Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GoArray t1_iy9fkjv wrote

...against the driver.

Oh, and the store owner and apple, ofc. Because "Attorney Doug Sheff told WBZ-TV on Monday the storefront should have had barriers to protect it against traffic in the nearby parking lot."

“This parking lot was only 10 yards or so from this this glass facade, this glass storefront,” he said. “So, it was entirely foreseeable.”

'Only' 30 feet from the parking lot.

I mean, c'mon. Are we going to require all buildings within 30 frickin feet of a parking lot be walled off behind barriers?

There's a case to be made against the driver, but sounds like an accident. Shit happens and that's where you'll find the ambulance chasers.

48

Chunderbutt t1_iy9nniq wrote

Bollards save lives. Drivers will occupy any space their cars can physically fit into, deliberately or otherwise.

19

GoArray t1_iy9ojso wrote

Yeah, my "c'mon" bit was a little agressive lol. If the people demand bollards, the gov't should require bollards. Doubt they were at the time of this incident which was the gist of my argument.

6

Chunderbutt t1_iy9pv55 wrote

The case could hinge on that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the are required in certain places given how common they are at store fronts. Though that could just be for insurance purposes.

4

whhhhiskey t1_iya3fnv wrote

I just looked at the store on google maps, it’s right in front of a turn, vehicles have to turn here which means moving cars are pointing directly at the store. There should definitely be bollards there. It doesn’t seem necessary for most stores in that area but it would seem obvious to anyone to put bollards there if they cared at all about pedestrian (or stores) safety.

5

Deranged40 t1_iy9j91l wrote

> but sounds like an accident.

I think ambulance chasing lawyers are bullshit, I really do. But such barriers are largely there to reduce the harm accidents cause.

The barriers in front of gas stations aren't there to prevent lunatics hellbent on malice, it's there to prevent drunk drivers from accidentally "parking too close". The hope is that only the dumbass's truck gets hurt, not the store.

16

GoArray t1_iy9kez6 wrote

Right, and the barriers around gas pumps are a requirement, per code. I (highly) doubt bollards are required en-masse and code was simply ignored.

The only case to possibly be made here is against the gov't, and even then it's likely only a case to change the code not compensate the victims.

I say possibly because such a code seems very unlikely to have much support.

6

Deranged40 t1_iy9koms wrote

> Right, and the barriers around gas pumps are a requirement, per code.

I'm talking about the barriers in front of the all-glass walls of most gas stations. ([Example](https://www.tampabay.com/resizer//zmoR2wiEIYfqH7fHovpOilMGryY=/900x506/smart/filters:format(webP)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tbt.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NT7GZAWIUEI6TIRQPAY4DVT77I.jpg): Notice the red bollards in front of the store) I've seen drunk people run right into them before. Usually slow enough that the damage was minor or not visible at all. But it's a glass wall that wasn't shattered that night.

The purpose of them is to reduce the damage that is caused by accidents. Bumping one of those might be as simple as just a scratch on your car, while that same bump will shatter a glass wall which can be very dangerous.

Likewise, the reason there is a code requiring them in some situations is to reduce the danger that accidents might cause. That's why they are required around gas pumps, to reduce the likelihood that a simple accident such as mistaking the gas pedal for the brake pedal will cause a very dangerous situation like a large uncontrollable fire.

It's not very farfetched at all to think that another situation where code requires these are around tall glass walls.

3

GoArray t1_iy9lcsa wrote

Either way, I doubt it's a requirement (in this instance at least) otherwise they would have been installed. Commercial isn't like res where some handyman says "I won't tell the city if you don't!"

1

permalink_save t1_iyani75 wrote

Sometimes they are to protect people but the store I worked out really put then up to prevent people from ramming the doors to steal shit.

3

angiosperms- t1_iy9k7o3 wrote

Aren't those pole things on the sidewalk to prevent stuff like this? I wouldn't be opposed to requiring those.

11

Deranged40 t1_iy9sst3 wrote

Yeah, they are used to minimize the damage caused by accidents.

4

arealhumannotabot t1_iy9m592 wrote

While chasing law suits is a separate issue, I do think using bollards is a great idea. I have to admit that 30 feet isn't really that far for a car that's out of control.

11

GoArray t1_iy9n58l wrote

Yeah, I don't really see a downside besides the cost to implement it everywhere (not my problem). Simply pointing out that this is grasping as I can't imagine any (legal) negligence on the owner's part, and even less so on the tenant's (Apple).

0

Chance_Bluebird_5788 t1_iybp354 wrote

I have a LOT of good ideas where the only downside is the cost to implement it. Here are a few: Moon prison colony. Free organ cloning. High speed trains between every sizable city. Resurrecting wooly rhinos and giant sloths for their wool and high quality protein.

4

BoomZhakaLaka t1_iy9l8cx wrote

This is why we have courts. If the plaintiffs think there's negligence and there's any possible route to success, their counsel (Google, that's not how you spell that) is going to make the complaint. Keep the pitchfork at ease until the judge weighs in.

8

Novel-Jackfruit-369 t1_iyanqkg wrote

It also may serve to be useful in forcing the apple store to install a bollard at this location with regulations absent

2

mrfoof82 t1_iy9zwn2 wrote

>There's a case to be made against the driver, but sounds like an accident.

I'd take a hard look at what the case the prosecution will bring at the December 22nd court date.

The only thing released so far is an official reiterating the defendant's statement.

The police so far have said nothing, and that's telling. They are bringing in investigators. They could very well feel this was a "crash" (which regardless, it is) and not an "accident". Talk to folks in industry, and they'll strongly argue that most "accidents" weren't. The $100,000 bail was telling of what police and prosecution thought.

"Accidental acceleration" is a lot easier to disprove with airbag event data recorders (which record all manner of telemetry 5 seconds prior to a deployment, and possibly a wee bit past it), modern infotainment systems which record far more outside of the regulatory requirement for airbag data recorders, and so forth. There's also going to be cameras from inside the Apple store, presumably time lapse cameras from all around the mall property, etc.

This wasn't some beat up old truck. This was a 2019 4Runner which is pretty damn modern.

Last, Toyota has paid out $1.2B in a previous settlement a long time ago to make accidental acceleration claims go away, even if claimants couldn't conclusively prove it was Toyota's fault (though the programming wasn't exactly best practices, IIRC) -- they just paid out to make it all stop. They don't want to get dragged into another potential $1B+ settlement that starts with this event spawning who knows how many more lawsuits. So if this goes into a "This was a problem with my Toyota" argument by the defendant, I'd expect Toyota to be MORE THAN WILLING to supply expert witnesses to the prosecution if requested, if Toyota feels it keeps them free and clear.

The prosecution, investigators, Apple, the mall, Toyota, and the victims ALL want this to be a thorough investigation and not just take people at their word. This has the potential to be a very interesting case to follow.

5

permalink_save t1_iyandlv wrote

Will he take the salary cut for the city to put barracades on public walkways now?

−1

Mellero47 t1_iy9fdcy wrote

Sue who? The Apple store was expected to have barricades in front?

23

ObjectiveDark40 t1_iy9l03n wrote

Yes. That is what the lawyer is saying. Lots of stores do. Target has those big red balls, I've seen yellow bollards at Walmart.

33

Knee_Squeezings t1_iy9q9fc wrote

Apple doesn't own that building, the rent from the property owners, so that's on them. Plus it's not code there to have them. Chasing money is all

18

Reasonable_Ticket_84 t1_iy9s8ff wrote

Actually no. Commercial leases are very different than residential renting. In a commercial lease, the renter is pretty much responsible for the building improvements. The renter can sometimes get the landlord to make concessions and pay for build out of something at the beginning of the lease to sign it, but everything after that is on the tenant usually.

It's the same way, the property owner could repave the parking lot and then stick the tenant with the bill (which happens in shitty shopping strips).

​

Now whether Apple actually needs to install bollards for any legal reason is a different topic.

15

Bocephuss t1_iy9uf5m wrote

I wouldn't disagree that it should be code but where is the line? Should every business be required to install them?

Walmart, Target, and other big box retailers only have them to protect their inventory, not their customers.

17

bananafobe t1_iyb9n7j wrote

The details would be useful.

For instance, Reagan used to tell a story about someone being hit by a car in a phone booth, and then, shockingly, suing the phone company.

What he left out was that the phone booth trapped the man inside, as the door mechanism was damaged after being hit by cars multiple times in the past, which the company was aware had happened, as they had been told multiple times to move the phonebooth from the blind corner at which it was located.

I don't know the details here, but it's worth keeping an open mind until you see the accusations and evidence.

9

WirelessBCupSupport t1_iyanj11 wrote

Well, they are usually called "bollards" and unless code/zoning doesn't mandate it (failure of the county) or the landlord (owner of the property leased to Apple)... who knows if Apple didn't want some ugly silver cylinders out front, you know, to protect patrons... like Target (red cement balls) or Walmart (yellow bollards) or Home depot (yellow or orange bollards to prevent vehicles from hitting store front, etc.

Sue Apple, the design firm Apple contracted, the landlord, the county. Stores with an entire glassfront not inside a mall, but less than 20' from parking... going to be interesting and won't get back the life lost or those injured.

Who believes that driver's foot got stuck... in a late model 4Runner?

3

sellout217 t1_iy9sltb wrote

Yes. There are barricades that should have been erected to prevent this type of situation. Apple failed to do that, so they should be heald responsible.

−12

CivilProfessor t1_iy9fro1 wrote

Installing vehicle barrier between sidewalks/stores and parking area is the responsibility of the property owner not the tenant (Apple). Apple will likely be excluded from the lawsuit.

12

Cheftyler1980 t1_iy9hd37 wrote

Apple is called the property owner in the article, but that’s probably piss poor reporting.

11

bananafobe t1_iybacxu wrote

I have no idea how it works, but I remember hearing some quip about McDonald's being a real estate company that also sells hamburgers.

Could it be possible that Apple gains some benefit from owning property where their stores are located?

Again, I have no idea.

0

GoArray t1_iy9g7of wrote

I doubt barriers are required per code and code was simply ignored. The only case to be made here is against the gov't (and obviously the driver), and good luck with that as nearly all commercial buildings are within 30' of a parking lot.

5

CivilProfessor t1_iy9izb9 wrote

I don't know about MA building code but if bollards were required I bet you they would already be installed. This is not something a building inspector would miss. Our local building code does not require bollards for similar configuration.

9

AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_iy9qzvm wrote

Bollards should be everywhere. Lining roadways, between bike lanes and car lanes, around parking lots. Bollards are beautiful.

8

[deleted] t1_iy9fln3 wrote

[deleted]

1

bananafobe t1_iybalxr wrote

You realize that by using hyperbole, you're kind of strengthening their claim about bollards bring a reasonable accommodation?

3

RedditISFascist000 t1_iy9ohkq wrote

Expecting bollards to be out front of every last business a car could reach is asinine. Not to mention an eyesore. I can't even picture the astronomical amount it would cost to have them installed at every business a car could possibly run into. I hope this lawsuit and that amber lamps chasing lawyer gets thrown out of court.

1

FunnyFilmFan t1_iya0igh wrote

This isn’t every last business. This is a business who decided for esthetic reasons to make the entire direction out of glass, rather than the usual construction. I’m not saying that this is a sure win, but if the lawyers can show that Apple was aware of the risk, perhaps from similar events, and did nothing, then the jury will definitely make them pay out.

1

bananafobe t1_iybb5t9 wrote

It could be considered an attractive nuisance, or at the very least, more dangerous than a traditional storefront.

0

ichoosewaffles t1_iyafpu9 wrote

How long had the store been there? Iwonder if there had been any accidents like this before?

1

theyipper t1_iya38k9 wrote

Barriers? You'll have to pay for that accessory.

0

Poorkiddonegood8541 t1_iya9ft9 wrote

Sure and they should require every business to have bullet proof glass, bio/chemical air filters in case of a bio/chemical attack. Let's not forget a fall out shelter in case North Korea actually does fire a nuke at us! While we're at it, why not require rubber floors in case someone should fall and how about foam furniture in case someone else falls? Maybe they should have a company of Infantry Marines in case Chine should launch a frontal attack? We gotta have a squadron of F-22s flying Combat Air Patrol in case the Luxembourg Air Force tries a sneak attack, with all THREE of their airplanes!

Where does the madness end???

0

bananafobe t1_iybav5g wrote

Bollards.

All freaking out about it accomplishes is making bollards seem like more of a reasonable accommodation.

2

WorryMindless3543 t1_iy9q8yg wrote

I know of a woman who crashed into a store and killed a child because the woman had a seizure without even having a history of them. She felt absolutely terrible when she woke up and found out.

I just glanced at the article, he says his foot got stuck? I wonder why you’d sue someone for that?

−1

YouthInRevolt t1_iybgbrv wrote

It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some or most of the injured are essentially forced to sue to cover their medical bills thanks to our wonderful health insurance system.

2

mrstipez OP t1_iy9qp9j wrote

He said his foot got stuck on the gas pedal. Srsly.

−1