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...?
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.
aimilah t1_je6uhk2 wrote
Because they have money.
[deleted] t1_je6uhyz wrote
Most shit these days doesn't.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
[deleted] t1_je6x33n wrote
[deleted]
Neither-Idea-9286 t1_je6ywvd wrote
Absolutely, they must have something or they would go with manslaughter charges.
[deleted] t1_je7073f wrote
[removed]
GallowBarb t1_je71edn wrote
Or the toxicology came back.
uniqueusername5001 t1_je722c2 wrote
tbf one of them doesn’t need any more doctor’s visits
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.
UncannyTarotSpread t1_je72dgw wrote
It’s the blunderbuss approach to litigation
[deleted] t1_je73pda wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
kevnmartin t1_je78bs6 wrote
"Why did you rob the bank?"
"Because that's where the money is."
dakotahawkins t1_je7a2nq wrote
Because if you don't, the parties you did file against will blame the one(s) you didn't.
[deleted] t1_je7afy6 wrote
[removed]
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.
Dumdumgirlsbeeep t1_je7dvrh wrote
Right. He’ll walk completely if they can’t prove this.
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.
[deleted] t1_je7fa3m wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je7hano wrote
[removed]
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.
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
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.
Indurum t1_je7m0ha wrote
I assumed being a part of derby street shoppes would mean they are a part of a mall.
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.
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.
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.
Dumdumgirlsbeeep t1_je7o5xl wrote
I just think how they over-charged Casey Anthony and she walked.
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.
[deleted] t1_je7orc9 wrote
[removed]
Dumdumgirlsbeeep t1_je7oua9 wrote
Same here. A painful & debilitating disease is too good for her. But one can hope 😊
[deleted] t1_je7pdcd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je7qpn5 wrote
[removed]
Mimehunter t1_je7s0nv wrote
Sounds like the same way the McDonald's hot coffee suit was portrayed.
[deleted] t1_je7s630 wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_je7upk1 wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_je7xht9 wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_je7zlyq wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_je800ng wrote
[removed]
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.
Adam_Ohh t1_je80mf4 wrote
I will maybe see you in court. I’m not sure if I’ll go that day.
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...
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.
edingerc t1_je84nqu wrote
Alex Jones? Is that you?
[deleted] t1_je85hjn wrote
[removed]
JustJro t1_je86t5n wrote
Guy is 51 was probably getting reading glasses we have no idea.
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.
azrael5298 t1_je897bd wrote
Prosecutor sounds like a complete ass.
[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.
[deleted] t1_je8as1b wrote
[removed]
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
[deleted] t1_je8c6ri wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je8edom wrote
[removed]
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.
Redqueenhypo t1_je8grcv wrote
I assume they’re really just suing the insurance to get their medical costs covered
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.
coach111111 t1_je8n7m0 wrote
Yea that’s past the age threshold of 50 when one automatically starts needing reading glasses
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.
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."
onetwentyeight t1_je8yknq wrote
They found he was wearing Crocs, straight to fashion jail
onetwentyeight t1_je8yp3c wrote
We wouldn't want you colored lights ruining our neighborhood now would we?
onetwentyeight t1_je8yrvr wrote
But bollards would just ruin their aesthetic and they could scratch a customer's car!
tesmatsam t1_je952qm wrote
They're necessary as your battery degrades
[deleted] t1_je95o8k wrote
[removed]
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
Oiggamed t1_je9gcvt wrote
And the eyeglass store is on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER!
[deleted] t1_je9h02p wrote
[removed]
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."
[deleted] t1_je9qnvr wrote
[removed]
NarrMaster t1_je9rv6m wrote
To be fair, he might not have seen it over there. Needing to go to the eyeglass store and all.
[deleted] t1_je9us6p wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bonesnaps t1_jeap1tu wrote
I hate Apple too but this is not the way.
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.
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.
Gritz_N_Gravy91 t1_jebt1jm wrote
$100,000 bond wtf. That’s nothing for murdering 1 and injuring 22 people.
[deleted] t1_jeeeknz wrote
[removed]
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?
[deleted] t1_je6tbyr wrote
[deleted]