Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1000thusername t1_ixfezl2 wrote

Reply to comment by amish_hacker473 in The 17 victims of the Hingham Apple Store crash might have to share a $40,000 insurance payout. by il_biciclista

That assumes the person responsible actually has any money to take, though.

Even wage garnishments x17 might net them $12.43 a month for 50 years because they won’t garnish wages below a certain point - they will set aside a “living wage” type amount from any salary before allowing for garnishment, and then that has to be divided up amongst them.

And that’s if the guy doesn’t go to jail and have no wages to garnish or go underground working under the table like many deadbeat parents and other lawsuit losing defendants do so their wages can’t be garnished.

It’s a horrible reality for these people that they aren’t likely to get shit.

48

hce692 t1_ixg52go wrote

You don’t sue the individual. It’s going to be their insurance company suing his, especially if they need long/short term disability and a personal injury lawyer representing any of the victims would be suing their insurance and undoubtedly Apple plus the shopping center ownership

12

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgfoss wrote

The drivers insurance is only responsible for what their policy holder has in coverage and not a penny more. This is why some people carry umbrella insurance. Victims can sue the driver and whoever else might pay, apple, derby street management - it’ll all depend on what you can win in court and someone’s ability to actually pay.

19

[deleted] t1_ixftvme wrote

[deleted]

6

1000thusername t1_ixfuefa wrote

Apple isn’t responsible. That does mean they won’t try to shake them down, but they’re not responsible.

14

hce692 t1_ixg4xm7 wrote

Apple could absolutely be sued. All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it. Especially in a town like hingham where people can afford lawyers, I have no doubt an argument could be made about the negligence of entirely glass walls

11

techiemikey t1_ixhu9xb wrote

> All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it.

I disagree with "and was sued for it." The "sued and won" is usually a "this was brought up to them as an issue before and they decided to not to address an issue". But safety laws exist because people died and we realized "hey...we shoud fix that.

−1

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgfx97 wrote

I’d argue that having an add glass store front where cars can easily drive through makes apple responsible. I understand it looks modern and well designed but of they had a half wall or more support beams maybe the far wouldn’t have been able to kill someone and hurt so many people. I’m not lawyer but that would be my argument. No idea if that would even work.

0

rockdude t1_ixhtjrx wrote

Apple should be responsible for providing coverage for any an all Med expenses

0