Slashdot Mirror
Driver Sued For Updating Facebook In Fatal Crash
An anonymous reader writes "21-year-old Chicago motorist Araceli Beas has been accused of attempting to update her Facebook page on her cell phone when she allegedly struck and killed 70-year-old Raymond Veloz. The victim's daughter, Regina Cabrales, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, asking for an unspecified amount of money. Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident. As proof, she points to the fact that Beas' Facebook page showed an update posted at 7:54 AM on December 7, 2010, which is the same time that Veloz's cell phone records showed a call being made to 911."
I assume the phone call was made AFTER the wreck. If she updated at the same time as the 911 call, wouldn't the update also be AFTER the wreck?
This is, of course, assuming that the person making the call isn't psychic and made the call before the wreck.
Since driving and using a cell phone at the same time are illegal in the city of Chicago, having evidence that the driver was doing so at the time of the accident means the defendant has a rough day in court ahead.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
The court may as well just give Veloz every asset that Beas has. After all, Beas basically committed a murder and should be put away for life at a minimum. No need for any assets.
while driving, then it should be legal to take bong hits.
This girl should be given an "appropriate punishment" in that she should be banned from using computers for 10 years... I don't recall what Kevin Mitnick did causing people to die.
(btw: Why is the comment box to enter a comment in FF 3.6.13 only about 30characters wide?)
Criminal suits ==> "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
Civil suits ==> "Preponderance of evidence"
As this is a civil suit (wrongful death is civil), the rules for civil suits apply. Most knee-jerk reactions want to look to "reasonable doubt" and then look into any time disparities among the phone, Facebook and other services and factors involved in the establishment of this evidence. (for example, timezone data could have significant impact on the reported time(s) from the phone company, the 9-1-1 service, Facebook and more.)
If all of those time issues are in correct synchronization, then the preponderance of evidence rule would probably result in the plaintiff winning the case.
Since you can't use data and voice at the same time.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Enable 17 minute fuzzy time stamp modulator. I'd also like a random "anywhere but here" comment updater for use as an alibi, since facebook updates are now legal evidence.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
There are two key things we do not know. Were the devices used to provide the time stamps for the Facebook post and the 911 call set to the same time? How much time passed, if any, between when she posted her update to Facebook and when Facebook timestamped it?
The girl's mother is claiming that her daughter made the updates when her car was parked in front of her boyfriend's house before she started driving. It is certainly reasonable to believe that there was sufficient differential between the devices providing the two different time stamps for this to be plausible. If she was updating her Facebook page while driving she should suffer significant retribution, but that is yet to be determined.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
proof Facebook kills.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Veloz = Fast
A few public executions would very likely reduce the number of fools that use smartphones while driving
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital. Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.
So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.
If she is found guilty she should simply be banned from driving for 10 years, as she has proven she cannot be trusted with operating a motor vehicle. She's from Chicago, she can take the El like everyone else. Also such a punishment not only fits the crime but is a far better deterrent for such irresponsible actions than jail time (which everyone believes could never happen to them) or financial burdens (which the government usually makes sure you're not made homeless by).
The only way it could happen to me is if some JACKASS who doesn't have the common sense and self-discipline required to pay attention when navigating a two-ton vehicle slams into me while I'm driving. Or maybe walking on the sidewalk. It's exactly that sort of jackass that I don't want on the road with me! THAT is why she should be banned from driving for life. Until the OTHER JACKASSES, the ones you are talking about, who suffer from the same problem realize that their behaviors will have serious consequences, they will KEEP DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING! This is not about vengeance! This is not about someone being at the wrong place at the wrong time! If she'd been PAYING ATTENTION when she was in that place, this WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
zomg fatul crash lol
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who text while driving. Nuff said.
Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-womans-mom-denies-facebook-allegation-20110215,0,4906576.story
from TFA; "Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27. Beas struck Raymond Veloz about two miles away near 92nd Street and South Ewing Avenue, police said at the time." Also from TFA; "Police cited Beas for failure to avoid striking a pedestrian. Beas and the driver involved in the minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun." Far from an open and closed case, I'd say, but then, WhaddaIknow?
The article is light on details but here is what is published: a Facebook update was made on the defendants account near the time of the accident. It is implied it was made from the defendants account. The plaintiff however must prove that it was made by the defendant herself. In the article, the defendant's mother claims she made the update from another location. Again it is up to the plaintiff to prove it really was the defendant updating the status and not any other explanation.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A side lesson from this is to avoid standing in the road if at all possible. If you get in a wreck and need to talk to the other driver, do so well off the road, on the far side of your vehicle. Don't stand between the vehicles and traffic.
Just because you're a civilian doesn't mean you're a pudding head.
Buy that is what the Courts assume.
It is ironical that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty but declared by the court, stupid. The only people with "intelligence" are then government officials.
Is she suing the alleged irresponsible driver and not facebook or the phone manufacturer? Is she actually trying to hold the responsible person accountable and not make money off this? What's happened to our justice system.
Just saying.. easy to jump to conclusions without knowing ALL the facts.
I hope one day you'll get judged by a jury with the same principles.
Crap, just killed some old dude. Will be late for party... anyone have a link to a CPR guide? He's still gurgling a bit.
Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who text while driving. Nuff said.
Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who are standing in the middle of the road, and not following the law by moving their vehicles to a safe area, then blaming everyone else.
Per: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+11+Art.+IV&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=107600000&SeqEnd=109200000 (625 ILCS 5/11402) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11402) Sec. 11402. Motor vehicle accident involving damage to vehicle.
the old guy was supposed to move his car (and himself) off the road to safety and not be blocking the road. he is obviously standing in the road(on the edge is still on the road), otherwise, how did he get hit? what, are people driving on sidewalks in chicago now?
This is just like I hear on the news all the time - truck driver (18 wheeler, etc) assumed at fault because his truck crashes into a car, and kills someone. -- story clarified later: person in car thinks the world owes them something, are changing lanes with no turn signals, weaving, and slams on the brakes to avoid the car 9000 feet in front of them that tapped their brakes...truck runs their car over because trucks that are loaded down weighing 80,000lbs dont like to stop on a dime... oh, lets sue the truck driver, get the aclu/naacp involved because the person in car was black, and truck driver was white, etc, blah blah. arrgh!
How about some personal responsibility instead?
Veloz? not so much... (veloz means speedy in Spanish)
He was calling 911 about the first accident when she struck him.
Classic bit of false inference.
Assuming the phone times were accurate and in sync (big assumption), someone was calling 911 on the victim's phone at the same time as she hit "submit" on her Facebook upgrade. That this was the victim reporting the first accident is a reasonable surmise, but there's no evidence of this. Nor is it stated anywhere that the victim was on the phone at the time of the second accident.
The critical bit of missing information is the precise time of the second accident. If you read TFA-within-TFA this is given as "about 8:00".
So even if the timings are in sync and "about 8:00" was precise, the defendant could reasonably have finished Facebooking 6 minutes before the fatal accident. That sounds like enough time to be parked up, put down your phone, pull out and drive 2 miles. Even easier if "about 8:00" means "8:05" or "8:10".
Its really not worth delving into the details of when the calls/postings were made unless the time of the accident can be pinpointed with comparable accuracy (unless you plan on baffling a jury with bullshit).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
GP's point is it's entirely possible that she WASN'T posting to facebook while driving.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I'm wondering how the subject of Updating Facebook ever came up. If anyone has a posting to explain that, I'd love to see it.
This is Slashdot. Most of the people who post here can't even read TFS, let alone TFA. Don't introduce complex ideas like that to them, they will never cope.
Instead, put a big sign in the windscreen that flashes up every 10 seconds reminding them that they should only go fast enough to brake to a stop in the distance that is visibly clear in front of their vehicle.
Although, that would be too open and shut. The lawyers who profit from this crap might not make enough money to want that law pushed by their favourite congresscritter.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
All is well, provided Facebook uses the same time-zones as the phone company. Or she could have updated her page an hour or so earlier...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sorry, but assuming that Facebook shows a time that is even comparable to reality is an over assumption.
Facebook Kills.
This is your brain on Facebook.
Etc...
Firstly, there's the obligatory "Facebook Kills" that I now want a bumper-sticker for.
Secondly, does anyone else worry that Zuckerberg effectively has the power to adjust the impact of court cases more subliminally than otherwise?
A huge contribution to the quite insane number of road deaths every year is the fact that amateur drivers assume that if they can't see it then it doesn't matter. In hazard identification tests most (not some, not a few, most) licensed drivers fail badly. They often protest that the test "cheats" because it recreates scenarios that happen all the time in which the usual careless approach to driving is fatal. Nobody likes to be told "You're incompetent and could kill someone".
The moment she realised she was dazzled she should have been braking - the road ahead (in this case where the victim was standing) was unknown, it cannot be safe to keep driving and hope it'll work out fine.
Realistically we need to remove amateur drivers from the roads. Tightening up tests and introducing frequent re-tests should allow us to gradually move to a society where driving is only an option for people who are able and willing to do it well. And no, that wouldn't include me.
It seem to me there's some confusion between what is client side and what is server side.
When Beas pushed the button on the phone (the client) the phone begins initiating the process of trying to send the information. The phone must then establish a connection with Facebook (the server) through the cell phone company's towers. This can take anywhere from milliseconds to hours depending on the circumstances. When Facebook finally receives the message, it process the message, posts it, and puts a time stamp on it (the time shown on the Facebook post).
It is key to note that this time may not indicate the time of the button press. How well the two times correlate to one another can be determined through a statistical study (information that may or may not be available). This information will only tell the probabaility of Beas pushing the button within an interval of time (however long is determined to have an effect on her driving). Beas' button press may also be a statistical outlier and not fall into the interval of time being looked at.
However, if Beas' cell phone keeps timestamp of when the button was pressed (client side), then we just look at that and forget everything else.
I wonder if this might play into future decisions by GM.