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.