An iPhone user walks into an Apple store…


An 83-year-old iPhone user sued Apple this week, claiming that she injured herself during prime winter holiday shopping season last December by walking “directly into the clear glass doors” at the company’s Manhasset, Long Island Apple retail store in New York.


Who was at fault here? Plaintiff Evelyn Paswell maintains that her “injuries were due solely to the negligence of” Apple.

According to the lawsuit, Paswell was “planning to return her iPhone” to the store when she walked right into the store’s glass doors.

Her lawyers described Apple’s clear glass doors as “dangerous.” Yikes!

There is no suggestion that another Apple customer slammed a door into the plaintiff. No mention of any holiday shopper stampede when the plaintiff allegedly hurt herself. No indication that the elderly shopper was texting or talking on her iPhone at the time. Nope, none of that.

A YouTube video of the store’s grand opening day, however, shows that the Apple Store’s doors actually have giant vertical handles attached to them. Here’s a screenshot from the video, with a red arrow showing their location.

If you plan on going through a door, usually it’s a good idea to look for the door handles. That’s a point Apple’s lawyers will likely raise in their defense. This case seems like it will have a host of obstacles for the plaintiff to overcome. Discovery should clarify this.

But this case does get you wondering: just what iPhone was the plaintiff “planning to return” when she walked into the doors?

If it was the latest iPhone 4S, you would think that Apple engineers could have tasked Siri with getting shoppers safely in and out of the company’s retail stores. Or perhaps on a more basic level, remind iPhone users to just watch where they are going.

You can read the allegations in the Apple Store customer’s glass door personal injury and negligence lawsuit here, then share your thoughts below.
Complaint (Paswall v. Apple, Inc.)

6 responses to “An iPhone user walks into an Apple store…”

  1. Dan Nappier says:

    Miss Paswall here is your sign wear proud wear it loud “I am STUPID”. I hope Apple wins this case. It just shows you how some peopke are sue happy

  2. Mishl says:

    Coffee? Hot coffee anyone?

  3. Terri Sue Taylor says:

    I have a good feeling that Apple will win this case, and would be very surprised if they did not. My son Josh Frost works for Apple in Spokane, WA. I have visited this store many times, and he and his crew are always kind and courteous to every customer. The store is designed as open and easy to navigate, and this is true of EVERY Apple store. Hence the reason I strongly believe that this lady’s lawsuit will not succeed, especially considering her age, and if she is found to be at all visually impaired.

  4. rebekkah wilson says:


    My name is rebekkah and I attend pre-law classes plan on finish my law degree next year at Washburn University of Law. Anyway, I feel that this lawsuit is redicolous, sounds like the plaintiff is just looking for money. People sue all the time for money this is frivous lawsuit, and the plaintiff attorney knows this, their job is to make the defendent look as bad and as guilty as possible. We all know that every retail has doors, you can clearly see the silver door handles. If you must ask you can see that this is a tort law, if you want to know if their is a good case just go through the elements of torts neligence.
    Does the store have the Duty to act in a specific way, you have a legal duty.

    Second does the store have breach of duty,the store has duty to make the store safe, but did they breach the duty on the doors?

    Third, did the store had a actual and causation , if they had a breach of duty than they have causation

    Fourth, if the store meet all these elements than they would be responsible for damages.

    I don’t beleive they have breach their duty, it was clearly neligence on the plaintiff side, plus the defendent can come back with defense to neligence such as either contributary or comaparitive depending on which one your state adopted.

    Contributory is means they will come back and say the plaintiff was part of the neligence, if you can prove that the plaintiff had some fault at neligence than you don’t have a case.

    On the other hand if your state adopted the compartive neligence than you will have to show how much neligence on both sides if the plaintiff is at least 55% negligence you have no case.

    So according to this I do not belive that the plaintiff will win their case, but than again I practice MO law, and don’t know what your state laws is will be interseted to follow this case.

    Thank You.


    Rebekkah Wilson

  5. Tatjana says:

    Really?! Open your eyes! I swear people sue over the most ridicilous stuff and we wonder why our Courts are tied up! Did she even own an Iphone? Doesn’t matter, you as a person are responsible for where you are walking, kepp your eyes open! And, if for some reason you are no longer competent maybe you should get a person to walk with you.