Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Comedy Gold

How fast was she walking?

88 miles per hours? What was the speed required in Buckaroo Bonzai to get into the 8th dimention? Just a hair short of that rate of travel...

Does anyone see the comedy gold mine here? Her last name was Paswall.... just one "S" short if Comedic Award material....
 
80's

My parents are that age but I can imagine them bumping into a glass door it only takes a moment of distraction however I'm not sure they would walk at the pace necessary to create such an injury. It will be interesting to see if she is awarded so much money for such an injury which I believe is partly her fault.
 
Wirelessly posted

For those still going on about McDonald's coffee case, the documentary "Hot Coffee" covers this case. Talks about tort law and sums it up pretty well.
 
Another reason to hate old people...

Hopefully this old lady doesn't have a driver's license.

Would you feel the same way about your mother too? :rolleyes:


I don't really hate old people. However, the elderly can get a little annoying at times. I can only hope that when my mother is 80, she isn't as blind and senile as this one that's suing Apple. I also hope that I don't become as senile as well.
 
:rolleyes:
The disrespect that you kids here show for old age is disgusting. Here is my wish for you all: That you will reach 200 years, gain a pound of weight every day, soon enough lose your eye sight and the ability to walk without help and eventually depend on a young one of your own school of thought. That ought to be the perfect punishment for you.

None of you should forget that it were those old people that gave birth to you and shaped the world that allows you to live.

I am going to sue you for putting a curse on me if I start to gain weight....

Seriously Winni, were it not so much for the fact that this lady is a greedy ho, I don't think that people would be so vile towards poor innocent little granny who hurt herself so badly, so cruelly and thought immediately to call her lawyer and sue for 1million dollars.

The older people who gave birth to me, are my parents and they have never walked into glass window/doors, and even if they did, they wouldn't be so lame as to sue a store because they had a moment or two of inattention!!!

Oh sorry, my grandparents taught my parents to take responsibility for their OWN actions....which in turn, gasp! My parents taught me!! Go figure

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I just read that whole article and still come to the same conclusion. The lady (or her lawyer) became greedy along the way. They started out with reasonable claims of 20k .. but then rejected a settlement of 250k, when they found out there was more to get and ended up with something like 600k. Greed was certainly involve one way or the other.

That's what goes on in trials - and the court recommended that McDonalds accept the claims. It's not the plaintiffs fault that McDonalds only countered with an offer of $800 dollars:

Liebeck initially approached McDonald’s with a demand of $20,000 to cover her medical bills, future medical expenses, and lost income. McDonald’s countered with an offer of $800. (Gerlin, Andrea. “A Matter of Degree,” The Wall Street Journal, September 1, 1994). As trial approached, Liebeck’s settlement demand increased to approximately $300,000. (Id.). After denying McDonald’s motion for summary judgment, the trial judge ordered the parties to attend mediation. During the session, the mediator recommended that McDonald’s accept a $225,000 offer. (Id.). McDonald’s declined.

Cite

The reason that amounts increased was due to stonewalling done by McDonalds - a method that is standard in any case and not so uncommon when the first phases don't go so well.

The court at this point was already convinced that there was a case. If anyone is greedy it was McDonalds who had paid out before in other cases.

And to the point of McDonalds .. 180-190 deg Fahrenheit (equals 82-88 deg in real temperature aka Celsius) is not "scalding hot" and is not an unreasonable temperature for coffee.

T.
Celsius is just as relative as Fahrenheit and yes it is excessive (Kelvin is much more absolute) - McDonalds even addmidtted as much. Experts even testified that such temperatures can cause 3rd degree burns in about 10 seconds.
 
At her age, she should come from the generation of people who take responsibility for themselves and their actions. That being said, I've toe-kicked the Apple glass doors before given the store I normally go to normally has the doors open (because there are so many people coming and going), when they're shut, it's abnormal.

I'm sure this will play out similarly to cases of water on store floors - which prompted retailers to have to put the warning cones out when the floor is wet. My guess is that Apple will pay out before they succumb to adding something more to the door to alert people that there are doors to the stores (a novel concept of course).
 
Unreasonably high temperatures according to who? The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction and drunk immediately. If not drunk immediately, it should be maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.

I read it and still consider it frivolous. Why in the world would she be stupid enough to put a hot coffee between her laps instead of a safer location? Really no different from the 83-year old failing to see the glass. Just stupid actions on their part.

Let's just trust the judgement of the people on that jury who got to hear and see all of the evidence. Faulty containers, coffee kept at a unreasonably high temperature, SEVEN HUNDRED previous incidents relating to scalds from their hot coffee that the company had done nothing about...
 
Can you come up with a link to a case where a burglar has sued and actually won? I'd be very interested in seeing this. Anyone can sue, of course, and brugalrs have done that; but winning is another matter.

Without an actual link, this seems like urban myth to me.

There seems to be a tendency for people to want to believe the worst about American civil law. Yes, people sometimes do sue for crazy things, but most lose. And occassionally a jury will order a ridiculous judgement, but those are almost always overturned on appeal. I'm not going to say "always" since I'm not omniscient, but whenver I've looked into a harsh judgement that made it through appeal, it has turned out the award was justified. But people still cling to the crazy narrative as if it is pervasive.

I have to laugh everytime I hear the McD's coffee tale. Twice before this judgement, I bought McD's coffee; and twice I got second degree burns on my mouth, my lips blistering and the roof of my mouth peeling. I never bought their coffee again, of course; I don't know why other people continued to put up with it. But I'm not surprised someone got third-degree burns, and her lawsuit did everyone a service by getting McD's to fix the problem. I guess people are willing to act like sheep by drinking injuriously hot liquids and believing counter-productive urban legends without question, but I think things could be better otherwise.

Married with Children Season 7 Episode 20

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0642425/
 
Most public places have handicapp access today. Is being old a handicapp? Is being old and having poor vision one? Do clear glass doors create a situation in which someone with poor vision is likely to walk into them?
If this case ever gets to court, I would be surprised. Apple will settle and then move on. The plaintiff will get some money, whether deserved or not, and the lawyers will get paid.

If it turns out that clear glass doors are creating a situation where someone with poor vision can easily walk into them and sustain an injury, then things will be done to prevent that.

For all we know, this person may be senile or have dementia, and possibly had no intent on suing Apple until talked into it by some low life lawyer.
We just don't know all the facts yet.
With all the frivolous lawsuits happening today, I guess it is easy for many to immediately dog the plaintiff, but what makes this country great is that each person is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
It may be a case of where this person was wandering around in the mall lost, and just walked into the door by accident. The facts will come out, and Apple will do the right thing, whatever that may be.
Let's not just jump to conclusions and pick on the old person just because we like Apple so much.
 
Get rich quick scheme

Here's the plan:
- Find the richest company on the planet's store
- Act like you're too stupid or too blind to see the glass doors in front of your space...or don't act just do
- Walk into aforementioned glass doors really fast
- Sue richest company on the planet for lots of money

Bingo! You're now rich! And stupid and greedy and yet another leach on humanity
 
Poor old lady, I hope they put her in a white padded room! Please help this poor old woman! Give her a white padded room with red stickers on each pillow. She can have her $1million but keep her in the white padded room for her own safety.:rolleyes:
 
If her lawyer is good, then she will also sue McDonalds because the coffee she was carrying and spilled after the collision was too hot for human consumption, and that the cup failed to include a warning that "CAUTION: Contents May Burn if Spilled After Walking into Clean Glass". Also, sue the shoe company for not anticipating that an elder person would spill hot coffee on her feet, and reinforcing the shoes with burn protection.
 
I don't really hate old people. However, the elderly can get a little annoying at times. I can only hope that when my mother is 80, she isn't as blind and senile as this one that's suing Apple. I also hope that I don't become as senile as well.

Unfortunately we have no control over how we become when we age.
 
Why are Americans allowed to waste the time of the courts for such moronic behavior? What's worse is they actually win these stupid cases. What happened to personal responsibility?

Apple did it's part to put warning stickers on the glass. If they aren't big enough, there ought to have been a bylaw requiring such and an inspector to make the call.

In the absence of such a bylaw, Apple (or any store really) should be in the clear for having taken the proper precautions on their own. If they settle, this sets a precedent for assumption of guilt and poses a threat to it's other stores all around the world.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.