Woman sues Apple for its glass doors in its retail stores

When Apple first launched its retail store operation over 10 years ago, the company decided it wanted to give the stores a more modern and high tech look. That included a lot of sleek designs like the one pictured above at the New York City Upper West side location. Apple stores also included glass doors for its store fronts. Now those same doors are the subject of a new lawsuit filed by a woman who had an unfortunate experiences with one of them.

The New York Post reports that Evelyn Paswall, 83, of New York City's Queens borough, has filed a lawsuit against Apple saying that the glass doors that it uses in its retail store locations are a "danger" to some people.

Paswall claims that she was returning an iPhone to the Apple store on Manhasset, Long Island on December 13th and didn't see that the glass doors were closed. She ran into the doors and claims she broke her nose in the process. She is now blaming Apple for her injury and is suing the company for $1 million.

Paswall says in her lawsuit that Apple " ... was negligent . . . in allowing a clear, see-through glass wall and/or door to exist without proper warning." In an interesting twist, the report says the same store does now have small warning strips placed on the glass doors; Apple itself has not yet commented on the lawsuit.

Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft confirms that it blocks Pirate Bay links on Messenger

Next Story

Microsoft offers proposal for faster web and mobile apps

136 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

She got in the store in the first place, so she knew WHERE the door was, it wasn't where she was walking.
Second she saw the Door rails to open the door where she got in, apparently didn't see them on way out as she didn't reach for a door rail ( why she broke nose as she went face first I to it ) I don't try and open doors with my face, I open doors with my hand/arm
Third is the simple fact that she ignored all of the above, she was prolly screwing around with her iPhone paying more attention to her phone then where she was walking

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,

Apparently I am wrong, she was Entering the store, not exiting, the video I saw of it was of a woman face planting EXITING the store nowhere near the door.

Personally speaking I have been to an apple store 3 times in life, I have seen the door every time. So I still fault the woman, as my comment about opening doors with hand still stands.

She prolly thought it was an automatic door like the grocery store

To hear many of the comments on here against the elderly is it any wonder that America is going down the toilet..... Not only this but American children have the lowest quality of life as well in the West.

winrez said,
Lets hope the security camera footage makes it way to youtube

It was out when the story broke, she literally and briskly face plants into the corner wall ( wasn't anywhere near where she entered )

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,

It was out when the story broke, she literally and briskly face plants into the corner wall ( wasn't anywhere near where she entered )

Ignore, wrong vid

better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a old senile fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

then again. stupidity is a virtue these days. why not flaunt it? lmfao.

Albert said,
better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a old senile fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

then again. stupidity is a virtue these days. why not flaunt it? lmfao.

I see that you are taking your own advice......

Were the door handles and hinges completely invisible too? Is it not clear where the boundaries of the store starts? I'd think you would be able to notice the floor changing slightly as to where the inside part is, and thus looking out for a door. Plus there weren't other people coming in or out these same doors?

I don't know the specific of these stores, but it's seems unbelievable with good or bad eyesight, you can at least have a gist of where a door is before you enter.

You know what, let's look at some interesting facts...

A) She's 83 years old
B) She's from New York City's Queens borough
C) She's suing for $1,000,000 for a broken nose

This is a classic case of American greed, and in this case probably Queen's greed, to get money from someone who has it, because you are too stupid to think "a store always has a door" and not looking before going in.

I'm sorry, flame me all you want, but I have ZERO respect for this person. I might be sympathetic if she sued for $1,000 or even $10,000 + medical expenses, but the fact she's going after $1,000,000 proves she's a money hungry b__ch that can go to hell!

Reminds me of the old lawsuit an old fart launched against the manufacturer of a motor home; lady thought "cruise control" meant the damn thing could drive itself, so went to the back while doing 70mph on the highway, and sued for millions when it went off a cliff, and won!

OH this is sooooo stupid, are people becoming this freaking stupid these days? And to take your stupidity out of someone else.

OH I run into something I should've looked out for it's Apple's fault though because I couldn't see it because I'm old, nice excuse! How about bad luck and move on? That would be the normal/ mature thing to do!

I've seen an old man walk into a glass wall right next to a glass door, and this place did have warning stickers at eye level.

People shouldn't be able to sue just because they weren't paying enough attention. If she could work out where the doors were on a building with glass walls, then she could of used enough common sense to judge that they may be closed.

The point of the $1,000,000 is that if you sue a company like Apple for just medical bills and even pain and suffering they will pay you and keep their glass doors as is, which many others may get hurt on. If Apple has to pay $1,000,000 (Which i think is actually too low) then they may consider replacing their doors or at the very least placing warning strips or decals on them to avoid such penalties. The amount MUST be proportional to what they can afford, just like how in sports their fines are usually more than the sports fans make in a year.

Invizibleyez said,
The amount MUST be proportional to what they can afford, just like how in sports their fines are usually more than the sports fans make in a year.

Why? Surely the right thing is to have compensation equal the fiscal damages suffered to the claimant - why should someone get more than they are owed or deserve?

I'm not saying that Apple is or isnt in the wrong - it would really depend on the facts of the case - although i think it's absurd that this is the world we live in - I do however think that £1m is more than excessive - to be cold and blunt about it - its not like that broken nose is going to have a massive impact on her life - and if it does... it won't for much longer

Ah nice. So its now Apple's fault that she couldn't watch where she was going. Its not really that difficult to see the doors were shut.
Take some personal responsibility and move along.

What's next? Blind people suing every store because they don't have acoustic signs at their door?

When you see a building made of glass, it's VERY obvious and logical that this building could also have glass doors. As much as I hate Apple, they're clearly not responsible for people bashing their faces into the doors.

Maybe I should sue my architect because I could oversee when my window is open and jump out of the window by mistake.

how fast was the old lady going to break her nose, granted she is probably more frail than i am, but still. she must of been sprinting

mrpakiman said,
how fast was the old lady going to break her nose, granted she is probably more frail than i am, but still. she must of been sprinting

it dosnt take much force to break your bones when your old. god help you if you ever slip on a public footpath and fratcure a bone.

Sorry but this lady is an idiot for suing. I'm sorry but if she is having trouble seeing, maybe try new glasses, eye surgury, cane or seeing eye dog..

But the first clue should have been the miracle of the big door handles just floating in the middle of the air if she thought the door was open. Two door handles side by side means the doors are closed. Only one handle and one of the doors are open and one closed (choose wisely). If you see no handles either both doors are open or your not at the door and need to search for the right place to enter.

Give her the bill for has-mat cleanup and cleaning the windows she dirtied by ramming her idiotic face into them.

ozyborn said,
Give her the bill for has-mat cleanup and cleaning the windows she dirtied by ramming her idiotic face into them.

I bet that you really love your grandma.... NOT!

dsl55dsl said,
I hate how people these days take no responsability.

Its especially bad when Corporations don't either.....

Reminds me of the old lady that got burned by the McDonald's coffee. Though, she actually won. That's why all their cups say "THIS IS REALLY F'N HOT". Ok, not exactly that but yeah, more or less. haha

laserfloyd said,
Reminds me of the old lady that got burned by the McDonald's coffee. Though, she actually won. That's why all their cups say "THIS IS REALLY F'N HOT". Ok, not exactly that but yeah, more or less. haha

This is so the first thing that went through my mind when I saw this article's title.

Great, now blind people are going to sue businesses and residential worldwide for having doors they can't see either. ****ING fantastic.

Soldier 95B said,
Great, now blind people are going to sue businesses and residential worldwide for having doors they can't see either. ****ING fantastic.

There's a big difference between being blind, and doors you cannot see *while looking at them*.

If you did want to do a weird analogy, it would be a door that the blind cannot *feel*.

Kirkburn said,

There's a big difference between being blind, and doors you cannot see *while looking at them*.

If you did want to do a weird analogy, it would be a door that the blind cannot *feel*.

It's not a weird analogy. Did you miss the posts where they said the lady was so old that she could barely see?

I do wonder if people read these comments, or just get flippant on purpose.

Yes, yours was a weird analogy. Blind people cannot sue for being unable to see something, because it makes no logical sense. You can't sue for being unable to use a sense that you don't have.

Given that she *can* see, things that rely on sight should be visible.

So I've seen Apple store doors with white handles, apple store doors with wooden handles, and apparently there are sliding doors with no handles: https://imgur.com/NxNI6 on some of them. So perhaps until we see the door that she walked into we should reserve judgment about the visibility of the doors eh?

Midnight Mick said,
83 year old "Ran"?!

Quite. There's a get out right there: if you're going too fast to notice glass doors it's not the store's fault if you run into them.

Should have gone to SpecSavers before the Apple Store. Oh, and she's not some poor old lady. She made her money from running a fur trade business. Just thought I'd throw that titbit out there.

And that is the reason why I can't have an iPhone, if it's cool enough for an 83 year old woman, then it isn't for me.

Guess not everyone going into a Apple store is a "genius" LOL. Maybe I need to take my contacts out, start walking around stores and walking into the doors, make a buck or two.

Someday you are also gonna be old and not likely to notice a glass door. Even if was an accident, the least Apple could do is cover all her costs of nose surgery, pay her compensation, issue an apology and change the design across all the stores. But 1 million is a bit excessive.

Here's an idea: how about she take responsibility for own actions? The whole "I'm entitled to have someone else pay because I'm an idiot" mentality in this country is pathetic.

xpclient said,
Someday you are also gonna be old and not likely to notice a glass door. Even if was an accident, the least Apple could do is cover all her costs of nose surgery, pay her compensation, issue an apology and change the design across all the stores. But 1 million is a bit excessive.

how do you normally open a door...glass or otherwise? you press/pull the bar/handle/ring/etc. Clearly there was some device attached TO the glass door to facilitate opening it. regardless of the makeup of the door, she could've easily seen the bar/etc.

SirEvan said,

how do you normally open a door...glass or otherwise? you press/pull the bar/handle/ring/etc. Clearly there was some device attached TO the glass door to facilitate opening it. regardless of the makeup of the door, she could've easily seen the bar/etc.

Not really. One of the Apple stores here has wooden handles on the door and wooden floors. It's really easy to miss them if you're looking down at them. Another one of them has white handles and white walls - If you were looking at them straight on I could see how it would be possible to miss them.

kdg said,
Here's an idea: how about she take responsibility for own actions? The whole "I'm entitled to have someone else pay because I'm an idiot" mentality in this country is pathetic.

Well stated.

xpclient said,
Someday you are also gonna be old and not likely to notice a glass door. Even if was an accident, the least Apple could do is cover all her costs of nose surgery, pay her compensation, issue an apology and change the design across all the stores. But 1 million is a bit excessive.

Why should Apple do this? Because someone wasn't looking where they were going? Because society seems to have this apologist notion that everything should be bubble wrapped to protect invalids?

If she could work out where the freaking door was in a building with glass walls, she could work out that the door was closed...

kdg said,
Here's an idea: how about she take responsibility for own actions? The whole "I'm entitled to have someone else pay because I'm an idiot" mentality in this country is pathetic.

Idiot? Old age mistake like not being able to see something are idiocy?? What a shame you think that way.

How about watching where u go. There is usually a door into a building, If your sight is so limited you cant see a glass door then stay home. We cant accomodate the whole World to everyone, sorry. Live with it.

"she was returning an iPhone to the Apple store". Key word, returning. She had been to the store before, and should have known there were glass doors?

Colonel-Sanders said,
"she was returning an iPhone to the Apple store". Key word, returning. She had been to the store before, and should have known there were glass doors?

Not necessarily. She could have bought the phone online or at a cell phone store (AT&T, Verizon, etc.), and was bringing the phone in for service.

That being said, There are millions of stores that have similar glass doors all over the country (and the world for that matter). Don't see people suing all of those other stores though. This person is only suing because of the well publicized fact that Apple has billions of dollars in cash in the bank, and would likely pay out a large settlement instead of letting this nonsense go to a jury.

typical apple user.

It's only common sense to know that buildings have doors to enter them. before just wandering in, she should have looked for a handle, bar, etc. to foolishly assume there is no door, is just ignorance.

SirEvan said,
typical apple user.

It's only common sense to know that buildings have doors to enter them. before just wandering in, she should have looked for a handle, bar, etc. to foolishly assume there is no door, is just ignorance.

Was just going to post this +1+1+1!!!!!

What buildings dont have doors??? Maybe now, tons of elderly will come out and hit their heads on apple glass, just so they can sue. The mentality of the elderly is appalling! Like the 85 year old drivers that look like 10 year olds driving, swerving, going 15 under the speed limit... Maybe, just maybe get glasses to wear if your walking in public? Maybe, LOOK for doors? I really hope she does not win. Its money for her grandchildren...that will be lazy probably like her and learn of ways to sue to make more. Good, reeaal good

theslam08 said,
What buildings dont have doors???
Most buildings don't have doors *entirely* made of glass, a *completely* see through material. (I am not saying it's bad design, but there's a reason why you still put something on glass doors to make sure people can see them).

Kirkburn said,
Most buildings don't have doors *entirely* made of glass, a *completely* see through material. (I am not saying it's bad design, but there's a reason why you still put something on glass doors to make sure people can see them).

You mean like, oh I don't know, A HANDLE?!

I've never seen the store, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the door has some sort of handle or bar on it for opening it, otherwise it would be a one way door that can only be used from the side that you push on. That is of course unless it is double hinged, but even then I would guess that there would be some sort of handle, or plate affixed to the door that you push on.

kenboldt said,
You mean like, oh I don't know, A HANDLE?!

I've never seen the store, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the door has some sort of handle or bar on it for opening it, otherwise it would be a one way door that can only be used from the side that you push on. That is of course unless it is double hinged, but even then I would guess that there would be some sort of handle, or plate affixed to the door that you push on.


Yeah ... two way glass doors don't *need* handles, or plates to push. Not sure why you had to go all hysterical.

kenboldt said,

You mean like, oh I don't know, A HANDLE?!

I've never seen the store, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the door has some sort of handle or bar on it for opening it, otherwise it would be a one way door that can only be used from the side that you push on. That is of course unless it is double hinged, but even then I would guess that there would be some sort of handle, or plate affixed to the door that you push on.

The Apple store on 5th avenue(I think, has been a few years) did not have handles of any type when I was there, they slid open via sensor of some type.

While I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits I can definitely see the woman's point in this case. One of the local mall's has an apple store in it and you know ... Under the right lighting conditions sometimes it is kind of hard to see if the doors on it are open or not. I've seen young people walk into those doors a time or two, so I can totally see how an elderly person would manage it. A million dollars is excessive though surely.

I don't think the store is totally at fault (she should've known her vision isn't good and been more careful), but they really should have had the safety strip in place to begin with. They should probably be made to cover her medical bills and give her a free iPad 3. $1 million for this is ridiculous...

It is quite dangerous to have large glass windows that don't have warning 'spots' of some sort (e.g. translucent squares at around eye level). You can't really blame someone for not seeing what they can't see.

Kirkburn said,
It is quite dangerous to have large glass windows that don't have warning 'spots' of some sort (e.g. translucent squares at around eye level). You can't really blame someone for not seeing what they can't see.
They do have stickers

I didn't say they didn't, I was just making a general point about those that don't have stickers.

Also, note that I am not making a judgement about whether her lawsuit is valid. Only that unmarked glass doors are a valid danger.

Edited by Kirkburn, Mar 26 2012, 8:44pm :

Kirkburn said,
I didn't say they didn't, I was just making a general point about those that don't have stickers.
fair enough

ironchad said,
They added a warning strip since the incident, which I'm sure will be their downfall in this case.
They were there BEFORE the incident

Rudy said,
They were there BEFORE the incident

I guess that you can't read.

In an interesting twist, the report says the same store does now have small warning strips placed on the glass doors; Apple itself has not yet commented on the lawsuit.

I hope those who are calling this woman "stupid" have correct eyesight and motor coordination when they're 80.

The disrespect to the elderly here is appalling.

Disrespect? You must be trolling.

This old woman is trying to get free money for something that was unfortunate but clearly her own fault. A visit to an eye doctor might be a good idea.

It honestly amazes me how stupid some people in this country are.

Stupidity should be a crime, not a way to make free money.

I feel bad for the woman, but we have all walked in to a glass door/window before and we don't all sue because of it. We get over it and move on with our lives.

kdg said,
I feel bad for the woman, but we have all walked in to a glass door/window before and we don't all sue because of it. We get over it and move on with our lives.

And because we've all done it we should all learn from it and that's all the more reason that those doors should have had some sort of warning or something on them.

Amarok said,
And because we've all done it we should all learn from it and that's all the more reason that those doors should have had some sort of warning or something on them.

Apparently the store in question has since put the warning strips on the door to make it obvious, but someone mentioned earlier that NYC building codes did not require that to be done.

Maybe the building codes should be changed to include this but if it wasn't in the code at the time then Apple aren't in the wrong for not having them on the doors.

I really do feel sorry for the woman but we can't continue suing everyone for stupid things such as this. If she can see/use an iPhone, she can see the door. If not, she should have glasses.

Apple, nor any person or company, should have to pay for another person's stupidity regardless of age.

Doctor Neurus said,
I hope those who are calling this woman "stupid" have correct eyesight and motor coordination when they're 80.

The disrespect to the elderly here is appalling.

I'm sorry but people need to learn to own up to their mistakes and stop blaming everyone else but themselves. She messed up by running into a door, learn your lesson and watch where your going next time!

kdg said,

Apparently the store in question has since put the warning strips on the door to make it obvious, but someone mentioned earlier that NYC building codes did not require that to be done.

Maybe the building codes should be changed to include this but if it wasn't in the code at the time then Apple aren't in the wrong for not having them on the doors.

I really do feel sorry for the woman but we can't continue suing everyone for stupid things such as this. If she can see/use an iPhone, she can see the door. If not, she should have glasses.

Apple, nor any person or company, should have to pay for another person's stupidity regardless of age.

Although I feel she should be suing for at most her medical bills, just because code doesn't require warning signs on glass doors (which btw are almost frameless and have very little to show is an actual door/window whatever), doesn't mean Apple is/was in the "right".

There is absolutely no reason what so ever those doors shouldn't have some type of warning. None. Especially in the U.S. where absolutely stupid things like this happen and people get sued all the time.

nekkidtruth said,

Although I feel she should be suing for at most her medical bills, just because code doesn't require warning signs on glass doors (which btw are almost frameless and have very little to show is an actual door/window whatever), doesn't mean Apple is/was in the "right".

There is absolutely no reason what so ever those doors shouldn't have some type of warning. None. Especially in the U.S. where absolutely stupid things like this happen and people get sued all the time.


If they're within building code then I don't see why they should be held responsible. Maybe we should sue car companies because I can open my door on the highway and jump out while the car is going 120KM/h

Doctor Neurus said,
I hope those who are calling this woman "stupid" have correct eyesight and motor coordination when they're 80.

The disrespect to the elderly here is appalling.

Remember, its America......

Doctor Neurus said,
I hope those who are calling this woman "stupid" have correct eyesight and motor coordination when they're 80.

The disrespect to the elderly here is appalling.

elderly/indreffernt/disabled/ it dosnt matter on neowin becasue every one else is super human and has no falws.

Doctor Neurus said,
I hope those who are calling this woman "stupid" have correct eyesight and motor coordination when they're 80.

The disrespect to the elderly here is appalling.

Yet if this happened in a country with more respect for the elderly, there wouldn't be a frivolous lawsuit?

Ah America, the only country where people speaking out against a frivolous lawsuit can be labelled as disrespectful of the elderly...

Sicarius123 said,

Ah America, the only country where people speaking out against a frivolous lawsuit can be labelled as disrespectful of the elderly...

To hear the comments its not the lawsuit but the elderly person who is being discussed...

I would be terribly ashamed of telling anyone I was stupid enough to bash my face against a glass door, much less sueing someone for it.

Come on, does the door has a knob?

sviola said,
I would be terribly ashamed of telling anyone I was stupid enough to bash my face against a glass door, much less sueing someone for it.

Come on, does the door has a knob?

So, you can see that which is invisible? Nice to meet you, Superman.......

Foub said,

So, you can see that which is invisible? Nice to meet you, Superman.......

A glass door is invisible??? Wow, check your eyes sight..... Glass door are full of reflection, only a very distracted person would run into one....

TruckWEB said,

A glass door is invisible??? Wow, check your eyes sight..... Glass door are full of reflection, only a very distracted person would run into one....

Yes it is unless it has something on it. Ever run into the patio doors on the way out?

She wasn't able to see the glass yet she was able to use an iPhone?
More like she was returning it because she wasn't capable of using it...

what a joke. amazing that people want to get paid of being stupid. even with a settlement of some sort the legal fees alone will leave her with very little to show other than her dumbassness.

jerzdawg said,
what a joke. amazing that people want to get paid of being stupid. even with a settlement of some sort the legal fees alone will leave her with very little to show other than her dumbassness.

Really, how much do you make?

theclueless said,
NY building code does NOT require see-through glass doors to have warnings

Just because building code doesn't stipulate for or against something doesn't mean it's automatically okay. I can concoct thousands of situations which will not be covered but would clearly be unsafe.

lt8480 said,

Just because building code doesn't stipulate for or against something doesn't mean it's automatically okay. I can concoct thousands of situations which will not be covered but would clearly be unsafe.


<void>

move on guys

GS:mac

So...she's suing Apple for something that was clearly her fault, and most likely do to her old age. Yeah, this case has a lot of traction...

spacer said,
So...she's suing Apple for something that was clearly her fault, and most likely do to her old age. Yeah, this case has a lot of traction...

Old age is not her fault... design should accommodate elderly persons.

spacer said,
So...she's suing Apple for something that was clearly her fault, and most likely do to her old age. Yeah, this case has a lot of traction...

Actually, these sort of lawsuits are very common in the US. There are a couple that are famous:

1 - Burglar got stuck inside their victims garage for a week and sued them for his suffering (they were on a trip when he broke in). Won 50k;

2 - Woman got her ankle broken by a kid in store. Sued the store and won (I think she won 500k). Interesting detail: the kid was her son;

3 - Woman bought a cup of hot coffee at McDonald's on the drive through, while teaching her daughter to drive. On a sudden stop, she spilled the hot coffee on her groins and got 2nd degree burns. Sued McDonald's for a million. And won;

I can only wonder what goes through the heads of the jurors in these cases.

sviola said,

Actually, these sort of lawsuits are very common in the US. There are a couple that are famous:

1 - Burglar got stuck inside their victims garage for a week and sued them for his suffering (they were on a trip when he broke in). Won 50k;

2 - Woman got her ankle broken by a kid in store. Sued the store and won (I think she won 500k). Interesting detail: the kid was her son;

3 - Woman bought a cup of hot coffee at McDonald's on the drive through, while teaching her daughter to drive. On a sudden stop, she spilled the hot coffee on her groins and got 2nd degree burns. Sued McDonald's for a million. And won;

I can only wonder what goes through the heads of the jurors in these cases.


While those are fairly ridiculous, I don't see how they are related to an elderly walking into a glass door, AT the store she's suing.

Is it her fault that she's 80, and could have poor sight?

Not to mention, that older women are at risk of having poor bone mass. For her, a broken nose could be a serious thing to her health.

McDonald's case is also different. They were serving coffee unusually hot and it was not ready for consumption. Although they received complaints they refused to drop the temperature of the coffee. Only after this case they started selling coffee 10F cooler.

Doctor Neurus said,

Is it her fault that she's 80, and could have poor sight?

Is it Apple's fault? Old age comes with a lot of unfortunate issues but none of that has anything to do with Apple.

AtriusNY said,
McDonald's case is also different. They were serving coffee unusually hot and it was not ready for consumption. Although they received complaints they refused to drop the temperature of the coffee. Only after this case they started selling coffee 10F cooler.

I have mixed feelings about this. While hot liquids can pose a hazard, I think most people know what they're getting when they order such things. It should be up to the consumer to take precautions and ensure that they don't burn themselves. Are we now expecting that companies will provide things at the absolute perfect temperature at the precise time it's handed off to the consumer? That's impractical.

I can sympathize with this lady, but I feel that the responsibility is up to her. We're not talking about a trap door that was left open, we're talking about doorways to the entrance of a store. They're not uncommon. If her vision was poor, she should have been more careful.

By way of analogy, I don't speed when I'm driving on unfamiliar roads (and even occasionally go below the speed limit) because I don't know the turns. Suppose I were following the speed limit exactly, yet for what ever reasons - poor eyesight, slow reaction times, cumbersome vehicle - I was uncomfortable with that speed, and ended up flying off the road. Could I sue the county for money and win, subsequently forcing them to lower the speed limit even further, simply because of what was truly my own irresponsibility?

I get that we're not all the same, and sometimes people don't know or understand things that seem terribly obvious to other people (such as the case of the woman who sued after putting her dog in a microwave...). I just don't think it's possible to cover all cases of misunderstanding or errors, and resent the idea that we need to have every single thing clearly marked with bright flashing lights and caution signs. People need to take personal responsibility.

AtriusNY said,
McDonald's case is also different. They were serving coffee unusually hot and it was not ready for consumption. Although they received complaints they refused to drop the temperature of the coffee. Only after this case they started selling coffee 10F cooler.

But they were not selling coffee that was too hot. It doesn't matter if they lowered the temps, they were selling it at a legal temperature.

kdg said,

Is it Apple's fault? Old age comes with a lot of unfortunate issues but none of that has anything to do with Apple.

Which you seem to be suffering from.

sviola said,

Actually, these sort of lawsuits are very common in the US. There are a couple that are famous:

1 - Burglar got stuck inside their victims garage for a week and sued them for his suffering (they were on a trip when he broke in). Won 50k;

2 - Woman got her ankle broken by a kid in store. Sued the store and won (I think she won 500k). Interesting detail: the kid was her son;

3 - Woman bought a cup of hot coffee at McDonald's on the drive through, while teaching her daughter to drive. On a sudden stop, she spilled the hot coffee on her groins and got 2nd degree burns. Sued McDonald's for a million. And won;

I can only wonder what goes through the heads of the jurors in these cases.

At least some of your examples are fake: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Soldier 95B said,

But they were not selling coffee that was too hot. It doesn't matter if they lowered the temps, they were selling it at a legal temperature.

The information on that lawsuit isn't exactly hard to find. It's very readily available, and even the Wikipedia article on it sides with the woman.

The temperature was, in fact, served well above industry guidelines for serving coffee.

The woman originally only sued for the cost of her medical bills (less than 1% of the million dollars people claim she originally went after). With the evidence in her favor, and one of the smallest monetary demands in megacorp lawsuit history, McDonald's...said no way and brushed her off.

At that point, it became a matter of principle, and the larger amount was targeted. Right around then, the media storm exploded around it, painting her as a ridiculous woman suing for a million dollars because she spilled coffee on her lap, and people ate it up because, at the time, American society was just starting to develop a collective eye-roll at "frivolous lawsuits", and much like people today would, say, believe anything a random blogger on the Internet says just because it sounds bad for Microsoft, people believed the media's portrayal while ignoring any and all actual evidence.

sviola said,

Actually, these sort of lawsuits are very common in the US. There are a couple that are famous:

1 - Burglar got stuck inside their victims garage for a week and sued them for his suffering (they were on a trip when he broke in). Won 50k;

2 - Woman got her ankle broken by a kid in store. Sued the store and won (I think she won 500k). Interesting detail: the kid was her son;

3 - Woman bought a cup of hot coffee at McDonald's on the drive through, while teaching her daughter to drive. On a sudden stop, she spilled the hot coffee on her groins and got 2nd degree burns. Sued McDonald's for a million. And won;

I can only wonder what goes through the heads of the jurors in these cases.


Or the Winabego owner that was driving down the highway and decided to put the winabego in Cruise Control and go in the back to make a sandwich as if it were auto pilot... He caused an accident, sued Winabego, and won.

When do we start looking at stuff like this and thinking maybe it's about time we stop coddling the weakest links. We're seriously weakening the gene pool here. Survival of the fittest has a very important place...

Joshie said,

The information on that lawsuit isn't exactly hard to find. It's very readily available, and even the Wikipedia article on it sides with the woman.

The temperature was, in fact, served well above industry guidelines for serving coffee.

The woman originally only sued for the cost of her medical bills (less than 1% of the million dollars people claim she originally went after). With the evidence in her favor, and one of the smallest monetary demands in megacorp lawsuit history, McDonald's...said no way and brushed her off.

At that point, it became a matter of principle, and the larger amount was targeted. Right around then, the media storm exploded around it, painting her as a ridiculous woman suing for a million dollars because she spilled coffee on her lap, and people ate it up because, at the time, American society was just starting to develop a collective eye-roll at "frivolous lawsuits", and much like people today would, say, believe anything a random blogger on the Internet says just because it sounds bad for Microsoft, people believed the media's portrayal while ignoring any and all actual evidence.

Exactly, it is not hard to find at all. You should spend some time reading it, learning it and dissecting it like we did in our law classes. McDonalds was indeed preparing their coffee at legal temperatures. In fact, if you read the case, you will find all the health inspection witnesses that were at court, showing the records on their inspections in each state and coffee temps that were recorded and accepted by the state standards...including the McDonalds in question. They also compared temps of Starbucks and McDonalds and both had results of 175-180 degrees at idle (but originally brewed at 200 degrees before serving) But you probably knew this already. One would hope at least.

Joshie said,

The information on that lawsuit isn't exactly hard to find. It's very readily available, and even the Wikipedia article on it sides with the woman.

The temperature was, in fact, served well above industry guidelines for serving coffee.

The woman originally only sued for the cost of her medical bills (less than 1% of the million dollars people claim she originally went after). With the evidence in her favor, and one of the smallest monetary demands in megacorp lawsuit history, McDonald's...said no way and brushed her off.

At that point, it became a matter of principle, and the larger amount was targeted. Right around then, the media storm exploded around it, painting her as a ridiculous woman suing for a million dollars because she spilled coffee on her lap, and people ate it up because, at the time, American society was just starting to develop a collective eye-roll at "frivolous lawsuits", and much like people today would, say, believe anything a random blogger on the Internet says just because it sounds bad for Microsoft, people believed the media's portrayal while ignoring any and all actual evidence.

Exactly, it is not hard to find at all. You should spend some time reading it, learning it and dissecting it like we did in our law classes. McDonalds was indeed preparing their coffee at legal temperatures. In fact, if you read the case, you will find all the health inspection witnesses that were at court, showing the records on their inspections in each state and coffee temps that were recorded and accepted by the state standards...including the McDonalds in question. They also compared temps of Starbucks and McDonalds and both had results of 175-180 degrees at idle (but originally brewed at 200 degrees before serving) But you probably knew this already. One would hope at least.

Soldier 95B said,

Exactly, it is not hard to find at all. You should spend some time reading it, learning it and dissecting it like we did in our law classes. McDonalds was indeed preparing their coffee at legal temperatures. In fact, if you read the case, you will find all the health inspection witnesses that were at court, showing the records on their inspections in each state and coffee temps that were recorded and accepted by the state standards...including the McDonalds in question. They also compared temps of Starbucks and McDonalds and both had results of 175-180 degrees at idle (but originally brewed at 200 degrees before serving) But you probably knew this already. One would hope at least.

Um, anyone can read the findings:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/...cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html

And see that you're pulling those numbers out of thin air.

spacer said,
So...she's suing Apple for something that was clearly her fault, and most likely do to her old age. Yeah, this case has a lot of traction...

*edit* I should read all posts in the thread before posting. I see I've been beaten to the obvious punch by HOURS. Need more coffee

Yep, and McDonalds hot-coffee woman laughed it all the way to the bank, singed tongue and all.

sviola said,

Actually, these sort of lawsuits are very common in the US. There are a couple that are famous:

1 - Burglar got stuck inside their victims garage for a week and sued them for his suffering (they were on a trip when he broke in). Won 50k;

2 - Woman got her ankle broken by a kid in store. Sued the store and won (I think she won 500k). Interesting detail: the kid was her son;

3 - Woman bought a cup of hot coffee at McDonald's on the drive through, while teaching her daughter to drive. On a sudden stop, she spilled the hot coffee on her groins and got 2nd degree burns. Sued McDonald's for a million. And won;

I can only wonder what goes through the heads of the jurors in these cases.

The jurors only decide if the party being sued was at fault. The judge defines the penalty.

Piggy said,
Someone doesn't have the new iDoor app.

She knows about it, it's just that it costs the $1000000 she won't have until she wins this case.

xn--bya said,
$1 MILLION???????
I could understand a few hundred to a thousand, but a million dollars?

That's how it works, eventually settling for a few thousand $.

xn--bya said,
$1 MILLION???????
I could understand a few hundred to a thousand, but a million dollars?

If you have a legitimate reason to sue the most profitable company in the world, you sue for as much as your lawyer says you can win. Welcome to America!

xn--bya said,
$1 MILLION???????
I could understand a few hundred to a thousand, but a million dollars?

Maybe her nose was worth a million dollars.

xn--bya said,
$1 MILLION???????
I could understand a few hundred to a thousand, but a million dollars?

Suits like this are designed to have high penalties in order to force the company to change their policy. They won't change their policy for a few hundred dollars. This particular suit is frivolous though.

Fubar said,
What a stupid moron.

Yes, you are. In some places its required by law to place warnings on glass doors.....

Foub said,

Yes, you are. In some places its required by law to place warnings on glass doors.....

Where?

Maybe idiots should start looking where their walking. I have never walked into a glass door.

Fubar said,
What a stupid moron.

Agreed! Sounds like she embarrassed herself and is trying to get some easy money out of them. $1 million for a broken nose? Geez I would hate to see what she would try to get out of a divorce settlement.

Ently said,

Agreed! Sounds like she embarrassed herself and is trying to get some easy money out of them. $1 million for a broken nose? Geez I would hate to see what she would try to get out of a divorce settlement.

It's actually the law in the UK, and South Africa, not sure about America.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg212.htm

...a safety material or be protected against breakage of the transparent or translucent material; and be appropriately marked or incorporate features to make it apparent.

Foub said,

Yes, you are. In some places its required by law to place warnings on glass doors.....

Which just proves how f***ed up this country is!!

Makes me dang glad I'm slightly older now, as I sure as heck would not want to be a kid growing up in todays world!! There is just WAY to much TOTAL stupidity and laziness around!! NOTHING worse than stupid and lazy, especially when BOTH are embedded into so many people!

Jaxkesa said,

"You're using the door wrong"

First you have to be able to see the door. That is unless you're Superman.