 wrote

"Why did you rob the bank?"

"Because that's where the money is."

63

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.

88

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.

28

onetwentyeight t1_je8yrvr wrote

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

6

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.

71

Mimehunter t1_je7s0nv wrote

Sounds like the same way the McDonald's hot coffee suit was portrayed.

40

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.

28

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.

20

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.

5

[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.

−5

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.

8

[deleted] t1_je8lm9d wrote

There is no such law in Massachusetts.

0

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.

3

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.

63

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.

20

Adam_Ohh t1_je7yl98 wrote

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

16

PETNman t1_je7zkp2 wrote

Well then, see you in court.

13

Adam_Ohh t1_je80mf4 wrote

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

9

onetwentyeight t1_je8yp3c wrote

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

8

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.

1

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.

41

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?

1

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.

−17

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.

17

Indurum t1_je7m0ha wrote

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

−6

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.

3

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.

18

dakotahawkins t1_je7a2nq wrote

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

14

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

7

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.

2

Redqueenhypo t1_je8grcv wrote

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

1

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

1

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.

1

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...

0

pegothejerk t1_je6uv0t wrote

> The new murder charge moves the case to Brockton Superior Court, where he will be arraigned at a later date, prosecutors said. The district attorney’s office did not explain why Rein was charged with murder.

Huh. Wonder if they collected evidence like texts or a recorded conversation where he admitted to wanting to ram the store with his car but not wanting to kill anyone. 2nd degree is risky without some evidence to that effect.

87

Dumdumgirlsbeeep t1_je7dvrh wrote

Right. He’ll walk completely if they can’t prove this.

24

Vuedue t1_je7myhp wrote

They have to have some form of evidence that they have which led them to make this charge. If they did not have that evidence, they would have gone with a manslaughter charge.

20

Dumdumgirlsbeeep t1_je7o5xl wrote

I just think how they over-charged Casey Anthony and she walked.

25

Vuedue t1_je7of2e wrote

That’s completely fair. We just have to hope they have the evidence to back this up. They apparently believe they do. As for Anthony, that woman still retains my hatred to this day.

13

Dumdumgirlsbeeep t1_je7oua9 wrote

Same here. A painful & debilitating disease is too good for her. But one can hope 😊

6

onetwentyeight t1_je8ygb2 wrote

Or they could turn a blind eye to it like every traffic fatality involving a car and a pedestrian or bicyclist.

Nothing beats the ignorant rhetoric of: "It was the pedestrian/cyclist's/apple customer's fault for not being safer around cars."

4

GallowBarb t1_je71edn wrote

Or the toxicology came back.

15

berrset2 t1_je7iwia wrote

The article said he was breath tested and no alcohol was found in his system

Not sure what else they’d find that would cause someone to ram into a store. The guy said his foot was stuck on the gas pedal. They have to know something that they aren’t saying

12

GallowBarb t1_je7o22b wrote

Blood work can take time. Some labs are more thorough. Others may not have the ability to test for certain substances. Particularly, ones that don't remain in the bloodstream very long.

15

Neither-Idea-9286 t1_je6ywvd wrote

Absolutely, they must have something or they would go with manslaughter charges.

3

claimsnthings t1_je7t16p wrote

I’m from this area. Idk what person drives around Derby Shoppes looking for an eyeglasses store. It’s a fancy outdoor shopping plaza. Except for the Kohls.

19

Oiggamed t1_je9gcvt wrote

And the eyeglass store is on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER!

4

NarrMaster t1_je9rv6m wrote

To be fair, he might not have seen it over there. Needing to go to the eyeglass store and all.

0

LampardFanAlways t1_je6tq1o wrote

A lawsuit against Apple cos they didn’t install barriers that stop big cars?

I mean I’m not a capitalist but what are businesses supposed to do? This could have happened at a bakery run by middle class people. Should they have spent money to protect themselves from cars?

I have dined outdoors at restaurants in downtown areas where someone is parallel parking three feet away from me while I’m drinking beer. If they get their shit wrong and hit me and if I survive, I’m not going after the restaurant. I chose to sit at that table. There’s nothing the restaurant could have done to stop an atrocious driver.

If Apple has to pay up, in theory it would mean every business establishment has the responsibility to fortify their store from car crashes.

17

Puzzleworth t1_je6uw9t wrote

It's not about Apple or the plaza ownership themselves, it's the survivors or their insurance trying to get some money for the hospital bills. Obviously you can sue the driver but it's going to be hard to collect if everyone sues him.

34

Ivedefected t1_je729vt wrote

The storefront is entirely glass and very large, unlike most other businesses. It's common to have bollards installed in front of them. Even large stores that have fairly normal entrances in walkable areas typically have them. I actually can't think of a store near me that doesn't have them.

I don't see how a case like this would necessarily apply to every business establishment everywhere. There's clearly an added safety risk due to the design of this store in particular.

11

theloreofthelaw t1_je74ghs wrote

Calculus of Negligence/ Learned Hand rule. If the burden/cost of taking precautions is less than the severity of the harm times the probability of the harm occurring and you don't take those precautions (PL>B), you've breached your duty and may be held liable for negligence.

Edit: confused as to the downvotes. It’s a real thing that US courts use. It’s taught in law school torts 1 classes as basically one of the 1st things law students learn.

8

Captain_America_93 t1_je8g9p0 wrote

They don’t care if it’s real and you sourced your statement. It didn’t confirm their biases so of course you’ll be downvoted.

4

puppeto t1_je7spyy wrote

I work for a large retailer and while we already had barricades at the entrances we are now even beefing those up with more robust solutions. I've found others that work in my industry are doing the same improvements for many other retailers as well.

I can see Apple being on the hook here if they didn't add any type of bollards or other protection measures due to aesthetics (which fanboy or hater Apple is known to prioritize appearance over function sometimes). There is a reasonable expectation to design in highly trafficked areas in a manner that protects pedestrian/patrons from automobile intrusion into the building or walking paths.

6

bananafobe t1_je7enyb wrote

Without speaking to any specific details of this incident, from what I understand about the law, if the Apple store or the mall diverged from an accepted standard (e.g., using big windows instead of walls, failing to install bollards, etc.), then those decisions can be considered in the context of whether they increased the likelihood that someone would be injured in such an event.

It seems like they probably won't be held responsible, but we also don't know the details. It could come out that this was a specific concern at some point and someone chose not to address it, that they deliberately chose to design their storefront in this way despite the increased risk, etc.

In similarly cited cases (e.g., suing McDonald's for serving hot coffee, suing the phone company after a driver crashed into a phone booth, etc.) once you look closer, it turns out there were ignored warnings, previous accidents, and decisions made for the sake of costs rather than safety. I'm not saying that definitely applies here, but it's not something we can just assume isn't the case.

1

puppeto t1_je7tinr wrote

They'll be paying out at least a settlement here. Looking at photos from the crash there are zero bollards protecting the building and even the curb to the sidewalk is flush with the driving surface.

I'm not sure who is about to have their civil engineering license revoked, but holy shit this is a big miss in following industry standards.

2

cbcmama781 t1_je809d7 wrote

What’s wild is that since the accident, bollards have gone up. But they haven’t gone up anywhere else in the center. Every store is ten feet from any parking space and no other organization thought that protecting themselves and their employees was going to be of value.

1

fullload93 t1_je7lseo wrote

Unless cops/prosecutor found evidence of premeditation or desire to kill/injure…. They are gonna have a hard time proving this. So my bet is that they have something indicating this wasn’t an accident but intentional.

16

batcaveroad t1_je9xkbq wrote

It’s a Toyota so they might have the black box data if the airbags deployed. That would tell them if he didn’t use the brakes.

3

fullload93 t1_jeabduo wrote

Don’t all modern cars have “black boxes” nowadays? I don’t think it being a Toyota would make it any different but you bring up a valid point.

3

batcaveroad t1_jeafkaz wrote

Probably, I just know Toyotas specifically have them because it came up a lot in all the uncontrolled acceleration stuff like 10 years ago.

2

idontsmokeheroin t1_je9zq8r wrote

I worked at that store in Hingham. That’s a corner. There’s just no way you could mistake that shit. He did that shit on purpose for some fuckin’ reason.

3

azrael5298 t1_je897bd wrote

Prosecutor sounds like a complete ass.

2

bonesnaps t1_jeap1tu wrote

I hate Apple too but this is not the way.

1

Gritz_N_Gravy91 t1_jebt1jm wrote

$100,000 bond wtf. That’s nothing for murdering 1 and injuring 22 people.

1

Oddball_bfi t1_je9hcnd wrote

I mean - that's a grim old headline.

It could have been much more jolly if it had read, "Driver who crashed into Apple store charged with law which only applies in store" with the subheader, "Fine expected to be three times that received by driver who crashed in to Samsung store."

0