Apple gets sued for $1M over squeaky-clean doors

[Deleted-236924]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

Well, seeing how it's a giant ass door in this case that's in the same spot every single time, if you don't know where it is than you shouldn't be walking anywhere in the first place.

 

[Deleted-236924]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

Well, seeing how it's a giant ass door in this case that's in the same spot every single time, if you don't know where it is than you shouldn't be walking anywhere in the first place.

But the door is virtually invisible due to being so clean.
The door to my room is in the same spot every single time, but I sometimes bump into it by accident when I want to go to the bathroom at night because I can't see it clearly.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

Well, seeing how it's a giant ass door in this case that's in the same spot every single time, if you don't know where it is than you shouldn't be walking anywhere in the first place.

But the door is virtually invisible due to being so clean.
The door to my room is in the same spot every single time, but I sometimes bump into it by accident when I want to go to the bathroom at night because I can't see it clearly.

Except it wouldn't be virtually invisible. Not only are there handles as pointed out by pyro, but there would also be the glare of the sun and the reflection of the background. Really, it's hard to miss a glass door no matter how you put it.

 

[Deleted-236924]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

Well, seeing how it's a giant ass door in this case that's in the same spot every single time, if you don't know where it is than you shouldn't be walking anywhere in the first place.

But the door is virtually invisible due to being so clean.
The door to my room is in the same spot every single time, but I sometimes bump into it by accident when I want to go to the bathroom at night because I can't see it clearly.

Except it wouldn't be virtually invisible. Not only are there handles as pointed out by pyro, but there would also be the glare of the sun and the reflection of the background. Really, it's hard to miss a glass door no matter how you put it.

Remember that the woman in question was 83 years old.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

Well, seeing how it's a giant ass door in this case that's in the same spot every single time, if you don't know where it is than you shouldn't be walking anywhere in the first place.

But the door is virtually invisible due to being so clean.
The door to my room is in the same spot every single time, but I sometimes bump into it by accident when I want to go to the bathroom at night because I can't see it clearly.

Except it wouldn't be virtually invisible. Not only are there handles as pointed out by pyro, but there would also be the glare of the sun and the reflection of the background. Really, it's hard to miss a glass door no matter how you put it.

Remember that the woman in question was 83 years old.

So then it's her fault, correct? She can't see well, so she hit the door? That's all I'm trying to say. It's not the stores fault, it's hers. Sure, she can't help that she's old but she can't sue a company over it.

 

[Deleted-236924]

Nope, sure don't. But if I were walking towards it with intent of using it I'd still know EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

Quite.
But what if you didn't know exactly where it was?
You would be walking towards where you think it is, with the intent of using it, and you wouldn't know exactly where it is.

Well, seeing how it's a giant ass door in this case that's in the same spot every single time, if you don't know where it is than you shouldn't be walking anywhere in the first place.

But the door is virtually invisible due to being so clean.
The door to my room is in the same spot every single time, but I sometimes bump into it by accident when I want to go to the bathroom at night because I can't see it clearly.

Except it wouldn't be virtually invisible. Not only are there handles as pointed out by pyro, but there would also be the glare of the sun and the reflection of the background. Really, it's hard to miss a glass door no matter how you put it.

Remember that the woman in question was 83 years old.

So then it's her fault, correct? She can't see well, so she hit the door? That's all I'm trying to say. It's not the stores fault, it's hers. Sure, she can't help that she's old but she can't sue a company over it.

Glad to see we got to the same conclusion.

 

[gamefan5]

I'm sorry... what?

 

[nando]

she actually has a case. the doors are supposed to have a graphic at eye level. most places have a line of dots.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

she actually has a case. the doors are supposed to have a graphic at eye level. most places have a line of dots.

Yeah, because the giant freaking handles weren't enough of a clue that there was a door there.

 

[Sicklyboy]

>>OH GOD I GOT MINOR BURNS ON MY HAND BECAUSE I TRIED TO WASH THEM WITH THE COFFEE I JUST BOUGHT. WHY THE FUCK WOULD MY COFFEE BE HOT. FUCK YOU MCDONALDS I'M SUING.

>>*Buying bag of peanuts*
>>*Back of bag*
>>"May contain peanuts. Do not consume if you suffer from peanut allergies."

Edit - (this is what I am gathering from this topic, btw...)

 

[nando]

she actually has a case. the doors are supposed to have a graphic at eye level. most places have a line of dots.

Yeah, because the giant freaking handles weren't enough of a clue that there was a door there.

Giant door handles are not at eye level and do not repeat at the regular intervals set by code. It doesnt matter how stupid the old lady is. There are minimum safety requirements public spaces need to follow wether they are vital or not. For example, it is not necessary for stair rails to have gaps no bigger than 4". But that is the code and if a public building doesnt comply you could push your dog through the rails and sue

 

[Hyro-Sama]

she actually has a case. the doors are supposed to have a graphic at eye level. most places have a line of dots.

Yeah, because the giant freaking handles weren't enough of a clue that there was a door there.

Giant door handles are not at eye level and do not repeat at the regular intervals set by code. It doesnt matter how stupid the old lady is. There are minimum safety requirements public spaces need to follow wether they are vital or not. For example, it is not necessary for stair rails to have gaps no bigger than 4". But that is the code and if a public building doesnt comply you could push your dog through the rails and sue

That's a load of shit. This old hag has no case whatsoever.

 

[Sicklyboy]

she actually has a case. the doors are supposed to have a graphic at eye level. most places have a line of dots.

Yeah, because the giant freaking handles weren't enough of a clue that there was a door there.

Giant door handles are not at eye level and do not repeat at the regular intervals set by code. It doesnt matter how stupid the old lady is. There are minimum safety requirements public spaces need to follow wether they are vital or not. For example, it is not necessary for stair rails to have gaps no bigger than 4". But that is the code and if a public building doesnt comply you could push your dog through the rails and sue

That's a load of shit. This old hag has no case whatsoever.

Agreed. Stupidity and oblivion are no excuse to stop being liable for your own personal safety or wellbeing.

And to make a point - I've walked into doors before. At home, at work, at other stores. I've walked into windows, too. Whether they were opaque doors or completely clear glass ones, whenever I have walked into one my words have always been along the lines of "ouch. Damn, I feel like a retard now" not "I can't believe this door/window was here and there were no obvious warning signs pointing to it's existance. I need to sue now because I am so physically injured and emotionally compromised from walking into a window at a leisurely speed of walking."

 

[Foxi4]

I know how stupid it sounds but if the door was indeed unmarked then she might win a trial for damages, actually. Doors like this are supposed to have some sticker on them for the braindead people who assume that the store has no doors. Don't ask me - ask the Health and Safety people. She won't get a million, but she might win pocket change and satisfaction if an inspector finds the door to be indeed hardly visible and thus hazardous.

 

[Veho]

The tactic in these kind of cases is to ask for an unreasonable amount and then settle for much less (but still a lot) out of court. Even if the court finds in her favour, it doesn't have to grant her the full sum she demands, so it makes sense to ask for much more than you're hoping to get out of the deal, and then haggle.

 

[Foxi4]

The tactic in these kind of cases is to ask for an unreasonable amount and then settle for much less (but still a lot) out of court. Even if the court finds in her favour, it doesn't have to grant her the full sum she demands, so it makes sense to ask for much more than you're hoping to get out of the deal, and then haggle.

Correct and indeed very smart, hence I used the term "pocket change" in comparison to one million, although it is quite a euphemism here. Some of the readers don't fully understand the issue and call the claim stupid but from a legal standpoint it is quite valid. It is a legal requirement to make doors visible unless they're inside your own house. We live in an age where everybody whines about equality thus a door to any publically available institution has to be equally visible to an 8 and 88 year old person. If a person can sue and win because nobody marked her coffee as hot then I can't see why another shouldn't for wallking into a door when nobody told her it was there. The legal system has seen more ridiculous cases them this one. Legal requirements, even the stupid ones, have to be followed.

 

[pyromaniac123]

The tactic in these kind of cases is to ask for an unreasonable amount and then settle for much less (but still a lot) out of court. Even if the court finds in her favour, it doesn't have to grant her the full sum she demands, so it makes sense to ask for much more than you're hoping to get out of the deal, and then haggle.

Correct and indeed very smart, hence I used the term "pocket change" in comparison to one million, although it is quite a euphemism here. Some of the readers don't fully understand the issue and call the claim stupid but from a legal standpoint it is quite valid. It is a legal requirement to make doors visible unless they're inside your own house. We live in an age where everybody whines about equality thus a door to any publically available institution has to be equally visible to an 8 and 88 year old person. If a person can sue and win because nobody marked her coffee as hot then I can't see why another shouldn't for wallking into a door when nobody told her it was there. The legal system has seen more ridiculous cases them this one. Legal requirements, even the stupid ones, have to be followed.

So what you are saying is apple needed to put a sign on the door to say that it was a door?

 

[Foxi4]

No, it doesn't have to say door, it has to indicate the presence of a transparent object and mark its full width at the level of eyesight. To show you why, imagine a scenario where I put a glass pane in someone's way with nothing but one white dot on it. For someone with bad eyesight, all that is visible is the white dot. There is no clear indication as to where the pane starts and ends. This is why a line has to be used and this is why a handle is insufficient. It only shows one point - it doesn't indicate the width of the door. In fact, a person with really bad eyesight won't be able to even determine whether the door is open or closed on its basis as handles come in different shapes and positions. I realize the stupidity of the claim but I also acknowledge that it is valid from her perspective.

 

[frogboy]

Everyone's arguing about the door being visible/not visible... I think the real question here is: Why does an 83 year old woman own an iPhone?

inb4 "because everyone does". I don't.